R. v. Pharand Date:, 2013 BCPC 173

Citation: R. v. Pharand Date: 20130611 2013 BCPC 0173 File No: 223528-1-V Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JOSHUA KYLE PHARAND EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. PALMER Counsel for the Crown: L.B. Sarbit Counsel for the Defendant: W.M. Finch, QC Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 11, 2013

Date of Judgment: June 11, 2013 [1] THE COURT: Joshua Kyle Pharand was charged on Count 1 of Information 223528-1-V with participating in the Vancouver riot which occurred June 15th, 2011, following the defeat of the Vancouver Canucks in Game 7 of the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals. Mr.

Pharand was also charged with two counts of mischief for wilfully damaging windows at a branch of the Bank of Montreal located on the corner of Homer and West Georgia Street. [2] The Crown agreed to a guilty plea on Count 1 with the understanding that the circumstances of participating in the riot included all of the circumstances of the other particularized charges. [3] This part of the reasons was prepared for December 21st. [4] In each of the four cases before the Court for sentence today the Crown prepared admissions of fact, which commenced with general background on the riot, continued with more specific background with respect to the area or areas of the riot where the offender participated and then very specific details of the offender's participation in the riot.

A copy of the admissions of fact entered as an exhibit in each proceeding is attached to the relevant Reasons for Judgment. [5] It is common ground that there were approximately 155,000 people in the core of downtown Vancouver on June 15, 2011. Nearly a third of that crowd was concentrated around large screens in the vicinity of the Vancouver Public Library. Within a minute of the end of the game, a vehicle parked in the area was overturned and subsequently set on fire.

The following paragraph, included in all the various admissions of fact, summarizes what ensued: As the rioting crowds occupied West Georgia Street and the surrounding areas, multiple commercial premise windows were broken and the contents of the premises looted. Vehicles were vandalized, broken into and set on fire. Crowds of people faced off against the police and projectiles were thrown at the police. Numerous police officers and civilians were assaulted.

An atmosphere of lawlessness, violence and destruction quickly consumed the downtown core of Vancouver. [6] The admissions of fact all concluded with the same ten paragraphs detailing the impact of the riot.

The statistics cited provide some reference points to map the scope of the riot: -1035 Emergency Personnel were deployed to the downtown core of Vancouver on the night of the riot -928 police officers, two-thirds of whom were members of the Vancouver Police Department and the other one-third from other Lower Mainland municipalities and the R.C.M.P. -63 members of the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Service -44 members of the British Columbia Ambulance Service -The number of calls to 911 in the hours of the riot exceeded the number of calls ever received in any 24-hour period -92 calls to 911 were on hold at one point during the riot -A riot event was defined as an incident related to a location, a piece of property or a person -297 riot events were identified, many involving hundreds of perpetrators, and the breakdown was as follows: -26 arsons -193 acts of mischief -26 break and enters

-52 assaults on civilians (18 [civilians) [32] police officers ... one officer assaulted twice) and 1 firefighter -116 arrests were made in the area and, during the time of the riot -112 businesses were damaged -122 vehicles were damaged or destroyed, 24 of which were emergency service vehicles belonging to either the police or fire department -there is no comprehensive assessment of the monetary losses sustained as a result of the riot but as of February 2, 2012 the reported losses were calculated at $3,778,190.59 [7] The ineffable effects of the riot are acknowledged in the final paragraph of the "Impact of the Riot" part of the admissions of fact: The psychological impact of the Riot is difficult to quantify as personal experiences varied greatly.

Some persons barricaded themselves inside businesses for safety, others guarded their businesses against rioters, a number of citizens defended property or other persons at risk to themselves. Some people have sought counseling.

What is common to all is that the Riot has stripped a sense of safety and security from citizens of Vancouver. [8] The Crown has also created a book of authorities, "Sentencing", which is varied only by inclusion of the latest decisions on Vancouver riot sentencings. [9] It is acknowledged by the defence that Crown counsel has fairly and completely assembled the relevant case law from this jurisdiction and elsewhere on sentencing in riot cases.

The sentencing chart at Tab 1 catalogues decisions from 1991 to the present by case name, location of the riot, the offender’s age, presence or lack of criminal record, participation in the riot and sentence. [10]

Part XXIII of the Criminal Code , formerly titled "Punishment", is now titled "Sentencing." The first six subsections deal with alternative measures and both police and government records relating to offences and the persons by whom the offences have been committed.

Section 718, "Purpose", states: 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 the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [11] The principles a judge must apply in determining a fit sentence in any case are set out in the following subsections. The fundamental principle in s. 718.1: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of culpability of the offender. [12] Other fundamental principles are set out in s. 718.2: A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to theoffence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (

i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour,religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor, (ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner, (ii.1)evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years, (iii)evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, (iii) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or (iv) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (

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

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly harsh or long; (

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 should be considered for all offenders,with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [13] Crown counsel has generally taken the position in these sentencing proceedings that the only appropriate sentence for rioting isa custodial sentence.

Apart from cases involving an offender experiencing some mental health concerns, the Crown has opposedconditional sentences as inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentence. [14] It is generally undisputed that the lead authority on sentencing for participation in a riot is R. v. Loewen (1992) (BC CA), 75 C.C.C. (3d) 184, a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The case arose out of the Penticton Riot andinvolved an 18-year-old offender who pled guilty to two counts of mischief and participating in a riot. He had no prior criminal record.

He was sentenced to 10 months on the riot charge consecutive to concurrent one-month sentences on the mischief counts. On appeal, thecourt reduced the sentence to six months on the participation in a riot charge and one month concurrent on the mischief charges. A one-year probation order followed the six months' custody for rioting. [15] Mr. Justice Hinds, writing for the majority in Loewen, held in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 that, To take

part in a riot is by mere presence to contribute to the excitement, fervor, intimidation and dangerousness of the unlawfulassembly. Penticton had the precedent of the riot which closed the Kelowna Regatta and rioting is becoming prevalent throughout theinner cities of North America. This is not the time for unwarranted leniency nor by the same token for unwarranted severity. Care must be taken at the same time topreserve the message of general deterrence. A riot is, by its very nature, a serious threat to orderly society. If riots become prevalent, they will undermine many of the values of a freeand democratic society.

[16] These reasons are cited by Crown counsel as authority for their position that rioting is so serious an offence that the principle of general deterrence overrides any consideration of the principle that, “All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders.” [17] There is now a collection of cogent compelling judgments on the 2011 Vancouver Riot to be considered. The case book includes 15 decisions, both reported and unreported, by 11 different judges of the Provincial Court on cases arising out of the 2011 Vancouver Riot.

The primacy to be accorded the principle of general deterrence has been acknowledged repeatedly in these decisions. [18] The sentences imposed range from 16 months' custody to a suspended sentence with two years of probation. Custodial terms have been imposed by way of conditional sentence orders and by intermittent sentence orders.

Lengthy periods of probation with significant numbers of community work service hours have been imposed in addition to many of the custodial terms to address the need for reparation. [19] Arguments have been raised on behalf of some offenders that the court should consider the discharge provisions of the Criminal Code and impose a conditional discharge with a lengthy period of probation.

It has been suggested that it would be in the best interests of a very youthful offender with no prior criminal record and not contrary to the public interest. [20] These applications have been opposed by Crown counsel on the basis that a discharge, like a conditional sentence order, would be contrary to the public interest and incompatible with the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Most recently, in relation to one of these applications, Judge Bastin, in R. v. Epp , at tab 35 of the Crown’s book of authorities, held at paragraph 63 that the Crown’s position was correct.

Joshua Pharand's Participation in the Riot [21] Mr. Pharand is first captured on video disobeying police directions around the damaged GMC, the second vehicle set on fire at the live site, around 8:00 to 8:30 p.m.; paragraph 11 of the admissions of fact, Exhibit 3, in this proceeding. The full extent of Mr. Pharand's participation in the riot is set out in paragraphs 14 through 26, 35, 44, and 45 of the Exhibit 3, which should be appended to these reasons. [22] To summarize, it is agreed that between 8:00 and 8:15 p.m., Mr.

Pharand directly challenged the police action moving crowds away from the damaged GMC by purposefully running through the area by the vehicle as police attempted to stop him. Mr. Pharand proceeded to the 600 block of Homer Street, the west side of the live site, where rioters were throwing objections at the police, disobeying police direction, chanting, cheering, and mocking the officers. [23] Mr. Pharand joined the front part of the line of openly defiant rioters. He approached the police line and shoulder-checked an officer. That officer, assisted by another team member, responded to Mr.

Pharand by pushing him away with a shield and striking him with a baton. [24] Mr. Pharand returned to the front line of the crowd and continued to defy the police line by kicking three objects towards the police, one of which made contact with an officer. At 9:17 on the 11-minute clip of Mr. Pharand's participation in the riot, it appears the third item is a silver bucket which hits the officer's riot gear and then falls to the ground. He then picked a boot up off the street and threw it towards the police line. [25] When the police advanced, Mr.

Pharand ran back through the crowds to the Bank of Montreal at Homer and Georgia. Mr. Pharand threw a piece of blue metal fencing at a window of the bank and kicked and struck a second window with his foot, arm, and hand causing further damage to the broken window. Mr. Pharand then turned to the crowd and raised his arms in a celebratory gesture. Aggravating Factors [26] Over the course of his involvement, Mr. Pharand directed five acts of violence to the police officers who, although they were outnumbered, struggled to maintain their line. Mr.

Pharand only retreated when he was sprayed in the face with a noxious substance. In the context of the entire riot, 22 members of the police were injured predominately as a result of projectiles thrown at them. Six officers missed time at work as a result of injuries sustained in the riot. [27] Mr. Pharand's persistent disobedience of police directives and his acts of violence interfered with the police actions to bring the crowd under control. Mr. Pharand has had prior contacts with the police generally related to alcohol misuse. Mitigating Factors [28] Mr.

Pharand is a youthful offender with no prior convictions. He is the oldest of four children, born into a good, supportive family. He has pled guilty and expressed remorse for his actions. Mr. Pharand has strong support in the community from his family and his employer. The defence book of documents, Exhibit 4 in this proceeding, is replete with letters from members of Mr.

Pharand's family, friends, and several professionals, all attesting to his good character, his leadership skills, and potential both academically and in athletics. [29] The Crown seeks a six-month custodial sentence followed by a probation order and 100 to 150 hours of community work service. The Crown is opposed to a conditional sentence order given Mr.

Pharand's acts of violence towards the police and submits that a conditional sentence would not, in the circumstances of this offence and of this offender, meet the fundamental purpose and principles of sentence. [30] Defence counsel did not dispute the fact that Mr. Pharand's conduct during the riot warrants a custodial sentence, but urged the court to impose either an intermittent sentence in the range imposed on Mr. Peepre or, if necessary, a longer term by way of a conditional sentence order.

[31] Crown appeals of two earlier decisions, R. v. Peepre , a September 13th, 2012, decision of Walker J. of this court, and R. v. Kennedy Williams , a September 21st, 2012, decision of Galati J. of this court, had been filed and the hearing of the appeals was scheduled for the third week of January 2013. Sentencing of this matter was scheduled initially for December 21st, 2012.

Sentencing was postponed with the consent of the parties as the decision in these appeals was expected to resolve the outstanding issues on sentence between the parties. [32] The Court of Appeal handed down these decisions on March 19th, 2013. Neither sentence was overturned. The reasons of Madam Justice Garson for the panel in R. v. Peepre are most instructive.

Following a discussion of sentencing decisions from both the 1994 and 2011 Stanley Cup riots and the Toronto G20 (2011 public protests), Justice Garson said this at paragraph 30: These comparator cases disclose that, generally speaking, first time offenders (meaning those with no criminal record) will nevertheless receive a prison sentence of some significant length if their conduct includes: inciting others; engaging in additional criminal activity, such as assault (particularly of a police officer), arson, or wearing a mask; or committing multiple criminal acts in multiple locations. [33] Paragraph 31 of Justice Garson's reasons was subsequently amended in a corrigendum released April 2nd, 2013, which follows, "The sentences imposed in the" -- sorry, that should be 1991 Penticton riot: ... and the 1994 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot are significantly more punitive than the more recent sentences.

Those decisions predate the 1996 Criminal Code amendment (An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other Acts in consequence thereof ... and were imposed when sentencing options were more limited. Consequently it is my view that the pre-amendment riot-related sentencing decisions, while not irrelevant, must be considered with some caution. [34] A fit sentence for Mr. Pharand must take into account the context of the riot, Mr. Pharand's participation in the riot, his moral blameworthiness, all aggravating and mitigating factors. Mr.

Pharand placed himself in one of the most volatile situations at the beginning of the riot, the destruction of the GMC vehicle at the live site, and contrary to everything he had been taught and the values he espoused, Mr. Pharand set himself in direct conflict with the line of the police officers who were trying to quell the rioters and limit the damage being done. [35] Mr. Pharand repeatedly disobeyed police directions to clear the area, running through the area, facing off with the officers, and engaging in various forms of assaultive behaviour.

The most aggravated instances of that behaviour are the occasion when Mr. Pharand ran up to and shoulder-checked a police officer and when he kicked debris at another officer and struck him with one of the objects. Mr. Pharand then moved from that area to the Bank of Montreal and was caught on video smashing damaged windows with a piece of blue metal fencing and then his arm and foot. [36] It is common ground that Mr. Pharand's behaviour during the riot attracts a custodial sentence. Having considered the context of the riot, all of Mr.

Pharand's circumstances, the aggravating and mitigating factors, this court finds that his behaviour exceeds that which can be adequately addressed by a conditional sentence order. To address the principles of general deterrence and denunciation, this court finds a sentence of 75 days to be served intermittently to be a fit sentence. [37] Mr.

Pharand will be bound by a probation order for the next 18 months. [38] He will keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [39] He will serve the first day of the custodial term today and then will report Friday next, June 14th, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. to the North Fraser Pretrial Centre in Port Coquitlam or elsewhere as directed by his probation officer and remain in custody until Sunday, June 16th, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. and will repeat these weekends on successive Fridays until such time as the custodial term expires. [40] He will report to the probation office at 275 East Cordova Street, City of Vancouver, B.C., tomorrow, Wednesday, June 12th, 2013, before 12:00 noon in person and thereafter as and when directed by his probation officer. [41] After the custodial term is completed, Mr.

Pharand will perform 100 hours of community work service at the direction of and to the satisfaction of his probation officer. [42] Mr. Pharand will participate in counselling or programming as directed by his probation officer. [43] Mr. Pharand will publish letters of apology to the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver Police Department and the Bank of Montreal at the direction of his probation officer. [44] The victim fine surcharge is waived. [45] So Mr. Pharand, the deputy sheriff is going to take you into custody now. The paperwork will be processed.

You will be meeting subsequently with a justice of the peace who is going to go through the probation order with you, explain to you all of the terms on the probation order and the consequences of breaching those terms. [46] Do you have any questions? All right. [47] You have a tremendous amount of potential and I was certainly impressed with your expressions of remorse and the letter of apology that you have written.

I recall talking, either on the date submissions were made or perhaps it was later in December, about the fact that perhaps community work service could be achieved by you doing some public speaking, perhaps at schools, with respect to your experience here. If you are still prepared to engage in that kind of work, then that is something that you should talk to your probation

officer about. [48] Thank you, Mr. Finch, Ms. Sarbit. [49] MS. SARBIT: Thank you, Your Honour. The Crown directs a stay of proceedings with respect to Counts 2 and 3. [50] THE COURT: Thank you. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED] Court File No. 223528-1-V Vancouver Registry IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AGAINST JOSHUA KYLE PHARAND ADMISSIONS OF FACT Pursuant to

Section 655 of the Criminal Code , the following facts are hereby admitted for the purpose of dispensing with proof thereof at the sentencing hearing herein: THE RIOT GENERALLY 1 . On June 15, 2011, the Vancouver Canucks hockey team played game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals against the Boston Bruins (the “Game”) in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia (“Vancouver”). A riot occurred in the downtown core of Vancouver between approximately 7:30 p.m. on June 15, 2011 and 12:30 a.m. on June 16, 2011 (the “Riot”).

A copy of a Map of the downtown core of Vancouver depicting the area where Riot related incidents occurred is attached under Tab 2 of the Crown Book of Documents which is marked as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings. 2 . Joshua Kyle Pharand (“Pharand”) participated in the Riot. 3 . On June 15, 2011, there were approximately 155,000 people in the downtown core of Vancouver during the Game at various venues including Roger’s Arena, public viewing locations, private residences, restaurants and bars. 4 .

The main public viewing site was situated around the Vancouver Public Library bounded by West Georgia Street to the North, Robson Street to the South, Hamilton Street to the East and Homer Street to the West (the “Live Site”). A map showing the location of the Live Site and nearby businesses is attached under Tab 3 of the Crown Book of Documents. 5 . Approximately 55,000 people watched the game at the Live Site. 6 . Television coverage of the Game commenced at 5 p.m. The Boston Bruins won the Game at approximately 7:45 p.m. with a final score of 4-0.

7 . At approximately 7:42 p.m. a passenger vehicle, a Nissan Versa, was overturned at the Live Site. That vehicle was damaged and ultimately set on fire and destroyed shortly before 8:00 p.m. The Riot started at this location and spread throughout the downtown core of Vancouver. 8 . Video images showing the crowd in the Live Site and the vehicle being overturned and damaged are depicted on the DVD marked Exhibit 2 in these proceedings (“the DVD”). 9 . After the vehicle was set on fire, police officers forced the crowd away and firefighters attended and put out the fire.

Once the fire was out, the crowd converged on a second vehicle at the Live Site, a GMC. The GMC was damaged, overturned and set on fire at approximately 8:30 p.m. 10 . Between approximately 8:00 p.m. and 8:15 p.m., a number of police officers moved in to try to prevent further damage to the GMC and to control the crowds. 11 . Pharand is first captured on video disobeying police directions around the damaged GMC. Video evidence depicting Pharand’s involvement and the surrounding context is included in the DVD. 12 .

As the rioting crowds occupied West Georgia Street and the surrounding areas, multiple commercial premise windows were broken and the contents of the premises looted. Vehicles were vandalized, broken into and set on fire. Crowds of people faced off against the police and projectiles were thrown at the police. Numerous police officers and civilians were assaulted. An atmosphere of lawlessness, violence and destruction quickly consumed the downtown core of Vancouver. 13 . Pharand went on to participate in the Riot in the 600 block of Homer Street and in the 400 block of West Georgia Street at the Bank of Montreal.

Both locations are in close proximity to the Live Site. PHARAND’S PARTICIPATION IN THE RIOT 14 . On June 15, 2011, Pharand (age 19) was wearing a white long sleeve t-shirt that had an orange coloured stain on the left arm and armpit area, a plaid shirt tied around his waist, blue jeans and dark brown work boots. He had a blue bead necklace around his neck. A photograph of Pharand is attached at Tab 1 in the Crown Book of Documents. 15 . Pharand took the skytrain downtown with a number of friends to watch the hockey game. On the way downtown, Pharand consumed a few shots of Captain Morgan’s Rum.

They arrived at the Stadium Skytrain Station around 5:30 p.m. 16 . Pharand and his friends watched the hockey game at the Live Site. Following the game, he witnessed the crowds at the Live Site becoming unruly. 17 . Between approximately 8:00 p.m. and 8:15 p.m., a number of police officers stepped in to try to prevent further damage to the GMC by directing the crowds away from the vehicle. Pharand challenged the police direction by purposefully running through the area by the vehicle, as police attempted to stop him. 18 .

Pharand made his way towards the 600 block of Homer Street on the West side of the Live Site. There, members of the crowd were throwing objects at the police, disobeying police direction, and chanting, cheering and mocking the officers. The small group of police officers had retreated northbound on Homer Street and were attempting to control the crowds by moving forward and then back, maintaining distance from the aggressive crowd.

19 . Pharand formed part of the front line of rioters who become openly defiant with the police. Pharand approached the police line and shoulder checked a police officer. That police officer and a team member directed Pharand away by pushing him with a shield and striking him with a baton. 20 . Pharand returned to the front line of the crowd and continued to defy the police line by kicking three objects towards the police, one of which made contact with an officer. 21 . Pharand also picked a boot up off the street and threw it towards the police line. 22 .

At times, Pharand appeared to be enjoying himself, dancing in front of the crowd of rioters. 23 . As police pushed forward, Pharand ran back through the crowds towards the Bank of Montreal, located on the corner of Homer Street and West Georgia Street. 24 . He participated in the destruction of the Bank of Montreal by throwing a piece of fencing at a Bank of Montreal window. 25 . He also kicked and struck a second Bank of Montreal window with his foot, arm and hand. His actions caused further damage to the broken window. He cheered and gave high-fives to the crowd. 26 .

He remained downtown until approximately 10:30 p.m. when he took the skytrain home. RIOTING IN THE 600 BLOCK OF HOMER STREET 27 . Following the game, a “10-33” police dispatch came in, indicating a police officer in the area of Georgia Street and Homer Street was in need of assistance. Under Sergeant Athans’ direction, Squad 4, made up of 8 Public Safety Unit (“PSU”) police officers attended at the intersection to assist. While on route, the officers were advised a vehicle at the Live Site had been flipped over and set on fire.

The officers were wearing full protective gear, including a helmet and were carrying a long shield. 28 . As the police arrived at the intersection, shortly after 8:00 p.m., the crowd was immediately hostile and members of the crowd began throwing objects at the police line. The police retreated northbound on Homer Street, where they were assisted by uniformed police officers. 29 . Members of the crowd continued throwing any objects they could find in the street at the police, including metal fence sections, small metal fence connectors and their leg supports, glass bottles, rocks and garbage cans.

Some of the objects were large enough to cause serious injury to the officers. 30 . Some of the officers, in both uniform and in protective gear, were hit by the projectiles. Cst. Athans, for example, was struck in the helmet by a 2 pound steel locking pin taken from site fencing, causing a 3 ½ cm gouge on the top side of his helmet. 31 . There were hundreds of people in the area, significantly outnumbering the police. Approximately 60-70 aggressive males at the front of the crowd were responsible for the majority of the attacks on the police.

The police used an advance/ withdrawal tactic, moving forward then back to try to control the crowd and to maintain distance from the crowd for their personal safety. 32 . After about 15 minutes of holding back the crowd further patrol reinforcements arrived. The crowd continued to attack the police line, with some individuals using fencing as a battering ram. Recognizing the withdrawal tactic was not causing the crowd to disperse, police requested and were given authorization for individual officers to deploy pepper spray.

33 . At approximately 8:30 p.m., with the arrival of the mounted police unit, the police were finally able to gain control over the 600 block of Homer Street. 34 . Cst. Chipperfield was assigned to the Public Safety Unit as part of an evidence gathering team (EGT). His goal was to gather video evidence of persons of interest identified within a crowd. The EGT was positioned directly behind the front line of PSU members. This position placed him in the direct line of fire. At the time, he was not wearing a helmet or carrying a shield. Pharand’s actions were captured, in part, by Cst. Chipperfield.

His video evidence is included in the DVD. 35 . Pharand defied the police by shoulder-checking a police officer on the front line, kicking three objects towards the police officers, and throwing a boot towards the police line. His conduct, and the surrounding context, are depicted on the DVD and in the photographs in the Crown Book of Documents (Tab 5). RIOTING AT THE BANK OF MONTREAL 36 . The Bank of Montreal (“BMO”) is a financial institution located at 401 West Georgia Street, in Vancouver. The BMO was located at the northwest corner of the Live Site. 37 .

The BMO was one of the first buildings to be targeted during the riot. A map showing the location of the BMO in relation to the Live Site is attached at Tab 3 of the Crown Book of Documents. 38 . On the night of June 15, 2011, the BMO was closed and no employees were on site. 39 . By approximately 8:18 p.m., a large crowd had formed in front of the BMO. Fights were breaking out in the area. 40 . Members of the crowd began throwing objects (including large pieces of fencing and large metal poles) at the BMO, causing the windows to shatter. 41 .

A security officer was on site attempting to stop the crowd, but he was unable to do so. There were also several civilians in front of the BMO attempting to break up the crowd and stop the destruction of property. 42 . At approximately 8:25 p.m., rioters began entering and damaging the inside of the bank. 43 . Around the same time, some members of the crowd threw bottles and shards of glass from the broken BMO windows at the police line in the 400 block of West Georgia Street. 44 . Pharand participated in rioting at the BMO by throwing a blue metal fence, with other males, into a BMO window. 45 .

He also kicked a second BMO window with his foot and struck it twice with his right arm and hand, causing further damage. He then turned to the crowds and raised his arms in a celebratory manner. His actions and the context surrounding the BMO at the time are depicted in the video evidence on the DVD and in the photographs in the Crown Book of Documents (Tab 6). 46 . The damage to the BMO was extensive and included damage to the glass, the security gate, walls, and furniture among other items. The BMO leases the space from the building owner, Oxford Property Group.

The cost of the repairs was split between the two. The total cost of the damage was $137,574.14. The Oxford Property Group paid $51,512.16 and BMO paid $86, 061.98. 47 . Photographs showing the damage to the BMO are included at Tab 7 of the Crown Book of Documents.

PHARAND’S ATTENDANCE AT THE VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT 48 . On October 18, 2011, Detective Niddrie contacted Pharand by telephone and advised Pharand he was a possible suspect in relation to the Stanley Cup Riot. He had been identified through the tip line. 49 . On October 24, 2011, Pharand attended at the Vancouver Police Department. He was arrested and given his Charter rights. 50 . He provided a warned statement, in which he said: a. He did not intent to go downtown that night as he was supposed to work the next day. b. However, around lunch time, his employer gave him the following day off.

He contacted his friends and asked them to bring him a change of clothes so he could go downtown with them. They did not bring shoes, so he wore his work boots. c. He and approximately 8-10 friends drank alcohol on the car ride to the skytrain station. He had a few shots of Captain Morgan’s rum. He described himself as a little bit intoxicated. d. He arrived downtown around 5:30 p.m. and watched the game with his friends on one of the big screens close to the Stadium skytrain station. e. He observed the vibe of the crowd change. People were pushing and shoving and getting angry.

Some of the girls in his group became scared so they started heading towards the skytrain. On the way, he got separated from some of his friends. f. He was being “kicked, punched and trampled on” in the crowd. He started running out of the crowds and ended up getting tear gas in his face, causing him pain. He turned back into the crowd. g. Approximately 45 minutes after the game ended, he observed people smashing the windows of the “CBC” building. In poor judgment, he ran up and punched an already broken window. h.

He then found his girlfriend who helped find water for his face and together with his friends, made his way back to the Skytrain station. It was about 10:30 p.m. when he left downtown to go home. i. His mother saw a photograph of him on the police riot website and confronted him. Shortly thereafter, Detective Niddrie contacted him about his involvement at the riot. j. In the interview, he identified himself in photos striking and throwing a piece of fence at the Bank of Montreal windows. He stated he had forgotten about the fence, but remembered after seeing the photographs. k.

He stated that was the extent of his involvement in the riot. IMPACT OF THE RIOT 51 . Set out below is a

summary of the overall context and impact of the Riot on the City of Vancouver, its citizens and businesses.

52 . On the night of the Riot, 1035 Emergency Personnel were deployed to the downtown core of Vancouver divided as follows: a. 928 police officers of which 606 were members of the Vancouver Police Department and 322 were members from other lower mainland municipalities and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“Police”); b. 63 members of the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services (“Fire Services”) and; c. 44 members of the British Columbia Ambulance Service (“Ambulance Services”). 53 .

On June 15, 2011 there were more calls to 911 in the 4 hour period after the Game then there had historically been in any 24 hour period. For example, at one point during the Riot there were 92 calls to 911 for Ambulance Services placed on hold. 54 . On June 15, 2011 at approximately 8:17 p.m. Ambulance Services Command determined that the area East of Burrard Street was not safe and relocated all, except six of their members, to St. Paul’s Hospital. Six specially trained Ambulance Services members of the Integrated Tactical Support Unit (“ITSU”) remained with the Police in the area of the Riot.

ITSU members responded to calls within the area of the Riot and coordinated casualty removal to safe areas for treatment. The six ITSU members were the only medical resource available in the area of the Riot. ITSU dealt with over 100 patients during the Riot. 55 . Between 6 p.m. on June 15, 2011 and 6 a.m. on June 16, 2011 St. Paul’s Hospital dealt with 150 emergency room visits. In comparison, Vancouver General Hospital dealt with 15 emergency room visits for the same time frame. St.

Paul’s Hospital also set up a patient decontamination area outside of the emergency room to deal with patients suffering from exposure to tear gas or pepper spray. An additional 100 people were treated at the decontamination area. 56 . The Integrated Riot Investigation Team of the Vancouver Police Department has identified 297 Riot Events. A Riot Event is an incident relating to either a certain location, such as London Drugs, a piece of property, such as a motor vehicle, or a person, such as a victim of an assault.

For example, the Break and Enter to London Drugs located at 710 Granville Street which involved looting of the store by approximately 300 individuals was recorded as a single event. The 297 events involved: a. 26 arsons; b. 193 mischiefs; c. 26 break and enters; and d. 52 assaults, of which 18 were civilians, 32 were police officers (one of whom was assaulted twice) and 1 was a firefighter. 57 . There were 116 arrests in the area of the Riot on June 15, 2011. 58 .

During the Riot: a. 112 businesses were damaged; b. 122 vehicles were damaged or destroyed, divided into three main categories of: i. 93 civilian vehicles; ii. 5 business vehicles; iii. 24 emergency veh icles (police and fire department); 59 . As of February 2, 2012, the total estimated monetary loss as a result of the Riot was $3,778,190.59. This can be attributed as follows:

a. $2,715,591.59 to businesses; b. $537,869.00 to civilians; c. $524,730 to the City of Vancouver, Ambulance Services and St. Paul’s Hospital. This figure is not a comprehensive representation of loss as 85 events have not provided estimates of loss and many additional costs such as lost wages, or labour costs for businesses have not been included. 60 . The psychological impact of the Riot is difficult to quantify as personal experiences varied greatly.

Some persons barricaded themselves inside businesses for safety, others guarded their businesses against rioters, a number of citizens defended property or other persons at risk to themselves. Some people have sought counselling. What is common to all is that the Riot has stripped a sense of safety and security from citizens of Vancouver. DATED this ___ day of October 2012, at the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia. Martin Finch Lara Sarbit Counsel for Joshua Pharand Counsel for the Crown