R. v. Patton, 2020 NLSC 117

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Patton , 2020 NLSC 117 Date : September 3, 2020 Docket : 201901G1215 Her Majesty The Queen v. Joshua david Patton Before: Justice Vikas Khaladkar Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: February 24 and 26, 2020; July 3, 2020 Date of Oral Judgment: September 3, 2020

Summary: The Offender entered guilty pleas to charges of trafficking in cocaine, possession of cannabis marijuana, cannabis resin and oxycodone for the purposes of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000 obtained through the commission of an indictable offence and two charges of careless storage of firearms and possession of firearms without appropriate authority. The Offender was sentenced, after receiving 360 days credit for time served on remand, to serve an additional 240 days in custody.

Appearances: Elaine M. Reid Appearing on behalf of the Federal Crown Michael G. Murray Appearing on behalf of the Provincial Crown Randolph J. Piercey, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of Joshua David Patton Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Palmer, 2019 NLSC 175; R. v. Hepditch, 2018 NLSC 55; R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6; R. v. Ipeelee,2012 SCC 13; R. v. Kane, 2012 NLCA 53; R. v. Roper, 2019 NLSC 163; R. v. Cuff, 2019 NLSC 112; R. v. Ivey, 2018 NLSC 58; R. v.Hillier (2015), 363 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 88, 1129 A.P.R. 88 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); R. v. Garrard (2017), 136 W.C.B. (2d) 341, 2017 CarswellNfld46 (Prov. Ct.); R. v.

Woodford (2013), (NL PC), 335 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 336, 1040 A.P.R. 336 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); R. v.Mitchell, 2017 NLCA 26 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19; Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Khaladkar, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] Joshua David Patton pleaded guilty to a number of drug related charges that emanated from activities undertaken by theOffender in the City of Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador, between October 1, 2017 and December 21, 2017. They includeduring that time period: a. Trafficking in cocaine in contravention of sections 5(1)-5(3)(

a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (the“Act”). Cocaine is listed as a

Schedule I drug - (Count 1). b. Possessing for the purpose of trafficking cannabis marijuana contrary to sections 5(2)-5(3)(

a) of the said Act. Cannabis marijuana isa

Schedule II drug - (Count 6). c. Possessing for the purpose of trafficking cannabis resin (hashish) contrary to sections 5(2)-5(3)(

a) of the said Act. Cannabis resin isa

Schedule II drug - (Count 7). d. Possessing for the purpose of trafficking oxycodone contrary to sections 5(2)-5(3)(

a) of the said Act. Oxycodone is a

Schedule Idrug - (Count 8). e. Possessing monies in excess of $5,000.00 knowing that all or part of the property was obtained by the commission in Canada of anoffence punishable by indictment contrary to section 354(1)(a) – 355(

b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - (Count 9). [2] On December 21, 2017 in the City of Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador, Joshua David Patton was charged with twofurther offences: a. Careless handling or storage of firearms in contravention of sections 86(1) – 86(3) of the Criminal Code - (Count 10); and b. Possession of an unlicensed, unregistered firearm in contravention of sections 91(1) and 91(3) of the Criminal Code – Count 11. [3] I am satisfied that the conditions enumerated in section 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code have been met. [4] An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed by counsel.

Briefly, the facts are these: a. Police officers commenced investigation into the Offender’s activities in December, 2017. Surveillance of the Offender and his co-Offender gave rise to the conclusion that their activities were consistent with drug trafficking. Surveillance continued, for a time, at theresidences of both of the Offenders and, ultimately, a search warrant was obtained. b. Upon entering the Offender’s residence pursuant to the warrant, officers discovered a Sinsinati 20 gauge shotgun and a Remington870 Tactical 12 gauge shotgun.

The Sinsinati shotgun did not have a trigger guard lock and, therefore, was stored in a careless manner.

Ammunition belonging to both firearms were also located in the bedroom. Joshua David Patton was not a holder of a license to possess firearms. A can of bear spray was also located in his residence. c. The following drugs were located in the living room of Joshua David Patton’s residence: i. 36 pills containing oxycodone; ii. 420 grams of cannabis resin; iii. 1382 grams of cannabis marijuana; and iv. 1 gram, plus trace amounts, of cocaine. d. The following drug paraphernalia was also found and seized: i. 5 cellular telephones; ii. Score sheet; iii. Modem/security system; iv.

A can of bear spray; and v. $1,340 in cash on the living room table. [ 5 ] Joshua David Patton was arrested on December 21, 2017 at his residence. After receiving his rights to counsel and police caution he contacted a lawyer. Subsequently he made a verbal statement to the police claiming some of the drugs found in the house.

He denied ownership of the firearms. [ 6 ] Examination of the cellular telephones yielded evidence of trafficking in cannabis marijuana, cannabis resin, cocaine and oxycodone. [ 7 ] An expert opinion was filed, as part of the Agreed Statement of Facts, outlining the quantity and value of drugs seized from Joshua David Patton and his co-Offender, James Phillip Patton, in two separate residences as follows: a. The amount of cocaine seized would be a 315 day supply for a heavy user. Its street value would be $25,000 if sold in bulk and $63,100 if sold in grams. b.

The amount of cannabis marijuana seized would satisfy the needs of a heavy user for 2.4 years. The shelf life of the cannabis marijuana is about six months – after which it loses its potency. The wholesale value of the cannabis marijuana would be $9,800 but that value would escalate to $35,040 if sold at the gram level. c. The amount of cannabis resin seized would satisfy the needs of a heavy user for 1.3 years. It, also, loses its potency after six months. Its wholesale value is $7000 if sold at the kilogram level, but $23,250 if sold at the gram level. d. The 36 oxycodone pills had a value of about $300.00. e.

I am mindful of the fact that smaller amount of the value of the contraband drugs is attributable to this Offender. [ 8 ] The presence of digital scales, several cellular telephones, a score sheet, weapons, video surveillance system, cash in proximity to drugs and evidence of trafficking activity garnered from the cellphones all point to a drug trafficking enterprise.

The Offender has readily admitted that he engaged in that activity by entering guilty pleas. [ 9 ] Based on these facts I accept the Offender’s guilty pleas and convictions will be entered in respect of each of the Counts to which he has pleaded guilty. The balance of the drug related charges against him have been withdrawn by the Federal Crown. federal Crown’s Position on Sentencing [ 10 ] The Federal Crown, represented by Ms. Elaine Reid, stated the maximum period of incarceration for these offences is life. There is no minimum sentence. Ms.

Reid took the position that Joshua David Patton was less culpable than his co-Offender. While the two brothers were operating a drug selling enterprise, Joshua David Patton was engaged in selling smaller amounts of drugs obtained from his brother James Phillip Patton. Ms. Reid requested a period of incarceration of 22-24 months and suggested a four to six month credit for time spent on remand by him. The Federal Crown is also seeking forfeiture of all items seized and a firearms prohibition. provincial crown’s position on sentencing [ 11 ] The Provincial Crown, represented by Mr.

Michael Murray, prosecuted the two charges related to unsafe storage of firearms

and the lack of license in respect of same. Mr. Murray indicated that the range of sentencing in these cases is a fine to 60 days consecutive. He submitted that an appropriate sentence for the firearms related offences would be 30 days concurrent to one another for each count but consecutive to any other sentence imposed for the drug trafficking offences. Mr. Murray indicated that Victim Fine Surcharges are no longer mandatory. Defence’s Position on Sentencing [ 12 ] Joshua David Patton is 28 years of age. He has no prior related record of convictions. He has been in custody for six months. In Mr.

Piercey, Q.C.’s estimation a range of 12 to 16 months is more appropriate given his client’s background and level of participation in the drug selling enterprise. At the time of submissions his client was entitled to six months credit for time spent in custody – which could be either straight time or compounded at the 1.5x rate. To the date of sentencing he will have spent an additional month, for a total of seven months in custody awaiting his disposition. [ 13 ] Mr. Piercey, Q.C. submitted that the cases cited by the Federal Crown were not on point. In R. v. Palmer , 2019 NLSC 175 , for example, Mr.

Palmer was convicted of possession of 775 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. In the instant case the amount of cocaine was a little over one gram. [ 14 ] Mr. Piercey, Q.C. submitted that the case of R. v. Hepditch , 2018 NLSC 55 filed by the Federal Crown, was more analogous to his client’s circumstances. Mr. Hepditch was convicted, inter alia , of possession of 42 oxycodone pills for the purposes of trafficking. He was 43 years of age and had a long record.

He was sentenced to 16 months’ incarceration for the offence of possession of oxycodone for the purposes of trafficking. [ 15 ] With respect to the charges relating to careless storage and unlicensed possession of firearms, Mr. Piercey, Q.C. submitted that the range of sentencing is from fines to two months incarceration. He stated that the sentence for the firearms offences should be concurrent since, if the presence of firearms is viewed by the Court as an aggravating factor in relation to the drug charges, there will already be an increase calculated into the drug sentencing. [ 16 ] Mr.

Piercey, Q.C. did not take issue with the seizure of the drug related items or the Crown’s request for a firearms prohibition. Analysis [ 17 ] A “controlled substance” is defined in

section 2 of the Act as meaning a “substance included in

Schedule I, II, III, IV or V”. [ 18 ] The Offender admitted to police that the drugs in his bedroom belonged to him. He has since pleaded guilty and taken responsibility for all of the counts that he has admitted breaching. [ 19 ] In reaching my decision on the appropriate sentence in this case, I have been guided by the objectives and principles of sentencing as set out in

section 10 of the Act as well as sections 718 , 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 20 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code outlines that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to foster respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful society. In order to reach this goal the Court must impose a sentence that meets one or more of the following objectives: a. Denunciation; b. Deterrence of the offender and other persons; c. Separation of offenders from society, where necessary; d. Rehabilitation; e. Reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and f.

The promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [ 21 ] The Supreme Court of Canada has instructed, in R. v. Nasogaluak , 2010 SCC 6 , that none of the sentencing objectives take priority over any of the others. Weight must be accorded to each of the objectives with a view to the unique circumstances of the case before the Court. [ 22 ] In R. v.

Ipeelee , 2012 SCC 13 , the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence must be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sentence must be fit. In this sense the sentence is both a sword and a shield. On the one hand the Public must be satisfied that the offender received the punishment he deserved. On the other hand, the sentence cannot exceed what is appropriate. A just sentence strikes a balance between these two, sometimes competing, interests.

[ 23 ] Courts are mandated to consider the sentencing principles outlined in

section 718.2 of the Criminal Code . As a result the Court must: a. Take into account any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances; b. Be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; c. Refrain from depriving liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate; and d. Consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment if those sanctions are reasonable. [ 24 ] The Court of Appeal, in R. v.

Kane , 2012 NLCA 53 , stated at paragraph 13 that general deterrence and protection of the Public are the paramount considerations in sentencing those engaged in trafficking drugs such as cocaine. Aggravating Factors [ 25 ] The participation of Joshua David Patton in this drug enterprise was at a more limited scale. He was not the leader of the enterprise, his brother James Phillip Patton, fulfilled that role. It appears that Joshua obtained drugs from his brother James and, then, proceeded to make smaller sales to his customers.

His participation can be characterized as being at the lower level. [ 26 ] I am mindful that the Offender was in the business of dealing in drugs and that this was not an isolated incident. But I remain mindful of counsels’ position that the Offender was more peripherally involved in the enterprise than his co-Offender brother. [ 27 ]

Section 10 of the Act requires me to consider aggravating the fact that the Offender was in possession of weapons. In this case a can of bear spray and two shotguns were found in the dwelling of the Offender. Whether or not the firearms belonged to the Offender, they were in his possession and he bears the responsibility for being in control of them while engaging in the business of selling illicit drugs. [ 28 ] Seized in this case was a small amount of cocaine, but larger amounts of cannabis marijuana and cannabis resin and a relatively small amount of oxycodone.

The actual amounts recovered from the Offender’s home are as follows: a. 85g cannabis marijuana; b. 6 TEC pills – oxycodone; c. 7g cannabis marijuana; d. Small bag cannabis marijuana; e. Small bag cocaine containing 1.27 grams; f. 30 TEC pills – oxycodone; g. Bag of cannabis marijuana containing 240 grams; h. Plastic wrap containing 390 grams of cannabis resin; i. A bag containing 30 grams of cannabis resin; and j. A vacuum sealed bag containing 1030 grams of cannabis marijuana. federal crown submissions on the law

[29] In R. v. Palmer, I sentenced the offender to 24 months incarceration for possession of morphine for the purposes of traffickingand trafficking in cocaine and oxycodone. Mr. Palmer was acting in the capacity of a chauffeur for the ringleader of the enterprise. Thecase is distinguishable because of the quantity of drugs involved (775 grams of cocaine and 208 oxycodone pills). Mr. Palmer’sparticipation was at a lower level than that of the Offender in this case but in Mr. Palmer’s case there were more drugs involved. [30] In R. v.

Roper, 2019 NLSC 163, McGrath J. sentenced a 30-year old offender with three young children to 42 months forpossession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, 24 months for possession of oxycodone for the purposes of trafficking and 24months for possession of proceeds of crime. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently on account of the principle of totality. Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, the assumption of a lesser role in the offences, a short duration in the criminal enterprise and anexpression of genuine remorse.

The police seized 10.5 kilograms of cocaine and 417 20mg oxycodone pills. The Offenders’ residencescontained $229,000 in cash and a further $29,000 in cash was found in the vehicle that they had been using. This case, also, isdistinguishable on the facts. The amounts involved are considerably higher in Roper than the instant case. [31] In R. v. Cuff, 2019 NLSC 112, I sentenced the offender to 36 months incarceration for possession of cocaine for the purposes oftrafficking and 36 months concurrent for the possession of oxycodone for the purposes of trafficking. There was evidence that Mr.

Cuffwas involved in a series of transactions and was transporting the drugs for resale from St. John’s, where they were purchased, toGlenwood, where he was resident. As indicated in paragraph [29] above, Mr. Cuff was found in possession of 775 grams of cocaine and208 oxycodone pills. The case is distinguishable based upon the amount of drugs involved – considerably higher in Cuff than in theinstant case. Mr. Cuff’s participation was also at a much higher level than the Offender in this case. [32] In R. v.

Hepditch, Chaytor, J. sentenced the offender to 16 months incarceration for possession of 42 oxycodone tablets, $670.65in cash and a small amount of cannabis marijuana. He was also sentenced to 16 months concurrent for two counts of trafficking inoxycodone (he sold a few tablets to two different customers) and a suspended sentence with respect to a charge of possession of cannabismarijuana. Mr. Hepditch had a long criminal record dating back to 1989. He had amassed 39 convictions for breaches of Court ordersand was bound by three probation Orders at the time of his conviction.

This resulted in sentences of six months for each breach servedconcurrently to one another, but served consecutively to the other predicate offences. In the result, the offender was sentenced to 22months incarceration. The amount of oxycodone that he was convicted of possessing is roughly analogous to the amount of oxycodonefound in the possession of the Offender in the instant case. To that extent, the decision in Hepditch is instructive.

In this case theOffender was in possession of a much larger quantity of cannabis marijuana, and there were additional drugs involved, namely cocaineand cannabis resin. [33] The Federal Crown also relied on R. v. Ivey, 2018 NLSC 58. That case is summarized in paragraph [35] infra. In that case theoffender was found in possession of 25 oxycodone pills along with 37 clonazepam, 57 temazepam and 37 seroquel tablets. Stack, J.found that the offender was a small scale dealer in drugs. Mr. Ivey was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment on account of thetrafficking in oxycodone.

All other sentences were made concurrent to the oxycodone offence. The case is analogous to the instant case. [34] In R. v. Hillier (2015), 363 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 88, 1129 A.P.R. 88 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), the offender was convicted of possession ofless than 3kg of cannabis marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, as well as trafficking in cocaine. He was also in possession ofprohibited weapons. The offender was characterized as a low-level dealer of cannabis marijuana, but a mid-level dealer of cocaine.

Thiswas based upon extrinsic evidence of transactions obtained from cellphone records and deciphered by Staff Sergeant Conahan – who wasdeclared an expert witness in the illicit drug trade. Mr. Hillier was sentenced to 720 days in custody for trafficking in cocaine andreceived a three month concurrent sentence for trafficking not in excess of 3kg of cannabis marijuana. The sentence with respect totrafficking in cannabis marijuana is instructive in the instant case. defence submissions on the law [35] Mr. Piercey, Q.C. submitted a number of cases for the Court’s consideration. These included: a. R. v.

Garrard (2017), 136 W.C.B. (2d) 341, 2017 CarswellNfld 46 (Prov. Ct.), a case involving the careless storage of firearms andammunition. Gorman, PCJ canvassed the sentencing precedents in that case from paragraphs 29-41 of his decision and concluded thatthe authorities illustrate a sentencing range between an absolute discharge and 120 days’ imprisonment. b. R. v. Woodford (2013), (NL PC), 335 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 336, 1040 A.P.R. 336 (N.L. Prov.

Ct.) a decision ofWalsh, PCJ dealing with charges of possession for the purposes of trafficking, among other things, the offender was sentenced to 15months for trafficking in low numbers of opioids, including oxycodone and morphine, three months concurrent for possession for thepurposes of trafficking in less than 3kg of cannabis marijuana and four months concurrent for the possession of a prohibited weapon(brass knuckles). The Offender in this case has pleaded guilty to possession of .42kg of cannabis resin and 1.382kg of cannabismarijuana. c. In R. v.

Ivey, Stack, J. convicted the offender of two counts of trafficking in oxycodone and clonazepam, and one count ofpossession for the purposes of trafficking temazepam. Mr. Ivey had a short, but dated, criminal record. He was 43 years of age and hadlimited employment prospects. He had complied with the conditions of his release for some three years to the date of sentencing. Mr.Ivey was sentenced to 16 months in prison. Stack, J. found that all of Mr. Ivey’s convictions related to a single criminal adventure butalso conducted a totality analysis. d. In R. v.

Mitchell, 2017 NLCA 26 the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal varied a sentence of 15 months imprisonmentfor trafficking in oxycodone to seven months. In that case the Court of Appeal emphasized, at paragraphs 16 and 17 of the decision, thatthe Court does not use a “starting point” approach when sentencing but, instead, uses the “acceptable range” approach. Sentencingranges are meant to be guidelines, not hard and fast rules setting a minimum sentence for a particular charge. Ms. Mitchell was a firsttime offender. She was a young person addicted to opioids and trafficked in order to support her own habit.

The Court characterized heras a minor, street-level trafficker of a

Schedule I drug. The Offender in this case was not trafficking to support his own habit. Rather, hewas engaged in the commercial sale of drugs for profit. To that extent the Mitchell decision is distinguishable. analysis (continued)

[ 36 ] The Offender is 28 years of age. He has no prior related criminal record. He has a three and a half year old daughter that he has been supporting financially until he was incarcerated. He has joint custody of her and sees her on weekends. [ 37 ] The Offender will have been in remand for seven months on the date of his sentencing. However, his attendance in prison is somewhat of his own making - he was originally released on bail but picked up for breach of curfew. While in custody he has been involved in three altercations - one of which was considered an assault.

In respect of the other two incidents, the Offender testified that he had stopped a Labrador inmate from attacking another prisoner. In addition, he was found in possession of contraband drugs for anxiety and depression. He has now been prescribed medication for anxiety. Some of the time spent in custody, from March 30, 2018 to January 31, 2019 was allocated to convictions pursuant to sections 88 , 430 and 145 of the Criminal Code - leaving 180 days credit (plus 60 days credit from sentencing submissions to the date of sentencing).

The Federal Crown submits that this time should be calculated as straight time. [ 38 ] If the Offender had been able to enter his guilty plea at an earlier date, he would have received credit towards his parole eligibility in the normal course. However, there was an intervening pandemic and it was not possible to proceed with sentencing submissions and sentencing earlier than we have managed it. The Offender should not be penalized because the system was unable to deal with his matter earlier.

Under these circumstances he will receive credit for his 240 days in custody awaiting disposition at the rate of 1.5 days to each day actually served on remand. This is equivalent to 360 days of credit. [ 39 ] Engaging in the sale of

Schedule I and II drugs adds to the untold misery inflicted on members of society - be they drug addicts or victims of crime deleteriously affected by the illicit trade in drugs. Denunciation, general and specific deterrence therefore loom large when arriving at an appropriate sentencing disposition. Those factors must, however, be tempered by other factors such as the Offender’s level of involvement, his antecedents and his prospects for rehabilitation.

I have taken all of these factors into account in arriving at my decision on sentencing. [ 40 ] Since I have viewed the possession of unregistered, improperly stored firearms as an aggravating factor in relation to the predicate offences, I have increased the sentence that the Offender would have received but for the possession of the firearms and bear spray. I decline, therefore, Mr.

Murray’s invitation to make the sentence in respect of the firearms offences consecutive to the sentences for the drug offences because, to do so, would be sentencing him twice for the same transgression. [ 41 ] I view all of the charges against this Offender as belonging to one criminal enterprise. He was a lower level drug dealer and all of the illicit drugs forming the subject matter of the charges against him, as well as the seized firearms, were located in his residence at the same time.

It is appropriate, therefore, that all of the counts be treated as belonging to one transaction and that concurrent sentences be imposed in respect of same. CONCLUSION [ 42 ] Under

section 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code , a DNA order is discretionary for this offence. The Offender has no criminal record. In consideration of his guilty plea and acknowledgement of responsibility for these offences from the outset, I decline to make a DNA order in this case. [ 43 ] Taking all of these factors into consideration I sentence the Offender as follows: a. For Count No. 1 - trafficking in cocaine - 365 days incarceration concurrent to other sentences imposed. b.

For Count No. 6 - possession of cannabis marijuana for the purposes of trafficking - 180 days incarceration concurrent to other sentences imposed. c. For Count No. 7 - possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking - 180 days incarceration concurrent to other sentences imposed. d. For Count No. 8 - possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking - 600 days incarceration. e. For Count No. 9 - possession of monies not exceeding $5,000 knowing that the property was obtained by the commission of an indictable offence - 90 days incarceration concurrent to other sentences imposed. f.

For Count No. 10 - careless storage of firearms - 30 days incarceration concurrent to other sentences imposed. g. For Count No. 11 - possession of a firearm without holding an appropriate license or registration certificate - 30 days incarceration concurrent to other sentences imposed. h. As mentioned earlier, I credit the Offender with 360 days on account of time served by him on remand, leaving him to serve an

additional 240 days in custody. i. A firearm prohibition is mandatory for offences relating to section 5(1) of the Act . An Order will be issued under section 109(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code prohibiting the Offender from having possession of any firearm, ammunition or other item referred to in

section 109. The prohibition is effective immediately and shall continue for a period of 10 years after his release from imprisonment. The Offender shall immediately arrange surrender of any weapons or ammunition referenced in the Order and shall surrender any related authorizations, licenses and registration certificates. j. I have been requested to make an Order of forfeiture, an Order relinquishing claim in the property seized from his co-Offender, and an Order for the return of certain items. The Offender, through his counsel, has agreed to the form and content of those Orders.

I have executed the Orders and copies may be retrieved from the Court file by the Crown as required. k. Victim Fine Surcharges are waived. _____________________________ Vikas Khaladkar Justice