R. v. S.W.C., 2020 BCPC 195

Citation: R. v. S.W.C. 2020 BCPC 195 Date: 20200928 File Nos: 104877-1-K and 104775-2-KC Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. S.W.C. BAN ON PUBLICATION - SECTION 539(1) C.C.C. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.R. HARRISON Counsel for the Crown: C. Balison Counsel for the Accused: J. Watt (July 24, 2020) J. Avis (January 9, 2020) Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Dates of Hearing: January 9 and July 24, 2020 Date of Judgment: September 28, 2020 [ 1 ] S.W.C. is before me for sentence today on eight counts on two Kamloops Informations, both proceeded with by indictment.

[ 2 ] On Information 104775-2-KC, S.W.C. pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 3 (as amended), 5 and 7. These counts all arose out of events that occurred at or near Kamloops on or about the 14 th of October, 2017. I have noted maximum and minimum penalties parenthetically. Count 1 charged S.W.C. with harassment of K.P. and engaging in conduct that caused K.P. reasonably to fear for her safety, contrary to

Section 264 of the Criminal Code . (Maximum 10 years) Count 3 charged the accused with use or possession of an axe and bear spray for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence, contrary to Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code . (Maximum 10 years) Count 5 alleged possession by the accused of a prohibited weapon, brass knuckles, contrary to Section 91(2) of the Criminal Code . (Maximum 5 years) Count 7 charged the accused with carrying, using or threatening to use a weapon in committing an assault upon M.L. contrary to

Section 267 (

a) of the Criminal Code . (Maximum 10 years) [ 3 ] The facts underlying these four counts were set out in formal admissions made by the accused under

Section 655 of the Criminal Code . These admissions, titled “Facts – File 104775-2-KC”, are set forth in 13 paragraphs and are found at Tab 1 of Exhibit 1 (the Crown Book of Documents). A copy of these admissions is attached to these reasons as

Schedule 1. [ 4 ] S.W.C.’s common law spouse K.P. was the complainant in Count 1. The accused was not known to M.L., the complainant in Count 7, who was “bear sprayed” by the accused. [ 5 ] On information 104877-1-K, the accused pleaded not guilty to Counts 6, 7, 9 and 10 as charged, but pleaded guilty to other offences arising out of the same transactions. With the consent of the Crown, these guilty pleas were accepted by the Court.

Pursuant to Section 606(4) of the Criminal Code , S.W.C. is found not guilty of the offences charged in Counts 6, 7, 9 and 10 but guilty of the offences in respect of which these guilty pleas have been accepted. Those are as follows: Count 6 – S.W.C., on or about the 27 th of October, 2017, at or near Kamloops in the Province of British Columbia, did break and enter a dwelling house at [omitted for publication] Street and commit an indictable offence therein, assault, contrary to Section 348(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . (Maximum imprisonment for life) Count 7 – S.W.C., on or about the 27 th of October, 2017, at or near Kamloops in the Province of British Columbia, while operating a motor vehicle pursued by a peace officer operating a motor vehicle, did fail, without reasonable excuse and, in order to evade the peace officer, to stop the vehicle as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances, contrary to

Section 249.1(1) of the Criminal Code . (Maximum 5 years) Count 9 – S.W.C., on or about the 27 th of October, 2017, at or near Kamloops in the Province of British Columbia, did point a firearm, a rifle, at the police, contrary to s. 87(1) of the Criminal Code . (Maximum 5 years) Count 10 – S.W.C., on or about the 27 th of October, 2017, at or near Kamloops in the Province of British Columbia, with intent to prevent arrest, did discharge a firearm at the police, contrary to Section 244(1) of the Criminal Code . (Maximum 14 years, minimum 4 years) [ 6 ] The facts underlying these four charges were also set out in formal admissions made by the accused under

Section 655 of the Criminal Code . These admissions, titled “Facts – File 104877-1-K” are set forth in 37 paragraphs found at Tab 2 of Exhibit 1 (Crown Book of Documents). A copy of these admissions is also attached to these reasons as

Schedule 2. [ 7 ] At the request of the parties, paragraph 31 of

Schedule 2 is struck out and excluded from these admissions. In all other respects, Schedules 1 and 2 will form part of these reasons. Criminal Antecedents [ 8 ] The accused had two convictions recorded against him in Kamloops on June 20, 2018, that is after the current matters arose. [ 9 ] The first conviction was for failure to comply with the terms of a police undertaking. The second was for criminal harassment.

Both offences involved contact with K.P., a complainant in the current matters. [ 10 ] The failure to comply conviction resulted in credit for the equivalent of 30 days in custody and 18 months’ probation. The criminal harassment conviction resulted in an in-custody credit for the equivalent of 6 days, also with probation for 18 months. Victim Impact Statements

[ 11 ] The Crown exhibited two Victim Impact Statements from two RCMP officers. The first was that of Cst. Mike Dibblee, a member of the RCMP Emergency Response Team, which responded to the threat to the police and public posed by this offender. [ 12 ] Cst. Dibblee is a 14 year veteran of the ERT. His statement reflected his concern at the time that this accused, as an active shooter, would use his high-powered rifle and scope to shoot police officers or members of the public. He recalled the incidents at Mayerthorpe and Moncton where police officers had died.

He observed the accused take aim and fire a round which struck the Tactical Armoured Vehicle near positions occupied by members of the ERT. [ 13 ] Cst. Dibblee emphasized that no police officer signs up to be killed in the line of duty, but that outcome is nonetheless a risk officers may face, as they did in this case. Cst. Dibblee quoted his 9 year old step-daughter as saying to him words to the effect “Well, that can’t hurt you because you’re a police officer.” [ 14 ] The second statement filed was that of Superintendent Syd Leckie, then Officer in Charge, Kamloops Detachment, RCMP. Supt.

Leckie’s statement addressed the long and short-term impacts of stress to affected Kamloops RCMP members in this case, their families, the detachment and the community at large. Particular attention was paid by Supt. Leckie to those officers in this case who discharged their firearms in the course of their duties. More than 25 RCMP members were subsequently brought in from other locations in the province to assist in the investigation and to replace the 18 Kamloops RCMP members who were unable to resume their duties until they had received appropriate care.

For some Kamloops members, he said, recovery was expected to be a lengthy process. Circumstances of the Offender [ 15 ] S.W.C., now 38, was 34 at the time of the offences. He is Metis, as are both his parents. He did not seek a Gladue Report for the court and through counsel expressly waived his right to one. [ 16 ] S.W.C. grew up in Kamloops from the age of 9 years. Counsel described the offender’s childhood as loving and supportive. S.W.C. had a good upbringing and still enjoys the support of his parents. [ 17 ] The offender completed his Grade 12 education in 2000.

He was employed from the age of 16 until 2014 in the manufacture of log homes. From 2014 to 2016 he engaged in diamond drilling out of Clearwater and Kamloops and in 2017 was employed by [omitted for publication] in Kamloops. [ 18 ] He had been involved in a relationship with K.P. since high school and they have a son together, now 12. Things were going well in his relationship with his wife, his son and at work until 2017. [ 19 ] Counsel advised that things changed for the worse for the offender when he was introduced to crystal methamphetamine at the age of 34.

He broke up with his wife, in an on again/off again manner as things spiralled out of control. [ 20 ] Counsel described his client at this point as having an emotional and mental breakdown. S.W.C. was using and addicted to crystal meth, his relationship with his wife was over and he was not seeing his son. He exhibited signs of paranoia and believed that people were after him. Matters came to a head in October 2017 with the charges presently before the Court. [ 21 ] S.W.C. understands that he suffers from depression and he has a prescription for anti-depressive medication.

No medical or psychiatric reports were filed. [ 22 ] The offender has accessed resources available to him at Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre (KRCC) and has completed 31 courses or course modules on subjects such as substance abuse, respectful relationships, living without violence, living skills, housing needs, money management, communication skills, nutrition, healthy relationships, employability skills, WHMIS training and first aid. [ 23 ] During his time at KRCC, S.W.C. had no problems with staff or inmates.

He applied for and was admitted to what counsel called the Right Living Unit where inmates are focussed on addiction and other programs of the day. Counsel advises that this unit was closed as part of the emergency response to the Covid-19 pandemic. [ 24 ] S.W.C. plans to live in Kamloops upon his release, where he can rely on family supports and hopes to reconnect with his son. He has acknowledged his offending with his guilty pleas, counsel points out, and has worked to gain insight into his addiction and the drug- fuelled mental health breakdown that underlies this offending.

Counsel describes him as motivated to continue with his rehabilitation. [ 25 ] S.W.C. made an allocutus and apologized to police and others affected for what he called “the worst day of my life.” He recognized that he had put lives in danger and was glad that no one was hurt. He advised that he had become a born-again Christian and was engaged in a bible study program. He referred to the programs he had taken at KRCC and asserted that his chance of reoffending was zero. “I have learned my lesson,” he said and said he was sorry for wasting court time.

Crown Position on Sentence [ 26 ] The Crown has taken the position that with respect to the guilty pleas entered on Information 104775-2-KC, a total effective sentence of 6 months will be appropriate.

The Crown submitted the sentence for each count might be broken down as follows: Count 1 – Harassment – 3 months Count 3 – Possession of bear spray and an axe – 1 month concurrent Count 5 – Possession of brass knuckles – 1 month concurrent Count 7 – Assault with a weapon – 3 months consecutive [ 27 ] On the four counts pleaded guilty to on Information 104877-1-K the Crown submitted that an effective sentence of 11 years and

6 months was appropriate and that the sentence for each count might reflect the following: Count 6 – Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an assault – two years Count 7 – Causing a pursuit – 6 months consecutive Count 9 – Pointing a firearm at police – 1 year concurrent Count 10 – Discharging a firearm at police – 9 years consecutive [28] This submission, if accepted, would result in a total effective sentence of 12 years. Crown counsel Mr. Balison expressed theview that the totality principle, now embedded in s. 718.2(

c) of the Code, provides that “where consecutive sentences are imposed, thecombined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh”, might have application here and may favour making some consecutive sentencesconcurrent. Defence Position on Sentence [29] Defence counsel Mr.

Watt took the position that a further term of two years less a day would create, after 1.5 days credit for eachday already served, an effective global sentence of six years and two months, as of the date of counsels’ submissions. [30] From this offender’s perspective, a sentence at the maximum end of provincial time might permit him to serve his sentence inKamloops at KRCC and to have contact with his parents and son. [31] Defence submissions included consideration of a probation order for up to three years after the offender’s rerelease and suggestedterms consistent with the rehabilitation of the offender and protection of the public. [32] Mr.

Watt took the position that the high end of the range provided by the crown in this case, 12 years, would be harsh andunreasonable and would fail to give adequate weight to the sentencing principles of proportionality, totality, restraint, and rehabilitation. The Law on Sentencing [33] As was stated in Regina v. Mackinlay, 2020 BCSC 1381 , 2020 B.C.S.C. 1381: [63] Sentencing is a highly individualized process.

The type of available sentence may be constrained by statutory provisions and therange of appropriate sentence is generally established through a consideration of sentences imposed on similarly situated offenders whohave committed similar offences in similar circumstances. [34] The purposes and principles of sentencing are set out in

Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, some of which are excerpted below: 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect forthe law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the followingobjectives: (

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 acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. 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 offenceor the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (

i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion,sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor, (ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner or a member of the victim or theoffender’s family, (ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, includingtheir health and financial situation, (iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization,

(

v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence, or (vi) evidence that the offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order made under

section 742.1 orreleased on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act 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 tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. [35] By s. 718.2(a), both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are to be taken into account when determining an appropriatesentence. [36] Mitigating circumstances here include the following: • S.W.C. has pleaded guilty to the offences set out above. • He has avoided the necessity of a four week trial with consequential savings of time, personal resources and effort towitnesses and victims, as well as the savings of institutional resources. • He has no previous convictions and lived a productive life until these matters arose. • The accused has taken some positive steps while in custody, specifically by way of rehabilitative courses and counselling. • No one was physically injured during these events, though the risk of injury or death to members of the public or the policewas significant. • The accused has offered an expression of remorse for his actions. [37] Aggravating features of the offending here include the following: • The accused had been admitted to bail and was in violation of those terms at the time he committed the October 27offences. • Both sets of offences involved the abuse of an intimate partner, his former common law spouse, K.P. • The breaking and entering of K.P.’s dwelling house and the assault upon her was an offence committed in the presence ofher young son. • S.W.C. engaged in and persisted for hours in an armed standoff with police. • The discharge of his firearm at police created a significant risk to police and members of the public going about theirbusiness in a busy, populated area. • Responding members of the RCMP were negatively impacted in significant ways despite the absence of physical injury.

Sentence Cases [38] Counsel relied on a number of case to assist in setting a range for the appropriate sentence. Cases which are quite distinct on theirfacts may still offer assistance in the application of sentencing principles. [39] Cases cited by the Crown included R. v. Arcand, 2019 SKQB 131 , 2019 S.K.Q.B. 131; R.v. Chappell, 2019 BCSC 644, 2019 B.C.S.C. 644; R. v. Mullin, 2019 NBQB 21 , 2019 N.B.Q.B. 21; R. v. Osbourne, (ON CA),[1994] O.J. No. 2633 (O.C.A.); R. v. Phillips, 2018 BCSC 2077 , 2018 B.C.S.C. 2077, and R. v.

Whitehead, 2017 SKQB 263, 2017 S.K.Q.B. 263. [40] Defence cases referred to included R. v. Dulude, 2008 BCSC 510 , [2008] B.C.J. No. 722; 2008 B.C.S.C. 510; R. v.Hearns, 2020 ONSC 2365 , [2020] O.J. No. 1648; 2020 O.N.S.C. 2365; R. v. Crockwell [2013] N.J. No. 77; 2013 NLTD(G) 23;R. v. Johnson, [2013] Y.J. No. 187; 2013 YKSC 126 , 2013 Y.K.S.C. 126; R. v. Kakfwi, [2018] N.W.T.J. No. 49; 2018 NWTSC30 , 2018 N.W.T.S.C. 30; and R. v. Seymour, 2011 BCSC 1682 , [2011] B.C.J. No. 2363; 2011 B.C.S.C. 1682. [41] R. v. Osbourne, was a 1994 decision of Finlayson J.A. for the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In that case, an undercover policeofficer entered into a street discussion with Osbourne regarding the purchase of a quantity of crack cocaine. Before the purchase wascompleted, the appellant turned and walked away. [42] The officer shouted at the appellant to return but the appellant merely picked up his pace. The officer and a member of his backup team pursued the appellant on foot. Both officers said the undercover officer had identified himself as a police officer at the start ofthe foot chase. Osbourne denied that the officer had done so.

[43] At paragraph 7Justice Finlayson described the events which followed: [7] The chase ensued for about 100 feet into the courtyard, until the appellant stopped, turned around and looked at Redquest andAndrew who were about 20 to 25 feet away. The area was illuminated by small lights over some townhouse doors as well as lightemanating from a laundromat window. The appellant pulled a .357 magnum handgun out of his pants pocket, raised his arm and pointedhis gun in the direction of the two police officers. He fired three rounds. Redquest threw himself on the ground and rolled away.

Thebullets did not strike anyone. The appellant was then arrested with the help of two other police officers who were members of theundercover team. [44] In reducing the global sentence from 12 years to 10 years, imposed on top of 11 months pre-trial custody, the court said thefollowing at paragraph 17: [17] The action of the appellant in shooting at the two police officers was reckless in the extreme. The trial judge gave no credence to hisexplanation that he did not realize that they were police officers and did not accept his explanation that he was firing in the air.

I think weare all fortunate that he missed. Specific and general deterrence for this type of crime must be paramount. However, 12 years is too longfor a youthful first offender who had already served 11 months of pre-trial custody. I think that ten years is the appropriate sentence. Iwould accomplish this by reducing the sentence on count 8 from two years to the minimum of one year prescribed by s. 85(1)(

c) of theCode and reducing the two terms of one year each consecutive on counts 1 and 2 to six months each consecutive. [45] In the more recent case of R. v. Arcand [2019] S.J. No. 207, Justice Kalamakoff of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Benchconvicted the accused after trial of discharging a firearm with intent to prevent arrest and possession of a weapon for a purposedangerous to the public peace. [46] The accused in that case was in a parking lot near an institute of technology on a weekday afternoon. He was in possession of animprovised firearm, a “zip” gun, capable of firing a 12 gauge shot gun shell.

Police attended and a short but intense standoff ensued. [47] The accused did not drop the weapon though repeatedly commanded to do so by police. Police fired a taser twice at the accusedand two bean bag rounds without apparent effect. Arcand fired the zip gun in the direction of a police sergeant who was not struck by theblast, though “it did not miss by much.” The accused ran, still with the zip gun and police pursued. Arcand extracted the spent round andloaded another shell.

He attempted to discharge the gun but the weapon misfired when the firing pin dislodged. [48] Police caught up to him but the accused refused to surrender and continued to point the weapon. Police opened fire and shotArcand several times. No one else was injured. [49] The Crown sought a sentence of nine to ten years. Defence submitted that a sentence of six to seven years would suffice.

Botcounsel agreed that credit for 1.5 days for each day of time spent in pre-sentence custody would be appropriate. [50] Justice Kalamakoff took into account the personal circumstances of the 36 year old offender, his indigenous background andremarked on the number of Gladue factors present in the difficult history of the offender. [51]

Section 718.1 sets out the fundamental principle of sentencing that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of theoffence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Court noted the gravity of these offences.

Discharging a firearm with intentto prevent arrest carried a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail and a minimum penalty of four years in jail. [52] The circumstances of the commission of Arcand’s offence were found to be at the high end of the scale as was the harm causedto those involved in the incident, both physical to the offender and emotional and psychological to the police officers. [53] Justice Kalamakoff considered that there was a major violation of the community’s basic code of values which called for asentence which reflected the condemnation of the community and which would deter this offender and others from engaging in a similarcourse of conduct.

Other principles of sentencing, such as rehabilitation, providing reparations to the community and promotingresponsibility in the offender were no to be ignored but would “just have to take a back seat.” [54] After considering a number of similar cases the trial judge determined that Mr. Arcand’s sentence should fall in the seven to nineyear range. After taking into account the other principles set out in s. 718.2, including s. 718.2 (b) – (

e) and Mr. Arcand’s circumstancesas an Aboriginal offender, Justice Kalamakoff imposed an effective sentence of eight years on the offender. [55] The other cases cited by counsel have been considered, even if not discussed in these reasons. Aboriginal Offenders [56] Many of the cases cited, as in the case at bar, involved an aboriginal offender. Sentencing judges are required to follow theprinciples laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 and R. v. Ipeelee,2012 SCC 13 , [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433.

Judicial notice is often taken of systemic and background factors which have negativelyimpacted indigenous people in this country. [57] Referring to Gladue and Ipeelee, Justice Charbonneau commented in R. v. Kakfwi at paragraph 66: [66] The aspect of the principles set out in those cases that is extremely important in this case is the question of restraint.

The SupremeCourt of Canada has not said that there is an automatic reduction of sentencing when dealing with an indigenous offender, but it hasdirected sentencing courts to consider, when jail has to be imposed, whether a shorter sentence that the one that might otherwise bejustified should be imposed to take into account the circumstances of the offender, in particular, anything that reduces theblameworthiness. [58] In the circumstances of the present case, there is little enough beyond the mitigations listed above which would serve to reduce

significantly the blameworthiness of S.W.C. Covid – 19 Pandemic [59] Counsel for the offender also relied upon R. v. Hearns, 2020 ONSC 2365 , [2020] O.J. No. 1648; 2020 O.N.S.C. 2365, adecision submitted for the proposition that a sentencing judge may have regard to factors including the global pandemic and theincreased risk of infection faced by inmates in Canadian jails. At paragraph 20, Justice Pomerance pointed out that the presence of Covid– 19: …is not a mitigating factor in the classic sense. However, it adversely affects conditions of imprisonment, and increases the health risksfor those in jail.

On that basis, it is an important part of the sentencing equation. [60] Justice Pomerance added that these considerations did not affect credit for time already served but addressed the questionwhether the pandemic should warrant a reduction in the time yet to be served.

She also commented that these considerations could notjustify a sentence that was disproportionately lenient, turn an inappropriate sentence into an appropriate one or justify a disposition thatwould place the public at risk. [61] It was not suggested by defence counsel that S.W.C. had any illness or condition that made him more susceptible to the virusthan anyone else. [62] I am prepared to accept the submission that the risk of the presence of the Covid 19 pandemic in our corrections facilities is arelevant factor to be taken into consideration on sentence.

The Appropriate Sentence [63] In the particular circumstances of these offences and this offender in these circumstances, I am satisfied that the fundamentalpurpose and principles of sentencing require that particular emphasis be given to the denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harmcaused to victims and to the community. Emphasis is also to be given to deterrence of this offender and others who may tempted todischarge firearms at the police to escape arrest.

All the more so where it occurs in built up areas where people are living or working. [64] It is a fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility ofthe offender: s. 718.1. Discharging a firearm at police officers with intent to escape arrest is a very grave offence and the degree ofresponsibility demonstrated by this offender was high.

I have considered similar sentencing cases involving offenders who may havebeen similarly situated to a greater or lesser degree. [65] S.W.C., I have heard and considered all that counsel has capably said on your behalf. Taking all into account, including theaggravating and mitigating features I have mentioned above, including the rehabilitative steps you have taken, your Metis heritage andthe risk of the presence of Covid – 19 in our corrections facilities I am satisfied that the appropriate effective sentence is eight years inprison. The structure of this sentence will be addressed below.

Credit for Time in Custody [66] S.W.C. has been in custody on these matters since October 27, 2017. That represents 1,067 actual days up to, but not includingtoday.

The offender is entitled at law to 1.5 day’s credit for each day served in pre-sentence custody. [67] The resulting credit to S.W.C. is 1,601 days for time served and this will be deducted from the effective sentence of eight years.This credit is slightly more than 4 years and four months. [68] On Information 104775-2-KC, the sentence for each count breaks down as follows: Count 1 – Harassment – 3 months Count 3 – Possession of bear spray and an axe – 1 month concurrent Count 5 – Possession of brass knuckles – 1 month concurrent Count 7 – Assault with a weapon – 3 months concurrent [69] On the four counts on Information 104877-1-K the sentence for each count will be recorded as follows: Count 6 – Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an assault – two years, concurrent Count 7 – Causing a pursuit – 6 months concurrent Count 9 – Pointing a firearm at police – 1 year concurrent Count 10 – Discharging a firearm at police – 8 years less 1601 days credit, concurrent [70] It will be understood that I have made use of the totality principle to avoid consecutive sentences that are unduly long or harsh.

Ancillary Orders [71] There will be primary DNA orders against the offender with respect to Counts 6 and 10 on Information 104877-1-K andsecondary DNA orders on Counts 7 and 9 on the same information. Additionally there will be secondary DNA orders with respect toCounts 1, 3, 5 and 7 on 104775-2-KC.

[ 72 ] There will also be s. 109 firearms prohibition against the offender for life with respect to Counts 1 and 7 on Information 104775- 2-KC and with respect to Counts 6 and 10 on Information 104877-1-K. [ 73 ] The s. 490 and s. 491 application to dispose of exhibits as set out in the Crown application filed as Exhibit 1, Tab 5, and by consent, is granted in the terms set out in the application. This will be subject to the amendments made in the oral application on July 24, 2020. The Crown is to submit a draft order for signature approved as to form by counsel for the offender. _______________________________ S.R. Harrison Provincial Court Judge

Schedule 1 FILE NO. 104775-2-KC KAMLOOPS REGISTRY IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. S.W.C. FACTS – File 104775-2-KC Pursuant to

Section 655 of the Criminal Code of Canada , R.S.C., 1985,

Chapter C-46 and amendments thereto, the following facts are hereby admitted for the purpose of dispensing with the proof thereof at trial: 1. At the relevant times, S.W.C. (the “Accused”), was bound by an undertaking in relation to allegations of threats and criminal harassments of his common law spouse, K.P. The undertaking prohibited contact with K.P. and prohibited him from going to [omitted for publication] in Kamloops, B.C. 2. On October 14, 2017, at about 5:00 hours, M.L. was parked near [omitted for publication], in Kamloops, B.C., waiting to start his workday.

3. When M.L. parked his truck to drink his coffee and wait for other workers to arrive at the job site, a dark coloured pick-up truck turned on and drove towards him. This vehicle was being driven by the Accused. 4. The Accused pulled up beside M.L.’s driver’s side and shouted “Hey, what are you looking for?” He then immediately sprayed M.L. in the eyes with bear spray and drove off. 5. The Accused is not known to M.L. 6.

Later the same morning, at about 7:11 hours, K.P. phoned the RCMP to report that the Accused was outside her residence, [omitted for publication]_ Final , the previous evening and she heard him yelling. 7. The previous evening, the Accused called her and left 3 voice mail messages for her in what she describes as an aggressive and threatening tone.

She further describes the messages as follows: a. 1 st message: he sounded paranoid and said he thought someone was following him; b. 2nd message: he asked her who her boyfriends were, suggested he will hurt them, and that no one will stop him; and c. 3rd message: he said, “I’m coming in this time. Promise. No one will stop me” 8. When she left for work, she observed him parked near the front of her house. She went back inside and he drove away. On her way to work he appeared again in his truck and pulled up next to her on the roadway, honked, and drove away. 9.

K.P. showed the RCMP posts on Facebook where the Accused’s profile refers to her, himself with an axe and bear spray to be used against her “boyfriends,” and driving around all night trying to find them. 10. K.P. told RCMP she was very scared of the Accused and as a result of his conduct feels he may hurt or kill her. 11. At 8:18 hours, the Accused was located and arrested in his vehicle at the Canco gas station and store on Tranquille Road. The Accused was the only occupant of his vehicle. 12.

Inside his vehicle, the arresting officers observed an axe behind the driver’s seat and a can of bear spray behind the passenger seat. 13. Also located in his vehicle, on the passenger seat, were brass knuckles. DATED this 24th day of July, 2020, at the City of Kamloops, Province of British Columbia.

Schedule 2 FILE NO. 104877-1-K KAMLOOPS REGISTRY IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. S.W.C.

FACTS – File 104877-1-K Pursuant to

Section 655 of the Criminal Code of Canada , R.S.C., 1985,

Chapter C-46 and amendments thereto, the following facts are hereby admitted for the purpose of dispensing with the proof thereof at trial: Break & Enter and Assault 1. On Oct 27, 2017, at about 06:40 hours, S.W.C. (the “Accused”) went to the residence of K.P. at [omitted for publication] in Kamloops, B.C. At the time he was on release conditions not to be at her residence or have any contact with her. 2. Once at the residence, the Accused entered uninvited. K.P. and her 5 year old son where home. The Accused assaulted K.P. by pushing her to the ground.

She and her son screamed for help as K.P. struggled to get away from the Accused. Her son ran out of the house to find help. The Accused then fled the residence and RCMP were called. Locating the Accused 3. The RCMP made patrols for the Accused but could not locate him. 4. At about 9:40 hours, RCMP used a cell phone ping to locate him at [omitted for publication] Street. 5. Cst. Paddock and Cst. Bayda walked up the stairs to the front door of the residence after seeing his truck outside. They knocked and announced themselves. The door opened slightly and the Accused yelled out that he had a rifle. Cst.

Paddock and Cst. Bayda then took cover away from the house. 6. At 10:10 hours, Sgt. Wood spoke to the Accused by phone where the Accused was upset, and said he would shoot at police officers. 7. At 10:15 hours, the Accused phoned Sgt. Wood and he confirmed that he was in possession of a 7mm rifle with a scope on it, and said he would shoot at the police. Flight from Police 8. After this call, the Accused got in his truck while carrying a rifle and drove away toward Windsor Avenue. 9. RCMP members began a pursuit of the Accused where, at times, speeds reached over 140 km/h. 10.

The Accused proceeded to Halston Avenue toward Highway 5. Near Lyons Landscaping, the accused stopped his truck and started to open his driver’s door. The police officers in pursuit stopped their vehicles about 50m away and took cover. 11. After a short time, the Accused shut his door and drove south on Highway 5 to Mount Paul Way before coming to an abrupt stop just north of Mount Paul Way. The police officers in pursuit stopped their vehicles about 50m away and took cover. Pointing a Firearm at the Police 12. This time, the Accused got out of his truck and pointed his rifle toward Cst. Long and Cst.

Reddeman who immediately took cover and prepared to engage the Accused with their firearms. The Accused then jumped into his truck and drove off. 13. The Accused continued to travel south on Highway 5 before stopping again, where he hung his body out of his truck, shouldered his rifle, and aimed it toward Cst. Reddeman. Cst. Reddeman immediately got out of his police car, ran to the rear and took cover. 14. Cst. Long also scrambled to exit his vehicle when the Accused raised his rifle and immediately sought cover behind his police vehicle. 15.

The Accused then got back into his truck and drove to the intersection of Chilcotin Road and Athabasca Street West. Discharge a Firearm at Police with Intent (Chilcotin Rd and

Athabasca St. W.) 16. The Accused parked his truck on an angle in the middle of the intersection, then leaned out of the driver’s side door and turned to face Cst. Mosher, Cst. Reddeman, Cst. Colbourne, and Cst. Long while pointing his rifle towards Cst. Reddeman. 17. Cst. Reddeman then fires two shots from his carbine firearm at the Accused and within seconds the Accused fired a shot from his rifle at the RCMP members. Cst.

Reddeman describes firing his carbine then taking his eyes off the Accused for a second, then hearing the crack of the Accused’s riffle, the bullet whizzing past his head, and the snap of the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier at his location. 18. Police in the area took cover, and returned fire, as they feared for their own safety and the safety of the public nearby. 19. There were construction workers to the south of Cst. Long’s position who were all running away from the gunfire. There were other members of the public in the area that were directed to “get down” for their safety. 20.

The Accused again fled from police in his vehicle. 21. At 10:25 hours, Sgt. Wood received another phone call from the Accused and the following conversation was had: a. The Accused was screaming into the phone for the police to stop following him and was screaming that the police had no right to shoot at him as he had done nothing wrong; b. Sgt. Wood explained that no one wanted to hurt the Accused and that if he pulled over and tossed the rifle out the window that he and Sgt. Wood could talk, but at the present time things were too volatile; c.

The Accused screamed again that he was going to shoot at the police and that they needed to leave him alone; d. Sgt. Wood again asked the Accused to stop and give up or at least throw away the rifle; e. The Accused laughed at Sgt Wood and told him that he would not give up and was going to shoot the police; 22. This call lasted for two minutes and twenty seven seconds. Discharge a Firearm at Police with Intent (G&M Trailer Park) 23. The Accused drove on Highway 5 northbound and entered the G&M trailer park where he positioned his truck for cover near the southeast corner of the main road 24.

When the RCMP members stopped approximately 100m away and took their positions of cover, the Accused got back into his truck with his rifle and fled further into the trailer park. 25. Once the Accused established himself in another position, the South East District Emergency Response Team (the “ERT”) of the RCMP arrived. They happened to be in Kamloops and drove their Tactical Armoured Vehicle (the “TAV”) to the scene. 26. Cst. Nassichuk was in the TAV and took up a shooting position in the turret. 27. Cst. Weekes drove the TAV toward the Accused who was positioned behind the driver side of his truck. Cst.

Weekes gave commands over the loud hailer to the Accused to drop the rifle. The Accused did not comply. 28. Cst. Nassichuk took aim at the Accused with his firearm but observed a civilian standing 30-40m directly behind the Accused watching the incident unfold. Cst. Nassichuk was not able to shoot at the Accused because it was unsafe, due to the location of the civilian. 29. When the TAV was between 50-150m from the Accused, the Accused brought his rifle up, placing the rifle butt into his shoulder, leveling the rifle toward the TAV. He did this twice. 30.

The Accused shot his rifle and the bullet impacted the turret where Cst. Nassichuk was positioned. Cst. Nassichuck could not tell exactly where it hit the turret, but the impact caused a loud, concussion noise inside. 31. The Accused then prepared to shoot again by slowly bringing the barrel of the rifle upwards and pointing it at the TAV. The Accused shot his rifle again and the bullet impacted the turret where Cst. Nassichuk was positioned. 32. The ERT members decided to drive the TAV into the Accused’s vehicle to stop the Accused from continuing to shoot at them. The TAV collided with the Accused’s truck.

Search for Accused and Subsequent Arrest 33. The Accused nearly got hit by his own truck during the collision and then ran with his riffle toward an open lot near the middle of the trailer park. 33. The Accused continued moving behind buildings and out of view of police officers. Police were cautious in their pursuit

because they felt the Accused could reposition anywhere so containment was maintained around the park and roadways. Highway 5 was closed from Mt. Paul Way and Highway 1. 34. Around 11:30 hours, a ping of the Accused’s cell phone confirmed him to be in trailer B5, his father’s residence. 35. In the subsequent hours, crisis negotiators spoke to the Accused. 36. About 18:00 hours, the Accused opened the door to the trailer and remarked that he was going to kill police and/or himself. Later, the Accused opened the door and had the rifle muzzle positioned under his chin.

The Accused continued to yell homicidal and suicidal remarks throughout the night. 37. At 4:01hours, Crisis negotiators convinced the Accused to exit his front door to surrender, where he was taken into custody. DATED this 24th day of July, 2020, at the City of Kamloops, Province of British Columbia.