R. v. C.M.B., 2013 BCPC 52

Citation: R. v. C.M.B., et al. Date: 20130125 2013 BCPC 0052 File No: 22598-1-V Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. C.M.B., M.J.D. AND S.P.M. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M.F. GIARDINI Counsel for the Crown: M. Booker Counsel for C.M.B.: R. Drury Counsel for M.J.D. & S.P.M. : B.L. Hickford Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 14, 25, 2013

Date of Judgment: January 25, 2013 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] C.M.B., M.J.D. and S.P.M. have each pled guilty to taking

part in the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup playoff riot contrary to s. 65 of the Criminal Code (“the Code ”).

Section 65 of the Code provides that everyone who takes

part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. [ 2 ] The incident giving rise to the charges against the three young persons took place in Vancouver on June 15, 2011, (“June 15”) the night of the now infamous second Vancouver Stanley Cup riot (“the riot”). The Vancouver Canucks were playing the Boston Bruins in the seventh game of the Stanley Cup finals (“the game”). During the game thousands of people congregated in downtown Vancouver. Large television monitors had been set up in designated venues to allow people to watch the game.

At the end of the seventh and final game, the mood and actions of some people in the crowd turned ugly. What had been promoted and anticipated to be a victory celebration quickly degenerated into a violent, senseless riot. ADMISSIONS OF FACT [ 3 ] Pursuant to s. 655 of the Code , the parties agreed to admit the following facts: The riot generally [ 4 ] On June 15 the Vancouver Canucks hockey team played game seven of the Stanley Cup finals against the Boston Bruins in Vancouver, British Columbia.

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. [ 5 ] C.M.B. (“B.”), M.J.D. (“D.”) and S.P.M. (“M.”) all participated in the riot. [ 6 ] That night, there were approximately 155,000 people in the downtown core of Vancouver during the game at various venues including Rogers Arena, public viewing locations, private residences, restaurants and bars. [ 7 ] The main public viewing site or “live site” was situated near the Rogers arena in an area that has the Vancouver Public Library, the Canada Post Building, Queen Elizabeth Theatre and the CBC.

The area is bounded by West Georgia Street, Robson Street, Hamilton Street and Homer Street. Approximately 55,000 people watched the game at the live site. [ 8 ] 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. Rioting at and near the live site and the post office [ 9 ] During the game, two vehicles were parked in front of the Canada Post Building in the live site. Those vehicles were a silver Nissan Versa, (the “Versa”) and a green GMC Sierra, (the “GMC”).

The Versa was used as a work vehicle by Roy Hermanus (“Hermanus”) and Samantha Lewis (“Lewis”), who were both working at the Canada Post building located at 349 West Georgia Street, Vancouver during the Riot. [ 10 ] The vehicles were parked at or close to the Canada Post Building parking area on West Georgia Street. [ 11 ] The riot started at the live site and spread throughout the downtown core of Vancouver. Shortly before the game ended, the crowd at the live site began yelling, screaming and throwing various items.

The video clips contained in a DVD, marked as an exhibit in these proceedings, depicts the atmosphere just prior to the end of the game and at the beginning of the riot. [ 12 ] At approximately 7:42 p.m. a number of individuals flipped the Versa onto its hood. The riot started at this location and spread throughout the downtown core of Vancouver. Sergeant Dore and Constable Fealing of the Vancouver City Police were working in the live site as members of the Public Safety Unit (“PSU”). They were present when the crowd flipped the Versa and set it on fire. PSU members moved in toward the burning vehicle.

The crowd surrounding the PSU members became hostile and started throwing projectiles at them. Photographs of the burning Versa were entered as exhibits. [ 13 ] Minutes before setting the Versa on fire, the rioters began to attack the GMC. [ 14 ] After the Versa was set on fire, police officers moved the crowd away from the Versa and away from the GMC. Firefighters attended to put out the fire. [ 15 ] After the fire was put out, the crowd returned to the GMC. The rioters damaged the GMC and tried to set it on fire by throwing burning articles onto the truck.

When a member of the crowd tried to stop the destruction he was assaulted. [ 16 ] At approximately 8:30 p.m., the rioters overturned the GMC and set it on fire. [ 17 ] As the rioting crowds occupied West Georgia Street and the surrounding areas, windows of multiple commercial premises 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.

The three young offenders’ participation in the riot [ 18 ] B., D. and M. participated in the riot at the live site, first, in relation to the Versa; second, at the stand-off between rioters and the police (at the intersection of Homer Street and West Georgia Street); and third, at the Canada Post Building. [ 19 ] Images of B., D. and M. as they appeared on the evening of June 15, 2011 were entered as exhibits at the sentencing hearing. [ 20 ] The description of the clothing worn by them on June 15, is: a. B.: green hockey helmet, blue Vancouver Canuck’s jersey, blue shorts and green shoes; b.

D.: blue baseball cap, blue/grey/black long sleeved shirt over a yellow t-shirt, brown and grey shorts and grey shoes; and, c. M.: dark baseball cap; grey t-shirt, black backpack, khaki shorts and dark coloured shoes. The Versa [ 21 ] On June 15 at approximately 7:45 p.m., a large group of people began to damage the Versa by kicking it, throwing objects at it, jumping on it, flipping it over, and ultimately lighting it on fire. B, D. and M. were members of the crowd who damaged the Versa. [ 22 ] After members of the crowd overturned the Versa, B. climbed on top of the Versa and then climbed back down.

Approximately two minutes later, B. climbed on top of the Versa for a second time. While on top of the Versa, he stomped and jumped on the Versa for approximately 10 seconds. B. also did the following: a. he picked up a lawn chair and threw it at the Versa; b. he slapped the top of the Versa and posed for pictures beside it; c. he hugged, high-fived and cheered D. after watching D. strike the side of the Versa five consecutive times with a black object; and, d. he kicked the Versa twice with his right foot. [ 23 ] D. also participated in the destruction of the Versa.

He used a black object to hit the side of the overturned Versa five times, threw an unknown object at the Versa, and climbed on top of the vehicle while stomping on it repeatedly. [ 24 ] With respect to M. his actions were as follows: a. he kicked the front of the Versa more than once; b. he climbed on top of the overturned Versa and stomped and jumped on top of it; and, c. he threw an item at the Versa. [ 25 ] A DVD of video recordings of the actions of B., D. and M. in relation to the Versa was marked as an exhibit in these proceedings [ 26 ] While the Versa was burning, B. stood cheering with both hands in the air and posing for the cameras.

Photographs depicting B. posing for the cameras in front of the burning Versa were entered as exhibits. [ 27 ] In the early morning of June 16, 2011, the Versa was towed to the Vancouver Police impound lot located underneath the Cambie Street Viaduct for safe keeping and further investigation. [ 28 ] On June 17, 2011 at approximately 6:44 p.m., Constable Michael Simmons of the Vancouver Police Forensic Identification Unit attended the secure Vancouver Police impound lot to photograph the damaged and destroyed vehicles. The Versa was totally destroyed with a melted hub cap attached to the windshield.

Photographs of the Versa were entered as exhibits. [ 29 ] In addition to the loss sustained because of the destruction of the Versa, Mr. Hermanus lost tools and equipment totalling $7,545.00. Mr. Hermanus stated the loss of this vehicle and another vehicle also damaged in the riot resulted in a loss of 30 man hours to his company, with a value of $2,700. As a result of this incident, Mr. Hermanus suffered from stress and a loss of sleep. A victim impact statement by Mr.

Hermanus and an itemized list of the items lost were entered as exhibits. [ 30 ] The details of costs associated to the Versa as recorded by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia were: - Total Loss (including deductable): $3,472.00 - Salvaged (money recovered): $352.88 - Towing expenses: $274.92

[ 31 ] In addition to burning the Versa and the GMC in the live site rioters also started a number of smaller fires on West Georgia Street. At the location of one of these fires, B. is seen on video picking up a towel off the ground, holding the towel over the burning fire and dropping the towel into the fire. His actions and the surrounding circumstances are depicted in the DVD entered as an exhibit in these proceedings. Acts of defiance [ 32 ] Following the game, a “10-33” police dispatch came in, indicating a police officer in the area of West 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 helmets, and were carrying long shields. [ 33 ] Shortly after 8:00 p.m., the police arrived at the intersection. 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. [ 34 ] Following the destruction of the Versa, B., D. and M. travelled west on West Georgia Street before heading north on Homer Street. Once at the corner of Homer Street and West Georgia Street they were met by members of the PSU attempting to control the rioters, prevent property damage, and disperse the crowd. [ 35 ] Members of the crowd continued throwing objects at the police, including metal fence sections, small metal fence connectors, glass bottles, rocks and garbage cans.

Some of the objects were large enough to cause serious personal injury to officers and bystanders. [ 36 ] Police officers, some in protective gear and some not, were hit by projectiles. Cst. Athans, for example, was struck in the helmet by a 2 pound steel locking pin taken from site fencing. This caused a 3 ½ cm gouge on the top side of his helmet. [ 37 ] 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 the crowd forward then back to try to control the crowd and to maintain distance from the crowd to address personal safety. [ 38 ] B., D. and M. formed part of the front line of rioters who became openly defiant with the police. They watched as the police tried to deal with the most aggressive of rioters. They taunted and yelled at police. B. and M. can be seen on the video standing on Homer Street just north of West Georgia Street. B. was masked with a shirt tied over the lower half of his face.

A photograph of B. and M. standing facing the police line was entered as an exhibit. [ 39 ] At approximately 8:30 p.m., the police were finally able to gain control over the 600 block of Homer Street by moving the crowd from the intersection of Homer Street and West Georgia Street, east down West Georgia Street to the corner of Hamilton Street and West Georgia Street.

Images of B., D. and M., standing at the front of the police line near the corner of Homer Street and West Georgia Street, were captured on the DVD marked as an exhibit in these proceedings. [ 40 ] Despite attempts by the police to both contain and disperse the crowd, the rioters continued to yell and throw projectiles. B. and D. yelled at police and threw objects towards the burning GMC and the police line.

The conduct of these two accused, and the surrounding context, are depicted on the DVD marked as an exhibit in these proceedings. [ 41 ] After posing and cheering for the cameras B. and M. were captured on video telling the videographer that they flipped and burned the car. [ 42 ] The duty report of Sgt. Wayne Dore and the police observation report of Cst. Hall describing the situation in the live site and police efforts to gain control over the rioting crowds were filed as exhibits in these proceedings.

Canada Post Building [ 43 ] On the evening of June 15, the Canada Post Building located at 349 West Georgia Street was closed to the public but staffed by management. Due to ongoing job action there were no unionized employees on site. In addition to management staff, postal inspectors John Hawkes and Lary Wong were on-duty and monitoring the activities of the large crowds gathered outside the building. [ 44 ] At 8:21 p.m., security guard Sukh Bhatti called 911 to report that the glass of the Homer Street entrance had been broken.

From approximately 8:20 p.m., until approximately 9:30 p.m., the rioters smashed and damaged eighteen (18) windows. Smoke from the burning fires outside entered the building and sidewalks were damaged. [ 45 ] B., D., and M. participated in damaging the Canada Post Building by throwing a wooden street barricade through two windows. Video images depicting the accused throwing the barricade through the windows are depicted on the DVD which was marked as an exhibit. [ 46 ] On June 15, Debbie MacQueen was on site and on duty as a Labour Relations Officer. Ms.

MacQueen was not physically hurt during the riot but suffered from post incident stress, anxiety and sleeplessness as a result of being trapped inside the building while rioters pounded on the glass and smashed the windows. Ms. MacQueen prepared a statement which was filed as an exhibit. Arrest of B., D. and M.

[ 47 ] As a result of an investigation the Vancouver Police received a number of tips pertaining to B., D. and M.’s participation in the riot. [ 48 ] B. and D. were arrested on February 16, 2012, and M. was arrested on March 1, 2012. [ 49 ] All three declined to provide statements to the police. CONTEXT OF THE RIOT [ 50 ] Below is a

summary of the overall context and impact of the riot on Vancouver, its citizens, and businesses. (

a) On the night of June 15, Emergency Personnel were deployed to the downtown core of Vancouver as follows: (i) 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 (ii) 63 members of the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services and; (iii) 44 members of the British Columbia Ambulance Service. (

b) There were more calls to 911 in the 4-hour period after the game than 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. (

d) On June 15, 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. (

e) Between 6 p.m. on June 15, and 6 a.m. on June 16, 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. (

f) 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 riot events involved: (i) 26 arsons; (ii) 193 mischiefs; (iii) 26 break and enters; and (iv) 52 assaults, of which 18 were civilians, 32 were police officers and 1 was a firefighter. (one officer was assaulted twice) (

f) There were 116 arrests in the area of the riot on June 15. (

g) During the Riot: (i) 112 businesses were damaged; (ii) 122 vehicles were damaged or destroyed, divided into three main categories of: - 93 civilian vehicles; - 5 business vehicles; - 24 emergency vehicles (police and fire department); (

h) The resulting monetary loss is: (i) $2,715,591.59 to businesses; (ii) $537,869.00 to civilians; (iii) $524,730 to the City of Vancouver, Ambulance Services and St. Paul’s Hospital. (

i) As of February 2, 2012, the total estimated monetary loss as a result of the riot was $3,778,190.59. 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. (

j) 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. BACKGROUND OF THE YOUNG OFFENDERS Mr. B. [ 51 ] B. was born in April 1994 and was 17 years old at the time of the riot. He was living at home with his mother and father and older sister. His father operates his own business and his mother works for the provincial government. B. had a good relationship with his mother and father. The family spends time together.

In the past, the family has travelled and spent time boating and doing other recreational activities at a recreational property. B.’s father described him as a loving caring and dependable young person. [ 52 ] B. attended elementary and secondary school in (redacted). At the time of the offences he was enrolled in Grade11. He completed Grade12 in June 2012. B. also completed an eight week carpentry course at (redacted) College. He needs to complete a number of work hours in construction before he can enrol for a second semester.

He is working toward completing an apprenticeship in carpentry and eventually obtaining a “Red Seal”. [ 53 ] At the present time B. is working at various jobs that he finds through the help wanted ads. He worked for three weeks on a renovation project and also for a construction company for a number of months. Before that he worked at (redacted) for approximately a year and a half. [ 54 ] B. enjoys sports and has played hockey and lacrosse for 13 to 15 years. He is also interested in skate boarding, snow boarding and wake boarding.

At the time of the incident he was playing on the intermediate team for the (redacted). Once the team learned about the charges before the court he was asked to leave the team. [ 55 ] At the sentencing hearing B.’s lawyer explained that B. has been involved in competitive sports from the time he was a young child. B. has played lacrosse since he was 4 years old. He played on championship teams and was part of a team that won silver in national championships. At the time of his participation in the riot B. was a team member of the (redacted). There were only 4 or 5 games left.

Unfortunately for B. the green helmet he was wearing on the night of the riot and that is clearly visible in some of the photographs and video footage was the (redacted) team helmet. When his participation in the riot became known, the team asked him to leave and not return. Counsel for B. acknowledged that B. can play lacrosse elsewhere for another team but he is not able to play where he lives. [ 56 ] B. also played hockey since he was about 7 years old. At the time that he participated in the riot he was also a referee for a Peewee hockey league.

In the fall of 2011 he was told by the local hockey association that “he was on a short leash”. No reason was given. During the season that followed he was asked to leave the team. B. suspects that he was asked to leave the team because of his participation in the riot, but he is not in a position to confirm this was the reason. Being asked to leave the team was difficult for him. He misses the camaraderie and the competition. [ 57 ] B. admitted that he uses alcohol and used to drink during the weekend or if there was a social gathering or occasions.

He told the probation officer he has not consumed alcohol since being released on conditions. B. admitted he consumed a mickey of “fireball” and a few beers on June 15. He told the probation officer he was in control of his decisions and actions at the time of the offence. [ 58 ] B. told the probation officer he went to Vancouver to watch the Stanley Cup game on the live screens. He maintained he had no knowledge or intention of participating in a riot. His lawyer told the court that on June 15, he had his parent’s permission to go to Vancouver for the game.

He left school at lunchtime and eventually arrived in Downtown Vancouver. His lawyer explained that B. is a hockey fan as well as a player of the game. He had no greater dream than to see the home team win the Stanley Cup. [ 59 ] B. acknowledged to the probation officer that he threw empty beer cans towards Vancouver Police officers. He also recalled yelling loudly and taunting the police. His recollection is that the police had their guns drawn and the guns were pointed at the rioters.

He admitted to trying to cross a police line but said he did that because he and his friends were trying to get to the sky train station. B. also admitted that he stomped on top of the Versa. He also said it was possible he threw things out of it. He acknowledged his picture was publicized in the Vancouver Sun newspaper. In that picture he was standing by the Versa, which was on fire. His friend took the picture. He acknowledged he had spoken with a witness at the scene about flipping the vehicle.

However, he is not sure why he told that person he flipped the vehicle because he did not do so. [ 60 ] B. admitted he threw a barricade against a building window. He only recalled breaking one window with the barricade not two windows as set out in the Crown’s materials. B. told the probation officer that the decision to go to Vancouver on that evening was the worst decision of his life. He said the way he acted was out of character for him. [ 61 ] At the sentencing hearing his lawyer told the court that on June 16, 2011, the vice-principal of the school he was attending pulled B. out of class.

He showed B. the photo taken of him that was published on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. The vice- principal called B.’s father and asked him to pick up B. He told B.’s father it was not safe for B. to be there or for B. to return. In fact, B. did not return to that school and he completed Grade11 and 12 at another high school. [ 62 ] B.’s lawyer acknowledged that B. drank heavily on the night of the riot. He drank approximately 12 ounces of hard liquor and a couple of beers. He advised that the liquor was provided to B. by various individuals at the live site.

His lawyer noted that B. is not an experienced drinker. Mr. D. [ 63 ] D. was born in December 1994 and was 16 at the time of the riot. D. lived part-time with his mother and part-time with his

father as his parents are divorced. His father works for the town of (redacted) and, as well, operates his own marine construction business. His mother works for the provincial government. At the present time D. lives exclusively with his mother, however, D. reports he has a good relationship with both his father and his mother. D. reports he had a good childhood and there were no issues of abuse or neglect when he was growing up. Both his parents told him there were expectations for him to help around the house and so on. D. told the probation officer he was taught to treat others with respect.

D.’s mother described him as a goodhearted, dependable young man who has a good sense of humour. She told the probation officer she is proud of her son. D.’s father described his son as a typical teenager. [ 64 ] D. completed elementary and secondary school in (redacted), B.C. He was in Grade12 at the time of the riot. He told the probation officer that school officials spoke to him after the riot and strongly suggested he not attend school.

They apparently told him it may not be safe for him to attend. [ 65 ] D. has worked at a local marina since he was 15 years old and continues working there at the present time. On occasion he also works for his father who operates a marine construction business on the side. [ 66 ] D. enjoys sports such as hockey and baseball as well as fishing, camping and golfing. He has played baseball since he was six years old and currently plays baseball at a fairly competitive level. He also played hockey at a competitive level until 2011. [ 67 ] D. admitted he first tried alcohol and marijuana when he was in Grade10.

He also admitted to using alcohol and marijuana from time-to-time. He said he had a few drinks of hard liquor on the evening of the riot. [ 68 ] D. told the probation officer that he and a few friends took the ferry to Vancouver to watch the Stanley Cup playoff game on live screens. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. He told the probation officer that the events after the game seemed blurry. It was difficult to remember that far back. He told the probation officer he got caught up in the moment. [ 69 ] D. said there was a lot of chaos, screaming and bottles being smashed.

He admitted he hopped on top of an overturned car and took pictures. He also admitted he picked up a barricade and smashed two windows of the Canada Post Building. D. told the probation officer that when the police arrived at the scene the crowd was asked to move along. He recalled being hit with tear gas. He also recalled that the police asked people to go home. He did not remember how he responded to that request. [ 70 ] According to D.’s father, D. was not truthful with his parents when asked about his participation in the riot. In fact, he denied his involvement.

Both of his parents report his behaviour that night was out of character. They did not expect their son to be involved in participating in the riot. D. was grounded for a month following the riot. He was not permitted to associate with his friends. He was not allowed time on the computer. D. told the probation officer he was sorry for his actions and sorry for his participation in the riot. He is embarrassed and regrets everything. He wishes he had not involved himself.

He did not think about or have any idea how serious it was going to get. [ 71 ] Counsel for D. pointed out that D. turned himself in to police on June 16, 2011. At that time the police let him go. Once he learned that a warrant had been issued he again turned himself in to police on February 2, 2012. D. is currently working full time at a marina in (redacted). He has applied to (redacted) for admission to a bridge watchman course. Mr. M. [ 72 ] M. was born in April 1994. He is the youngest of five children and continues to live with his family in (redacted), B.C.

His father is a psychologist and his mother works part time in a restaurant. M. has a close relationship with his parents and his siblings. They enjoy boating, camping and traveling. His father and mother both reported that M. is helpful around the house and is polite and respectful to them and his siblings. His parents described M. as an open, focused, diligent, responsible and hard-working young man. He has paid for and owns his own vehicle. [ 73 ] M. attended elementary and high school in (redacted). He graduated from Grade12 in June 2012. [ 74 ] M. worked at (redacted) marina for four years.

As of September 2012, M. obtained a job working in the oil industry in Saskatchewan as a lease hand. At the time the pre-sentence report was prepared he was scheduled to begin his employment at the end of September. [ 75 ] M. told the probation officer he first experimented with alcohol when he was 16 or 17 years of age. When he was approximately 16 years of age he also experimented with marijuana. He enjoys an occasional drink. He admitted to consuming a few beers on the evening of the riot.

He told the probation officer he believed his judgment was not impaired by alcohol at the time of the offence. [ 76 ] M. told the probation officer that he and two friends decided to go to Vancouver to watch the Stanley Cup game at the live site of big screens. When he arrived in downtown Vancouver he noted some people were prepared to cause trouble but that was not his intention. M. remembered the police asking people to go home but he did not recall his response to the police request. M. admits to damaging the Versa by stomping on it, kicking and hitting it and throwing an object at it.

He also admits that he smashed the windows of the Canada Post Building. He picked up a barricade and threw it, smashing two different windows of the Canada Post Building. [ 77 ] M.’s parents confronted him about his involvement in the riot. M. was not truthful. He denied his involvement when asked about it by his parents. His parents had seen a news story showing M. throwing a barricade at a building. His father told M. he needed to turn himself in and gave him two weeks to do so. His father told him, if he failed to turn himself in, his parents would report him.

M.’s father called the police tip line on January 4, 2012, to report his son’s involvement in the riot. [ 78 ] M. said he feels sorry for his actions and sorry for his participation in the riot. He is embarrassed and regrets everything. [ 79 ] At the sentencing hearing M.’s lawyer advised the court that M. is currently working for a drilling company at a work site approximately 100 kilometers south of (redacted). M. lives in company housing. He works for 14 days and is off for 7 days. He is

responsible for paying his own expenses to get in and out of the work site. In order to travel as economically as possible M. flies from (redacted) to (redacted) and vice versa. He then drives his own car from (redacted) to the camp in (redacted) and drives the reverse route when he returns home to (redacted). P ARTIES POSITION ON SENTENCE [ 80 ] The Crown acknowledges that each of the three young offenders is of good character. This is evidenced by the letters of support and character letters from family and friends filed at this sentencing hearing.

Additionally, the Crown acknowledges none of the three young men has a criminal record. The Crown submits that while the offence of participating in a riot is a serious offence, the gateway to custody is not open in respect of any of the three young offenders. Accordingly, the Crown is not seeking a custodial sentence for B., D. or M. [ 81 ] The Crown submits that after considering all the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principles set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“ the YCJA ”) a fit sentence for the three young offenders for taking

part in the riot is : a. B . -- an 18 to 20 month intensive support and supervision order with a number of conditions including 150 hours of community work service; b. D . --18 months probation with a number of conditions including 120 hours of community work service; c. M . -- 18 months probation with a number of conditions including 120 hours of community work service. [ 82 ] Counsel for the three young offenders submit: a. B . Counsel for B. acknowledges that an intensive support and supervision order is appropriate in the circumstances.

However, he asks the Court to consider imposing it for a shorter period of time and to reduce the amount of time during which B. has a curfew. Counsel pointed out that B. has no record. The incident was out of character. B. engaged in drunk and disorderly behaviour which was regrettably magnified by the fact that it occurred in the context of a riot. B. has not had any problems since. Counsel for B. further points out that B.’s actions were not preplanned; it was spontaneous behaviour. Furthermore, the pre-sentence report indicates that B. has demonstrated insight into his offending behaviour. b. D .

Counsel for D. agrees a probation order is appropriate in the circumstances. However, he raises issues with respect to some of the terms and the length of the probation order. Counsel for D. points out that D. had been on bail with conditions for 11 months. He submits that the length of the probation order should only be 12 months and that the period of time a curfew is to be in place should be shortened. c. M . Counsel for M. agrees a probation order is appropriate in the circumstances.

However, he argues the length of the probation order should only be 12 months and the period during which M. has a curfew should be reduced. In this regard, he specifically points out M. is working at a camp so, essentially, an informal form of curfew will apply because of his working conditions. He also points out M. will be travelling back and forth between British Columbia and (redacted) in order to work. A curfew would complicate his travel schedule.

APPLICABLE LAW The Youth Criminal Justice Act [ 83 ] In Canada young persons between the ages of 12 and 18 years who are accused of crimes have criminal charges dealt with in youth court. The YCJA governs various matters relating to young persons accused of crimes, including sentencing.

Section 3 of the YCJA , sets out the principles that must be applied in the criminal justice system for young persons: 3.

(1) The following principles apply in this Act : (

a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to (

i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behaviour, (ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society, and (iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence in order to promote the long-term protection of the public; (

b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults and emphasize the following: (

i) rehabilitation and reintegration, (ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity,

(iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy,are protected, (iv) timely intervention that reinforces the link between the offending behaviour and its consequences, and (

v) the promptness and speed with which persons responsible for enforcing this Act must act, given young persons’ perception of time; [84] Additionally, the provisions of the YCJA, in particular s. 38, make it clear that when sentencing young offenders a jail sentenceis a last resort.

The emphasis in youth sentencing is on: a. fair and proportionate accountability, consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity; b. parity with sentences imposed on similar young persons for the same offence committed in similar circumstances; c. restraint in that a sentence for a young person must not result in a punishment that is greater than punishment that would beappropriate for an adult convicted of the same offence in similar circumstances; d. proportionality in that a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the youngperson for that offence; e. courts must impose the least restrictive sentence that is capable of holding a young person accountable while imposing just sanctionsthat have meaningful consequences and that promote the young persons rehabilitation and reintegration into society; f. the sentence imposed must promote a sense of responsibility in the young person and acknowledgment of the harm done to victimsand the community. [85] Section 38(3) of the YCJA sets out the factors to be considered in determining an appropriate youth sentence.

Those factors are: a. the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence; b. the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable; c. any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the community; d. the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence; e. the previous findings of guilt of the young person; f. any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person or the offence that are relevant to the purpose andprinciples set out in this section. [86] In determining a fit sentence for an adult offender the court must take into account a number of objectives includingdenunciation and deterrence.

However, under the YCJA it is not necessary to hold a young person accountable to society in the broadersense through a sentence which incorporates the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

P.(B.W.) (2006) 2006 SCC 27 , 209 C.C.C. (3d) 97, in interpreting the YCJA (which now has recently been amended) ruled thatgeneral and specific deterrence is not a principle of youth sentencing. [87] The YCJA states that “long term protection of the public” is achieved by: addressing the circumstances underlying the offendingbehaviour, rehabilitation and reintegration of the young person, and holding the young person accountable through the imposition ofmeaningful sanctions related to the harm done. Certain provisions of the YCJA were recently amended and came into force in October2012.

The amendments include the addition of specific deterrence and denunciation as sentencing objectives that may apply to youngpersons sentenced to youth sentences under the YCJA. However, the offences in this case occurred before the amendments came intoforce, therefore the former provisions of the YCJA and their

interpretation by the courts apply. [88] R. v. K.T.W. 2012 BCPC 52, Judge Baird Ellan, in her usual concise fashion, summarized the underlying philosophy of theYCJA as follows: [4] What the Act does not do is prescribe sentences that denounce crime or deter the young person or others. Those are adult conceptsthat do not apply in the youth sphere.

If there were a simple way to describe the differences in focus of the two regimes, it wouldprobably be that the aim of the youth system is more corrective than punitive, recognizing the greater responsibility that society has forensuring that a young person is not criminalized, in the long term. [5] The adult sentiment that a sentence should (simply) be appropriately punitive, for a child, must be replaced with a measured emphasison meaningful consequences and accountability, along with rehabilitation.

Proportionality also has a different meaning than it does foran adult offender, given the child’s dependency. [6] Custody, for an adult, means imprisonment. For a child, it means removal from his home and his parents, his situation ofdependency, and isolation in a custodial setting. One has only to recall the devastating effects of the residential school systems torecognize that isolation from family support is not a constructive experience for a child, and is far less likely to promote responsiblebehavior in the long term.

[7] While the adult sentencing regime includes the principle that custody is a last resort, the youth scheme only permits custodialsentences in certain very narrow circumstances. A child without a record who commits a violent offence is eligible for a sentence ofcustody (Section 39(1) (a)), but the Court is still required to consider all available sanctions other than custody, and to impose the leastrestrictive sanctions, those most likely to rehabilitate and reintegrate the young person, as well as to hold him accountable for his actions:Sections 38(2) (

d) and (e). [8] In connection with the purpose of the YCJA sentencing regime, Barclay J. of the SKQB made the following observation in R. v.Turcotte, 2008 SKQB 478: [8] Section 3(1) (

b) of the YCJA recognizes a clear intention of Parliament and a primary objective of the YCJA to create a distinct youthjustice regime separate from that used for adults. This separate regime is founded on the notion that younger individuals, because of theirage, have heightened vulnerability, less maturity and a reduced capacity for moral judgment which entitles them to a presumption ofdiminished moral blameworthiness or culpability: R. v.

D.B. 2008 SCC 25 , [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 41. [89] The YCJA directs that there must be fair and proportionate accountability, taking into account the reduced maturity level of theyoung person. This is a central principle in sentencing young offenders. As my brother Judge St. Pierre said in the case of R. v. S.P.G.,[2012] B.C.J. No. 1889 at paragraph 6: [6]…the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not…immunize people under 18 from fair and proportionate accountability for their actions.

There is, however, a balance that must be struck in light of the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and that is relating to youthsentencing principles. These principles are different in a material nature from those that are applied to adults. Parliament has intendedthat. That is the law.

Parliament has directed judges to adopt a firm policy that the criminal justice system for youth be separate fromthat of adults… [90] In considering the sentences proposed by the Crown and the defence counsels for B., D. and M., I must take into account theprinciples which underlie the YCJA, particularly those set out in s. 3(

a) and (b). How participating in a riot is characterized [91] The case law cited by the Crown and not disputed by the defence clearly establishes the following: a. Participation in the June 15 riot is a serious offence. b. Rioting, by definition, disturbs the peace of the community tumultuously. It is public disorder that has escalated to the point of actualor threatened force or violence, and that causes people of reasonable firmness and courage to be alarmed; see: s. 64 of the Code, R. v.Brien, (NWT SC), [1994] N.W.T.R. 59 (N.W.T.S.C.). c.

Participating in a riot, by its very nature, is a serious threat to an orderly society: see R. v. Loewen (1992) (BCCA), 75 C.C.C. (3d) 184 (B.C.C.A.). d. Participation in a riot, as defined in s.64 of the Code: does not require the commission of separate criminal offences. One can beculpable of participating in a riot by “word, deed or other manner”, R. v. Brien, at para. 38, so long as the person’s actions “contributedto the excitement, fervor, intimidation and dangerousness” of the situation: see R. v. Loewen at para. 45. e. In R. v.

Dickinson, 2012 BCPC 40, the first rioting case dealing with the 2011 Stanley Cup riot, Judge MacLean set out theanalytical framework for sentencing an accused for participating in a riot. That framework was adopted by Judge Wingham in R. v. B.G.(28 August 2012), Vancouver Registry 22591-1-V, unreported, at paras. 12 and 13, but modified to address the principles of youthsentencing.

The factors to consider are: 1. the offender’s degree of participation, 2. context of the riot generally, including the impact on the victims, 3. the offender’s personal circumstances; and 4. the principles of sentencing set out in the YCJA. B.C. RIOT RELATED SENTENCES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS [92] Other judges of this court have sentenced other young persons charged with taking

part in the riot. Some of those decisionswere recently reviewed by Judge McMillan in R. v. J.C.M. (October 22, 2012), Vancouver 22591-1-V (B.C. Prov. Ct.) Accordingly, Ihave considered the cases that had been decided up to that time in determining a fit sentence. Summaries of those cases are set outbelow: a. R. v. J.G. (1992) (BC CA), 15 BCAC 128, is a decision of our Court of Appeal dealing with a 16 year old

Penticton rioter without a prior criminal record. The Court of Appeal allowed his sentence appeal and imposed a sentence of 22 monthsprobation with strict conditions including120 hours of community work service. b. R. v. E.P. 2007 BCPC 159 , 2007 BCPC 0159, is a decision of my brother Judge O’Byrne. The riot in this case occurred ata house party that went dreadfully wrong. The rioters refused to disperse and threw bottles, roman candles and Molotov cocktails at thepolice. The damage incurred was $9,500.

While Judge O’Byrne stated he must consider jail for E.P., he ultimately followed JudgeAuxier’s decision in R. v. B. (J.), [1995] B.C.W.L.D. 052. In that case, B.J., who had a prior conviction for an assault, participated inthe 1994 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot. She did not plead guilty to rioting but rather to charges of break and enter and assault with aweapon. She had spent six weeks in pre-sentence custody and was therefore given a sentence of time served to be followed by a 12month probation period.

Judge O’Byrne sentenced E.P. to 18 months probation with a 7 p.m. curfew for the first 10 months in additionto 100 hours of community work service. c. R. v. S.P.G. 2012 BCPC 312, is a decision of my brother Judge St. Pierre. The youth in that case was 17 years old, drunk and hadcome downtown after the game. He kicked the back of a Hummer once and then repeatedly hit another car with his skateboard. S.P.G.had no prior record and was otherwise of good character. He was remorseful and had insight into what he had done. Judge St.

Pierresentenced him to 18 months probation, which included terms to abstain from alcohol and a curfew, both of which were of 3 monthsduration, and 100 hours of community work service. d. In R. v. B.G. (28 August 2012), Vancouver 22591-1-V (B.C. Prov. Ct.) my brother Judge Wingham sentenced B.G., who was 17years old and without any criminal record, to an intensive support and supervision order for 18 months, a condition of which included120 hours of community work service. This young person’s only involvement had been to enter London Drugs and steal cosmetics andcigarettes. e. In R. v.

R.L.J. (17 September 2012), Vancouver 22585-1-V (B.C. Prov. Ct.) a decision of my brother Judge Romilly, the youth was17 years old and had no prior criminal record. She went into a Blenz coffee store and stole a syrup bottle and some coffee sleeves. Asshe left, she threw the bottle back towards the store. She turned herself in to police prior to being charged. Judge Romilly sentenced herto probation for a period of 12 months with strict conditions including 125 hours of community work service. [93] Other decisions submitted by the Crown which have been issued since the above noted decisions, are: a. In R. v.

C.S.W. and D.J.S.C. (22 October 2012), Vancouver 22587-2-VC 22590-1-V (B.C. Prov. Ct.). Judge Romilly sentenced twoyoung men for shattering a glass window of a store and of a bank and also indulging in looting. No alcohol seems to have been involved. Judge Romilly said their participation could not be described as minimal. They seemed very conscious of the fact they were taking partin the mayhem. The judge concluded this was a once-in-a-lifetime aberration.

He imposed an 18 month probation order which includeda curfew (for six months), a letter of apology to the Bank of Montreal and Black and Lee Formal Wear as well as 100 hours ofcommunity work service. b. In R. v. S.P.G. 2012 BCPC 312, my sister Judge Rae sentenced a youth who was almost 17 years old in June 2011 and who waspersonally involved in damaging a police vehicle parked on Nelson Street and eventually helping others to overturn it. He then went tothe Bay where he threw fuel into a fire started inside a BMW which resulted in the destruction of the car. He had a prior minor record.

Judge Rae concluded his offences constituted exceptional circumstances and therefore a six month deferred custody and supervisionorder was appropriate, to be followed by 18 months probation. The probation order included an area restriction and 150 hours ofcommunity work service. [94] The Crown submits the following analytical framework (taken from R. v. Dickinson as modified for youth cases by R. v. B.G.)should be applied for the sentencing of B., D. and M.

The Crown says the court ought to consider: a. the offender’s degree of participation; b. context of the riot generally, including the impact on the victims; c. the offender’s personal circumstances; and d. the principles of sentencing set out in the YCJA. [95] The following principles have been established in the case law dealing with sentencing a person for participating in a riot. a. Riots by nature are a serious breakdown of law and order, thus participating in a riot is a serious offence. b. In a riot, an individual’s actions are inextricably linked to the actions of other rioters.

Thus individual’s culpability must beconsidered in the context of the riot as a whole. c. For adults – general deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing considerations for participation in a riot. As such, ajail sentence, even for a first time offender, is appropriate. d. For youths the principles of the YCJA require the youth to be held accountable for his conduct with a sentence that isproportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

[ 96 ] In reaching a decision on a fit sentence for B., D. and M., I have had the benefit of the following materials, which I reviewed and considered: a. detailed pre-sentence reports for each of the three offenders prepared by the same youth probation officer; b. admissions of fact; c. a Crown book of sentencing documents which contained still photographs of the three young offenders involvement in the riot and victim impact statements; d. a Crown book of sentencing authorities as well as cases submitted by the Defence; e. a number of letters of support from friends and family of the three offenders attesting to their character; f. video footage of the June 15 riot, some of the video clips provided contextual footage of what was occurring near the live site as early as between 6 and 7 p.m. and later in the evening in front of The Bay and London Drugs.

Other video clips captured images of the three young offenders at the live site, on and around the Versa, at Homer and West Georgia Street, and smashing the windows at the Canada Post Building. ANALYSIS General Comments [ 97 ] The facts established through the written admissions of fact and the scenes depicted in the video clip played at the sentencing hearing clearly demonstrate that B., D., and M. were aggressive and active participants in one of the initial wanton acts of violence and vandalism at the live site, namely, the destruction of the Versa.

The Crown did not suggest they participated in the initial overturning of the Versa. However, the Crown accurately pointed out that B., D., and M. were engaged in three separate riot related activities – destruction of the Versa, standoff with and defiance of the police, and breaking windows at the Canada Post Building. [ 98 ] I am satisfied that these three young persons made a conscious decision to participate in various aspects of the riot. They cheered-on and instigated other persons to participate in the riot.

I accept as accurate the Crown’s submission that B., D., and M. played an active role in the riot that they could not but be aware that the activity at the live site was dangerous. They were aware the police were trying to get people away from the area in and around the live site. These three young men not only chose to stay but engaged in behaviour that posed risk to themselves, to the police and to bystanders. I accept the Crown’s characterization that the actions of B., D. and M. were at the higher end of unacceptable conduct that occurred during the riot.

I also accept there was a qualitative difference between the participation of B. and the participation of D. and M. [ 99 ] The rhetorical question that came to mind during the course of this sentencing hearing was – how could three young men, without prior record, who came from good homes with loving and supportive parents end up on the streets of Vancouver on June 15 participating in violent acts, instigating others and defying police?

In the course of submissions, counsel for all three young men commented on the fact that they were avid hockey fans who loved the game and who came to Vancouver to enjoy what might be the rare opportunity of having the home team play and win the final game of the Stanley Cup finals. Defence counsel all made submissions to the effect that the actions of B., D. and M. were not preplanned but spontaneous behaviour. It was argued that the three young men got caught up in “mob mentality”. This episode represented but a short period of time in their otherwise law-abiding lives.

As counsel for D. and M. put it, it was a temporary fall from grace. That may well be so, but there were many other young men and women in downtown Vancouver who did not get caught up in the so called “mob mentality” and did not engage in unlawful behaviour. I appreciate that my duty is to arrive at an appropriate sentence for these three specific young men taking into account their degree of participation in the riot, the harm done to victims and any aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to them and to their participation in the riot.

Specific factors considered in relation to B. [ 100 ] I have already noted that B.’s involvement was qualitatively and quantitatively different from the involvement of D. and M. His degree of participation in the riot was greater than theirs.

In arriving at an appropriate sentence, I have considered the following acts that B. committed: - He hit the top of the Versa with his hands four times. - He threw a chair at the Versa. - He climbed on the Versa twice. - He kicked the Versa twice. - He posed for multiple photographs while waving and cheering on the crowd and waving his shirt over his head. - He threw a burning towel in the middle of the street. - He faced off against the police while he had half of his face covered by an item of clothing. - He yelled insults at the police. - He encouraged other rioters to defy the police. - He threw multiple items at the police and at a burning vehicle believed to be a GMC truck.

[ 101 ] The Crown did not seek a custodial sentence because it was of the view that the gateway to custody was not open. I am satisfied that of the remaining sentencing options available the most appropriate sentence for B. is an Intensive Support and Supervision Order. Such an order will assist in the rehabilitation and reintegration of B. into the community. More importantly, in the circumstances of this case, it ensures, that B. is subject to meaningful consequences for his participation in the riot. Such consequences will promote the long- term protection of the public.

The length of the Intensive Support and Supervision Order is 18 months the probation conditions that attach to that order are set out in Appendix A to this decision.

Specific factors considered in relation to D. [ 102 ] D.’s participation in the riot consisted of the following acts: - He used an object to hit the side of the overturned Versa five times. - He threw an item at the Versa. - He climbed on the Versa twice and stomped on it. - He put a large wooden barricade through two windows at the Canada Post Building. - He stood in the front lines and faced off against the police. - He yelled at the police. - He threw an item toward the burning vehicle and the police.

An appropriate sentence for D., whose actions were not as egregious as those of B., is an 18 month term of probation. The conditions that attach to that probation order are set out in Appendix B to this decision.

Specific factors considered in relation to M. [ 103 ] M.’s participation in the riot consisted of the following acts: - He kicked the front of the Versa. - He climbed onto the Versa and stomped on it. - He threw an item on the Versa while standing on it. - He shoved a large wooden barricade through two windows at the Canada Post Building. - He incited the crowd by raising his arms and cheering after he had shoved the barricade through the windows. - He engaged in

an act of defiance by yelling at the police. [ 104 ] Like D., M.’s participation in the riot was not as egrerious as that of B. In his case an appropriate sentence is an 18 month probation order. The conditions that attach to that probation order are set out in Appendix C to this decision. CONCLUSION [ 105 ] In reaching my conclusions regarding a fit sentence for these three young men, I took into account that: they had no previous criminal record, they had been on strict bail conditions for approximately 11 months and they accepted responsibility for their actions by pleading guilty.

In crafting the probation conditions imposed on B., D. and M. I also took into account their current personal circumstances, the fact they are employed and have taken positive steps toward becoming responsible members of the community. As noted by Judge St. Pierre the YCJA does not immunize young people from fair and proportionate accountability for their actions but a balance must be struck in light of the provisions of the YCJA . The Honourable Judge M. F. Giardini

Provincial Court of British Columbia Appendix A – B. Condition 1: Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Condition 2: Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court. Condition 3: You shall report no later than 4 p.m. on January 28, 2013, to a youth worker at (redacted) and thereafter as and where directed by your youth worker. Condition 4: You shall reside at a residence approved of by your Youth Worker and you shall not change that residence without first obtaining the written consent of your Youth Worker.

Condition 5: You shall attend school or such other vocational or educational day program as directed by your Youth Worker, or seek and maintain employment to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. Condition 6: You must provide proof of your employment or enrolment and attendance at an educational program or any updates about your employment or educational status as requested by your Youth Worker and to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. This includes but is not limited to work schedules, class schedules, or other details regarding your employment or education.

Condition 7: For the first 8 months of this order, you are not to be outside your place of residence between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily 7 days a week. You must remain in your residence during those hours except with the written permission of your Youth Worker obtained in advance. Such permission must be carried on your person and presented upon request to a peace officer, or a Youth Worker or his/her designate.

You must provide your Youth Worker with any documents required by your Youth Worker for example itineraries, work schedules, travel tickets, work assignments so that the Youth Worker can consider and monitor your request. Condition 8: The curfew condition of this order may be monitored by Connections at the discretion of the Youth Worker.

Condition 9: You shall also present yourself at the door of your residence and answer your telephone when any peace officer or Youth Worker or his/her designate attends at your residence or telephones you for the purposes of determining your compliance with the conditions of this order. At the request of your Youth Worker you must provide a contact telephone number that can be used for this purpose. Condition 10: You shall attend, participate and complete any such counselling to which you are directed by your Youth Worker. All such counselling must be completed at least 20 days before the end date of this order.

Condition 11: You must abstain from the possession and consumption of alcohol and non-prescription drugs. Condition 12: You are to attend, participate in and complete the Intensive Support and Supervision Program as directed by your Youth Worker.

Condition 13: For the first 8 months of this order, you shall not be found in the area of Vancouver, British Columbia bounded by Pender Street to the North; Davie Street to the South; Thurlow Street to the West and Abbot Street and Pacific Street to the East except for the purpose of attending your scheduled court appearances or with the written permission of your Youth Worker obtained in advance, such permission is to be carried upon your person at all times and presented to a peace officer or Youth Worker or his/her designate upon request.

Condition 14: You are not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada . Condition 15: You are to write a letter of apology to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker to the Vancouver City Council, addressed to Mayor Gregor Robertson, and to the General Manager Western Canada Plant Operations at Canada Post and to Roy Hermanus, the owner of the Versa, apologizing for your participation in the riot. These letters of apology must be written and sent to your Youth Worker no later than February 25, 2013 so they can be sent to the three recipients.

Condition 16: You are to complete 150 community work service hours to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. Your community work service hours must be fully completed no later than 60 days before the end date of this order. Appendix B – D. Condition 1: Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Condition 2: Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court.

Condition 3: You shall report no later than 4 p.m. on January 28, 2013, to a youth worker at (redacted) and thereafter as and where directed by your youth worker. Condition 4: You shall reside at a residence approved of by your Youth Worker and you shall not change that residence without first obtaining the written consent of your Youth Worker in advance. Condition 5: You shall attend school or such other vocational or educational day program as directed by your Youth Worker, or seek and maintain employment to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker.

Condition 6: You must provide proof of your employment or enrolment and attendance at an educational program or any updates about your employment or educational status as requested by your Youth Worker and to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. This includes but is not limited to work schedules, class schedules, and other details regarding your employment or education.

Condition 7: For the first 8 months of the order, you are not to be outside your place of residence between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily 7 days a week, and remain in your residence during those hours except with the written permission of your Youth Worker obtained in advance. Such permission must be carried on your person and presented upon request to a peace officer, or a Youth Worker or his/her designate.

You must provide your Youth Worker with any documents required by your Youth Worker for example itineraries, work schedules, travel tickets, work assignments so that the Youth Worker can consider and monitor your request. Condition 8: The curfew condition of this order may be monitored by Connections at the discretion of the Youth Worker.

Condition 9: You shall also present yourself at the door of your residence and answer your telephone when any peace officer or Youth worker or his/her designate attends at your residence or phones you for the purposes of determining your compliance with the conditions of this Order. At the request of your youth worker you must provide a telephone contact number that can be used for this purpose. Condition 10: You shall attend, participate and complete any such counselling as directed by your Youth Worker. All such counselling must be completed at least 20 days before the end date of this order.

Condition 11: You shall abstain from the possession and consumption of alcohol and non-prescription drugs.

Condition 12: For the first 8 months of this order, you shall not be found in the area of Vancouver, British Columbia bounded by Pender Street to the North; Davie Street to the South; Thurlow Street to the West and Abbot Street and Pacific Street to the East except for the purpose of attending your scheduled court appearances or with the written permission of your Youth Worker obtained in advance, such permission is to be carried upon your person at all times and presented to a peace officer or Youth Worker or his/her designate upon request.

Condition 13: You are not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada . Condition 14: You are to write a letter of apology to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker to the Vancouver City Council, addressed to Mayor Gregor Robertson, to the General Manager Western Canada Plant Operations at Canada Post and Roy Hermanus, the owner of the Versa, apologizing for your participation in the riot. These letters of apology must be written and sent to your Youth Worker no later than February 25, 2013 so they can be sent to the three recipients.

Condition 15: You shall complete 120 community work service hours to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. Your community work service hours must be fully completed no later than 60 days before the end date of this order. Appendix C – M. Condition 1: Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Condition 2: Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court. Condition 3: You shall report no later than 4 p.m. on January 28, 2013, to a youth worker at (redacted) and thereafter as and where directed by your youth worker.

Condition 4: You shall reside at a residence approved of by your Youth Worker and you shall not change that residence without first obtaining the written consent of your Youth Worker in advance. You must provide your Youth Worker with the address of your residence in (redacted) and a contact telephone number where you can be reached in (redacted) and not change your (redacted) residence or contact telephone number without obtaining the consent of your Youth Worker in advance.

Condition 5: You shall attend school or such other vocational or educational day program as directed by your Youth Worker, or seek and maintain employment to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. Condition 6: You must provide proof of your employment or enrolment and attendance at an educational program and any updates about your employment or educational status as requested by your Youth Worker and to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. This is includes but is not limited to work schedules, class schedules and other details regarding your employment or education.

Condition 7: For the first 8 months of this order, you are not to be outside your place of residence between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily 7 days a week. You must remain in your residence during those hours be that in (redacted), British Columbia or (redacted) except with the written permission of your Youth Worker obtained in advance. Such permission must be carried on your person and presented upon request to a peace officer, or a Youth Worker or his/her designate. You must provide your Youth Worker with any documents

required by your Youth Worker for example itineraries, work schedules, travel tickets, work assignments so that the Youth Worker can consider and monitor your request. Condition 8: The curfew condition of this order may be monitored by Corrections at the discretion of the Youth Worker.

Condition 9: You must also present yourself at the door of your residence and answer your telephone when any peace officer or Youth Worker or his/her designate attends at your residence either in (redacted), British Columbia or (redacted) or telephones you for the purposes of determining your compliance with the conditions of this order. At the request of your youth worker you must provide telephone contact number that can be used for this purpose. Condition 10: You shall attend, participate and complete any counselling as directed by your Youth Worker.

All such counselling must be completed 20 days before the end date of this order. Condition 11: You shall abstain from the possession and consumption of alcohol and non-prescription drugs.

Condition 12: For the first 8 months of this order, you shall not be found in the area of Vancouver, British Columbia bound by Pender Street to the North; Davie Street to the South; Thurlow Street to the west and Abbot Street and Pacific Street to the east except for the purpose of attending your scheduled court appearances or with the written permission of your Youth Worker obtained in advance, such permission is to be carried upon your person at all times and presented to a peace officer or Youth Worker or his/her designate upon request.

Condition 13: You are not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada . Condition 14: You are to write a letter of apology to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker to the Vancouver City Council, addressed to Mayor Gregor Robertson, to the General Manager Western Canada Plant Operations at Canada Post and to Roy Hermanus, the owner of the Versa, apologizing for your participation in the riot. These letters of apology must be written and sent to your Youth Worker no later than February 25, 2013 so they can be sent to the three recipients.

Condition 15: You shall complete 120 community work service hours to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. Your community work service hours must be fully completed no later than 60 days before the end date of this order.