R. v. Pateman Date:, 2012 BCPC 455

Citation: R. v. Pateman Date: 20121005 2012 BCPC 0455 File No: 223534-1-V Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. Jacob Gwynne Pateman REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. St. Pierre Counsel for the Crown: Rod Flannigan Counsel for the Defendant: Brent Anderson Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: August 31, 2012 Date of Judgment: October 5 th , 2012

[1] Jacob Pateman has pled guilty to a charge under

Section 65 of the Criminal Code that he participated in the so-called StanleyCup Riots that took place on June 15, 2011 in Vancouver. [2] That day is now infamous for the large-scale riots that broke out after the Vancouver Canucks lost game seven of the StanleyCup final. There were over 155,000 people in the downtown core at various venues. The vast majority of those people chose not to getinvolved in those riots. Some, like Mr. Pateman, made a different choice. [3] There were Admissions of Fact filed in this case and they are appended to these reasons.

They describe the riot generally and atthe Sears Store where Mr. Pateman was involved. They also provide some information about the impact of the riot which cannot beunderstated. [4] The context of the riot has been discussed in detail in several sentencing cases prior to this one (R. v. Dickinson 2012 BCPC40; R. v. Alviar 2012 BCPC 181 and R. v. Patillo 2012 BCPC 299). I don’t propose to comment much further with respect to thatexcept to say that it was clearly one of the worst modern spectacles of civil disorder this province has known.

It was a shameful blight onthe hard-earned good reputation of both this city and this province. It caused the citizenry to be justifiably outraged at the behaviour ofthose (mostly) young people who opted to participate. Crown Position on Sentence [5] The Crown submits that it is mindful of the principle of restraint in taking the position that a 30-90 day jail sentence withprobation including 50-100 hours of community work service would be appropriate. They are not opposed to the jail sentence beingserved on an intermittent basis.

Defence Position on Sentence [6] The Defence argues that the Conditional Discharge provisions can be considered in these circumstances. If the court decidesthat a jail sentence is necessary, the defence asks that the sentence be served in the community by way of a Conditional Sentence Order. Mr. Pateman’s Participation in the Riot [7] The police arrested Mr. Pateman on November 4th, 2011 after investigating his ex-girlfriend’s participation. He was to celebrate his 19th birthday the following day. He immediately admitted his involvement. [8] On June 15th, 2011 Mr.

Pateman drank alcohol and watched the game with friends in North Vancouver. They travelleddowntown before the game ended. He told the police he continued to drink downtown and may have (although he no longer has anymemory of it) taken a pill of ecstasy that night. [9] He stayed downtown watching the eventual mayhem and ugliness that occurred that evening. At some point he saw his ex-girlfriend and they walked towards the Sears Department Store.

There they stood and watched some, to quote Justice Oliver, “yahoosand hooligans” try to break the glass doors of the Sears store. [10] What is somewhat unique about the video portraying Mr. Pateman’s involvement is that he, in contrast to his clearly amusedex-girlfriend, does not appear to be enjoying the scenario. Others are generally euphoric and yelling words of encouragement to thosewho were trying to break into the Sears. Mr. Pateman appears largely expressionless as he stood nearby watching. [11] Mr.

Pateman watches as the door is eventually broken by others and after one person dressed in fatigues enters the store a wholegroup of excited individuals, including Mr. Snelgrove (R. v. Snelgrove 2012 BCPC 235 , [2012] B.C.J. No. 1448), enter thestore. Mr. Pateman’s ex-girlfriend then is seen running into the store. [12] At this point Mr. Pateman makes the fateful decision to go in after her. He admits that he was also grabbing items from theglass cases near the entrance. He took some fake nails, some gold boxes and cologne.

None of these items he kept. [13] He later went to the Art Gallery to attend a rave and then arrived at home at approximately 2:00 a.m. [14] The impact of Mr. Pateman’s (and others) behaviour that night had a huge deleterious impact on the city and the victims of thedamage and looting. Mr. Joshua Pollard was a Sears Investigator on duty that night. He wrote a Victim Impact Statement that describedhow terrified, sick and defeated he was when looters broke into the store. He was calling the police over and over and could not get anyassistance due to the violent mob that was tearing through the heart of our city.

His account and those of hundreds of others who weredirectly and indirectly impacted need to be known by the people who participated in this terrible incident. Mr. Pateman’s Personal Circumstances [15] Mr. Pateman was 18 years old at the time of the offence. He was born in Augusta, Georgia and adopted by the Pateman’s at ayoung age. He has a 13 year old sister. He grew up in a stable and supportive home environment. He was a talented athlete. He struggleda little bit with academics but he has completed his Grade 12 education and intends on attending BCIT in the near future to take awelding course.

He has a large extended family and they clearly hold him in high regard. Many of those people have written letters ofsupport for him.

[16] The letters of support were from a wide array of individuals who have had some involvement with Mr. Pateman over the years.He had been working for a contracting company for the last three years and the president wrote a letter vouching for his usual goodcharacter. [17] A shipbuilding company offered him a work experience program and the Safety Manager there noted that “it was unusual thatsomeone of such a young age showed such a strong work ethic and did not complain at any time as to the tasks he was assigned, whetherdifficult or mundane”. [18] He has done volunteer work with Evergreen BC.

The Executive Director for the North Shore Restorative Justice Society wrote aletter outlining Mr. Pateman’s efforts to engage Sears Canada in making amends for the losses and damages he caused the company andits employees.

He has also committed to exploring the impacts of his alcohol misuse and has agreed to start attending sessions hosted byVancouver Coastal Health. [19] He has letters from his former teachers, coaches, family and friends all attesting to his usual good character and offering himsupport as he goes through the process of rebuilding the reputation he had earned among those closest to him. [20] He has suffered the usual extensive publicity that has deservedly been given to the young people involved in this shamefulincident.

His name and photograph were prominently displayed in several news stories dealing with the riots. Thanks to Google he willnot easily escape this spotlight. [21] He has a youth record for a relatively minor assault in 2009. He received probation for one year. Analysis [22] The Crown relies heavily on R. v. Loewen (1992) (BC CA), 15 B.C.A.C. 42 (BCCA). The followingpassages are most often cited by the Crown for supporting their position that jail is a necessary disposition for rioters: To take

part in a riot is by mere presence to contribute to the excitement, fervour, 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. The number of persons involved in the Penticton riot, the physical injury inflicted upon police officers, the physical damage occasionedto civic as well as to private property, and the damage done to the general reputation of the Penticton community, demonstrate that thecircumstances of the riot were far from "ordinary". Taking

part in the Penticton riot was a serious offence. While it was not alleged that the appellant caused physical violence to persons, itwas clearly established by the video recording and by his admissions through counsel that he caused damage to property. His actionsencouraged others to take

part in the riot. Taking into account all of the foregoing circumstances I am of the view that in this case the sentencing principle of not imposing acustodial sentence upon a first time offender must yield to the imposition of a custodial sentence that will recognize the principle ofgeneral deterrence. [23] I accept, as Crown has submitted, that the principles of general deterrence and denunciation are the primary factors to considerin imposing a fit sentence in cases involving participating in a riot.

Of course, it would also be an error of law to simply ignore the otherimportant principles of sentencing as set out in Sections 718 – 718.2 of the Criminal Code. [24] I have been given some 45 authorities to consider in this case and I don’t propose to mention them all in these reasons. I willappend a list of those authorities so that it is understood that I have considered them all in engaging in this difficult process ofdetermining a fit sentence for Mr. Pateman. [25] I have, after considering those authorities and the circumstances of Mr.

Pateman and his involvement in this riot, determinedthat a Conditional Discharge is not available to Mr. Pateman as it is clearly contrary to the public interest and does not meet theimportant sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation. [26] I have concluded that a jail sentence is the appropriate sentence. An important question remains however. Can that jail sentencebe served in the community by way of a Conditional Sentence Order?

Is a Conditional Sentence Order appropriate? [27] It seems agreed by both the Crown and the Defence that all but one of the prerequisites for the imposition of a ConditionalSentence Order found in

Section 742.1 of the Code have been met. The Crown maintains that it would not be consistent with thefundamental purpose and principles of general deterrence and denunciation. [28] In R. v .Proulx 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] S.C.J. No. 6 (S.C.C.) there is a recognition that the Conditional Sentence regimewas Parliament's response to over-incarceration in Canada and reflected a desire to lessen its use.

[29] There was also a recognition that sentencing is a very individualized process and informed, reasonable and right-thinkingcitizens (and judges, for that matter) can and will differ on what the appropriate sentence should be in a given circumstance. [30] In Proulx (above) Chief Justice Lamer, after deferring to the sentencing judge’s decision to impose a sentence of incarcerationin a case involving a driver who had driven drunk and recklessly and thereby caused the death of one person and severely injuredanother, said at par. 130: …In fact, were I a trial judge, I might have found that a conditional sentence would have been appropriate in this case.

The respondent isstill very young, he had no prior record and no convictions since the accident, he seems completely rehabilitated, he wants to go back toschool, he has already suffered a lot by causing the death of a friend and was himself in a coma for some time. To make sure that theobjectives of denunciation and general deterrence would have been sufficiently addressed, I might have imposed conditions such ashouse arrest and a community service order requiring the offender to speak to designated groups about the consequences of dangerousdriving, as was the case in Parker, supra, at p. 239, and R. v.

Hollinsky, (1995) (ON CA), 103 C.C.C. (3d) 472 (Ont.C.A.). [31] The court in Proulx (above) was careful to stress that there are times when the need for denunciation is so pressing thatincarceration will be the only suitable way to express society’s condemnation (see par. 106). However, they also noted, with respect todenunciation: 105 The stigma of a conditional sentence with house arrest should not be underestimated.

Living in the community under strictconditions where fellow residents are well aware of the offender's criminal misconduct can provide ample denunciation in many cases.In certain circumstances, the shame of encountering members of the community may make it even more difficult for the offender toserve his or her sentence in the community than in prison. [32] Denunciation can also be met in other ways. In R. v. D.E.S.M. (BC CA), [1993] B.C.J.

No. 702 (B.C.C.A.)a five-member panel of our Court of Appeal in the context of a Crown sentence appeal for a historical sex assault said this: 20 There is no suggestion that the accused is a danger to anyone so he need not be isolated in order to protect the public. By convictinghim, society has already stigmatized him as a person who has committed a serious offence, and has denounced his offence. Quiterecently, the Supreme Court of Canada has expressed itself quite strongly on the importance of stigma as a consequence of criminalproceedings.

The Court has been saying what most lawyers and criminologists have known all along, that a public charge, trial andconviction for a serious offence brands a person for life, constitutes serious punishment, and is an important part of the way societybrings offenders to account for their misconduct. [33] Mr. Pateman will now have a criminal record. This is a significant deterrent in modern society where employers are conductingcriminal records checks on a frequent basis. As Judge Harris said in R. v. Alviar 2012 BCPC 181 , [2012] BCJ No. 1179 (B.C.Prov. Ct.) at par. 30: It must be remembered that Mr.

Alviar will now have a criminal record. This record will brand Mr. Alviar as a person who hastranscended societal values. The criminal record will impact his ability to travel, and it will make it difficult for him to pursue variousemployment options. Given Mr. Alviar's age this is a significant consequence. [34] The deterrent effect of going through this very process cannot be understated as well.

The humiliation of getting caught,charged and sentenced under the bright light of public and media scrutiny that has attached to these cases must have a powerful deterrenteffect on those young men and women in the future who will be called upon to make a decision whether to leave or whether toparticipate in disgraceful, cowardly and immature behaviour such as that displayed during this incident. (See R. v. J.G. [1992] 1788(BCCA)). [35] It is somewhat ironic that one of the theories of why people engage in this kind of conduct is that they feel protected fromscrutiny by seeking anonymity in a mob.

Of course, in this day and age, almost everyone carries on their person a device for taking highresolution video and pictures of those individuals who decide to participate. It was this complete lack of anonymity that has led tohundreds of individuals being charged with serious criminal offences. The majority of these people have no experience with the criminallaw. [36] In the independent report on the riots entitled, “The Night the City Became a Stadium”, it is noted that it is no longerpossible for rioters to escape into anonymity. This spotlight is an enduring consequence.

This consequence, no doubt, has not only a realimpact on those who were caught, but on future potential rioters as well. The report says this: A CRIMINAL RECORD Restorative, community justice is particularly important in the age of digital photography. The foolish young rioters of today have aproblem the rioters of 1966 and 1994 we referred to at the beginning of this

section did not. The modern rioter’s noxious behaviour is onworldwide display from now on thanks to digital photography and the Internet. This is a life sentence to a virtual jail.

As these young people mature and try to build a useful life they will find they have a criminal record of a sort that never existed before. Restorative justice provides a way for an offender to demonstrate remorse and a renewed commitment to the community. Many young people break the law. Not many years ago if a person was not caught by the police, prosecuted, and convicted, there wouldbe no record of it. And, if there was, it would be sealed.

Today a young person, perhaps with the help of the stranger cheering his antics,can create his own criminal record – one that cannot be expunged – to dog him for the rest of his life. The anonymity the rioters of 1966and 1994 enjoy today is not available to their children and grandchildren.

The community owes them nothing, but a wise community willoffer them something – an opportunity to make amends. [37] Of course, it must also be remembered that experts are generally agreed that it is the likelihood of discovery and not the severityof the punishment that is the most effective deterrent (The Report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, 1987). [38] It has now been over a year since the riots and the courts are being asked to sentence immature young men (and some young women) for their inexcusable behaviour during the night of June 15th, 2011.

Many of these young men were of good character before theincident and many have greatly matured as a result of going through this process. The court in R. v. Lai [2006] B.C.J. No. 1771 (BCCA)notes that the passage of time for young men is much more significant than it is for more mature adults (par. 104). [39] In Loewen (above), our Court of Appeal determined that jail was necessary in that case to meet the principle of generaldeterrence. Even though every case is likely distinguishable on their own facts, I have similarly determined that a jail sentence isnecessary for the same reason.

Loewen, however, says nothing about whether a Conditional Sentence Order could, despite clearly beinga more lenient sentence than incarceration in a prison, satisfy the same principles. The Conditional Sentence provisions were enactedyears after the Loewen case was decided. [40] When dealing with a sentence for criminal negligence causing death in a street racing context, Chief Justice Finch said this atpar. 61 in R. v. Bhalru, 2003 BCCA 645 (BCCA): In my opinion, the ranges of sentence for criminal negligence causing death set out in Woodley are of limited assistance.

The Courtenunciated that classification scheme prior to the 1996 sentencing amendments and Parliament's dramatic shift in sentencing policy awayfrom the use of prison as a sanction and towards the use of restorative justice principles. This is not to say that sentencing decisionswhich predate the 1996 amendments are of no assistance when determining an appropriate sentence today. However, those olderdecisions should be regarded cautiously, especially when they are relied on to argue for sentences which may not comply with theprinciple of restraint that is evident in ss. 718.2(

d) and (e). [41] I have carefully considered the aggravating factors (including the nature of this offence, the accepted proposition that theactions of one rioter are the actions of all and that individual actions cannot be separated from the context of a major riot, the minorcriminal record, the looting aspect and others) as well as the mitigating factors (including Mr.

Pateman’s youth, his positive reputation inthe community, his employment prospects, his genuine remorse, his willingness to engage in restorative measures and others) indetermining that a Conditional Sentence Order is the most appropriate sentence in this case. [42] Having regard for the principles of sentencing set out in the Code, the circumstances of this offence and this offender and thesentences that have been imposed recently on other Stanley Cup rioters I find Mr. Pateman should receive a sentence somewherebetween that of Miss Cacnio (R. v. Cacnio [2012] BCJ No. 1891 (suspended sentence)) and that of Mr.

Snelgrove (R. v. Snelgrove2012 BCPC 235 , [2012] BCJ No. 1448 (5 month CSO)). Miss Cacnio was of similar good character but had no criminal record.Mr. Snelgrove, on the other hand, was significantly more mature in years (24 years old) than Mr. Pateman. I am sentencing Mr. Patemanto 60 days jail to be served by way of a Conditional Sentence Order. In addition there will be a period of probation for 15 months. Conditions of Conditional Sentence Order – 60 days MANDATORY CONDITIONAL SENTENCE CONDITIONS UNDER s. 742.3(1) You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

You shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court. You shall report in person to a Conditional Sentence Supervisor no later than 4 pm on Monday, October 8th, 2012 at the ProbationOffice at #275 East Cordova, Vancouver, B.C., and you shall thereafter report as and when directed by the Supervisor and in themanner directed by the Supervisor.

You shall remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless written permission to go outside the jurisdiction is obtained from the court or the Supervisor. You shall notify the court or the Supervisor in advance of any change of name, or address, and promptly notify the court or the Supervisor of any change of employment or occupation. OPTIONAL CONDITIONS Curfew – You will remain within your residence between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. every weekday. You will also remain within your residence from 9:00 p.m. on Friday until 7:00 a.m. the following Monday morning. You will only be allowed outside your residence during those hours for the following reasons:

a) with the written consent of the Supervisor;

b) when traveling directly to, or returning directly from, your place of employment, or while in the course of your employment. You shall provide the Supervisor with written proof of employment;

c) when traveling directly to, or returning directly from, an educational institution at which you are enrolled, or while in the course of classes or extracurricular activities approved by the Supervisor at such educational institution. You shall provide the Supervisor with written proof of your educational enrollment or your involvement in extracurricular activities;

d) for any other reason approved of by your Supervisor, including counseling and participating in restorative justice programs.

e) in the event of a medical emergency and then only when traveling directly to, or returning directly from a hospital emergency ward; Present at Door You shall present yourself at the door to your residence when any Peace Officer or Supervisor attends there for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew condition of this Order. Answer Phone You shall respond personally and immediately to the telephone when a Peace Officer or Supervisor makes a telephone call to your residence for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew condition of this Order. No alcohol/Drugs You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or any controlled substance within the meaning of

Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except as prescribed for you by a physician . No Bars You shall not be found within any establishment that holds a licence excluding individuals under the age of 19 years. No Weapons You shall not possess any weapon as defined in

Section 2 of the Criminal Code . Counselling You shall attend, participate in and successfully complete any counselling or program as directed by the Supervisor, including, but not limited to, alcohol or drug abuse counselling. Reconciliation Subject to the wishes of Sears Canada, you shall participate in a victim/offender reconciliation program under the supervision and direction of your Supervisor. Conditions of Probation : 15 Months Report Upon completion of your Conditional Sentence Order you will report to a Probation Officer where and when as directed.

Reside You will reside where directed by your Probation Officer and not change that address without the written permission of that person.

No alcohol/Drugs You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or any controlled substance within the meaning of

Section 2 of theControlled Drugs and Substances Act, except as prescribed for you by a physician. No Bars You shall not be found in any establishment that holds a licence excluding individuals under the age of 19 years. No Weapons You shall not possess any weapon as defined in

Section 2 of the Criminal Code. Counselling You shall attend, participate in and successfully complete any counselling or program as directed bythe Probation Officer, including, but not limited to, alcohol or drug abuse counseling. Reconciliation Subject to the wishes of Sears Canada, you shall participate in a victim/offender reconciliation program under thesupervision and direction of your Probation Officer. School or Work You shall:

a) attend school regularly and not be absent except in accordance with a medical certificate or theadvance written consent of the Probation Officer; or

b) make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain employment approved by the Probation Officer. If on any occasion that you report tothe Probation Officer you are not actually employed you shall provide the Officer with a report describing the efforts you have made tofind employment since your last report. Community Work You will perform 100 hours of Community Work Service to be completed at the direction and to the satisfaction ofyour Probation Officer within the first 12 months of Probation Order. _______________________________ The Honourable Judge David St. Pierre R. v. Pateman - Cases Considered R. v.

Loewen, (BC CA), 75 C.C.C. (3d) 184, 1992 CarswellBC 1104 (WL Can) (BCCA) R. v. Breault, [1991] 39 QAC 73, JE 91-1242 (WL Can) R. v. Simpson, 2004 ABCA 390 , 2004 ABCA 390, 2004 CarswellAlta 1595 (WL Can) R. v. Blackshaw, [2011] EWCA Crim 2312 Times R. v. Catenacci, 2012 ONCA 187 , 2012 ONCA 187, [2012] O.J. No. 1323 R. v. Post (26 September 1991), Penticton 18726-2C2, (SCBC) Unreported decision of Oliver, J. R. v. Simpson, [2005] AWLD 1584, 2004 CarswellAlta 1886 (WL Can) R. v. Starcevic (21 August 1991), Penticton 18759 (BCPC) Unreported decision of Behncke J. R. v.

McCabe (16 October 1991), Penticton 18947 (BCPC) Unreported decision of Weddell J. R. v. Newth (19 March 1992), Penticton 18571C (BCPC) Unreported decision of Sinclair, J. R. v. Fuller, JE 95-1118, 1995 CarswellQue 2513 (WL Can) (Que Mun Ct) R. v. Adboukhazaal (13 October 1994), Vancouver 80926D (BCPC) Unreported decision of Weitzel, J. R. v. Holness (20 October 1994), Vancouver 80827-80828D (BCPC) Unreported decision of McGivern J. R. v. Psarrakis (28 April 1995), Vancouver 83317-D (BCPC) Unreported decision of McGivern J.

R. v. Manson (19 May 1995), Vancouver 788873-DC (BCPC) Unreported decision of Craig J. R. v. Snyder, 2007 BCPC 161 , 2007 BCPC 161, [2007] B.C.J. No. 1113 R. v. EP, 2007 BCPC 159 , 2007 BCPC 159, [2007] B.C.J. No. 1111 R. v. Cote, 2011 ONCJ 778 , 2011 ONCJ 778, 2011 CarswellOnt 14792 (WL Can) R. v. Henry, 2011 ONCJ 501 , 2011 ONCJ 501, 278 C.C.C. (3d) 344, 2011 CarswellOnt 10039 (WL Can) R. v. Catenacci, 2011 CarswellOnt 15707 (WL Can) (Ont CJ) R. v. Dickinson, 2012 BCPC 40 , 2012 BCPC 40, [2012] B.C.J. No. 314 R. v. Alviar, 2012 BCPC 181 , 2012 BCPC 181, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1179 R. v.

Snelgrove, 2012 BCPC 235, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1448 R. v. Yates, 2012 BCPC 250, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1553 R. v. S.P.G., [2012] B.C.J. No. 1889 (B.C. Prov. Ct.) R. v. Patillo, 2012 BCPC 299, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1786 R. v. Cacnio, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1891 (B.C. Prov. Ct.) R. v. Burkett, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1892 (B.C. Prov. Ct.) R. v. Peepre, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1928 (B.C. Prov. Ct.) R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , 2000 SCC 5, [2000] S.C.R. 61, [2000] S.C.J. No. 1 R. v. C.A.M., (SCC), [1996] S.C.R. 500, [1996] S.C.J. No. 28 R. v. McArthur, (ON CA), 182 C.C.C. (3d) 230, [2004] O.J. No. 721 (Ont. C.A.) R. v.

Schoniger, 1999 ABCA 320 , 1999 ABCA 320, [1999] A.J. No. 1275 R. v. D.E.S.M., (BC CA), [1993] B.C.J. No. 702 (CA) R. v. Priest, (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 3369 (CA) R. v. Coon, 2012 ONCJ 72 , 2012 ONCJ 72 R. v. Middleton, 2009 SCC 21 , 2009 SCC 21 R. v. Power, [2003] O.J. No. 2414 (CA) R. v. R.F., 2012 ONCJ 394 , 2012 ONCJ 394 R. v. O'Brien, 2012 ONCJ 101 , 2012 ONCJ 101 R. v. Legge, [2011] N.J. No. 91 R. v. Fallofield (BC CA), [1973] B.C.J. No. 559 (BCCA) R. v. Jacques [2002] A.J. No. 731 (Alta. Prov. Ct.) R. v. J.G., [1992] B.C.J. No. 1788 R. v. Lai, [2006] B.C.J. No. 1771 (BCCA) R. v.

Bhalru, 2003 BCCA 645 (BCCA) R. v. Foianesi [2011] M.J. No. 115 (Man. C.A.)