2019 QCCQ 2840, 2019 QCCQ 2840

R. c. Poucachiche 2019 QCCQ 2840 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF LOCALITY OF ABITIBI VAL-D’OR “Criminal Division” Nos.: 615-01-026970-189 615-01-026971-187 615-01-027791-188 DATE: May 3, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE RICHARD LAFLAMME, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v. MATJOWAN POUCACHICHE Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Poucachiche was convicted on a

summary charge of sexually assaulting his former spouse.

In connection with that offence, he pleaded guilty to a charge of operating a motor vehicle while prohibited. [ 2 ] He admitted his guilt in another series of charges related to the operation of a motor vehicle while his ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol, driving while prohibited, failure to comply with a condition of an undertaking given to a peace officer, occupying a motor vehicle knowing that it contained a restricted weapon, and possession of such a weapon without being the holder of a licence under which he may possess it. [ 3 ] The criminal and penal prosecutor seeks a total sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, from which credit should be deducted for the accused’s time spent in pre-sentence custody since September 7, 2018.

She also seeks a 10-year total driving prohibition. The prosecutor rests her recommendation on the need to prioritize the objectives of denunciation and deterrence due to the accused’s lengthy criminal record of similar offences. [ 4 ] Counsel for Mr.

Poucachiche believes that a sentence that takes into account the time served in pre-sentence custody plus a total of 12 months’ imprisonment to be served in the community would be a fit sentence, tailored to the offender. [ 5 ] More specifically, for the offence of driving while prohibited that occurred in October 2017 (615-01-26971-187), a conditional sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment is proposed, with a consecutive 3-year driving prohibition. [ 6 ] He suggests a consecutive conditional sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment for the sexual assault (615-01-026970-189). [ 7 ] For the impaired driving of September 7, 2018, (615-01-027971-188), he suggests that the pre-sentence custody be fully credited and the sentence be the time served plus a consecutive 5-year driving prohibition.

With respect to the offence of driving while prohibited (count 3), he recommends a consecutive conditional sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment with a 2-year driving prohibition, consecutive with the other prohibitions. For the failure to comply with an undertaking of his release, a consecutive conditional sentence of 1 month’s imprisonment is suggested.

For the two counts related to the restricted weapon, a conditional sentence of 1 month’s imprisonment is suggested for each count, to be served concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the other counts. [ 8 ] His recommendations are based on the fact that the accused is an Aboriginal offender, that there are reasonable alternatives to imprisonment, and that his rehabilitation should be promoted. [ 9 ] The issue in dispute is therefore to determine the fit sentence for this accused. I. OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

[ 10 ] The accused is liable to sentences ranging from 18 months to 10 years’ imprisonment. [ 11 ] The sexual assault is punishable by 18 months’ imprisonment. The impaired driving and the driving while prohibited are punishable by 5 years, respectively. A minimum sentence of 120 days must be ordered in file 615-01-026971-187 due to the service of a notice of prior convictions. The maximum sentence for the failure to comply with an undertaking of a release given to a peace officer is 2 years’ imprisonment.

Last, occupying a vehicle knowing that it contains a restricted weapon and possessing such a weapon without the necessary licence are punishable by a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. II. FACTS [ 12 ] Two series of events are alleged against the accused. 615-01-026970-189 and 615-01-026971-188 [ 13 ] Between October 25 and 27, 2017, the accused was with his former spouse at her home. They decided to go join some friends at the camp of Eddy Ratt’s mother and go hunting. [ 14 ] The accused and the complainant were patrolling in the sector while night hunting.

The accused was driving his pick-up truck even though he was under a 4-year driving prohibition starting on January 6, 2014. [ 15 ] As he was still in love with the complainant, he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. Without warning, he started to sexually touch the complainant during the ride. He believed, but with no confirmation, that she felt the same way. That is why he unzipped his pants and took out his penis. He said that he was excited. He grabbed the complainant’s left arm and placed her hand on his penis.

He stopped as soon as she told him she was not interested. 615-01-027791-188 [ 16 ] The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts. [ 17 ] On September 7, 2018, while patrolling Highway 117, police officers noticed a vehicle swerving from its lane and moving very slowly. The vehicle veered onto half of the oncoming traffic lane, then zigzagged back onto half of the gravel shoulder. [ 18 ] When the police officers saw the vehicle veer onto the oncoming lane, they lit their flashing lights and turned on the siren several times so that the driver would pull over.

It was only after several warnings that the vehicle finally stopped. [ 19 ] Mr. Poucachiche was driving the vehicle. The police immediately noticed signs of inebriation: the smell of alcohol, red eyes and slurred speech. They saw a bottle of beer in the driver’s cup holder and a restricted weapon behind the accused, who confirmed that he had consumed two beers. Shortly thereafter, he admitted to a third. [ 20 ] When the officers demanded it, the accused provided a breath sample into an approved screening device. He failed the test.

He was immediately arrested for impaired driving. [ 21 ] Their investigation revealed that he was under a driving prohibition and had breached an undertaking given to a peace officer prohibiting him from possessing a firearm. [ 22 ] The police seized the restricted weapon in the vehicle. The accused has no licence to possess such a weapon. Moreover, when he applied for a licence in 2004 and in 2014, he was refused. III. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS [ 23 ] The Court considers the following aggravating factors: • With respect to the sexual assault, the nature of the relationship with the complainant.

She trusted him and he breached that trust; • The trauma suffered by the complainant. She was greatly perturbed by this incident; • He has no prior convictions for sexual assault but does have a lengthy criminal record of offences related to the driving of a motor vehicle. These are his seventh and eighth offences for driving while prohibited. This is his eleventh offence for impaired driving or driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg%; • Despite a driving prohibition rendered in January 2016, he drove on two occasions, in October 2017 and in September 2018.

When he drove while prohibited and impaired in September 2018, he was awaiting trial in the files for sexual assault and driving while prohibited for which he is to be sentenced.

This proves both the depth of his illness and a recurring inability to comply with Court orders; • When he was arrested on September 7, 2018, he was subject to an undertaking given to a peace officer. [ 24 ] The Court considers the following mitigating factors: • He pleaded guilty to all counts except the sexual assault; • He is sincerely remorseful about the complainant; • He has the support of his daughter and the members of his community, including the Health and NNADAP Program; • He wants to enter the Gilles-Jourdain Kapatakan community residential centre in Manu-utenam and participate in a four-month

social reintegration program. [1] He is prepared to participate in various treatment programs, such as A.A. and the NNADAP program in Lac Simon. IV. THE ACCUSED [ 25 ] Mr. Poucachiche is a 54-year-old Algonquin man. He is originally from the community of Rapid Lake and lives in Lac-Simon. According to the Gladue [2] report, he plans to once more become a member of his community of origin. [ 26 ] He has four children. He has the support of his daughter, with whom he plans to live in Val d’Or once these proceedings are over. [ 27 ] Mr. Poucachiche is unemployed.

He has been receiving disability benefits from the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec following a serious accident in 1992. He was left with a permanent impairment in one leg. [ 28 ] He is described as an honest, generous and resilient man. He is highly skilled at traditional hunting and fishing. [ 29 ] The accused was held in pre-sentence custody after the offences were committed. In files 615-01-026970-189 and 615-01- 026971-188, he was in pre-sentence custody for three days.

Therefore, he should receive a credit of four days in these files. [ 30 ] In file 615-01-027791-188, he has been in pre-sentence custody since September 7, 2018. To date, he has served 238 days (7 months and 26 days). If we apply a ratio of 1.5 days of credit per day in custody, 357 days, or 11 months and 22 days, should be deducted from the sentence to be rendered. [ 31 ] The Gladue report helps to better understand the community in which Mr. Poucachiche was raised. Programs to make the Algonquin sedentary drastically disrupted the lifestyle of communities and families.

The advent of Aboriginal residential schools caused profound damage to the Algonquin social fabric, contributed to shattering their nomadic lifestyle and provoked major physical and psychological trauma for both the parents and the children. [ 32 ] The report also identified the major trauma experienced by Mr. Poucachiche specifically. At the request of Sharon McBride, the report’s author, the Court will refrain from detailing this trauma. For those with access to the report, the Court refers more specifically to pages 4 to 6.

Nonetheless, for greater understanding, it is sufficient to summarize in general terms that he witnessed his mother’s death, suffered from the death of a nephew and is a residential school survivor. After the age of four years old, he has never had a normal family life. He has a limited education. [ 33 ] The Gladue report also revealed that the accused began abusing alcohol at 19. He participated in three treatment programs for his addiction: the Wanaki Center in 1995, St-Joe’s Treatment Center in 1998 and Waseskum House in 2016.

He told the report’s author that he could not fully invest himself in these treatments because he had a mental block due to his time spent in a residential school. He has had a few periods of sobriety, but has never beat his alcohol addiction. [ 34 ] Legally, the accused has a lengthy record dating back to 1991. He has since accumulated seven convictions for breaches of Court orders, two simple assaults and one for careless use of a firearm.

As previously stated, prior to these charges, he had six offences for driving while prohibited and ten counts of impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg %, or refusing to provide a sample. His last conviction was in 2015, when he was sentenced to 7 months’ imprisonment for driving while prohibited. His last conviction for impaired driving earned him 10 months’ imprisonment in November 2015. An analysis of his criminal record reveals that prior to the last two sentences, he had received prison sentences ranging from 90 days to 6 months.

It goes without saying that alcohol is central at the heart of his convictions. V. SENTENCING PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES [ 35 ] Appellate courts are constantly reiterating that the objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given significant consideration when the accused is a repeat offender with respect to operating a motor vehicle. In general, these incorrigible drivers are sentenced to long periods of imprisonment due to the danger they pose to road-users and the public at large.

The primacy of these two objectives, however, must not overshadow the other objectives, such as socially rehabilitating offenders, providing reparation for harm done, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders. [ 36 ] Sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances may also serve as a guide when sentencing. [ 37 ] In this regard, the prosecution submitted numerous decisions in support of its recommendation. [3] The sentences range between 9 and 48 months. Several decisions offer a case law review of the sentences applicable in similar matters.

While the parity principle tolerates some disparity, [ translation ] “[s]imilarity remains a question of degree, the analysis of which is based on the nature of the offences at issue, similarities in the personalities of the offenders, and comparable circumstances. Parity in sentencing will not always be possible owing to the very nature of an individualized sentencing process”. [4] The Court is of the view that the fact that the offender is an Aboriginal person must be reflected in the search for sentences imposed for similar crimes. [ 38 ] Two decisions from among those submitted are more similar to Mr.

Poucachiche’s circumstances: R. c. Weizineau and Tremblay c. R. , supra . [ 39 ] Mr. Weizineau was a 35-year-old Atikamekw who had committed his sixth, seventh and eighth repeat offence of impaired driving. He also had a conviction for driving while prohibited. The Honourable Pierre Lortie paid particular attention to the offender’s

Aboriginal status, and especially his difficult life story which [ translation ] “is far removed from the experience of most Canadians”. [5] That accused had completed two treatment programs that unfortunately failed to end his addictions. Mr. Weizineau’s life story, described in the judgment, reveals similarities to Mr. Poucachiche’s life. Lortie J. concluded that a 30-month sentence balanced the various Criminal Code objectives. The sentence was accompanied by a 10-year driving prohibition. [ 40 ] In Tremblay c. R. , the Court of Appeal allowed fresh evidence establishing Mr.

Tremblay’s status as a member of the Maliseet First Nation. From this new perspective, the Court reduced the sentence from 42 to 30 months. He had many convictions, however, that were not listed. The Court felt that “the weight of history, which is so heavy for all aboriginals, is also on the appellant’s shoulders”. He was an alcoholic, like Mr. Poucachiche. The search for available sanctions other than imprisonment was unsuccessful. It should also be noted that the last sentence received was 18 months in the community.

The Court considered that the step between that sentence and the penitentiary was sufficiently high to have full deterrent effect. [ 41 ] With respect to parity of sentences, counsel for the accused did not submit any decisions in support of their recommendation. They drew the Court’s attention, however, to several passages from a text by Clayton Ruby on sentencing, [6] more specifically, those concerning Aboriginal offenders.

The Court is asked to consider conditional sentences to be served in the community and mixed custodial and community sentences. [ 42 ] The Court must also consider the obligation to avoid unduly long or harsh consecutive sentences. Before it considers depriving the offender of liberty, the Court must examine less restrictive sanctions where appropriate in the circumstances. When the offender is an Aboriginal person, as in this case, the Court must consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community.

Indeed, our Court of Appeal in Denis-Damée c. R. [7] recently recalled two important factors to be considered: (1) systemic and background factors and (2) alternatives other than imprisonment for Aboriginal offenders. [ 43 ] Relying on the principles in R. v. Ipeelee , [8] the Court of Appeal recalled that the judge must make the connection between the systemic and background factors and moral blameworthiness as the study of these factors may bear on the culpability of the offender, even shed light on his or her diminished level of moral blameworthiness.

Authors Denis-Boileau and Sylvestre correctly wrote that it is a significant element of new law by which [ translation ] “Justice Lebel posits the consideration of systemic and background factors as forming an inherent part of the proportionality principle”. [9] [ 44 ] Applied to this case, there is no doubt of “the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples”. [10] These traumas are still present in the memory of First Nations members.

The traumas and hardships experienced by Mr. Poucachiche, as related in the Gladue report, illustrate, alas, the harsh reality described in Ipeelee . Ms. McBride’s report states that the children placed in residential schools suffer “extensive and long-term trauma”. Mr. Poucachiche’s alcoholism is a consequence of these traumas. The same applies to his perception of sexuality. His experience left him with a “very mixed outlook on sex”.

All this is likely to diminish his moral blameworthiness. [ 45 ] With respect to appropriate sanctions for Aboriginal offenders, the Court of Appeal noted that the most traditional Indigenous conceptions of sentencing place a primary emphasis upon the ideals of restorative justice and that this tradition is important to the analysis under s. 718.2(

e) Cr. C. Incarceration is not always the proper solution. Yet, “there are some serious offences and some offenders for which and for whom separation and denunciation are fundamentally relevant”. [11] When imprisonment is necessary, even where an offence is considered serious, the Aboriginal context must be considered when determining the term of imprisonment. [ 46 ] Moreover, the Supreme Court recalled:

Section 718.2(

e) does not alter the fundamental duty of the sentencing judge to impose a sentence that is fit for the offence and the offender. Furthermore, in Gladue , as mentioned the Court stressed that the application of s. 718.2(

e) does not mean that aboriginal offenders must always be sentenced in a manner which gives greatest weight to the principles of restorative justice and less weight to goals such as deterrence, denunciation, and separation (at para. 78). As a result, it will generally be the case, as a practical matter , that particularly violent and serious offences will result in imprisonment for aboriginal offenders as often as for non-aboriginal offenders ( Gladue , at para. 33 ).

Accordingly, I conclude that it was open to the trial judge to give primacy to the principles of denunciation and deterrence in this case on the basis that the crime involved was a serious one. [12] [ 47 ] Proportionality in sentencing remains the cardinal principle of any sentence. [13] VI. THE SENTENCE [ 48 ] In Tremblay , supra , the Court of Appeal noted that [ translation ] “[a]n impaired-driving multiple offender is a time bomb. Sooner or later, if he does not change his ways, there will be deaths or serious injuries.

The appellant’s rehabilitation should not take precedence over the factors of deterrence and denunciation”. This quote applies perfectly to Mr. Poucachiche’s situation. While his moral blameworthiness is diminished or mitigated due to his experiences and personal characteristics, the fact remains that it is high given his recurring criminality. [ 49 ] Despite his efforts to end his alcohol addiction, even shortly before the first events that concern us, his alcohol problem clearly persists.

The problem is not so much his abusive drinking as it is the fact that he repeatedly drives a motor vehicle while impaired and/or prohibited. The fact that he drove while prohibited in October 2017 proves that alcohol is not always a factor when he commits the offence. Therefore, in spite of a long driving prohibition period, he has been unable to stop himself from driving, even when he is not under the effects of alcohol. His arrest and the filing of charges had no greater effect. [ 50 ] The proposal by counsel for the accused is not without merit.

The Court, however, will disregard it because it places undue emphasis on the accused’s rehabilitation to the detriment of the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Mr. Poucachiche’s sincere desire to address his issues is noted. The step, however, between desire and action remains to be taken.

[ 51 ] Faced with the accused’s constant repeat offences, it is clear that denunciation and deterrence are so pressing that the accused must be removed from society by way of a custodial sentence due to his risk of reoffending. On several occasions, he was unable to comply with court orders prohibiting him from driving. Nothing leads the Court to believe that he will be able to comply with conditions, in particular with respect to driving a motor vehicle, as part of a conditional sentence.

In such a context, a conditional sentence is not a reasonable available sanction. [ 52 ] Furthermore, the Court considers that the offer to enter a community residential center for four months is rather meagre given the existing problems. It is useful to recall that in 2016, the accused spent four months in a treatment centre. Alas, that was insufficient to prevent him from reoffending. Certainly, at that time, the accused had not dealt with his painful past.

If four months during which the accused’s painful past was not even addressed were insufficient to deal with his alcoholism, how could a similar period be sufficient to meet Mr. Poucachiche’s needs and particularities? While this may be a good starting point, it is inconceivable that it form the cornerstone of the sentence.

Especially when faced with such a high risk of reoffending. [ 53 ] The Court is of the view that to substitute something less than a custodial sentence, even accompanied by treatment in a community residential centre, fails to balance the various sentencing objectives set out previously. [ 54 ] A total sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment is similar to sentences imposed on Aboriginal offenders having led similar lives, having similar problems, and having committed similar crimes in similar circumstances.

Moreover, the breakdown of the Crown’s proposed sentence considers the principle of gradation of sentences but is not unduly long or harsh. • 615-01-026970-189: 3 months • 615-01-026971-187: 12 months’ imprisonment minus a credit of 4 days for pre-sentence custody, that is, 11 months and 26 days to be served consecutively to file 615-01-027791-188; • 615-01-027791-188: Count 2: 18 months’ imprisonment minus a credit of 11 months and 22 days, that is, 6 months and 8 days, to be served concurrently to count 3, but consecutively to file 615-01-026971-187; Count 3: 18 months minus a credit of 11 months and 22 days, or 6 months and 8 days, to be served concurrently to count 2; Count 4: 30 days to be served concurrently; Count 5: 45 days to be served concurrently; Count 6: 30 days to be served concurrently. [ 55 ] Considering the accused’s lengthy pre-sentence custody, the credit granted opens the door to a non-negligible social reintegration tool: a probation order. [14] This measure will allow him to enter a treatment centre and benefit from the services of a probation officer during his rehabilitation and healing process.

The parties agree that a 3-year supervised probation is appropriate. [ 56 ] The parties jointly suggest a 10-year driving prohibition order based on a different breakdown. For the Court, that breakdown has little value considering that the last prohibition was for four years. Ultimately, what matters is that Mr. Poucachiche be removed from the road for at least ten years. An increase in the prohibition period from four to ten years is not unreasonable given the accused’s recurrent criminality and his reluctance to comply with the court orders. In accordance with the wording of the former s. 259 Cr.

C. and the new s. 320.24(2), the 10-year period is added to the offender’s prison sentence. [ 57 ] The parties jointly recommend a 3-year minimum absolute prohibition period. While that suggestion appears rather lenient, the Court must show deference because it was negotiated by the parties. Furthermore, it is not so unreasonable as to be contrary to the public interest. [ 58 ] The Crown requires a discretionary firearms prohibition order under s. 110 Cr. C. The accused does not object to that request, subject to the right to benefit from the exception under s. 113 Cr.

C. [ 59 ] Such an order is appropriate given that the accused was in possession of a restricted weapon stored in conditions likely to represent a risk to safety. Moreover, the evidence reveals that Mr. Poucachiche is skilled in the traditional methods of hunting and fishing. His lifestyle should be taken into account and the prohibition lifted to hunt in order to sustain himself or his family. [ 60 ] The parties suggest that the Court order the weapon to be returned to Mr. Poucachiche’s former spouse. That recommendation is contrary to s. 491(1) Cr.

C. which states: 491(1) Subject to subsection (2), where it is determined by a court that (a) … (

b) that a person has committed an offence that involves, or the subject-matter of which is, a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance and any such thing has been seized and detained, the thing so seized and detained is forfeited to Her Majesty and shall be disposed of as the Attorney General directs. [ 61 ] In a recent decision, [15] our Court of Appeal noted that s. 491(1) Cr. C. is clear. Once a court finds that (1) a person has

committed an offence involving a firearm and ammunition and (2) the things in question have been seized and detained, it must order that these weapons and ammunition be forfeit to Her Majesty, subject to paragraph (2) of the provision. [16] [ 62 ] Here, the weapon cannot be returned because the person to whom it is suggested the weapon be returned is not the owner. Therefore, it must be forfeit in accordance with the prescriptions of the Criminal Code .

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: FILE 615-01-026970-189: SENTENCES the accused to three (3) months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently to file 615-01-026971-188; AUTHORIZES the taking of a bodily sample for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis under s. 487.051 Cr.

C. ; ORDERS the accused to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for a period of ten (10) years, in accordance with s. 490.012; ORDERS the clerk of this Court to read the order rendered under s. 490.012 to the accused, to give him a copy of the order and to inform him of the content of ss. 4 to 7.1 of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and ss. 490.031 and 490.0311 Cr. C.

FILE 615-01-026971-187: SENTENCES the accused to eleven (11) months and twenty-six (26) days’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to file 615-01- 027791-188, as of today; PROHIBITS the accused from driving any motor vehicle in Canada for a period of ten (10) years in addition to the term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced; SETS the minimum period of absolute prohibition on driving at three (3) years; FILE 615-01-027791-188 ORDERS a conditional stay of proceedings on count 1; SENTENCES the accused to six (6) months and eight (8) days’ imprisonment on counts 2 and 3, to be served concurrently but consecutively to the sentence in file 615-01-26971-187; PROHIBITS the accused from driving any motor vehicle in Canada for a period of ten (10) years in addition to the term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced for counts 2 and 3; SETS the minimum period of absolute prohibition on driving at three (3) years for counts 2 and 3; SENTENCES the accused to thirty (30) days’ imprisonment on count 4, to be served concurrently; SENTENCES the accused to forty-five (45) days’ imprisonment on count 5, to be served concurrently; SENTENCES the accused to thirty (30) days’ imprisonment on count 6, to be served concurrently; FORFEITS the seized Rifle Savage 30.06 SPFLD weapon, its charger and ammunition to Her Majesty, to be disposed of according to the instructions of the Attorney General of Quebec; FOR A TOTAL SENTENCE OF eighteen (18) months and four (4) days as of today; In all files: ORDERS the accused to submit to a 3-year probation order, subject to the following conditions: - Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; - Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; - Notify the probation officer; - Abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with J.W., except with her consent; - Abstain from going to the following place: J.W.’s residence, except with her consent; - Report to a probation officer within two working days after the coming into force of the probation order and thereafter, when required by the probation officer and in the manner directed by the probation officer; - Expressly refrain from possessing, carrying or acquiring, for any reason, weapons, offensive or restricted weapons, or imitation weapons, including starting pistols and pellet guns, firearms, cross-bows, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, explosive substances, knives (except in restaurants and for a legitimate purpose) or edged weapons except for traditional activities;

- Follow the probation officer’s instructions concerning any therapy for a substance abuse and/or for sexual abusers; - Undergo therapy to treat his substance abuse problem provide proof thereof to the probation officer; - Not operate or have the care or control of a motor vehicle; - Sign the probation order without delay. __________________________________ RICHARD LAFLAMME, J.C.Q. Mtre Léonie Caron Criminal and Penal Prosecutor Mtre Erika Marier Mtre Samuel Bérubé Mtre Jean-Francis Bonnette Counsel for the accused Dates of hearing: October 2, 2018, and March 29, 2019