R. v. Silva, 2018 BCPC 414

Citation: R. v. Silva 2018 BCPC 414 Date: 20181120 File No: 220586-1 Registry: Surrey File No: 66561-1 Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. WOLSELEY SAMUEL SILVA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.A. JAHANI Counsel for the Crown: J. Harris Counsel for the Defendant: Bose, S. Articled Student appearing as agent Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: August 1, September 21, November 2, 2018 Date of Judgment: November 20, 2018 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on April 30, 2020. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is

A Corrigendum was released by the Court on April 30, 2020. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. [ 1 ] Mr. Silva comes before this court for sentencing on the following counts:

a) That on or about March 19, 2014, he committed the offence of break and enter in a dwelling home contrary to s. 348(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code (Count 1 on Information 220586); and;

b) That on or about December 13, 2016, he committed an assault with the threat or use of a weapon, contrary to s. 267 (

a) of the Criminal Code (Count 1 on Information 66561). Circumstances of the Offences Break and Enter [ 2 ] On March 19, 2014, the Langley RCMP attended a residence in Langley after having received an abandoned 911 call at approximately 3:00 in the morning. Once on scene, it was determined that a break and enter and robbery had occurred. [ 3 ] The residence is located on the upper level of a convenience store called Willoughby Market.

The complainants who are a Korean couple, live in the residence with their adult son and also own and operates the convenience store. [ 4 ] On March 19, 2014, the complainants closed the store at 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. and retired to the residence. Later on that night, being woken up by the scream of the wife as she believed someone was in the house, the husband and the son went to the door of the residence, which is a sliding glass door, and saw the door open but no one in sight. As they closed the door, they saw 5 males, who then forced the door open. [ 5 ] One male produces a knife and demands money.

The wrists of the son and the husband were then bound with duct tape and they were told to lay face-down on the floor. The wife runs to the bathroom and calls 911, but one of the assailants intervenes and the call is abandoned. [ 6 ] The husband is then forced to provide the assailants the alarm code to the convenience store, and while one suspect stayed with the husband and the son, two others went through the residence and the store. The store’s CCTV surveillance camera showed at least 2 individuals going through the store, one with mask and one without. [ 7 ] The incident took approximately 30 minutes.

The items taken from the store and residence were approximately $1,500 in cash, cell phones, tablet, keys and a gold watch, with a total value of approximately $2,000. The complainants remained duct taped until after the assailants left the scene and they then removed the tape themselves. [ 8 ] Mr. Silva’s DNA was discovered on the duct tape once the tapes were swabbed by the police. [ 9 ] The Information for this offence was laid in January 2017, while Mr. Silva was serving another sentence on other robberies which will be discussed later.

The delay in laying the Information was essentially due to the steps in identifying and processing the duct tape’s DNA: the DNA exhibit from the duct tape was sent to the lab in September 2014; in April 2015 the police came to believe that the DNA was that of Mr. Silva, and as such, in February 2016, a DNA warrant was obtained and samples were taken from Mr. Silva while he was serving the robberies’ sentence at Kent corrections. The DNA samples were then sent for analysis on February 26, 2016, and in May 2016 the results were provided showing the DNA as belonging to Mr. Silva.

Assault with a weapon [ 10 ] This offence involves Mr. Silva stabbing an inmate while at Kent. The Institution’s video surveillance shows Mr. Silva running after the complainant in the hallway, with an object later determined to be a shank in his hand, and another video clip shows the complainant having blood on his face. The complainant sustained non-life threatening cuts to his face and neck area and was taken to the Royal Columbian Hospital. The weapon involved was a shank and not the tool used to cut his hair. [ 11 ] Neither the complainant nor Mr.

Silva made any disclosures to the police regarding the details of the incident. Mr. Silva, as part of this sentencing hearing however, stated that while he was at Kent, he was working as a barber and the complainant was one of his clients. He knew that the complainant was charged with the sexual assault of another inmate. As the complainant was being transferred the next day to medium security, he was cutting the complainant’s hair on that day at his repeated request. They were in an area near the common area of the maximum security prison with a half-dozen of inmates within earshot. While cutting his hair, Mr.

Silva stated that the complainant was hassling him, and Mr. Silva reminded him how he was lucky that Mr. Silva was cutting his hair considering the complainant’s charges. The complainant’s response within earshot of other nearby inmates provoked Mr. Silva. The result was the assault with a weapon. Mr. Silva’s Circumstances [ 12 ] Mr. Silva is currently 24 years old, and at the time of the Willoughby offence, he was 19, and 22 at the time of the assault with a weapon charge. [ 13 ] He comes before the court with a criminal record spanning from 2013 to 2016.

The entries from 2013 to 2014 consist mostly of property-related offences: he has 3 convictions for theft of a motor vehicle which he pled to in August 2013, one conviction for breaching bail in August 2013, and one conviction for breaching his probation in May 2014. His sentence, up to this point, had been limited to time already served in custody without any additional jail time. [ 14 ] The entries in 2015 onwards are all serious violence-related offences and convictions.

[ 15 ] On February 24, 2015, he pled guilty to a series of serious offences similar to the present charges; these are: break and enter of an accounting firm in February 2014, and 5 counts of robbery of McDonald restaurants, all occurring within short intervals of each other from March 27 to May 30, 2014. Mr. Silva was sentenced to 6 months in jail on the break and enter offence.

With respect to the 5 counts of robbery, he was sentenced to 42 months jail time, and was credited 13 months of pre-sentence custody, hence serving 29 additional months. [ 16 ] In May 2014, he was charged with an assault with a weapon to which he pled guilty in October 2015 and received 6 months in jail along with probation; it involves a fight by his friends in which he intervened at the Cloverdale rodeo.

In August 2015 while at Kent, he was also charged with assault bodily harm and pled guilty in August 2016 and received 6 month jail consecutive to the sentence he was serving. [ 17 ] It is submitted by defence counsel that the Willoughby offence was part of the spree of break and enter and robbery offences which occurred from February to May 2014. The Willoughby offence comes in time after the accounting firm break and enter but before the McDonald robberies. [ 18 ] Defence submits that prior to the commission of the spree of offences, Mr.

Silva had essentially become involved with unsavoury associates, all of whom were older than him at the time. That his involvement was motivated by the “ready cash” the group had, and not by any type of personal illicit substance addiction.

That unfortunately, once he commenced his participation in the group, and especially when he received money from the first break and enter of the accounting firm, he was obliged to continue with the other spree offences and, in fact, in some of the McDonald robberies he was required to participate without a mask to ensure he would not disclose the group’s activities to the police. [ 19 ] It is submitted that the spree offences and the break and enters, inclusive of the one before the court today, were all committed with these associates, none of whom were charged with any of the offences, as Mr.

Silva pled guilty to all the offences, protecting these associates. He served the sentence of the spree offences in Kent. [ 20 ] It is further submitted that Mr. Silva’s involvement or degree of participation in the McDonald robberies was a lot more aggravating than his role in the Willoughby market offence. In the robberies, he was usually the main participant, armed, either with a knife, baton or scissors, masked except on one occasion, and some elements of forcible confinement were also present. [ 21 ] With respect to the Willoughby break and enter, it is submitted that Mr.

Silva was told by the group of their plan to break and enter into the ATM in the basement and that no one would be home. While defence concedes that Mr. Silva participated in the offence, it is also submitted that he did not want to but felt obligated to do so because of his loyalty to the group, and also because he had already received money from the group and was now aware of their plan.

He agreed to just be there and watch and to not go inside, and he was one of the individuals not wearing gloves or a mask. [ 22 ] As to how his prints were found on the duct tape binding the complainants inside the home, it is submitted that once the group went inside the residence, they realized that they had no rope to tie the complainants’ hands, and as such, they asked Mr. Silva to go get the duct tape from the car. He was the one who ripped the duct tape because he was the only person not wearing gloves. It is submitted on his behalf that Mr.

Silva’s role otherwise was to stand there and watch, and that he did not benefit or get anything from the items stolen by the commission of this offence. [ 23 ] It was further brought to the court’s attention that the complainants, in their statements to police, had stated that the leader of the group who gave the orders was a blond man, hence not fitting the characteristics of Mr. Silva, and that only the leader was armed, with a fruit-cutting knife.

The complainants also mentioned that they were generally inexperienced and showed no retaliation towards the complainants’ son, who tried at one point to fight them and even punched one of them. They were told that if they gave them money no harm would come to them. The only violence involved in this break and enter was the complainant husband being grabbed and picked up by a larger man who was 2 feet taller than him. Again, it is not suggested that this person was Mr. Silva. [ 24 ] It is submitted that while incarcerated at Kent, Mr.

Silva was very productive: he completed high school and even had various jobs, one of which was being a barber, which gave rise to the December 2016 charge of assault with a weapon before this court as previously described. This charge came about 2-3 months prior to his expected release date from Kent. This offence is submitted, was unplanned and occurred due to the provocation previously described. [ 25 ] As a result of this charge, Mr.

Silva spent 30 days in segregation, and lost his statutory release date of the spree offences’ sentence, and served the balance of his sentence until its expiry at a maximum-security facility.

He was released in January 2018. [ 26 ] It is submitted that it was because of his time in segregation that his perspective changed, realizing the seriousness of the situation he had gotten himself into, the errors of his ways, and the life he was missing out on, on the outside. [ 27 ] His last year at Kent, it is submitted, went without any incidents of violence or discipline and, in fact, due to his good behaviour he was granted a 72-hour family visit in the summer of 2017, and in fact declined a transfer to medium security facility to be able to get another family visit. [ 28 ] Once he was released on bail in January 2018, he was placed on house arrest with electronic monitoring and was permitted by his bail supervisor to work.

He obtained employment first with his brother, then with a friend in construction. He is living with his fiancée and was working under strict bail conditions with no incidents or breaches until the fall of 2018. [ 29 ] As a result of breaches that occurred related to his curfew, Mr. Silva’s bail on all charges was revoked. While in custody on the breaches he was attacked by another inmate and received injuries of two long slashes under his left eye, a small cut on his neck, a deep slash on his wrist consistent with protecting himself, a broken nose and several slashes on his back.

In total, he received 27 stitches and 100 staples. It is submitted by counsel that Mr. Silva, contrary to his past behaviour, did not retaliate or fight back, a sign of his rehabilitation. He is currently in protective custody.

[ 30 ] Mr. Silva is currently in a stable relationship with his fiancée of 4 years. He currently resides with her and his friend Mr. Bhatti who he has known for 5 years. Both appear to have been positive influences in his life.

In the psychological report, he states that his circle of friends is smaller and his friends are all pro-social individuals and he is no longer associating with negative peer groups. [ 31 ] In the Pre-Sentence Report, it is also indicated that despite the fact that he left home at the age of 17 due to conflicts and disregard for house rules and his choices in unsavoury friends, that the family still remains very close and supportive of each other. [ 32 ] Mr. Silva has also provided very positive letters of support from his fiancée, his friend Mr. Bhatti, his brother-in-law, Mr. Howe, and his sister Mrs. Howe.

They all describe him as a kind, caring, supportive man, who has changed for the better after his incarceration. It is clear to the court that his family and friends genuinely care for and support him. [ 33 ] Mr. Silva has had various employments in the past, and has worked since his release with his brother as well as with his friend. [ 34 ] Both his counsel and Mr. Silva submitted that he is extremely remorseful for his actions, appreciating the impact of his actions on the complainants.

Victim Impact Statement [ 35 ] The victim, on behalf of his family, states that although there was no physical violence, there was significant impact on the mental state of the family. The mother is very shaken and still very paranoid at night and their sleep is affected, as every sound wakes them due to fear; the family still feels vulnerable and unsafe. Crown also states that the family has questioned their decision to come to Canada as a result of what has happened. Position of the Parties [ 36 ] Crown seeks a sentence in the range of 2 years for the break and enter offence.

Crown submits that the PSR suggests some provincial programs through B.C. Corrections, and if the court is of the opinion that Mr. Silva would benefit from participating in those programs, then Crown would suggest a sentence of 2 years less a day. Crown seeks one year of probation if the court imposes a sentence of less than 2 years, and a longer period of probation with a shorter period of incarceration. [ 37 ] Crown submits that a lower sentence is sought because this offence occurred in 2014, in the midst of a series of offences for which Mr.

Silva was already sentenced and incarcerated. [ 38 ] With respect to the Kent assault with a weapon, Crown seeks 6-9 months jail, concurrent to the break and enter sentence, due to the time that has passed since the commission of the offence. [ 39 ] Defence seeks a 90 day intermittent sentence, because of the fact that the break and enter was part of the robberies spree - I believe essentially arguing that because of it, the sentence would have been concurrent to those offences for which he was already sentenced, taking into account also him having served that full sentence in maximum security, his degree of participation, his rehabilitation and extreme remorse.

The Law [ 40 ] Pursuant to

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code , which sets out the fundamental principle of sentencing, a sentence “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” [ 41 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the “fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.” [ 42 ] Sentencing is an individualized process, which requires a careful weighing of the normative principles set out by Parliament.

In fashioning a sentence, the court must take into account not only the specifics of the offence, but also the specific circumstances of the offender. [ 43 ] The quantum of sentence imposed should not exceed what is just, and should be broadly commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender, such that the offender is held responsible and condemned by the sentence for his/her role in the offence and the harm caused. [ 44 ] The “totality principle” requires a sentencing judge who has correctly applied the rules relating to concurrent and consecutive sentences and who has arrived at the appropriate sentence for each separate offence, then to look back to ensure that the totality of the consecutive sentences is not excessive.

Where the total projected sentence is excessive, the individual sentences must then be adjusted below the figure which would be appropriate for each offence taken in isolation, so the “total sentence is proper.”

[ 45 ] With respect to rehabilitation, echoing paras. 15 and 16 of R. v. Vickers , citing R. v. Mueller and R. v. Robataille respectively, “[it] is always a factor in cases involving violent offences. However, it is far less significant when there is a need to protect the public from an offender who has demonstrated a penchant for violence… the step principle is based on the theory that sentences should only be increased in moderate steps, as an unduly large increase could have an adverse impact on an offenders prospects of rehabilitation.

However, this court has held that the step principle has no application when the dominant sentencing factor is protection of the public.” [ 46 ] Although the court must consider all of the principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code , certain principles will have primacy over others.

In cases involving break and enter of a dwelling house, also sometimes referred to as a home invasion, the principles of denunciation and deterrence are of primary consideration and of greater importance. [ 47 ] The main features of home invasion include breaking and entering a dwelling place often for purposes of committing a theft or robbery, knowing that (or being reckless as to whether) the home is being occupied, and using or threatening to use violence.

The presence of weapons is often a factor, as is the confinement of the occupants of the home in some fashion. [ 48 ] It is the presence of the occupants of the home, with the violation of their sense of sanctity and security in that place and the attendant exposure to the threat (express or implied) of physical or psychological harm, that sets the home invasion apart from break and enter, robbery, and other offences committed in relation to a home. [ 49 ] Unfortunately, home invasions have become a prevalent crime in our community.

These are serious offences as they embody the violation of the sanctity of one’s home and one’s sense of security and privacy. [ 50 ] From the point of view of the victims of that offence, break and entering of a home is also very serious because it takes away their belief in having safety and security in their home. [ 51 ] As such, the courts have repeatedly held that deterrence and denunciation are the primary factors in sentencing for violent crimes, particularly crimes which violate the safety and security of a person's home.

The courts are required to give recognition to the importance of such sanctity and security, to protect the public against such crimes and to preserve the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. In doing so, the courts have imposed stern and stiff sentences where home invasions are concerned. [ 52 ]

Section 348.1 of the Criminal Code , directs a court sentencing an adult person convicted of unlawful confinement, robbery, extortion, or break and enter in relation to a dwelling house, to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling-house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence, and that the person in committing the offence:

a) knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling-house was occupied; and (

b) used violence or threats of violence to a person or property. [ 53 ] As it is with any type of offence, range of sentences are general guidelines, not a mathematical equation, and as such they encompass lesser or greater sanctions when the circumstances of the particular case warrant it. [ 54 ] In R. v. Moore , at para. 14, range of sentence for home invasion was somewhere between 6 to 13 years, and the sentence would depend on the degree of violence involved, the offences committed in the premises and the extent of the offender’s involvement.

Analysis [ 55 ] Breaking and entering into a dwelling house is a very serious offence. Such offences, whether they result in injuries or not, are almost always terrifying, traumatic experiences for the occupants of the residence, often leaving them with a total loss of any sense of security. The terror and trauma of the home owner not knowing how the intruders will act or how the events will unfold will undoubtedly have a negative impact on them. [ 56 ] This crime had several aggravating factors: it was a break and enter into a home. Even though Mr.

Silva may not have been part of a gang, they entered the house as a group. The offence involved intimidation, confinement by binding the hands of the occupants, and was premeditated rather than random.

Even though based on counsel’s submission, the only violence may have been the complainant husband being picked up by one of the 2 assailants 2 feet taller than him, and that based on the victims, no physical violence was used and the group appeared to be inexperienced, a knife was still used to intimidate and command by its nature the compliance of the victims. [ 57 ] The author of the Psychological Assessment Report is of the opinion that Mr. Silva minimized his involvement in this offence and in the others, and that his explanation was that he was the youngest of the group and was told to do it; that Mr.

Silva was guarded in trying to explain why he would be looking for the acceptance of his group members even though he had been in the group for a few years, and noted that despite their criminal involvement, none of the other group members have a record. [ 58 ] I cannot fault this author for having such an opinion, as it is indeed very unusual for a person to commit such serious offences just because he was told to do them. But at the end of the day with respect to the Willoughby offence, the independent evidence is that Mr.

Silva was with a group, and he was not the one with the knife nor the one giving the orders. [ 59 ] While the author of the report may suggest that Mr. Silva did not appear to appreciate the seriousness of his behaviour nor its impact on the victims, I do accept Mr. Silva’s genuine remorse to the court and his efforts since his release to try to remain on a steady path, and maintain employment. [ 60 ] Mr. Silva has a criminal record for violent offences, all of which have occurred in a short period of time.

He also has another break and enter conviction, although it was that of an accounting firm and not of a home. In addition to the assault with a weapon for which he is being sentenced today, he also has convictions for another assault with a weapon, as well as an assault causing bodily harm, each occurring within one year of the other, and the latest occurring within one year of the indexed offence.

[ 61 ] With respect to the mitigating factors, he has taken responsibility for these offences by pleading guilty and he is extremely and genuinely remorseful. He is relatively young, and on the start of the path to change his life. He has the love and support of his family and friends who are here to assist him on his path to recovery. He is gainfully employed and able to support himself.

But for curfew breaches while on bail, he has not committed any other offences. [ 62 ] I see the break and enter/home invasion offence as a distinct and separate offence from the robberies or the break and enter of the accounting firm.

The accounting firm offence occurred on February 22, 2014, the Willoughby offence occurred almost a month later on March 19, 2014, the first McDonald robbery was on March 27, the second on April 1, the third on May 28 and the last on May 30. [ 63 ] These offences are different and do not arise out of the same transaction, nor can it be said that they are essentially one transaction. The Willoughby offence is unrelated, occurred at a different time and at a different place than the other offences. I cannot guess what would have occurred back in 2015, had Mr.

Silva been charged with this offence and pled to it while he was pleading guilty to the robberies. But I do not accept that because of those robberies and the accounting firm break and enter, that the sentence should otherwise be different than what is usually the range for such offences. Crown estimates that a total sentence of approximately 5 years would have been the range for the total. [ 64 ] Mr.

Silva’s role may have been more substantial in the robberies in comparison to the Willoughby offence, and for those offences along with the accounting firm offence he received 42 months jail time. [ 65 ] He was still a participant in the Willoughby offence and this offence is not a simple break and enter, but the break and enter of a dwelling house. While I also do appreciate that Mr. Silva may not have been aware that the home was occupied, echoing Justice Frankel in R. v.

TJF , he became aware that it was once he entered the premises. [ 66 ] With respect to the assault with a weapon charge, it was as a result of stabbing an inmate that Mr. Silva had to spend 30 days in segregation, resulting in him serving the balance of his sentence at maximum security facility. [ 67 ] Mr. Silva is on the start of his path to recovery, and although he has had set backs with the breaches while on judicial interim release, I take into account that they have been recent and that he has not committed any further substantive offences.

While rehabilitation is a factor to consider, it is not the primary consideration in the sentencing for the Willoughby or the assault with a weapon offence. And while specific deterrence may have been met, the main concern remains the protection of the public, the importance of general deterrence and denunciation and, hence, discouraging this type of conduct by imposing stern sanctions. [ 68 ] Looking at the totality of the circumstances before me, the facts of this case, the nature of Mr.

Silva’s involvement, the primary principles of denunciation and deterrence, the aggravating/mitigating factors, I believe a sentence of 18 months’ incarceration for the Willoughby offence is appropriate. Considering that Mr.

Silva already has 2 other violent offences of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm on his record, for each of which he received 6 months’ jail time, but taking into account that he served the balance of his robberies sentence in maximum security, 30 days of which were in segregation, I also think that 6 months would be the appropriate sentence for the assault with a weapon, to be served consecutively to the Willoughby offence as it is a distinct offence with no nexus to the Willoughby offence. [ 69 ] However, looking at the principles of totality and other principles of sentencing, the time that has passed, the fact that he has served another sentence and he is starting a path to recovery, the sentence of 24 months will be excessive and harsh.

As such, I will impose a sentence of 15 months for the break and enter of a dwelling house, along with a sentence of 6 months on the assault with a weapon offence, to be served concurrently. I will also impose a period of probation of 18 months for the rehabilitative nature such an order offers. [ 70 ] Mr. Silva please rise: [ 71 ] I sentence you to 15 months jail time on the offence of break and enter of a dwelling house.

The record will reflect that you have spent 18 days of actual time in custody on this offence, which on enhanced credit will be 27 days, which will be taken into account towards your 15 months jail sentence for this offence. [ 72 ] I will also sentence you to 6 months’ jail in relation to the assault with a weapon offence to be served concurrently. [ 73 ] The jail sentence will be followed by 18 months of probation: a. You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. b. You will appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court. c.

Within 2 business days of your release from custody you must report to probation officer at 102-14245 56 th Avenue in Surrey, B.C. and you will report thereafter as and when is directed by your probation officer. d. You will notify the Court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. e. You must attend participate in and complete to the satisfaction of your probation officer any counselling that may be directed by your probation officer. f.

You will not possess any tools unless for use during the course of your lawful employment. If you require to take such tools outside of the location of your employment, you shall carry with you your employer’s written permission, and present such written permission upon request to a probation officer or peace officer. g. You will have no contact either directly or indirectly with Sung Soo Kim, Kyungdo Kim and Misun Kim, and you shall not attend

at any place of residence, place of employment, place of schooling, or place of worship known to you to be that of Sung Soo Kim, Kyungdo Kim and Misun Kim. h. You will not attend within 500 meters of the Willoughby Market located at 20793 72 nd Avenue in Langley, B.C. i. You will not have any contact or communication either directly or indirectly with Markland Watt. j. You shall not attend at any place of residence, place of employment, place of schooling, or place of worship known to you to be that of Markland Watt. k.

You are not to possess any weapons as is defined by the Criminal Code of Canada , inclusive of any firearms, imitation firearms, ammunition, or explosives. l. You shall not carry or possess any knives except to be used only for the preparation or consumption of meals or as is required for your employment. m.

You are not to be in possession of any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, imitation weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, explosive substance, or all such things, and any related authorizations, licenses and registration certificates. [ 74 ] There will be a v ictim fine surcharge imposed, on each count, payable forthwith, one day concurrent to be served in default. ____________________________ The Honourable Judge D.

Jahani Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM - Released April 30, 2020 In the Reasons For Judgment dated November 20, 2018, the following changes have been made, to add another file number to the cover page, as follows: File No: 66561-1 Registry: Chilliwack _____________________________ The Honourable Judge D.A. Jahani Provincial Court of British Columbia