R. v. Langdon Date:, 2015 BCPC 466

Citation: R. v. Langdon Date: 20150302 2015 BCPC 466 File No: 217722-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DEREK ANDREW LANGDON EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE HOWARD Counsel for the Crown: H. Pineo Counsel for the Defendant: I. Donaldson, Q.C. Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Judgment: March 2, 2015 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Derek Langdon has pled guilty to one count of possession of marihuana in an amount exceeding three

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Derek Langdon has pled guilty to one count of possession of marihuana in an amount exceeding three kilograms for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . [ 2 ] At approximately 3:00 p.m. on April 28th, 2013 the police attended at 2452 Balsam Street in Vancouver, B.C. in response to a civilian call to 9-1-1 regarding two toddlers who were out on the street unattended. The toddlers indicated that their father was inside the house sleeping.

In search of the father, the police entered the residence through an open back door. [ 3 ] As soon as he entered, Constable Stokes was able to smell fresh marihuana. He knocked on an inside door that was closed. There was no answer. He opened the door. There was an overwhelming smell of marihuana coming from the room. The room looked to be like an office. The constable observed a desk, a computer, vacuum-sealers, Ziploc baggies, duffle bags, mailing labels and other items. [ 4 ] He continued down the hall to another door. He knocked on that door. The accused answered this time.

After advising the accused that his children had been outside alone in the street, he immediately placed the accused under arrest for possession of marihuana. [ 5 ] A search warrant was obtained and executed the next day. Inside the accused's residence the police located blue plastic bins containing bags of marihuana, a scale, marihuana cigarettes and paraphernalia, two large duffle bags, each containing many vacuum- sealed plastic bags holding marihuana.

They also located additional plastic bins with Ziploc bags full of marihuana, a vacuum-sealer, empty plastic baggies, computers, a printer, boxes of mailing envelopes in different sizes and a piece of paper containing a pricelist for marihuana. [ 6 ] On the desk in the office there was a white plastic bin containing 13 sealed mailing envelopes. There was marihuana inside each envelope. There were mailing labels on the envelopes, stamps were on the envelopes. They were ready to be mailed. [ 7 ] In total there were some 50 bags of packaged marihuana.

The total weight of the marihuana located in the residence was 31.88 pounds, with a street value of $100,000 if sold at the pound level. The Accused [ 8 ] The accused is 37 years old. He has no prior criminal record. He and his two siblings were raised in Victoria, B.C. by his parents, whom he continues to admire and respect. He had a good home life and is close to his family. He has had steady part-time employment while in high school delivering papers when he was 12, stocking shelves and delivering prescriptions for a pharmacy when he was 14, as well as working in the dining room at the Berwick Retirement Home.

Later he worked as a part-time teller for the Royal Bank, working on weekends and during school breaks. [ 9 ] He graduated from high school in 1995. He attended Camosun College but he did not enjoy college and eventually withdrew. He went to work at Radio Shack and then, with the financial assistance of his father, he became a partner in a new business enterprise known as North Shore Cellular. The business did well for a couple of years until his partner disappeared with the profits.

He had to declare bankruptcy. [ 10 ] He eventually attended CompuCollege completing a 13-month computer program in just four months. He subsequently moved to Vancouver. For a number of years he worked as a technical instructor for Polar Bear Software Education until 2007. Later that year he started his own company, DLAN Computer Solutions. He worked as a contract technical instructor for other organizations under the auspices of that company.

The work took him all over Canada. [ 11 ] The accused has been involved in volunteer programs since high school when he worked with Downs Syndrome children under the auspices of the “Integrated Program”. After moving to Vancouver, he did volunteer work at the Vancouver Police Department Community Centre and with Crime Stoppers. [ 12 ] Upon his arrest, the accused's computers and backup drives were seized. This effectively gutted his legitimate business endeavours and his company again went under.

He has had to rebuild his career while dealing with these court proceedings. [ 13 ] The financial consequences that befell him following his arrest, the cost of starting up a new business and the cost of legal fees, have been significant. He now works at home in the field of programming and development. He is keen to take formal computer training and has plans to enrol in a computer programming course to upgrade his education in this regard once this court matter is concluded. [ 14 ] The accused was in an eight-year common-law relationship with Shawna Prentice [phonetic].

Together they have two sons, now five and three. He and his wife separated in 2012 but remain close. I am advised that prior to his arrest the accused had always visited his children at their mother's home. April 28th, 2013 was the first time that the children had been to the accused's home. They came over in the morning so that he could babysit them while their mother attended to another commitment. They did not habitually visit the home that housed his marihuana operation. [ 15 ] As a result of his arrest for this offence, the accused's children were, of course, taken from him at the scene.

This was a traumatic experience for them and for him. The accused's common-law wife was distinctly unimpressed by the accused's inability to properly supervise the children and with his involvement in this offence. As a result, he was prevented from seeing his children for some time following his arrest. [ 16 ] This experience has had a great impact on him. Still, he does not blame anyone but himself for the situation and he accepts full responsibility for his actions. [ 17 ] The accused and his wife now live in the same apartment complex but in different suites.

This allows the accused to see his children almost every day. He can help out with daycare while his wife is working and he provides financial support for his wife and sons.

Reference Letters [ 18 ] Eight reference letters of support have been filed on behalf of the accused. Seven are from family members, including his former common-law wife. One is from a business associate. These letters all confirm that the accused has always been a polite, hardworking and respectful person; the current offence is quite out of character for him; that he is genuinely remorseful for his conduct and that there is little likelihood that he will commit a further criminal offence. [ 19 ] The authors also confirm that he is a devoted father who is very involved in his sons' lives.

They are all concerned that a "harsh sentence" would be detrimental to the boys and that they would lose the stability, discipline and care provided by the accused. Some express concern that a harsh sentence would create financial hardship for the boys and their mother. See, for example, the letter from Paul Langdon, the father of the accused, and I quote [as read in]: She [the mother] would be losing Derek's supervision support while she is at work and his financial support for rent, bills, food for the boys.

She would also incur additional daycare expenses, finding someone to look after the children while she is at work, which may not even be possible given her fluctuating schedule. [ 20 ] See also the letter from Ellen Langdon, the mother of the accused, quote [as read in]: A harsh sentence for Derek would be extremely hard on Shawna and the boys, not only financially, but would also make it almost impossible for Shawna to continue her job as the cost of daycare would be prohibitive and she wouldn't have anyone to take the boys to school. [ 21 ] The accused's former common-law wife, Shawna Prentice, represents a more tempered view of the situation [as read in]: Derek is a wonderful father to his boys.

He sees the children almost daily and remains an active

part in their lives. He has recently been taking Nathaniel to Kindergarten every morning which Nathaniel thoroughly enjoys. He takes them to his home to spend time with him, takes them to the park and takes an active

part in decision-making with me on things that concern them. The boys look forward to the time that they spend with their father and I am afraid that it would affect them negatively if they did not have that option. Not only does he spend time with the boys, he also helps financially, which contributes to rent, food and necessities for the children which without his help would be a financial strain on me to provide for them. It is my hope that the court takes this all into consideration when deciding on Derek's sentence. Sentencing Positions [ 22 ] The Crown is seeking a sentence of imprisonment for one year.

The defence is asking for a suspended sentence or alternatively a 60 to 90-day intermittent sentence. [ 23 ] The maximum sentence for possession of more than three kilograms of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of trafficking is life imprisonment. A conditional sentence order is therefore not available in such a case. See s. 742.1(

c) of the Criminal Code . [ 24 ] I note at this point that the accused was in possession of 14.5 kilos, 31.88 pounds, of marihuana which is almost three times the five-kilo limit set out in the Code . Sentencing Principles [ 25 ] The general principles of sentencing applicable to this case are set out in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code and

Section 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . Since none of the aggravating factors listed in s. 10(2) of the CDSA are present in this case, I propose to apply the principles set out in the Criminal Code . [ 26 ]

Section 718 sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing, that being to: ... contribute ... to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions ... [ 27 ] The objects of which are denunciation, specific and general deterrence, protection of society, rehabilitation, reparations for the harm done and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. [ 28 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing is set out in s. 718.1 of the Code : A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 29 ]

Section 718.2(

a) requires the court to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors when determining an appropriate sentence for the particular offence and the offender before the court. The principles set out in s. 718.2(b), (d), and (e), are also of particular relevance to the case before me: (

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

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

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders... Sentencing Range

[ 30 ] As to the range of sentence that may be applicable to the case before me, Crown counsel relies on the following authorities: R. v. Lister , 2003 BCCA 269 . The accused was a courier who carried 30 pounds of marihuana in his vehicle into Saskatchewan. Street value was said to be $75,000. The accused was 59 years old with no prior criminal record. He had significant health issues and at the time of the offence, 2002, he was on medical leave from his employment. At the time of sentencing, he was back working part-time.

The matter was waived into B.C. from Saskatchewan on the basis that there would be a joint submission for a jail sentence of 18 months. The sentencing judge imposed the agreed-upon sentence, 15 months, on top of credit for three months' time served. [ 31 ] The accused appealed, arguing that the sentence was harsher than what would have generally been imposed in B.C. The Court of Appeal concluded that a sentence of one year imprisonment would generally accord with sentences imposed in Saskatchewan and in B.C. for this type of offence.

The sentence was reduced to one year in jail, that being nine months plus three months' time credited. The court also concluded that a CSO, which was available at the time, was inappropriate given the large quantity of marihuana and the fact that the accused was transporting the marihuana across provincial boundaries into Saskatchewan. [ 32 ] In R. v. Aslam , 2007 BCCA 122 , a 20-year-old accused was found with 200 pounds of marihuana worth in excess of $400,000 in his vehicle. He had a dated and unrelated youth record. His role was as a courier, not a seller.

The sentencing judge declined to grant a conditional sentence and imposed a two-year jail sentence. [ 33 ] In R. v. Hill, 2007 BCCA 309 , the accused was in possession of 105 pounds of dried marihuana packaged and ready for distribution. The sentencing judge characterized the accused's operations as a sophisticated, organized, large-scale and commercial enterprise. The accused was 40 years old; he had no prior criminal record; he had significant health problems. The original sentence imposed was 30 months in jail plus a $50,000 fine. The jail sentence and the fine were upheld by the Court of Appeal.

During the course of the decision, our Court of Appeal made several observations that are pertinent to the submissions made by defence counsel in the present case regarding the principle of general deterrence and the gravity of a large-scale commercial trafficking offence involving marihuana, as opposed to hard drugs such as cocaine. After noting the maximum sentence for trafficking in more than three kilos of marihuana, that being life imprisonment, the court concluded at paragraph 40: 40.

Thus, possession for the purpose of trafficking in marihuana is a serious offence on the scale of gravity of criminal offences. [ 34 ] As for the principle of deterrence, the Court of Appeal in Hill cited with approval the sentencing judge's observations that "the appellant was a non-addicted offender involved in the drug trade for its financial rewards" and that in such a circumstance "general and specific deterrence should weigh heavily." See paragraph 8.

When discussing the need for general deterrence in cases involving large- scale marihuana trafficking operations, the Court of Appeal referred back to its earlier decision in Aslam (supra) and confirmed that the principle of general deterrence was still an important factor in the sentencing process in these cases. See para. 32: 32. . . .

The appellant's motive was profit and the sentencing judge had remarked that "[t]he scourge of such large-scale criminal enterprises cannot be eradicated unless those who are tempted and recruited to participate are deterred by the consequences that they might face if caught". [ 35 ] Finally, during the Hill appeal, counsel for the appellant had argued that the sentencing judge had failed to distinguish between trafficking in hard drugs (heroin and cocaine) and trafficking in marihuana. Counsel submitted that trafficking in marihuana should attract a lesser sentence.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that courts have often drawn distinctions between hard and soft drugs when sentencing; however, the court concluded that much less weight should be given to this factor when dealing with the operators of large- scale marihuana-trafficking enterprises. See para. 21: 21. . . . The consequences for users of hard drugs in terms of addiction and criminal lifestyle have been seen to be more severe than those for users of marihuana. However, as the sentencing judge noted, the marihuana industry in this province has become pervasive.

It is a lucrative business permeated by organized crime and it is often accompanied by violence and danger to innocent citizens and other "violent, destructive consequences" to use the words of the sentencing judge. In my view as one progresses up the chain of the illegal drug industry from the user to the upper levels of trafficking the effects on sentencing and the consequences at the user level should carry less weight in relation to the malignant consequences of the industry generally. [ 36 ] In R. v.

Heidarian, 2007 BCCA 288 , the accused was in possession of 80 pounds of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and proceeds of crime worth $700,000. The Crown conceded that the accused did not play a major role in the money laundering enterprise. There were firearms present, which was considered an aggravating factor. The accused was 37 years old. He had one prior conviction for simple possession. He was the father of a young child. Since his arrest he had been fully employed in a legitimate business. The sentencing judge imposed an 18-month conditional sentence order and a $50,000 fine.

On appeal the court increased the sentence to two years less a day and declined to impose a CSO. [ 37 ] The defence is relying upon the following cases to support his position that a suspended sentence or a short intermittent jail sentence is available in marihuana trafficking cases. Suspended sentences or fines were handed out in the following cases, all of which involved trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in small amounts of hard drugs or marihuana: R. v.

Ferguson , 2014 BCCA 347 : sale of .2 grams of crack cocaine to an undercover operator for $20, suspended sentence imposed on appeal after the accused had already served six weeks of an illegal conditional sentence. R. v. Owens , 2014 BCSC 32 : possession of 22 grams of cocaine and 17 ounces of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking; the value of drugs was five to $10,000. The sentence was two years' probation and a fine of $200. R. v. Galang , 2014 BCPC 240 : sale of 1.04 grams of cocaine for $100 to an undercover officer as part of a dial-a-dope operation.

The result was a suspended sentence and probation for one year. R. v. Rhyason , 2014 BCPC 291 : accused had a stolen backpack from a drug trafficker who had been engaged in a dial-a-dope operation; accused’s intention was to sell the drugs in the pack to raise money for drugs for himself. The pack contained 17.21 grams of crack cocaine. He pled guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking. The result was a suspended sentence and probation for three years.

R. v. Voss, 2014 BCPC 43: aboriginal male, possession of 78 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, value of the drugs $6,000. Passing of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for 30 months. R. v. St. Croix, 2014 PCNL 1413: a guilty plea to possession of marihuana, 293 grams, for the purpose of trafficking. Again, there was asuspended sentence and probation for 12 months. R. v. Hudson, (ON CA), [1967] 2 OR 501: 18-year-old accused facing five charges of trafficking to an undercoverofficer, quantity unspecified, a suspended sentence was imposed. R. v.

Burchnall, [1980] ABCA 219: possession of 124 grams of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, street value $3,500. Burchnall received a suspended sentence for this. Co accused Dumont was in possession of 800 grams of marihuana for the purpose oftrafficking with a street value of $2,000. He received one day in jail and a $200 fine. R. v. Stinson, Victoria Registry No. 148462-1, unreported decision, September 29th, 2011: a man with no criminal record who was "notengaged in a commercial enterprise" and was "not making a living from doing what he was doing" received a $2,000 fine and two years'probation.

I pause to note that I cannot do anything with this case. The decision is three pages long. The charge is not even set out. Thefacts are not set out and no sentencing authorities are cited. [38] I certainly have no difficulty with the proposition that, in appropriate circumstances, a suspended sentence is available fortrafficking in drugs, be they hard drugs or marihuana.

The reasoning of the Honourable Judge Gulbransen in the Galang decision (supra)is persuasive in this regard; however, it is difficult to transpose that reasoning to the case before me, given that the circumstances of theoffence and the offender in Galang and in the other cases noted above are simply not comparable to the circumstances before me. All ofthe cases cited by the defence deal with much smaller quantities of drugs. In the cases involving marihuana, the amounts were wellunder the three-kilo limit, 17 ounces in Owens, 193 grams in St.

Croix, 800 grams of marihuana and 124 grams of cannabis resin inBurchnall. As a result, I have not found the above authorities to be of much assistance in determining the appropriate sentence in thepresent case. [39] As for the cases relied upon by the Crown, Crown counsel has acknowledged that, save for the Lister decision, the other casesinvolve much larger quantities of narcotics (200 pounds, 105 pounds, and 80 pounds), than in the case before me. In those cases the jailsentences ranged from two years to 30 months imprisonment.

This explains the crown’s request for a much shorter jail sentence of oneyear for the accused before me. The Crown’s position is that such a sentence would properly reflect the smaller nature of this accused'scriminal operation. [40] In Lister, as noted above, the Court of Appeal determined that an appropriate sentence for possession of 30 pounds of marihuanafor the purpose of trafficking was one year in jail and this was true whether one was being sentenced in Saskatchewan or BritishColumbia.

Of course, the appellant in Lister was characterized as a mere courier, which was a mitigating circumstance not available inthe case of this accused, who was the principal operator of the marihuana trafficking operation in which he was involved. [41] I return to the principle of “parity in sentencing”. This factor requires that a sentence be similar to a sentence that is imposed onsimilar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

With this principle in mind, after my review of the relevantsentencing authorities, I have concluded that, assuming an accused with no prior criminal record, the range of sentence that may beimposed in the case of a mid-sized trafficking operation involving 31.88 pounds of marihuana worth $100,000 is somewhere betweennine and 18 months imprisonment. This is subject to the caveat that there may be circumstances surrounding the offence itself or theoffender which may lead to a sentence that is either above or below the general range.

Where an individual accused may sit within thatrange will depend on the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including the nature of the operation (e.g. a dial-a-dope enterprise), the presence or absence of weapons, the use or threat to use violence and, of course, whether the accused is a peripheralplayer, (e.g. a courier) or the main operator of the enterprise. Analysis [42] The possession of large quantities of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking "is a serious offence on the scale of gravity ofcriminal offences". See Hill (supra) at paragraph 4.

The accused's participation in this offence was planned and deliberate. He is fullyresponsible for his criminal conduct. There are no circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and there are no personalcircumstances relating to this accused that would in any way mitigate his moral culpability. Aggravating Factors [43] The Crown has fairly characterized the accused's marihuana business as a mid to large-scale commercial operation. It wasclearly an ongoing operation.

In addition to having customers, the accused had plenty of supplies on hand, including stamps, packages,mailing labels and a large quantity of marihuana available for shipping. Although not complex, the operation was well-organized andrelatively sophisticated. It required a good deal of deliberation and preparation. [44] The accused was abusing the postal service, using it to deliver his marihuana rather than delivering it in person. He wasconducting his illegal activities in the privacy of his home with the assistance of the postal service that provided a degree of anonymity.

The police would have difficulty uncovering this illegal operation. In this respect, it was certainly more sophisticated and more difficultto detect than the standard dial-a-dope operation that involves dealers travelling around the city in vehicles to deliver their product. Thequantity of marihuana found in the accused's residence, 31.88 pounds, worth $100,000 reveals how significant the accused's investmentand commitment to this operation was. [45] The accused was not an addict himself. I can only infer that he embarked upon this criminal enterprise out of greed, that is, adesire for easy and large profits.

This is especially perplexing, given that by his own admission, he was successfully employed as acomputer consultant who was otherwise making a healthy living. [46] The accused is not a youthful offender of 20, 22 or 25. He was 35 years old at the time he committed this offence. He has a

family, including two small children who are dependent upon him to be a mature and responsible adult. He was old enough and mature enough to be alert to the possible consequences of his illegal activities. He willingly assumed the risk of apprehension and incarceration in pursuit of financial gain. Mitigating Circumstances and Collateral Consequences [ 47 ] The accused is a first-time offender who has had no prior involvement of any kind with the criminal justice system. He was respectful and cooperative in his dealings with the police.

He has pled guilty to the charge without ever setting the matter down for trial. I accept that he is genuinely remorseful for his conduct. [ 48 ] The events of April 28th, 2013 and thereafter have been a painful learning experience for him.

I accept that the process of being arrested in front of his children, seeing his children in tears as he was led away and not being able to see his children at all for months following his arrest along with the many court appearances that he has had to make -- these events have all had a profound and lasting effect upon him. [ 49 ] From a business perspective, the accused has recovered such that he is once again doing contract computer work. He has regained the trust of his ex-common-law wife and has been helping her to care for his children.

He is respected as a loving and involved father and provides financial and emotional support to his family. [ 50 ] In

summary, I am satisfied that there is little need to be concerned about the rehabilitation of this accused. He has already achieved this goal by putting his professional life and his family life back in order. [ 51 ] The primary collateral consequence for this accused arises from the fact that if he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, that will keep him away from his young sons, who are just three and five years old.

He is, of course, concerned that the separation will negatively impact his sons, who have done nothing wrong. [ 52 ] He is also concerned that incarceration will prevent him from working and contributing to the support of his ex-wife and sons. They are the persons who will suffer financially. They will also suffer if he is not available to assist his wife with childcare duties. Conclusion [ 53 ] A review of the sentencing authorities reveals that the offence committed by this accused is one that generally attracts a jail sentence, even for a first-time offender. This is so notwithstanding s. 718.2(

d) and (

e) of the Code which direct the court to refrain from depriving an accused of his liberty and to avoid imprisonment where a less-restrictive sanction might be reasonable and appropriate. [ 54 ] In my view there are no circumstances present in this case that would justify a suspended sentence or a 60-to-90-day intermittent jail sentence, both of which would be well-below the usual sentence range.

The fact that a jail sentence for this accused will cause financial and emotional hardship for his sons and their mother is a factor to be considered here; however, this collateral consequence, which is part of the risk assumed by this accused when he set up his commercial trafficking operation, does not attract so much weight as to justify a sentence well below the range. [ 55 ] In my view a suspended sentence or a short intermittent jail sentence would fail to allay society's condemnation of the mid-scale commercial and tax-free drug trafficking enterprise.

Neither form of sentence provides an adequate deterrent to others who might be tempted to embark upon a financially-lucrative drug trafficking enterprise such as the one operated by this accused. [ 56 ] In

summary, this accused set up a mid- to large-scale marihuana trafficking operation using the secrecy of his home and the anonymity of the postal system to avoid detection. In furtherance of this operation he had 14.5 kilos (31.88 pounds) of marihuana worth $100,000 at his disposal. He was not a minor player. He was not a mere courier. He was the operator. His motive was money, easy, tax-free money. In my view, a sentence of 12 to 15 months imprisonment would not be inappropriate for such an offence. [ 57 ] I must, of course, take into account the personal circumstances of the accused. He is a first-time offender.

As noted above, I am satisfied that he has successfully rehabilitated himself. He has learned from his experience with the police and the courts. He has successfully put his life back on track. [ 58 ] In the end, after taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the personal circumstances of this accused, I have concluded that a term of imprisonment of nine months is a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by this accused and the moral culpability that he bears for his conduct.

In settling on a sentence at the bottom end of the usual range, I have factored in the lack of a prior record, the fact that the accused is already rehabilitated, and the impact that incarceration will have on the financial and psychological well-being of his family. That impact will be less than it would have been with a 12-to-15-month sentence. [ 59 ] Please stand, sir. Is there anything that you would like to say before I formally pass sentence? [ 60 ] THE ACCUSED: I'm sorry for what I've done.

I'm sorry for the people that I've let down and I look forward to putting this behind me and carrying on with what I've been working on since that day. [ 61 ] THE COURT: Thank you. I sentence you to nine months' imprisonment. There will be a DNA order requiring you to provide a DNA sample for entry into the DNA bank. [ 62 ] In accordance with s. 109 of the Criminal Code , I am prohibiting you from possessing any firearm other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of ten years.

I am prohibiting you from possessing any prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.

[ 63 ] Does he need any time to dispossess himself of such items? No? [ 64 ] There is a surcharge which I think in this case would be $100 at the time of the offence? [ 65 ] MS. PINEO: Yes, Your Honour. [ 66 ] THE COURT: That surcharge, I am imposing a surcharge of $100. That surcharge is to be paid by no later than two months following the expiry of the jail sentence. And that is it. [ 67 ] MR. DONALDSON: Thank you. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)