R. v. Vandal, 2020 BCPC 11

Citation: R. v. Vandal 2020 BCPC 11 Date: 20200131 File Nos: 24424-2-C, 249622-1, 251006-1, 62161-1, 63282-1, 65175-1 Registries: Vancouver, Richmond, North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ANDREW PAUL VANDAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R.P. HARRIS Counsel for the Crown: R. Sinclair Counsel for the Defendant: J. Percival Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 6, 2020 Date of Sentence: January 31, 2020 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on February 7, 2020.

The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Vandal pleaded guilty to a number of break and enters and he is before the court for sentencing. The Crown argues that a

custodial sentence in the range of six to eight years is fit, whereas counsel for Mr. Vandal urges the court to consider the time that Mr. Vandal has spent in custody and impose a sentence that would permit the court to place Mr. Vandal on probation for three years. This approach would result in an effective sentence of five years. [ 2 ] Mr. Vandal is a 46-year-old Indigenous male with a long-standing drug addiction, he has in excess of forty convictions for break and enter and a total of sixty criminal convictions.

The court has had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), a Gladue Report, sentencing authorities, a letter from Mr. Vandal’s mother, a letter from Mr. Vandal’s sister, a Victim Impact Statement (VIS), Mr. Vandal’s comments to the court and submissions of counsel. The task for this court is to impose a fit and appropriate sentence. II. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES Information 24424 – Commercial Break and Enter [ 3 ] On May 30, 2017, video surveillance recorded Mr. Vandal and an unidentified male using a crow bar and forcing the latch to the front door of a commercial spa.

Once inside they searched the premise and stole $1,500.00. Mr. Vandal was identified through his image that was captured on surveillance video. Information 249622 – Residential Break and Enter [ 4 ] On June 5, 2017, a resident of an apartment suite left for the day. On leaving the suite the resident secured the doors and windows but for a bathroom window that had a defective latch. At 5:00 p.m., a resident returned to the suite and discovered that the suite had been broken into. The suite had been ransacked, a folding knife was left on the bed and the suspect left a jacket on the floor.

A laptop computer, an iPhone and 2 chargers were taken. A police forensic team attended and located Mr. Vandal’s DNA. Information 251006– Commercial Break and Enter [ 5 ] On August 10, 2017, at 5:41 a.m., the police responded to an alarm at a Vancouver real estate office. On arrival the police checked the perimeter and concluded that it was secure. At 9:00 a.m., an employee arrived and discovered that the office had been broken into. A review of the surveillance video showed Mr. Vandal gaining entry by using a prying tool on the front door latch. Once inside Mr.

Vandal stole four laptop computers and a pair of shoes. The total value of the items stolen was $6,500.00. Information 63282 – Residential Break and Enter [ 6 ] On August 11, 2017, a senior resident of a townhouse located on the property of the University of British Columbia went to bed for the evening. At the time, the resident left her second floor bedroom balcony sliding door slightly open as she wanted some respite from the summer’s heat. [ 7 ] The resident woke the next morning and immediately noticed that the sliding door had been moved.

The resident checked her residence and discovered that someone had been inside during the night. Stolen was her wallet, her identification, passport, iPhone, laptop, approximately $650.00 cash, house keys, car keys and a gold medal that the resident received in recognition of achieving the highest marks in her four years at medical school. [ 8 ] Further investigation revealed that the suspect had drank from a jug of milk that had been in the fridge and that he had searched a dresser in the room where the resident was sleeping.

It was also discovered that the suspect had gone to the garage and taken the resident’s bicycle and car. The car and bicycle were recovered a few hours later when the car was involved in an accident where the driver fled on foot and not identified. [ 9 ] DNA taken from the milk jug was matched to Mr. Vandal. [ 10 ] The resident prepared a Victim Impact Statement. In it she wrote: Since the thief gained access to my suite through the bedroom door while I was in bed this has caused me significant emotional trauma. I feel unsafe at home and have major insomnia.

I am constantly anxious and have seriously considered moving. I feel totally violated. [ 11 ] The victim also spoke about abdominal pain and rashes that she now suffers which she attributes to the stress associated with the break in. Also mentioned in the statement was the damage to the victim’s car and the reduced value. A reading of the statement makes it clear that the victim’s gold medal meant very much to her and she is very saddened by its loss. It is also clear that the break and enter has had a profound impact on the victim.

Information 65175 – Commercial Break and Enter [ 12 ] On October 1, 2017, at 8:30 a.m., the police arrested Mr. Vandal for breaching his recognizance by being in possession of tools. A search incidental to this arrest revealed that Mr. Vandal was in possession of clothing, a laptop computer and cash. The police were able to trace these items to a retail store located in the Park Royal Mall, in West Vancouver. [ 13 ] The police contacted the proprietor of the retail store who confirmed their business had been broken. Investigation revealed that Mr.

Vandal had gained entry through a rear door that was reached via a secure passageway. Examination of the door revealed tool markings. Stolen was $1,288.60 worth of clothing, a laptop computer and $300.00 cash. [ 14 ] At the time of the offence, Mr. Vandal was bound by a recognizance requiring him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and not to possess tools. There was also a curfew condition prohibiting Mr. Vandal from being outside between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. Information 62161 – Commercial Break and Enter

[ 15 ] On the weekend of October 8, 2017, the proprietor of a restaurant located on the grounds of the University of British Columbia secured his business. He returned on October 10, 2017, and discovered that it had been broken into. The proprietor reviewed the surveillance video and it captured Mr. Vandal using a tool to open the back door. Once inside, Mr. Vandal located keys, gained access to a locked container, and he stole $1,000.00 cash. Mr. Vandal was bound by a recognizance at the time of this offence. III. MR. VANDAL’S PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES [ 16 ] Mr. Vandal is 46 years old.

He was raised in a middle to upper-middle class family. He described his parents as “workaholics” who separated when he was 7 years old. His father, was an architect and an alcoholic and his mother was a homemaker. Mr. Vandal described his living environment as “quite comfortable”. [ 17 ] Mr. Vandal lived with his mother who remarried when he was 12. Thereafter, the family frequently moved and Mr. Vandal attended several schools. Mr. Vandal’s stepfather abused alcohol and was physically, emotionally and spiritually abusive. This resulted in Mr.

Vandal leaving the family home when he was 16 years old. [ 18 ] Since leaving home, Mr. Vandal has had a variety of living situations including; custody, the streets, homeless shelters, recovery houses, and halfway houses, his mother’s home and on occasion with people he met while in custody. Mr. Vandal’s longest reported period of a stability was for six years commencing in 2008 to 2009. During this period, he reports he was in a common law relationship, working as a roofer and living in Victoria. Although I accept that Mr.

Vandal was involved in a relationship while in Victoria, I do question his reported living arrangements and work history. This is because his criminal record discloses he received a four-year custodial sentence on June 19, 2007, and a three-year jail sentence on April 30, 2008. [ 19 ] As for his drug use, Mr. Vandal has been a drug user for 30 years. He has used marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, carfentanyl, and other substances. Mr. Vandal acknowledges that his drug use has been an integral component to his criminal history.

Of not is, he was addicted to heroin at the time he committed the offences before the court. [ 20 ] To Mr. Vandal’s credit, he has made repeated efforts to conquer his long standing drug addiction. While serving custodial sentences he has completed several residential treatment programs. He has also been involved with Indigenous substance abuse programs. These include; In Search of Your Warrior, and Tsow-Tun Le Lum Treatment Centre. He has also lived at a number of recovery houses located in Vancouver and Victoria. Mr. Vandal is currently on the Methadone Maintenance Program.

His involvement in this program has been off and on for years. His hope for the future is to taper his Methadone dosage so he can transition to Suboxone. [ 21 ] Turning to Mr. Vandal’s education, the materials suggest that Mr. Vandal is very bright and that he has a gifted memory. He suffers from dyslexia which resulted in teachers labelling him as lazy and stupid. He left school in grade 11 and ultimately he obtained his GED through distance learning while serving a custodial sentence. Mr. Vandal reports he has over-come his dyslexia by being self- taught and a voracious reader. [ 22 ] As for employment, Mr.

Vandal has never been employed for an extended period of time. He has worked as a roofer, as a dishwasher and while serving custodial sentences he has taken pre-apprenticeship training in the culinary arts. Mr. Vandal’s plans include training in computer programming, or in the alternative, he would like to become a journalist with a focus on Indigenous issues and the criminal justice system. [ 23 ] Mr. Vandal has an extensive criminal history starting in 1989 with his last offence in March of 2013. He was sentenced in March of 2014 and released in September of 2016.

Notably, he was in custody from March of 2013 until his release in September of 2016. [ 24 ] With respect to Mr. Vandal’s Indigenous heritage, the Gladue report notes: Andrew is of mixed lineage and self-identifies as Metis, through his paternal lineage. He was substantially unaware of his family’s Indigenous background or history and because of his estranged relationship with his late father, indicated that his extended family remained unavailable as corroborative or familial resources.

However, Andrew’s mother forwarded a detailed genealogical family tree which was prepare for Andrew’s registration with Metis Nation of BC… [ 25 ] The report continues to explain that Mr. Vandal identified as Indigenous when he was 32 years of age after his sister completed an exploratory genealogical family tree. Thereafter, through Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Vandal involved himself in Aboriginal programs thus embracing his cultural identity. [ 26 ] In addition to accessing Indigenous programming in custody, Mr.

Vandal has established connections with Elders, he regularly attends sweats, healing circles and weekly smudges. During the years, 2009 to 2012, Mr. Vandal served a portion of his custodial sentence at Kwikwexwelhp which is a holistic Indigenous healing village operated by Correction Service of Canada. [ 27 ] The Gladue report summarizes by observing; Mr. Vandal’s childhood abuse, his parental instability, his early introduction to drug use and his alienation from his Indigenous background are factors that impact Indigenous persons generally [ 28 ] As for his criminal background, Mr.

Vandal’s criminal record commences in 1989 and runs continuously until an offence in March 2014. Although, it would appear that there is a gap in his offending (March 2013 to May 2017) it is important to note the gap was created because he was incarcerated until September 23, 2016. Thereafter, and upon his release, he suffered an injury requiring surgery and he remained in recovery until February 2017. Significantly, little time passed between Mr. Vandal's release and the offences in issue. [ 29 ] A further examination of Mr. Vandal's criminal record discloses over 40 convictions for break and enter.

It also discloses convictions for breach of probation, assault, aggravated assault, and assaulting a police officer. Of note is Mr. Vandal has over 60 criminal convictions. [ 30 ] Although, Mr. Vandal feels he would be most successful if he received a provincial sentence with a long period of probation,

the PSR notes he has had limited success with community supervision. [31] As for the remainder of Mr. Vandal’s background, it is noteworthy that he was the victim of an assault when he was in youthcustody. I also acknowledge he has the support of his mother, Ms. Leddy, however, I have some concerns in that she does not appear toappreciate the factors contributing to Mr. Vandal’s vast criminal history. I say this because in her letter she appears to offer excuses forMr. Vandal’s offenses.

Notably, she comments that he was mishandled by his school, that he was targeted by the school administration,and that his youth lawyer was ineffective. Furthermore, in her letter she explained that Mr. Vandal stayed with her for 6 to 7 months in2015 and during that time he helped people on the downtown eastside. Of note, is Mr. Vandal was in custody for all of 2015 and whenthis was pointed out Mr. Vandal advised that he helped the people in 2016. As for 2016, Mr Vandal spent the first nine months of theyear in custody and shortly after his release he was injured and recovering until February 2017.

As such, he was unable to help people forthe duration or at the time suggested by his mother. My observations regarding Mr. Vandal’s mother, are not intended to denigrate herlove for her son or how she wants the best for him, rather, it is intended to underscore why her support does not add much comfort insuggesting that it would serve to reduce Mr. Vandal’s offending behaviour. [32] After considering all of the above, it is evident that all efforts to rehabilitate and deter Mr. Vandal have failed.

In this regard, in2013 he committed eight break and enters and within months of serving his sentence, he committed the five offences that are before thecourt. Clearly, the involvement of the justice system has not slowed him. [33] Finally, Mr. Vandal has been in custody since October of 2017 for a total of 847 days. IV.

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLE OF SENTENCING [34] The fundamental principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and themaintenance 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;

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 and to the community. [35]

Section 718.1 of the Code states that the fundamental principle of sentencing is: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [36] In R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, the court commented on proportionality and stated at paragraph 37: Proportionality is the sine qua non of a just sanction. First, the principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity of the offence. This isclosely tied to the objective of denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justice system.

AsWilson J. expressed in her concurring judgment in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 533: It is basic to any theory of punishment that the sentence imposed bear some relationship to the offence; it must be a “fit” sentenceproportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Only if this is so can the public be satisfied that the offender “deserved” the punishmenthe received and feel a confidence in the fairness and rationality of the system. Second, the principle of proportionality ensures that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness ofthe offender.

In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function and ensures justice for the offender. In the Canadiancriminal justice system, a just sanction is one that reflects both perspectives on proportionality and does not elevate one at the expense ofthe other. [37] In R. v. Carte, 2017 BCSC 2421, Madam Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten commented on achieving a proportionate sentence. Atparagraph 65, she observed: [65] Achieving a proportionate sentence is a case-specific determination, requiring a multi-factoral analysis tailored to the individualcircumstances of the offence and the offender: R. v.

Nur, 2015 SCC 15 at para.43. All relevant factors must be considered. [38]

Section 718.2 of the Code contains additional principles. The relevant portions read: 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 offenceor the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing…, (

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

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 should be considered for all offenders, withparticular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. V. ANALYSIS Sentencing objectives [39] In the circumstances, I find that Mr. Vandal’s offences combined with his personal circumstances demands a sentence thatdenounces and deters. As for denunciation, the primary purpose of the sentence imposed is to communicate society’s abhorrence forMr.

Vandal having committed these offences. [40] As for deterrence, the sentence I impose is to inform those who are inclined to commit residential break and enters that thereare strong sanctions for violating the safety and security found in of one’s dwelling. Additionally, the sentence imposed is intended todeter Mr. Vandal. This objective is particularly pressing given that Mr.

Vandal’s record demonstrates that previous efforts to deter himhave been unsuccessful, as such, and through the sentence imposed, he must understand that further like criminal conduct will not betolerated and that he will receive stiff sanctions. [41] As for rehabilitation, my view is that Mr. Vandal’s history does not support a finding that he is truly dedicated to hisrehabilitation. I make this observation appreciating that many fall backwards in their efforts to achieve a life of sobriety. However, inMr. Vandal’s situation I note the numerous rehabilitative efforts that he has undertaken without success.

Specifically, he has had thebenefit of recovery houses, treatment centres, counselling, Indigenous focussed programs, an Indigenous healing centre and more. Theseefforts and his increasing age have failed to abate Mr. Vandal’s rate of offending. [42] Further to the above, I am mindful of the courses that Mr. Vandal has taken in pre-trial custody and I observe that many of themodules were completed within a half day with more than one being completed on the same day. In other words, they do not appear tobe in-depth, they are self-paced and with little supervision.

The exception to this observation is the program that Mr. Vandal tookthrough the John Howard Society. For these reasons and on a balance, rehabilitation assumes a minimal consideration givenMr. Vandal’s history. Proportionality – seriousness of the offence and degree of offender responsibility [43] Turning to the seriousness of Mr. Vandal’s offences and his degree of moral responsibility, the offences he committed areserious. He broke into a home at a time when there was a high likelihood that it was occupied.

I note, the maximum available penalty forbreaking into a premise and committing an indictable offence is ten years, whereas, the maximum penalty available for breaking into adwelling house is imprisonment for life. The comments of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Arsenault, 1999 BCCA 578, highlight theseriousness of a residential break and enter, at paragraph 7 the court stated: [7] 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 ofthe victims of that offence.

It can in some circumstances have a shattering effect upon people but, short of those extreme cases, it is asignificant invasion of their privacy and of their sense of having a refuge that is immune from intrusion. [44] I also adopt Judge Caryer’s comments from R. v. Crittenden, 2010 BCPC 348, where he noted at paragraph 12: [12] That is almost trite to make comment upon, however, it does seem to this Court that on occasion some courts seem to have lostsight of the fact that a break and enter into somebody's private residence is an extremely serious offence.

It is an offence that carries withit a tremendous impact on the victims of the offence, not only on the specific victims who own the property or may even be residing oroccupying the premises at the time, but it also has a significant impact on the community in that it shakes even the neighbours' sense ofsecurity. It shakes the community sense of safety in their own residences and in their own neighbourhoods. These sorts of crimes go along way to impacting what the community feels about the quality of life in their community. [45] Turning to Mr.

Vandal’s moral culpability, I find it to be high with some attenuation for his Indigenous background. Mr.Vandal’s offences involved a degree of planning and targeting whereby he managed to exploit weak security mechanisms. He alsodemonstrated an ability to be in and out of most premises in a matter of minutes, thereby, avoiding immediate detection. [46] As for his Indigenous background, given that Mr. Vandal grew up in a middle to upper-middle class family it may appear thathis Indigenous heritage should not operate to reduce his moral culpability. However, Mr.

Vandal’s Indigenous heritage was concealedfrom him, hence, Mr. Vandal spent many years separated from his cultural identity, his traditions and his community; with the result thathe was denied the associated resources and support particularly when he was struggling and on his way to an entrenched criminal cycle. Aggravating and mitigating factors [47] Mr. Vandal’s lengthy and related criminal record is aggravating. The fact that he broke into a residence when it would likely beoccupied and in fact was occupied is also aggravating. A final aggravating feature is that Mr.

Vandal committed two of his offenceswhile bound by a recognizance. In other words, he flouted the conditions of his release and committed further offences. [48] In mitigation, it is significant that Mr. Vandal pleaded guilty. He has saved the victims from having to come to testify. He hassaved the state the expense associated with a lengthy prosecution. He has also waived his constitutional right to have the Crown provethe case against him beyond a reasonable doubt. Lastly, his guilty plea represents some expression of remorse.

Similar sentences [49] The sentencing range for a residential break and enter is 9 months to 5 years: R. v. Bernier (2003), 2003 BCCA 134 ,177 CCC (3d) 137 and R. v. Powis, 2007 BCCA 108 at paragraph 29. As for ranges, it must be recognized that they provide guidanceand they are not inflexible. Specifically, there may be circumstances justifying a sentence falling above or below the range.

[50] As for some of sentencing authorities, in R. v. Bains, 2015 BCSC 2110, the offender received an effective sentence of 48months after he was convicted of a residential break and enter. He was 48 years old, and he had 50 criminal convictions including 12convictions for break and enter. [51] In R. v. Crittenden, 2010 BCPC 348, the offender was convicted of a residential break and enter and one count of breaching hisprobation and he received an effective sentence of 6 years. The offender was 52 years old, he had 77 previous convictions including 25for break and enter.

Referenced in the decision are a number of cases involving sentences imposed on offenders who have lengthy andrelated records. I have reviewed those cases and the primary distinguishing factors are; Mr. Vandal is Indigenous, and Mr. Vandal’sextensive record for break and enter. Mr. Vandal’s Indigenous status [52] The purpose of

section 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code is to reduce the overrepresentation of incarcerated Aboriginal persons.Guidance on the application of

section 718.2 (

e) is found in R. v. Billing, 2017 BCSC 1107, at paras. 46 to 53 where Madam JusticeDeWitt-Van Oosten’s observed: [46]

Section 718.2(

e) of the Code provides that when imposing sentence, all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that arereasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community, should be considered, with particularattention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [47] In R. v. Ipeelee; Ladue, 2012 SCC 13, the Supreme Court re-affirmed that s. 718.2(

e) is a "remedial provision designed to amelioratethe serious problem of overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in Canadian prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourseto a restorative approach to sentencing": at para. 59, citing R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688. [48] In sentencing an Aboriginal offender, the Court must consider: (

a) the unique systemic or background factors which may haveplayed a

part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts; and (

b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctionswhich may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage or connection:Ipeelee, at para. 59. [49] When considering "unique systemic or background factors", the Court must take judicial notice of: [60] … such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate intolower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course highlevels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples: Ipeelee, at para. 60. [50] The Court must also consider any "individualized information" about the accused person as an Aboriginal offender: Ipeelee, atpara. 60. [51] Paying close attention to both systemic and individualized factors allows the Court to better achieve a sentence that is proportionateto the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

"Many Aboriginal offenders find themselves in situations ofsocial and economic deprivation with a lack of opportunities and limited option for positive development … the reality is that theirconstrained circumstances may diminish their moral culpability": Ipeelee, at para. 73. [52] It is not necessary that the offender establish a "causal link" between these background factors and the index offence before theremedial impact of s. 718.2(

e) is brought to bear: Ipeelee, at para. 81. This is true even for "serious or violence offences": Ipeelee, atpara. 84. "Systemic and background factors do not operate as an excuse or justification for the criminal conduct. Rather, they providethe necessary context to enable a judge to determine an appropriate sentence": Ipeelee, at para. 83. [53] Sentencing judges have a positive duty to apply s. 718.2(

e) in all cases: Ipeelee, at para. 85. A failure to do so constitutes an errorthat justifies appellate intervention: Ipeelee, at para. 87. [53] Applying the above to Mr. Vandal, his great grandmother was a residential school survivor. Mr. Vandal’s father, was physicallyabused as a child and his father (Mr. Vandal’s grandfather) was an alcoholic. Mr. Vandal’s father was also an alcoholic and thiscontributed to him separating from Mr. Vandal’s mother. Finally and for unknown reasons, Mr.

Vandal’s father concealed hisIndigenous heritage from him. [54] Further to the family history, I take judicial notice of the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools. I alsonote how this history contributes to lower education, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse, suicide andincarceration for Indigenous persons. VI. CONCLUSION [55] The sentence that I impose must denounce Mr. Vandal’s conduct and it must deter him and others. Mr. Vandal’s offences wereserious. He disrupted businesses and he violated the sanctity of where people live.

Notably, a place, where people have the right to feelsafe and secure free from the criminal element. I also recognize the impact that Mr. Vandal’s Indigenous status has had on hisculpability. [56] I have considered the sentence suggested by the Crown and in my view a sentence of eight years is a significant jump fromMr. Vandal’s last sentence of four years and I conclude a sentence of this length is not necessary to achieve the objectives of the sentenceimposed. [57] As for the sentence suggested by Mr. Vandal’s counsel, I have two concerns. First, Mr.

Vandal’s poor performance andresponse to community supervision suggests that placing him on a long probation order would likely set him up for failure and place thecommunity at risk. Second, the sentence would not be sufficient to deter Mr. Vandal from committing further offences, nor would it

adequately denounce his conduct. [ 58 ] In the circumstances and considering all of the information, I am of the view that a sentence of six years less the time that he has served will adequately denounce and deter while still being proportionate. I am also mindful that the sentence imposed will provide an opportunity for Mr. Vandal to continue with his culinary training while permitting him to engage with Indigenous programs. It is my hope that the sentence and the programs will combine to ensure a successful reintegration and a life free from crime. [ 59 ] As for the calculation of Mr.

Vandal’s sentence, he has served 847 actual days in pre-sentence custody and he is to be credited at a rate of 1.5 days for each day in custody for a total credit of 1,271 days. A sentence of 6 years is 2,190 days. As such and after considering his pre-trial credit, Mr. Vandal has a remaining sentence of 919 days. VII. ANCILLORY ORDER DNA [ 60 ] Pursuant to

section 487. 051 (3), I conclude that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to order that a sample of Mr. Vandal’s DNA be taken. ____________________________ The Honourable Judge R.P. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM – Released February 7, 2020 [1] The cover sheet file numbers should read: DCC Registry File 24424-2-C; Vancouver Registry Files 249622-1 and 251006-1 Richmond Registry Files 62161-1 and 63282-1 North Vancouver Registry File 65175-1 ____________________________ The Honourable Judge R.P. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia