R. v. Woods, 2023 BCPC 235

Citation: R. v. Woods 2023 BCPC 235 Date: 2023-07-24 File Nos: 244051-2C, 247412-1, 247434-1, 247225-1, 248929-1, 247156-2C Registry: Surrey File No: 108169-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REX v. TYRELL NATHAN LLOYD WOODS (also known as TYRELL NATHEN LLOYD WOODS) ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE V. CHETTIAR Counsel for the Crown: K. McIntosh Counsel for the Defendant: J. Allingham Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: April 13 and May 30, 2023 Date of Sentence: July 24, 2023 Corrigenda were released by the Court on July 28, 2023 and November 6, 2023. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigenda are appended to this document.

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Tyrell Nathan Lloyd Woods (also known as Tyrell Nathen Lloyd Woods) has pled guilty to the following 15 charges (collectively, the “Index Offences”) on the seven files listed below, that he did: Information No. 244051-2C: (residential break and enter file) Count 1 – on or about March 11, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, break and enter a dwelling house at [omitted for publication] and commit an indictable offence therein, theft over $5,000, contrary to Section 348(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . Information No. 247412-1: (residential break and enter file) Count 1 – on or about the 1 st day of August, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, break and enter a dwelling house at [omitted for publication], and commit an indictable offence therein, theft, contrary to Section 348(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . Count 3 – on or about the 1 st day of August, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud Shell of money and/or merchandise of a value not in excess $5,000, contrary to Section 380(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . Information No. 247434-1: (commercial break and enter file) Count 1 – on or about the 18 th day of October, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, break and enter Rise Fitness at 306 – 17750 65A Avenue and commit an indictable offence therein, theft, contrary to Section 348(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . Information No. 247225-1: (non-break and enter file) Count 1 – as laid read: on or about the 1 st day of November, 2021, at or near Delta, in the Province of British Columbia, commit robbery of F.B., contrary to Section 344(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . However, Mr. Woods pled not guilty as charged, but guilty to included offences of theft over $5,000, contrary to

Section 334 (

a) of the Criminal Code , and to assault of F.B., contrary to

Section 266 of the Criminal Code . Information No. 108169-1: (non-break and enter file) Count 2 (as amended) – on or about the 26 th day of November, 2021, at or near Coquitlam, in the Province of British Columbia, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, defraud 7-Eleven and McDonald’s or other persons of merchandise, contrary to Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code .

Count 5 (as amended) – on or about the 28 th day of November, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, use a credit card, a Visa card, the property of Y.L. and/or Z.Q. at 7177 152 Street, 14445 64 Avenue, and 15551 Fraser Highway, knowing the said credit card was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence, contrary to Section 342(1) (

c) of the Criminal Code . Count 10 – on or about the 4 th day of December, 2021, at or near New Westminster, in the Province of British Columbia, use a credit card, a Visa card, the property of P.H., at 465 Brunette Ave., knowing the said credit card was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence, contrary to Section 342(1) (

c) of the Criminal Code . Information No. 248929-1: (residential break and enter file) Count 1 – on or about the 29 th day of November, 2021, at or near Delta, in the Province of British Columbia, break and enter a dwelling house at [omitted for publication] and commit an indictable offence therein, theft, contrary to Section 348(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . Information No. 247156-2C: (residential break and enter file) Count 1 – on or about the 8 th day of December, 2021, at or near Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, break and enter a dwelling house at [omitted for publication], and commit an indictable offence therein, theft, contrary to Section 348(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . Count 2 – on or about the 9 th day of December, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, have in his possession property, a motor vehicle, the property of K.K.A., of a value in excess of $5,000 knowing that the said property was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to

Section 355 (

a) of the Criminal Code . Count 8 – on or about the 9 th day of December, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, carry a concealed weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, pepper spray, contrary to Section 90(1) of the Criminal Code . Count 9 (as amended) – on or about the 9 th day of December, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, have in his possession property, clothing and other items, the property of N.A. and G.S., of a value not in excess of $5,000, knowing that the said property was obtained by the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to

Section 355 (

b) of the Criminal Code . Count 11 – on or about the 9 th day of December, 2021, at or near Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, without lawful excuse, possess an identity document that relates or purports to relate, in whole or in part, to another person, contrary to

Section 56.1(1) of the

Criminal Code . [ 2 ] The Crown seeks a global sentence of 54 months’ (i.e. four and a half years or 1,620 days’) jail, allocated as follows: (a) 48 months’ (i.e. four years’) jail for each of the five break and enters (four residential and one commercial), concurrent to each other; and (

b) Six months’ jail for each of the two non-break and enter files, concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the four-year sentence on each of the five break and enter files. [ 3 ] The Crown also seeks a firearms prohibition order under s. 110 of the Criminal Code , and a DNA order under s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code , on a secondary designated offence basis, to be attached to the assault charge on Information No. 247225-1. [ 4 ] The defence did not provide any submissions on the ancillary orders that the Crown seeks. [ 5 ] On May 30, 2023, the defence submitted that “after time served credit,” the court impose a two-year-less-one-day conditional sentence order (“CSO”), so that Mr.

Woods can attend a residential treatment program at Vision Quest. [ 6 ] Mr. Woods has been in custody since December 9, 2021. I am told he served one day when he was in custody on June 10, 2021. Therefore, as of today, July 24, 2023, he has served 594 (593+1) actual days.

Credit for his time in custody at rate of 1.5 to 1 will give him 891 days. [ 7 ] According to what the Crown is seeking, he will have 729 (1,620 – 891) days remaining to be served. [ 8 ] According to the defence, his global sentence would equate to 1,610 days (891 days of time served plus 719 days (being two years less one day, using 30 days per month). [ 9 ] According to this calculation, the only difference between what the parties are submitting as a fit global sentence for Mr.

Woods is 10 days more that the Crown is seeking. [ 10 ] That would leave the main contention between the parties as to whether the remaining time Mr. Woods has to serve can be served in the community in the form of a CSO or in real jail. [ 11 ] I will first set out the sentencing legal framework; then discuss the gravity of the Index Offences, the degree of Mr. Woods’ responsibility, and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in Mr. Woods’ case, referencing the parties’ sentencing authorities where applicable; and finally sentence Mr. Woods.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK Purpose, Objectives and Principles of Sentencing [ 12 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that “[t]he fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 13 ]

Section 718.1 sets out the fundamental principle in sentencing. It states that “[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” [ 14 ]

Section 718.2 sets out other sentencing principles that a sentencing judge must take into account in imposing a sentence. It states, in part, as follows: 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation, shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [ 15 ] The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation, and everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility, and the specific circumstances of each case ( R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 , para. 58 ). THE PARTIES’ SENTENCING AUTHORITIES [ 16 ] The Crown relies on the following authorities: (

a) R. v. Louie , 2017 BCCA 218 ; (

b) R. v. Gilliland , 2014 BCCA 399 ; (

c) R. v. Thomas , 2009 BCCA 233 ; (

d) R. v. Faulconer , 2007 BCCA 289 (“ Faulconer ”); (

e) R. v. Powis , 2007 BCCA 108 ; (

f) R. v. Peart , 2022 BCSC 680 (“ Peart ”); (

g) R. v. Ellis , 2022 BCCA 278 (“ Ellis ”); and (

h) R. v. A.H.K. , 2022 BCSC 1563 (“ A.H.K. ”). [ 17 ] The defence relies on the following authorities: (

a) R. v. Morris , 2021 ONCA 680 (“ Morris ”); (

b) R. v. Suter , 2018 SCC 34 (“ Suter ”); and (

c) Department of Justice, Just Facts, Overrepresentation of Black people in the Canadian criminal justice system, December 2022. [ 18 ] I have reviewed all of these authorities. However, I will only refer to those authorities necessary to my discussion. [ 19 ] I will now turn to the gravity of the Index Offences. GRAVITY OF THE INDEX OFFENCES [ 20 ] Barely a week after having been sentenced on March 3, 2021 for some prior offences, and released on March 4, 2021, Mr. Woods started committing a series of offences, namely the Index Offences, until he was arrested on December 9, 2021, and detained in custody. Circumstances of the Index Offences [ 21 ] I will now provide a brief

summary of the circumstances of each of the Index Offences. Information No. 244051-2C – March 11, 2021, Surrey [ 22 ] According to an Agreed Statement of Facts dated May 10, 2022, Mr. Woods and his co-accused, K.M.B. (a woman), broke into a residence in Surrey, British Columbia, shortly before 8:30 a.m. on March 11, 2021. Mr. Woods smashed the rear patio, glass sliding door to gain entry. [ 23 ] A 12-year old boy, R.M., who was sleeping in his upstairs bedroom, was awoken by a loud sound and unfamiliar voices coming from downstairs. He was scared. His parents were not in the home.

He was expecting his mother to return home after she dropped off R.M.’s sibling at school. He sent a message to his parents on their family group chat. His father told him to hide. He hid behind his bedroom door. Through the gap between the door and the doorframe, R.M. caught a glimpse of Mr. Woods, who was wearing all black. He heard Mr. Woods say something like, “Grab the stuff and go to the car.” [ 24 ] Mr. Woods walked around the residence, gathered and put the following items in a suitcase and left through the garage door: (

a) MacBook Air laptop; (

b) Canadian cash – about $1,000; (

c) Australian cash – about $400; (

d) Wallet;

(

e) Identification; (

f) Bank cards; (

g) Jewellery, including multiple rings, a necklace, earrings and bracelets; (

h) Backpacks; (

i) House keys; and (

j) Vehicle keys. [ 25 ] Once outside, Mr. Woods walked a short distance and hid the suitcase in the bushes. Mr. Woods and K.M.B. walked a few blocks to retrieve a vehicle (which was registered to K.M.B.’s husband). They came back, removed the suitcase from the bushes, loaded it in the truck, and drove away. [ 26 ] At the date of this offence, Mr. Woods was on two separate probation orders. One of his probation conditions was to reside at Joshua House Recovery Ministries. [ 27 ] In June 2021, he was released on a release order requiring him to stay at Kinghaven Treatment Centre.

However, shortly after entering Kinghaven, Mr. Woods discharged himself, without completing the program. Information No. 247412-1 – August 1, 2021, Surrey [ 28 ] At about 3:00 a.m., on August 1, 2021, Mr. Woods broke into the attached garage of M.D.’s residence in Surrey, British Columbia, and stole various items worth thousands of dollars. Mr. Woods stole M.D.’s wallet containing M.D.’s driver’s licence, social insurance card, and other bank and credit cards from M.D.’s Tesla, which was parked in her garage. Between 3:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. that day, Mr.

Woods made a series of purchases, totalling about $410, using the debit and credit cards he stole from M.D. [ 29 ] At the date of this offence, Mr. Woods was on two probation orders and one release order. Information No. 247434-1 – October 18, 2021, Surrey [ 30 ] The security camera at Rise Fitness, located at 306 – 17750 65A Avenue, in Surrey, captured an older Honda Civic pull up at the gym at about 4:40 a.m. on October 18, 2021, from which Mr. Woods got out, threw a large cinder block, broke the glass, and entered the premises.

He went in and out of the premises twice carrying an armload full of merchandise, including sweatshirts, leggings, and sports bra. Mr. Woods ransacked the premises, including leaving open drawers and papers strewn everywhere. Mr. Woods also handled an iPad, leaving his thumb print behind. [ 31 ] At the date of this offence, Mr. Woods was on two probation orders and one release order. Information No. 247225-1 – November 1, 2021, Surrey [ 32 ] Mr. Woods went into a gold jewellery store in Surrey, British Columbia, and asked to see a pair diamond earrings, valued at about $5,300.

When the staff member was holding the earrings in her hand, Mr. Woods grabbed them from her hand and ran. In this process, the staff member’s thumb nail was sliced in half, causing it to bleed. [ 33 ] At the date of this offence, Mr. Woods was on a probation order and a release order. [ 34 ] On November 12, 2021, Mr. Woods told his probation officer that he was going to the Joshua House recovery facility the following week, but he did not go to the Joshua House. He also did not report to the probation officer the following week, as required.

Information No. 108169-1 November 26, 2021, Coquitlam [ 35 ] On November 26, 2021, at about 3:00 a.m., a Land Rover vehicle parked outside the victim’s residence was broken into, and the victim’s driver’s licence, debit card and two credit cards were stolen. Soon after the theft, Mr. Woods used the stolen credit cards to make purchases at a 7-Eleven store for about $84 and at a McDonald’s restaurant for about $25. November 28, 2021, Surrey [ 36 ] On November 28, 2021, between 3:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., Mr.

Woods broke into a residence in Surrey, and stole several credit cards from a lunch bag, while the homeowner and their family of three were sleeping inside the residence. At about 7:30 a.m., Mr. Woods went to two separate gas stations and made purchases using the stolen credit cards. December 4, 2021, New Westminster [ 37 ] On December 4, 2021, at about 1:00 a.m., a vehicle was broken into and a wallet containing a driver’s licence, cash and credit cards was stolen. Mr. Woods used the stolen credit cards to make purchases, including Lotto tickets, gas and cigarettes, totalling about $250 at a Husky gas station.

Soon after the theft, the owner of the vehicle discovered the theft, and she called the various banks to cancel her credit cards. Mr. Woods was identified by closed-circuit television (CCTV). [ 38 ] At the date of this offence, Mr. Woods was on a probation order and a release order.

Information No. 248929-1 – November 29, 2021, Delta [ 39 ] On November 29, 2021, at about midnight, Mr. Woods broke into a residence in Delta, through the garage door, while the homeowners were sleeping upstairs in the residence. Mr. Woods went into the rec room, rummaged through the homeowners’ belongings and stole various items of high value, including multiple laptops and iPads, bike, tools, several expensive headphones, digital camera, cigars, expensive sunglasses, gift cards, keys, and a $40,000 Chevy Silverado motor vehicle.

The value of the stolen items was estimated at about $52,256, but the vehicle was later recovered. [ 40 ] At the date of this offence, Mr. Woods was on a probation order and a release order. Information No. 247156-2C December 8, 2021, Maple Ridge [ 41 ] On December 8, 2021, at about 12:36 a.m., Mr. Woods was trying door handles of vehicles parked outside a townhouse complex in Maple Ridge. He opened the door of an unlocked jeep parked in the victim’s driveway. He rummaged around, found the garage door opener, and entered the garage to Unit 8 in that complex. He was not in the garage for long.

He came back about two minutes later in a stolen vehicle with another male. Mr. Woods covered his face with a medical mask. The other male covered the bottom portion of his face with a mask. He was carrying a baseball bat. [ 42 ] They both went in and out of the garage repeatedly carrying items out of the garage, which was set up as a “man cave” with a couch, dresser and a mini fridge.

Items stolen include a large quantity of marihuana from a drawer, some clothing items including a valuable jacket, white Nike shoes, a Herschel camouflage fanny pack containing $4,000 cash, driver’s licence, and other identification cards. [ 43 ] The homeowners were sleeping inside the unit while this break-in was occurring in their garage. [ 44 ] A neighbour’s CCTV captured Mr. Wood’s face outside the house before he put on his medical mask. December 9, 2021, Surrey [ 45 ] At about 12:45 p.m. on December 9, 2021, police saw a black Honda Civic with no license plates at a Best Western hotel in South Surrey.

The police saw Mr. Woods put stolen licence plates on the vehicle, get into the driver’s seat, and drive to a nearby Best Buy store. Mr. Woods went into the Best Buy store. [ 46 ] The police followed Mr. Woods into the store, and attempted to arrest Mr. Woods for possession of stolen property, namely the stolen licence plates. Mr. Woods initially gave a false name to the police, but after he was informed that he would be fingerprinted, he gave his correct name. [ 47 ] During the arrest, there was a physical altercation between Mr. Woods and multiple police officers. Mr. Woods sustained some injuries.

He asserts that the police used excessive force on him. However, Mr. Woods sprayed the police officers with bear spray that he kept concealed in his waistband. [ 48 ] At the time of this incident, Mr. Woods was found to be wearing the jacket, shoes and fanny back he stole from the garage “man cave” the day before (on December 8, 2021). [ 49 ] When police searched the Honda that Mr. Woods came in, they discovered that in addition to the licence plates, the vehicle itself was stolen two days earlier during a break and enter.

Inside the vehicle, police found tax information, a bag, identification of different people, a bag of mail, handcuffs, a bundle with numerous different keys, a wallet, and tools. [ 50 ] At the time of this offence, Mr. Woods was on a probation order and a release order. He was on conditions not to be in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle without the registered owner of the vehicle being present. He was a prohibited driver. He was also on conditions not to possess identification documents of others. [ 51 ] Mr. Woods has been in custody since his arrest on December 9, 2021.

Range of Sentences for Break and Enters [ 52 ] Amongst the Index Offences, there are four residential break and enters, and one commercial break and enter, for which Mr. Woods is to be sentenced. [ 53 ] The Crown pointed out that the case authorities indicate a range of three to four years’ incarceration for a single break and enter. [ 54 ] Residential break and enters are very serious crimes. In R. v. Faulconer , 2007 BCCA 289 , the Court of Appeal for British Columbia said, at para. 9: [9] It is further alleged that the sentence was unfit.

In my view, the four-year global sentence can be justified by reference to the breaking and entering of the dwelling house standing alone. The seriousness of this offence was noted by Mr. Justice Esson, giving the reasons for the Court in R. v. Arsenault , 130 B.C.A.C. 136 , 1999 BCCA 578 , a case involving a 45 year old man with a record of 37 convictions over a period of 26 years, including 20 break and enter convictions. At paragraph 7, Mr.

Justice Esson said: It sometimes seems to be lost sight of that a break and enter of residential property is a very serious offence from the point of view of the victims of that offence. It can in some circumstances have a shattering effect upon people but, short of those extreme cases, it is a significant invasion of their privacy and of their sense of having a refuge that is immune from intrusion. It is not suggested by the Crown, and I do not suggest, that it was wrong for the judge in February to agree to the compassionate and constructive disposition which was

proposed then. But in view of Mr. Arsenault's utter failure to carry through with his assurances, it was clearly wrong to dispose of the April 13 charge as was done on July 22, 1999. The sentence of one day is virtually derisory and meaningless. If the Crown at trial had asked for a sentence in a range beyond four years, I would have given serious consideration to imposing such a sentence in order to provide some substantial period of protection to the public. However, four years is within the range of fitness. . . .

Impact on Victims of the Index Offences [ 55 ] The pre-sentence report dated September 29, 2022 (the “PSR”) sets out the impact statements of the various victims affected by Mr. Woods’ offending. Information No. 244051-2C, March 11, 2021 [ 56 ] C.M., one of the victims, indicates that the family has been traumatized by the break-in. Although they would like protective conditions, they are not seeking any counselling or emotional support. They want to deal with the trauma on their own. They refused to accept the apology letter Mr. Woods wrote to the 12-year old victim who was in the residence during the break-in.

They want to move on from this incident. Information No. 247412-1, August 1, 2021 [ 57 ] M.D., one of the victims of this residential break-in, said this incident was a horrible experience. She and her family are still scared to be in their own home. She has installed more security cameras in her home. She would like protective conditions. It has taken her over a year to replace the stolen items worth thousands of dollars. She has replaced her credit cards and identifications, except her social insurance card, which she would like returned, but it is highly unlikely.

Information No. 247225-1, November 1, 2021 [ 58 ] The victim, F.B., suffered injury to her thumb, which took a while to heal. Her business lost the diamond earrings valued at about $5,000. F.B. was emotionally impacted by the incident, and is now hesitant to assist male clients. She now requires a colleague to be present when she is showing jewellery items to customers. F.B. would like protective conditions. Although she is interested in compensation, she does not intend to engage in a civil process to recover the losses.

Information No. 248929-1, November 29, 2021 [ 59 ] One of the victims of this residential break-in, S.P., said she has been emotionally traumatized by the incident, and finds herself thinking about it a lot. Her children have also been scared to be in their own home after this incident. She would like protective conditions. Although items worth about $10,000 were stolen from her home, her insurer will likely compensate for most of the loss. However, she has spent many hours dealing with the insurance company, providing them with the necessary information.

Information No. 247156-2C, Count 2, December 9, 2021 [ 60 ] The victim, G.S., noted a monetary loss of about $1,800 ($1,500 in tools and $300 in cash). Due to the loss of his tools, he lost employment opportunities valued at about $5,000. G.S. is grateful for being able to retrieve his wallet and some of his belongings. Although he is not seeking support for any emotional trauma, he would like to be compensated for the loss of his tools. [ 61 ] The author of the PSR was unable to reach some of the other victims of the Index Offences. MR.

WOODS’ DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY Circumstances of the Offender [ 62 ] The following information is gleaned from the PSR and counsel’s submissions. Family background [ 63 ] Mr. Woods was 29 years old at the time of the Index Offences. He is now 31 years old. He grew up in Toronto, Ontario. He moved to British Columbia when he was about 19 years old to live with his father. He was raised in a dysfunctional environment, and had a difficult childhood. [ 64 ] His mother struggled with mental health and drug addiction issues. She was only 16 years old when she gave birth to Mr. Woods.

His parents separated before he was born. Mr. Woods did not meet his father until he moved to British Columbia in 2012. He has two stepsisters on his father’s side and one stepbrother and one stepsister on his mother’s side. [ 65 ] Mr. Woods’ mother worked hard, including as a stripper, to provide for the family. His mother’s partners were abusive towards him and his stepsiblings. In particular, his mother’s common law spouse, M.S., was physically and verbally abusive towards Mr. Woods. [ 66 ] Mr. Woods’ mother’s current husband, K.S., has been a positive influence in Mr. Woods’ life. With K.S.’ help, Mr.

Woods’ mother has been substance free for about ten years. Mr. Woods has a close relationship with his mother. [ 67 ] Mr. Woods’ father came into his life when Mr. Woods was about 14 years old. Since moving to British Columbia in 2012, Mr. Woods has lived with his father on and off. He has a good relationship with his father, and his father is financially supportive to Mr. Woods. [ 68 ] Mr. Woods had a three-year intimate relationship with a woman, which eventually failed. She struggled with drug addiction. She was not a positive influence on Mr. Woods, as he began misusing substances with her.

The break-up of this relationship was hard on Mr.

Woods. He turned to substances as a coping mechanism. [ 69 ] Mr. Woods is currently single and has no children. He hopes to start a family after “he has worked on himself” and is able to be “the best version for his children.” His current associates are individuals struggling with addiction, who are in and out of jail. Mr. Woods’ family members in Ontario are his positive supports, and he plans to move to Ontario once his court matters in British Columbia have concluded. Mr. Woods does not have a stable residence in British Columbia at this time. Health issues [ 70 ] Mr.

Woods was diagnosed with severe ADHD when he was in Grade 2. With medication, he was able to function well at school, but he stopped taking medication in Grade 6, which led to behavioural issues at school and home. [ 71 ] Mr. Woods also struggles with depression, anxiety and trauma. He is not on any medication for these issues. He tends to self- medicate at times. [ 72 ] A low point in Mr. Woods’ life was when his best friend was killed.

While he received brief counselling for his trauma when he was at Kinghaven, he has not received any ongoing counselling or treatment, and has no plan to seek any help in the future. Education and employment [ 73 ] Mr. Woods did not do well in school. He completed his Grade 10, while he was in jail. He was also unsuccessful at adult learning. [ 74 ] Mr. Woods has held odd short-term jobs in the construction industry. He worked for his father on and off when he moved to British Columbia.

He has struggled to maintain any meaningful employment due to his substance misuse. [ 75 ] He currently receives disability income. He is hopeful that he will find employment when he moves to Ontario. [ 76 ] Currently, while in custody, he has taken a number of programs, including Life Skills Program, Substance Abuse Management Core Program, and Living Without Violence Core Program. Substance misuse [ 77 ] Mr. Woods was introduced to marihuana and alcohol at the age of 12 through friends at school. Since then he has used many drugs, including cocaine and crystal meth.

He also sold drugs to support his substance use. [ 78 ] Mr. Woods has been referred to substance abuse management programs a number of times. In 2018, he attended Maple Ridge Treatment Centre, but left without completing the program. He was clean for one month during this period. In 2021, he attended Kinghaven Treatment Centre, but discharged himself from this facility, without completing the program. [ 79 ] Currently, while in custody, Mr. Woods is on suboxone, and he has completed a Substance Abuse Management Program. Criminal record [ 80 ] For a young man of 31 years of age, Mr.

Woods has a horrendous criminal record. The Crown pointed out that he has 63 convictions for various offences, including 12 prior break and enters, one unlawfully being in a dwelling house, and one attempted break and enter. Between 2009 and 2013, he incurred 30 convictions from Ontario. In 2016, he accumulated seven convictions from Moncton, New Brunswick. From 2014 onwards, he amassed 26 convictions in British Columbia.

Of the total convictions, one-quarter of them have been for break and enters. [ 81 ] His offending has been continuous, except during the periods he has been in custody, namely in 2015 and 2022. [ 82 ] Mr. Woods’ criminal record and the Index Offences indicate that Mr. Woods has been agile and prolific in his offending, impacting residents in various communities in Ontario (Brampton, Cobourg, and London), New Brunswick (Moncton), and British Columbia (Surrey, North Vancouver, Kelowna, Port Coquitlam, Kamloops, Delta, Coquitlam, New Westminster, and Maple Ridge). [ 83 ] Mr.

Woods has numerous breaches of court orders on his record. The Crown notes 14 previous convictions for breaches. He had difficulty following reporting and curfew conditions. He also had difficulty complying with electronic monitoring in September 2020. He failed to maintain adequate battery level on his smart tag. Eventually, he cut his ankle strap and was unlawfully at large. He also breached two of his CSO’s. The court gave him another opportunity to go to a recovery house to get treatment. However, it appears that he either did not attend at all, or attended only for about three days.

Eventually, his CSO was terminated. [ 84 ] He was on various probation and release orders, while committing the Index Offences. [ 85 ] Crown counsel indicated that she spoke with Mr. Woods’ bail supervisor on April 12, 2023, and she was informed that Community Corrections assessed Mr. Woods in September 2021 and developed a case management plan, wherein they concluded that Mr. Woods poses a high risk to reoffend, due in large part to his poor problem solving skills and impulsivity. Impact of anti-Black racism [ 86 ] Mr. Woods has black ancestry on his father’s side.

His paternal grandfather is believed to have been an immigrant from Nigeria, who was raised in foster care in Toronto. Similar to Mr. Woods’ father having very little involvement in Mr. Woods’ life, Mr. Woods’ grandfather also had very little involvement in the life of Mr. Woods’ father. Mr. Wood’s father was in and out of jail. [ 87 ] The defence submits that Mr. Woods grew up in the impoverished Black neighbourhood in Brampton, Ontario, and that he was

frequently in and out of youth court in Brampton. [ 88 ] The defence referred to the Morris case, wherein the Ontario Court of Appeal discussed at length the approach courts must take when assessing the impact of anti-Black racism on sentencing a Black offender. At para. 13, the Court said: [13] For the reasons set out below, we come to the following conclusions: • The trial judge’s task in sentencing is to impose a just sentence tailored to the individual offender and the specific offence in accordance with the principles and objectives laid out in

Part XXIII of the Criminal Code ; • Social context evidence relating to the offender’s life experiences may be used where relevant to mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence and/or to assist in the blending of the principles and objectives of sentencing to achieve a sentence which best serves the purposes of sentencing as described in s. 718 ; • The gravity or seriousness of an offence is determined by its normative wrongfulness and the harm posed or caused by that conduct in the circumstances in which the conduct occurred.

Accordingly, unlike when assessing the offender’s degree of personal responsibility, an offender’s experience with anti-Black racism does not impact on the seriousness or gravity of the offence; • Courts may acquire relevant social context evidence through the proper application of judicial notice or as social context evidence describing the existence, causes and impact of anti-Black racism in Canadian society, and the specific effect of anti-Black racism on the offender; • Consistent with the rules of admissibility, a generous gateway for the admission of objective and balanced social context evidence should be provided; • The Gladue methodology does not apply to Black offenders.

However, that jurisprudence can, in some respects, inform the approach to be taken when assessing the impact of anti-Black racism on sentencing. [ 89 ] The defence in Mr. Woods’ case argues that the court “can consider the impact of anti-Black racism on a Black person who is being sentenced without requiring that the person first establish a link between their experience of anti-Black racism and the offence(

s) of which they have been convicted” (my emphasis). I do not accept this general proposition in light of authorities such as Peart, A.H.K. and Ellis that the Crown relies on. [ 90 ] In Peart and A.H.K. , the British Columbia Supreme Court concluded that the causal link, as discussed in Morris , was necessary to mitigate the offender’s personal responsibility and culpability for his offence. [ 91 ] In Peart , the Court, at paras. 36 to 38 , said: [36] In this case, however, defence counsel did not offer any connection between the existence of anti-Black racism in BC, or the evidence I have about Mr.

Peart's experiences of victimization because he is Black, to his commission of a violent sexual assault. Such connection, if established, could mitigate his personal responsibility and culpability for the offence: Morris ONCA at para. 99 . There is no indication, however, that either systemic discrimination or Mr. Peart's specific experiences of discrimination played any role in the commission of the offence, so it does not serve to diminish his responsibility for the offence committed: [citations omitted] [37] Such connection was found in Morris ONCA and in Jackson .

In Morris ONCA , the Court agreed with the sentencing judge that anti-Black racism was connected to Mr. Morris's fear for his personal safety in the community, explaining why he was in possession of a loaded gun: see paras. 99 to 100. In Jackson , in which Mr. Jackson was found guilty of possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition, the Court found at para. 32 Mr.

Jackson's “personal history of early racial conflict, identity confusion and family disruption created conditions for him to slide easily into criminality”. [38] In the absence of a connection between such racism and the offence committed, or some other principle of sentencing I must take into account, there is no basis to reduce the significance of the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence in sentencing for sexual assault involving forced sexual intercourse: Morris ONCA at 79; . . . [ 92 ] In Ellis (which was released subsequent to Peart and A.H.K. ), the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, at para. 83, said: [83] One of the questions addressed in Morris was whether an offender must establish a causal link between their offences and social context evidence adduced at sentencing before that evidence can properly be used to fashion a sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the need for a strict causal relationship. However, it held that: 97 There must … be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue … Absent some connection, mitigation of sentence based simply on the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community becomes a discount based on the offender’s colour. Everyone agrees there can be no such discount … [Internal references omitted; emphasis added.] I agree with this approach.

See also Anderson at para . 118 . [ 93 ] Similar to the courts in Peart and A.H.K. , I have no hesitation in taking judicial notice of the fact that anti-Black racism exists in British Columbia. The Just Facts report that the defence submitted speaks to the overrepresentation of Black people in the Canadian criminal justice system. At p. 6, it states: British Columbia: Black adults made up 1% of the adult population in British Columbia, but they accounted for 3% of admissions to custody and 2% of admissions to community services in that province. Black men accounted for 3% of male admissions to custody and

2% of community services, whereas Black women accounted for 1% each of female admissions to custody and services. [ 94 ] Mr. Woods moved to British Columbia, as I said, in 2012, more than 10 years ago. The defence has not provided any evidence as to whether Mr. Woods experienced anti-Black racism in British Columbia, and how that experience led him to committing the Index Offences. There is no evidence of any personal history of early racial conflict either. [ 95 ] On the one hand, the defence says Mr.

Woods grew up in the impoverished Black neighbourhood in Brampton, and that had a huge impact on him, suggesting that that led to his repeated offending. On the other hand, the defence says Mr. Woods’ positive supports are in Ontario, where his mother and the rest of his family live (I assume in Brampton), and that Mr. Woods wants to return there after he deals with the Index Offences in British Columbia.

If the environment in Brampton was the cause of his offending, it is not clear why he would want to return there. [ 96 ] I am not persuaded that there is at least “some connection” between the overt and systemic racism identified in the communities where Mr. Woods lived, and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate Mr. Woods’ criminal conduct with respect to the Index Offences.

As other courts have noted, absent some connection, mitigation of sentence based simply on the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community becomes a discount based on the offender’s colour, which would be improper. [ 97 ] For the sake of argument, even if I accept that the anti-Black racism consideration applies in Mr.

Woods’ case to reduce his moral blameworthiness, I would not conclude that the global sentence that the Crown is seeking ought to be reduced, as it is already a very lenient sentence for 15 offences, which include five break and enters. [ 98 ] My task, of course, is to ensure that the fundamental and overarching sentencing principle of proportionality is applied, to ensure that a fit sentence is imposed on Mr. Woods. Impact of Collateral Consequences [ 99 ] As I mentioned earlier, on December 9, 2021, during Mr. Woods’ arrest at the Best Buy store, due to a serious interaction with the police, Mr.

Woods suffered multiple injuries, primarily to his head. Photographs of Mr. Woods’ injuries and the arresting officers’ injuries sustained during this interaction were entered into evidence. [ 100 ] The defence submits that this collateral consequence to Mr. Woods should be taken into account, admittedly to a limited extent, in determining a fit sentence for Mr.

Woods. [ 101 ] In Suter , at paras. 46 to 53 , there is a helpful discussion about collateral consequences and how they should be taken into account in determining a fit sentence. [ 102 ] The defence referred to the following passage from the headnote in Suter : A collateral consequence includes any consequence arising from the commission of an offence, the conviction for an offence, or the sentence imposed for an offence, that impacts the offender.

Collateral consequences do not need to be foreseeable, nor must they flow naturally from the conviction, sentence, or commission of the offence, but they must relate to the offence and the circumstances of the offender. There is no rigid formula for taking collateral consequences into account, and there is no requirement that collateral consequences emanate from state misconduct in order to be considered a factor at sentencing.

However, the fundamental principle of proportionality must prevail in every case — collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where it becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Violent actions against an offender for his or her role in the commission of an offence necessarily form part of the personal circumstances of that offender, and should therefore be taken into account when determining an appropriate sentence.

However, vigilante violence should only be considered to a limited extent, as giving it too much weight at sentencing allows this kind of criminal conduct to gain undue legitimacy in the judicial process. [ 103 ] The Crown points out that in Suter , the offender suffered permanent physical injury in that his thumb was cut off, whereas in Mr. Woods’ case, there is no medical evidence before the court that the injury Mr. Woods suffered had any lasting impact on him. Furthermore, the Crown says, during the interaction with the police, Mr.

Woods used a weapon, namely, a bear spray, which he kept concealed in his waistband. The Crown submits that, in this context, the police did not use excessive force against Mr. Woods. [ 104 ] Another collateral consequence the defence submits is the difficulties Mr. Woods experienced being in custody during the Covid- 19 period, including lengthy periods of lock-ups and isolation. [ 105 ] In response to this submission, the Crown says it was Mr. Woods, who caused the delays in having his matters dealt with.

For example, the Agreed Statement of Facts relating to the March 11, 2021 break and enter was not signed until May 10, 2022; pleas on most of the other charges were not entered until July 19, 2022, and some were entered only on January 5, 2023; and Mr. Woods’ sentencing was delayed due to the many, many adjournments he requested.

Furthermore, the Crown says the 1.5 credit given to offenders is to take into account time spent in pre-sentence custody. [ 106 ] As the Court in Suter noted, at para. 56 , regardless of any collateral consequences, the fundamental principle of proportionality must prevail in every case — collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where it becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender. [ 107 ] As I said, the global sentence that the Crown is seeking is on the low end of the range, and to reduce it further would not meet the principle of proportionality.

MITIGATING AND AGGRVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Mitigating Circumstances

[ 108 ] I find the following circumstances to be mitigating in Mr. Woods’ case: (

a) Mr. Woods has pled guilty to 15 charges. This is significant, as it would otherwise have taken substantial court and Crown time and resources in dealing with these charges. This has also relieved the victims, particularly the victims of the residential break and enters who have already been traumatized by the break-ins, from having to testify in court and relive their difficult experiences. (

b) Mr. Woods accepts responsibility for his offending, and is remorseful. He has written a sincere apology letter to the 12-year old victim he affected in his March 11, 2021 break and enter. (

c) While in custody, Mr. Woods has taken a number of programs to assist in his rehabilitation. On his own accord, he secured a bed at a residential drug treatment facility, Vision Quest, to address his addiction. Aggravating Circumstances [ 109 ] I find the following circumstances to be aggravating in Mr. Woods’ case: (

a) Most of the beak and enters Mr. Woods committed were residential, two of which were occupied by homeowners at the time of the break-ins. (

b) The break and enters had a significant impact on the victims. The family of the 12-year old victim did not want to receive Mr. Woods’ apology letter to the child, as they wanted to move on from this horrifying incident. I suspect this incident would have a long- term impact on the emotional well-being of this child. Other victims indicated that they felt violated, and they were scared of being in their own homes and were suffering from the trauma they experienced. The victim from the jewellery store suffered physical injury as well, and she indicated that she now needs the assistance of other staff in doing her job. (

c) High value items from the various break and enters, and the diamond earrings from the jewellery store, were never recovered, depriving the victims of their personal property. Some victims spent significant time and effort in trying to replace their lost items, including one victim spending extensive time dealing with her insurance company. (

d) Mr. Woods has an unenviable criminal record, with numerous similar break and enter offences. (

e) Mr. Woods committed the Index Offences, while bound by probation and release orders. DISCUSSION [ 110 ] There is no dispute that the primary sentencing principles applicable in this case are deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public. Rehabilitation is always a consideration in sentencing. [ 111 ] As I indicated earlier, the defence submits that after giving credit to the time Mr. Woods has already served in custody, he be sentenced to two years less one day to be served by way of a CSO, as opposed to serving further time in custody. [ 112 ] In R. v.

Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 , at para. 46 , the Supreme Court of Canada, listed the criteria that must be satisfied before a CSO can be imposed under s. 742.1.

It said: [46] This provision lists four criteria that a court must consider before deciding to impose a conditional sentence: 1. the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment; 2. the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years; 3. the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and 4. a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. [ 113 ] The parties agree that a CSO is available to Mr. Woods.

However, the Crown strongly opposes a CSO in Mr. Woods’ case for the following reasons: (

a) Mr. Woods has an established pattern of committing break and enters since 2009, putting people and communities in danger; (

b) He does not hesitate to use violence in the commission of his crimes; (

c) He has a history of non-compliance with court orders; (

d) Supervising him in the community is a challenge as he has failed to follow, among other conditions, reporting, curfew and electronic monitoring conditions in the past; (

e) He has breached two of his previous CSO’s; (

f) He has repeatedly failed to obtain adequate treatment for his drug addiction, including failing to attend at residential treatment facilities and completing their programs, in spite of being court-ordered to do so; and (

g) Community Corrections has determined him to be a high risk to reoffend. For these reasons, the Crown submits that the safety of the community would be seriously endangered if Mr. Woods were allowed to serve his sentence in the community.

[ 114 ] I agree with the Crown that a CSO is not appropriate in Mr. Woods’ circumstances for the reasons it states. [ 115 ] In coming to this conclusion, I am not overlooking the fact that Mr. Woods has attended some programming while in custody towards his rehabilitation. This appears to be a familiar pattern with Mr. Woods. The Crown admits that he seems to do well while in custody, but the minute he is out in the community, he resumes his offending. [ 116 ] As the Crown rightly points out, the sentences that Mr. Woods has received for his past offending were more than lenient.

Rather than taking advantage of those opportunities to better himself and move forward in a positive manner, Mr. Woods has continued to engage in negative behaviours, with a focus on break and enters, affecting numerous people and communities. [ 117 ] What is often not mentioned are the broader impacts that a break and enter can have. A break and enter, especially a residential one, invariably has a devastating impact on the people and property directly involved. Our society values the sanctity of our homes. A break and enter shatters that sanctity and sense of safety and security.

In addition to the victims directly affected, that loss of safety and security can have an indirect and pervasive effect on the immediate neighbourhood, and the larger community as well. [ 118 ] How many times have we heard that a particular neighbourhood or community is not safe because of the level of crime in that area? Well, the type of behaviour that Mr. Woods has been engaged in, contributes to this state of fear in the public. It has a wider economic impact as well in that properties in crime-ridden neighbourhoods are less valued. [ 119 ] Mr. Woods’ criminal record and the Index Offences indicate that Mr.

Woods has had his hand in at least nine different communities in British Columbia. [ 120 ] The defence urged that I exercise restraint in sentencing Mr. Woods. [ 121 ] As the Court in Morris noted, at para. 70 : [70] When the gravity of the offence demands an emphasis on the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, the proportionality principle will most often require a disposition that includes imprisonment.

Wagner J. (as he then was) observed in Lacasse , at para . 6 : [A]s in all cases in which general or specific deterrence and denunciation must be emphasized, the courts have very few options other than imprisonment for meeting these objectives, which are essential to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and law-abiding society. [ 122 ] In my view, only a jail sentence in Mr. Woods’ circumstances would satisfy the sentencing objectives to: (

a) denounce Mr. Woods’ unlawful conduct and the harm he has done to his victims, and indirectly to the larger community as I have discussed above; (

b) deter Mr. Woods and other persons from engaging in similar unlawful conduct; and (

c) separate Mr. Woods from society, as he currently poses a danger to the public. As I have discussed, he has caused personal injury to a victim, and he is not phased by the police, as he did not hesitate to use a weapon against them. He engages in violent behaviours that put the public and our law enforcement officers at risk. [ 123 ] In stating that a jail sentence is necessary in Mr. Woods’ case, I am not ignoring the important sentencing principle of the offender’s rehabilitation. I acknowledge that Mr. Woods’ rehabilitation is important, particularly, as he is a relatively young person.

I understand there are many programs Mr. Woods can avail, while in custody. He has already been engaging in some of these programs. As I noted earlier, the Crown agrees that he does well while in custody. [ 124 ] Only this time, if Mr. Woods is truly at crossroads, as the defence submits, Mr.

Woods should take advantage of the rehabilitation programming available to him in custody, and commit to changing his future course in life in a positive manner. [ 125 ] Finally, I agree with the Crown that the global four and a half year jail sentence that the Crown is seeking is very lenient – I note, even without any reduction for anti-Black racism or collateral consequences. The case authorities indicate a range of three to four years’ jail for one break and enter, whereas in Mr.

Woods’ case, there are five break and enters, and a total of 15 offences, for which he is being sentenced. [ 126 ] I will now turn to Mr. Woods’ sentence. SENTENCE [ 127 ] Mr. Woods, could you please stand up, sir? [ 128 ] I have considered your unique circumstances, the nature and extent of the Index Offences, the submissions and case authorities of the Crown and the defence, and the sentencing purpose, objectives and principles.

I find that a global sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment to be a just sanction in your case for the Index Offences. [ 129 ] Therefore, t he term of imprisonment I would have imposed before granting any credit is 1,620 days (i.e. 54 months or four and a half years), allocated as follows: (a) 1,440 days (i.e. 48 months or four years) on each of the Information Nos. 244051-2C (Count 1), 247412-1 (Count 1), 247434-1 (Count 1), 248929-1 (Count 1), and 247156-2C (Count 1), concurrent to each other; and (b) 180 days (i.e. six months or one-half year) on each of the Information Nos. 247225-1 (Count 1) and 108169-1 (Counts 2, 5, and 10), concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the Information Nos. mentioned in the preceding para. 128(a).

[ 130 ] The time you have spent in custody, as of today, July 24, 2023, is 594 days. [ 131 ] I am granting you credit at a rate of 1.5 days for each day you have spent in custody. [ 132 ] The total credit I am granting you is 891 days. [ 133 ] The sentence I impose on you today is 729 days. [ 134 ] The total credit of 891 days will be allocated to each of the break and enter files mentioned above at para. 128(a), leaving 549 days remaining to be served (1,440 – 891) on those files. [ 135 ] The remaining 180 days (729 – 549) to be served will be allocated to the non-break and enter files mentioned above at para. 128(b).

ANCILLARY ORDERS Firearms Prohibition Order [ 136 ] Pursuant to s. 110 of the Criminal Code , you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance for 10 years following your release from prison. This order attaches to Information No. 247225-1. DNA Order [ 137 ] The offence of assault that you have pled guilty to on Information No. 247225-1 is a secondary designated offence.

After considering the factors set out in s 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code , I am satisfied that it is in the best interest of the administration of justice to authorize the taking of samples of bodily substances from you. [ 138 ] The samples will be taken from you while you are in custody and you must submit to the taking of the samples. VICTIM SURCHARGE [ 139 ] Pursuant to s 737(2.1) of the Criminal Code , I am satisfied that because of your precarious financial circumstances caused by your unemployment and lack of assets, the surcharge would cause an undue hardship to you.

Therefore, I order you to pay no victim surcharge. CONCLUSION [ 140 ] That concludes my reasons for sentence. Thank you. By the Court, ______________________________ The Honourable Judge V. Chettiar Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM - Released July 28, 2023 In the Oral Reasons for Sentence dated July 24, 2023, the following changes have been made and are reflected on this cover page: [1] On the front cover, 247255-1 has been amended to 247225-1; and [2] On the front cover, Registry: Port Coquitlam has been added after File No. 108169-1. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge V.

Chettiar Provincial Court of British Columbia

CORRIGENDUM No. 2 - Released November 6, 2023 In the Oral Reasons for Sentence dated July 24, 2023, the following changes have been made and are reflected in the Oral Reasons for Sentence: [1] On page 7, paragraph number 22 has been added to an unnumbered paragraph. As a result, subsequent paragraph numbers have been changed; [2] In the heading above the current paragraph 60, No. 247146-2C has been amended to read No. 247156-2C; and [3] In the current paragraph 112, R. v. Proulx , 2005 SCC 5 has been amended to read R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 . _____________________________ The Honourable Judge V. Chettiar Provincial Court of British Columbia