R. v. A.F. Date:, 2017 BCPC 352

Citation: R. v. A.F. Date: 20171120 2017 BCPC 352 File No: 23652-1, 23664-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Youth REGINA v. A.F. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. RIDEOUT YOUTH MATTER - RESTRICTION ON ACCESS s. 118 and s. 110 YCJA Counsel for the Crown: S. Watson, Q.C. Counsel for the Defendant: P. Del Rossi Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 24, 30, 2017

Date of Judgment: November 20, 2017 I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On July 19, 2016, a riot broke out at the Burnaby Youth Custody Center (the “BYCC”). The riot took place over more than five hours, commencing at approximately 2030 hrs. and carrying on until approximately 0230 hrs. [ 2 ] The Fairweather and Fernie units at the BYCC are connected by a staff office. Both living units and the staff office were essentially destroyed during the riot. In the later stages of the riot, a fire was started in the Fairweather unit.

Fortunately, the fire was extinguished before it became a significant threat to the riot participants or to the other inmates and staff working that evening at the BYCC. [ 3 ] There were five youths who participated in the riot, including I.M., I.N., F.N., D.P. and A.F.

All of the youths have pled guilty to participating in a riot contrary to s. 65 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “ Code ”) and mischief by wilfully damaging property of a value in excess of $5,000 contrary to s. 430 of the Code : [File 23664-1]. [ 4 ] I.M., D.P. and A.F. have additionally pled guilty to intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire at the BYCC during the course of the riot contrary to s. 433 (

a) of the Code . [ 5 ] A.F. has also pled guilty to charges arising from an incident at the BYCC on October 30, 2016. On count 1, he has pled guilty to intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to the Venture unit at the BYCC. He has also pled guilty on count 8 that he resisted or wilfully obstructed Heera Mattu, a peace officer in the execution of his duty. [ 6 ] Sentencing proceedings in relation to I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P. were conducted separately from sentencing proceedings relating to A.F.

Extensive reasons for sentence in relation to I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P. have been prepared and, where appropriate, incorporated into sentence proceedings involving A.F. [ 7 ] There are various security cameras (the “CCTV”) located in the Fairweather and Fernie units, which captured the actions of all of the youths who participated in the riot. The CCTV footage was played at A.F.’s sentence hearing. II.

CIRCUMSTANCES IN RELATION TO FILE 23652-1 [ 8 ] On October 30, 2016, there was a total of 42 youths and 17 staff members at the BYCC. [ 9 ] A.F. and another youth, D.V., exhibited violent behaviours in one of the living units at the BYCC. As a consequence they were transferred to the Venture unit which is described as a secluded unit separated from the rest of the youths at the BYCC. [ 10 ] Michael Hamze and Heera Mattu were two of three staff members assigned to the Venture unit to supervise A.F. and D.V. They prepared written statements of the events that unfolded in the Venture unit.

Their statements were read into the proceedings and then filed as exhibits. Their statements formed the factual foundation in relation to events that unfolded at the Venture unit on October 30, 2016.

They are summarized as follows: • From the start of their shift at 1430 hrs., both youths demonstrated demanding behaviours and were verbally abusive and aggressive toward staff; • An incident report was completed after A.F. and D.V. began throwing items around the unit and refused to clean the articles up; • Their demanding behaviours escalated and they were directed to go into their respective rooms, which they did; • At approximately 2041 hrs., they left their rooms and began to cover the staff office windows with pre-taped curtains.

They also covered the CCTV with masking tape; • They covered their faces with shirts and towels; • They refused to follow staff directions that they end the confrontation peacefully; • They gathered toilet paper along with other items; • At 2100 hrs., they used an electrical outlet to ignite the toilet paper and other articles; • They established fires in different areas of the Venture unit; • At approximately 2115 hrs., they began to use furniture to barricade themselves in the Venture unit; • They both resisted attempts by staff members to put out the fire; • Several secondary fires were also ignited; • The fire triggered one of the sprinkler heads to cascade water into the Venture unit; • Members of the Burnaby Fire Department (the “BFD”) and Emergency Health Services (“EHS”) arrived on scene; • At 2200 hrs., they stated that they wanted to give up if their demands, which included having a smoothie, were met;

• They were told that their demands would not be met; and, • The confrontation ended. [ 11 ] The Venture unit sustained approximately $12,300 worth of damage. III. ADMISSIONS OF FACT RESPECTING THE RIOT (FILE 23664-1) [ 12 ] Pursuant to s. 655 of the Code , extensive Admissions of Fact relating to the riot Information were filed. For ease of reference, I have compressed the Admissions of Fact into

summary form. A. Events Leading Up to the Riot • There were seven youths living in the Fairweather unit on July 19, 2016. Six actively participated in the riot, including I.M., I.N., F.N., D.P. and A.F. S. also, participated in the riot, but as he was 18 years of age at the time, he will be dealt with in adult court; • The Fairweather unit consisted of a small kitchen, dining area and lounge. The staff office adjoined the Fairweather unit and the neighboring Fernie unit; • As a result of information received by staff, a search was conducted of the Fairweather unit at 1500 hours.

A tattoo gun was located in I.M.’s room and seized as contraband. Staff also located bars of soap in a sock in the common area which they believed could be used as a weapon; • Around 1900 hrs., staff observed suspicious activity taking place between all of the youths living in the Fairweather unit. The youths appeared to be highly energized, so they were taken to the outside courtyard in an effort to settle them down; • Once the youths returned to the Fairweather unit, staff observed them grouping together at the sink in the kitchen with some of the youths heating water in water bottles in the microwave oven.

Staff suspected that something was afoot; • At 2026 hrs., D.P. physically pushed past a staff member in the staff office in an attempt to grab a “mag flashlight” that was located under the staff desk. The staff member ordered D.P. out of the staff office. D.P. complied and the staff member then called a security “Code Yellow”; • The staff member then entered the Fairweather unit and observed six of the seven youths scatter. F.N. and D.P. climbed up on the cupboards above the sink in the kitchen.

I.M., I.N. and A.F. climbed up onto the window ledge in the dayroom; • At approximately 2027 hrs., Senior Youth Supervisor Grant Bunker arrived at the Fairweather unit. He was followed shortly by a number of other staff. Some of the youths were observed holding items in their hands, making threats to staff and showing water bottles which they indicated they had filled with boiled water, urine and possibly other noxious substances; • Staff attempted to use verbal persuasion to de-escalate the situation and the youths were given directions to come down from their positions, but they refused.

A youth identified as “E.” did not participate in the riot. He complied with staff directions to return to his room where he remained locked-in during the course of the riot; • From their elevated positions above the staff, the youths began threatening the staff and calling them out with words to the effect of, “Come and get me you goofs”; • Approximately three minutes after staff entered the Fairweather unit, Mr. Bunker called a “Code Red” and directed that the unit be vacated for staff safety. A couple of staff members were directed to stay in the staff office to monitor the situation.

The staff were concerned that the youths would get hold of more supplies to use against them; • From the staff office, staff members continued to make verbal attempts to direct all of the youths to stand by their respective rooms so they could be secured inside. None of the youths complied, rather they continued to direct profanities at staff members; • At 2030 hrs., F.N. removed the microwave plate from the microwave oven and smashed it on the floor of the Fairweather unit. The riot commenced. B.

Actions of A.F. (a) 2030 hrs. - 2100 hrs.; • With I.M. and I.N., climbs onto the windowsill; taunts staff with threats, insults and profanities; (b) 2100 hrs. - 2130 hrs.; • With I.M., throws the microwave oven to the ground; jumps down from the windowsill and smashes the TV mounted on the wall; throws a cupboard door at the staff office; with I.M., pushes a flipped table into the corridor hallway; throws the microwave oven at the staff office and then throws the microwave oven down the corridor hallway; pulls the dishwasher door off of its hinges and throws it down the corridor hallway; pulls out the cutlery from the dishwasher and throws it; hits the staff office window with a piece of wood; celebrates with the other youths by “high-fiving”; and hits an interview room door with a drawer from the kitchen; (c) 2130 hrs. - 2200 hrs.; • With D.P., begins to kick the staff office door; he breaks down the staff office door; enters the staff office and throws items about; kicks the interview room door; uses a fire extinguisher to break one of the CCTV cameras; smashes a guitar on a unit door; enters the

Fernie unit with the other youths; and, continues to build the blockade in both corridor hallways connecting the Fairweather and Fernie units to the main building; (d) 2200 hrs. - 2230 hrs.; • Adds material to the barricade; moves between the Fairweather and Fernie units; and, periodically checks on E.; (e) 2230 hrs. - 0030 hrs.; • Inside the staff office; and, moves about the Fairweather and Fernie units; (f) 0030 hrs. - 0100 hrs.; • Has a metal bar in his hand; removes the Fernie unit television and brings it to I.M. who throws it to the ground from his position on the windowsill of the Fairweather unit; and, rearranges the blockade in the corridor hallway in the Fairweather unit; (g) 0100 hrs. - 0130 hrs.; • Continues to build and re-arrange the furniture blockading the corridor hallway in the Fairweather unit; appears to use toilet paper wrapped around his hand to light a fire in the toaster that I.M. brought into the Fairweather unit; fiddles with the toaster; moves the toaster to another countertop; goes to the windowsill area with the metal bar in his hand; throws the metal bar; tags the wall at the windowsill area; and, tags the door by the stairs near the kitchen area; (h) 0130 hrs. - 0200 hrs.; • Feeds the fire started by D.P. with paper; throws some burning paper at the window of the Fairweather unit; and, continues to add paper to feed the fire; (i) 0200 hrs. - 0230 hrs. • Surrenders to the police.

C. Injuries to First Responders • The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the “RCMP”) Emergency Response Team (the “ERT”) and other police members inhaled smoke for approximately 15 minutes without protective gear; • Members of the ERT, members of the RCMP Tactical Team (the “TT”) and members of the dog team suffered minor to moderate smoke inhalation prior to donning protective gear. D.

Damage to the BYCC • The youths who participated in the riot destroyed the Fairweather and Fernie units, as well as the adjoining staff office; • The total cost to repair the damage was $150,788; • This cost did not include the cost to replace the desks, computers, televisions, microwave oven, furniture and other miscellaneous items. E.

Response to the Riot • At 2104 hrs., the RCMP were notified that staff at the BYCC required RCMP assistance as some youths had barricaded themselves and a riot was underway; • At 2209 hrs., the ERT was called out to the BYCC; • Several RCMP members arrived at the BYCC but were not in sufficient numbers to safely quell the riot.

They were advised by the Officer in Charge of the RCMP members to await the arrival of the ERT and the TT; • Once the youths participating in the riot began to break the outer facing windows of the Fairweather unit, various RCMP members situated themselves at the area of those windows to prevent any escape attempts; • At approximately 2315 hrs., the first members of the ERT arrived; • At approximately 2345 hrs., other members of the ERT arrived and it was determined that they would gear up to a full “level four” body armor; • Dog team members arrived as well as five members of the TT along with RCMP negotiators; • While the ERT and TT members were formulating an entry and exit plan, there was no ability to contact the youths participating in the riot as all telephone lines to the Fairweather and Fernie units had been disabled by the youths; • ERT and TT members received word that the youths had started a fire in the Fairweather unit, so a decision was made to enter in case a full evacuation of the facility containing the Fairweather and the Fernie units was required; • Members of the ERT and TT attended at a multipurpose room adjacent to the Fairweather and Fernie units and the youths

participating in the riot were directed to surrender; • At 0215 hrs., members of the ERT breached the door to the Fairweather unit and the barricade in the corridor was taken down in order to start the process of arresting the youths who had participated in the riot. IV. PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF A.F. A. Family Background [ 13 ] Doug Kuchapski, Youth Probation Officer, reports in his Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) that A.F. was born in Vancouver on [omitted for publication]. A.F. is currently 18 years of age. [ 14 ] In his early years, A.F. faced medical concerns.

Life in his family home was challenging, with episodes of domestic disturbance, substance abuse and financial problems. [ 15 ] His mother, N.F., reports that as A.F. grew older he demonstrated behaviours and tendencies that were out of the ordinary including engaging in self-harm behaviours, hallucinations and hyperactivity. Over time he began to act violently toward his two siblings.

As a result of these behaviours there were multiple requests for various assessments, resources and supports. [ 16 ] As early as 2000, child protection authorities became involved with A.F. and he was placed in multiple foster placements starting in 2002. A.F.’s mother and stepfather were co-operative with child protection authorities. [ 17 ] There were multiple attempts to reunite A.F. with his family between 2002 and 2012.

These attempts became high risk for his siblings as A.F.’s episodes of violence increased due to his interactive pattern: Ibid , p.4. [ 18 ] In February 2013, A.F. was legally removed from his parents by the Delegated Aboriginal Agency Child Protection Services (“DAA”) and a high level foster placement was eventually arranged in Mission, BC. [ 19 ] A.F.’s family remains supportive. His mother attended his sentencing proceedings. She can provide housing for A.F. upon his release from custody.

A.F. has also expressed a desire to move back in with his family after his release. [ 20 ] N.F. addressed the Court and advised that there is a good support system in place for A.F. to reunite with his family, which includes both immediate and extended family members. She also confirmed that A.F. is fully aware, and it is expected that he will respect house rules and respect his home: Transcript, Oct. 30, 2017, p. 87, ll. 17 -27. B.

A.F.’s Physical and Mental Health [ 21 ] A.F. is in good physical health and enjoys playing basketball and working out during recreation time at the BYCC. [ 22 ] Forensic reports reveal that A.F. has a complex mental health history which includes the following diagnoses: • Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”); • Oppositional Defiant Disorder (“ODD”); • Learning Disorder; • Anxiety Disorder; • Static Encephalopathy; • Tourette’s Syndrome; • Attachment Disorder; and, • Substance Abuse Disorder. [ 23 ] Dr.

Michael Stefanelli, in his Psychiatry Report, (“PR”) identified A.F.’s diagnosed ADHD as a root cause of many of A.F.’s difficulties. He confirmed that A.F. has been prescribed numerous medications in the past to address his ADHD. It was Dr. Stefanelli’s opinion that none of the ADHD medications were particularly effective in reducing A.F.’s impulsivity or improving his concentration. [ 24 ] However, Dr.

Stefanelli reports that A.F. has now successfully completed high school without the use of any ADHD medications and that his behaviour has improved over the recent few months despite not being prescribed any ADHD medications: PR at p. 10. [ 25 ] At the time Dr. Stefanelli assessed A.F., he opined that A.F. was currently not suffering from any depression or any anxiety disorder. He was not psychotic. He likely still continues to suffer from a learning disorder, in particular related to mathematics: Ibid , at p. 11. [ 26 ] Dr.

Stefanelli also opined that A.F. continues to be at significant risk of continuing to engage in violent and criminal activities when released into the community. There is no specific risk that A.F. will engage in further fire-setting. In addition, Dr. Stefanelli opined that as A.F. matures risk concerns could be reduced: Ibid . [ 27 ] Dr. Stefanelli supports A.F.’s expressed desire to attend culinary training.

C. A.F.’s Aboriginal Background [ 28 ] Flora Raynes, the Native Court Worker, addressed the Court in relation to A.F.’s Aboriginal background. [ 29 ] She advised that A.F. is an Aboriginal youth of Métis Saulteaux First Nation descent (Manitoba). His Aboriginal status originates paternally. [ 30 ] Ms.

Raynes identified adverse impact factors that affect those of Aboriginal heritage that were also present in A.F.’s personal life including, but not limited to: • Substance abuse personally, and in his immediate and extended family; • Family breakdown; • Community breakdown arising from a multiplicity of residential placements; • Emotional breakdown; • Witnessing violence in the family home; • Dislocation from Aboriginal community which consequently resulted in a personal loss of identity and loss of culture; and, • Colonial intergenerational impacts. [ 31 ] Ms.

Raynes advised that A.F. wants to explore his Aboriginal heritage. She provided the Court with various aboriginal youth mentorship programs which would be available to assist A.F. in exploring his Aboriginal heritage upon his release from custody. [ 32 ] Ms. Raynes strongly supports A.F.’s expressed desire to pursue culinary training at Vancouver Community College (“VCC”). D. A.F.’s Criminal Youth History [ 33 ] Mr. Kuchapski reports that A.F. has spent “significant” periods of time in custody at the BYCC and the Prince George Youth Custody Center (“PGYCC”).

Since December 16, 2013, he has spent approximately 823 days in custody. He reports that A.F. has been involved in multiple physical altercations, episodes of threatening behaviour, vandalism, possession of contraband, inciting unrest and noncompliant behaviours: at p. 8. [ 34 ] Since August 27, 2014, and up to and including November 22, 2016, he has collected a total of 25 convictions.

Those convictions include: 5 convictions for violent offences, including robbery and assault with a weapon; 8 convictions for property related offences; and, 12 offences for either breaching orders or failing to comply with orders. E. A.F.’s Current Circumstances at the BYCC [ 35 ] A.F.’s social worker, Joyelle Reynolds, addressed the Court.

She advised that A.F. is in the permanent care of the Minister of Children and Family Development (the “MCFD”) through A.F.’s designation with the DAA until he reaches the age of 19. [ 36 ] She also confirmed that there will be funding available to assist A.F. until he is 25 years old. [ 37 ] In her meetings with A.F. at the BYCC, she found her conversations with him to be positive. He has been very respectful towards her. He also expressed to her his aspirations to be a chef and to reintegrate into society: Transcript, supra , p. 81, ll. 43-47 and p. 82, ll. 1-3. [ 38 ] Mr.

Bunker testified at this sentence hearing. He told the Court that he has observed a significant turnaround in A.F.’s attitude since he turned 18 in February 2017. A.F. helped carve a new totem pole with a chainsaw with the assistance of two Elders. Mr. Bunker observed A.F. engaging with the two Elders and they appeared to have a good rapport. [ 39 ] He confirmed that A.F. has completed high school, completed a Food Safe Training Program and a forklift driving program at the BYCC. [ 40 ] Due to his good behaviour, A.F. has been transferred to Open Custody with a level 4 status designation.

When a youth achieves a level 4 status designation, he or she is given a first choice of most of the jobs at the BYCC. In addition, the youth gets to go to the multipurpose room on their own where they are not monitored by staff. They also get to participate every week or two in a barbeque. In addition, they are eligible for what is described as “reintegration leave passes” where they are permitted to be off the property of the BYCC. [ 41 ] As to a basis for the apparent maturing of A.F. Mr. Bunker testified: A I would be remiss to say it's this reason. I think its several reasons.

I think A.F. is becoming more mature. I think he's given a lot of thought to things coming up in his life. He's -- he's 18 years old now. He's one of our older people at the centre. He resides in the open custody setting where he's afforded a few more freedoms and some -- you know, some -- some sort of leeway with respect to some of the -- the rules and some of the stuff that goes on around there with respect to being able to go to certain programs and things.

I get the feeling from speaking with him at times that he's becoming more flexible, rather than so seemingly rigid and when are -- when you're told to do something, you don't just dig your heels in. I think he's now got the sense that he can do certain things, and that if he puts his mind to it, he can do things well with respect to school,

programs, his cultural background, with respect to working with his hands, working in school with his -- with his mind. I think he's got a new level of confidence, and I hope that that sort of serves him well. (Transcript, October 30, 2017, P. 17, Lines 19-43) [ 42 ] Mr. Kuchapski was present in Court when Mr. Bunker testified that A.F. has experienced a behaviour turnaround since he turned 18. Mr. Kuchapski was invited to address the Court by providing an update to the PSR he prepared. [ 43 ] Mr. Kuchapski advised the Court that Mr. Bunker’s testimony was accurate.

Since A.F. turned 18 there has been a “significant improvement in his performance while in custody.” He has noticed an increase in A.F.’s maturity in “conversations, discussions and looking toward the future”: Ibid , p. 20, ll. 42-47. [ 44 ] Mr. Kuchapski advised that A.F. may be eligible for funding to assist him in his pursuit of a culinary training program such as the program available at VCC. V. VICTIM IMPACTS [ 45 ] In relation to file 23652-1, the Crown relied upon the filed statements of Mr. Hamze and Mr. Mattu and the testimony of Mr.

Bunker to describe the victim impacts created by A.F. and D.V. when they started the fire in the Venture unit in October 2016. In particular, the incident was stressful for the on-duty staff tasked to the Venture unit. [ 46 ] The victim impacts in relation to file 23664-1 are set out in the sentence ruling in relation to I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P., at para. 108. Those impacts would equally apply to A.F. VI. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 47 ] The Crown and A.F. provided authorities in support of their respective positions.

I have reviewed those authorities as well as authorities, where appropriate, that were filed in relation to the sentencing of I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P. for their participation in the riot in July 2016. A. The Crown [ 48 ] The Crown submits that A.F. should be sentenced on file 23664-1 to a Custody and Supervision Order (“CSO”) of 1 to 2 years pursuant to s. 42(2)(

n) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“ YCJA ”). [ 49 ] In relation to file 23652-1, A.F. should be sentenced to a consecutive CSO of 9 to 12 months. [ 50 ] In relation to both files that A.F. should also be placed on probation for a period of one year. The Crown also seeks ancillary relief that A.F. provide a sample of his DNA and that he be subject to a weapons prohibition for 5 years. [ 51 ] In relation to sentencing proceedings for I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P. respecting the riot (File 23664-1), the Crown sought CSOs in the range of 1 to 2 years. The factors that the Crown asked the Court to take into account can be found at heading VIII. A.1(a)-(

c) of my ruling on that matter. In many respects, the Crown’s submissions reflect those factors in relation to the sentencing of A.F. for his participation in the riot. [ 52 ] The Crown submits that A.F.’s role in the riot was that of an instigator.

In addition, the Crown submits that it was aggravating that A.F. added fuel to the fire started by D.P. [ 53 ] In relation to file 23652-1, the Crown submits that it was aggravating that A.F. was in custody awaiting disposition for outstanding charges that included two robberies and two assaults with a weapon. [ 54 ] As well, the Crown submits that it was aggravating that A.F. was involved on a second occasion following the July 2016 riot by intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to the Venture unit at the BYCC. [ 55 ] The Crown submits that A.F. presents as a youth who has been non-compliant when subject to community supervision and non- compliant while in custody.

His convictions for failing to comply and breaching court orders establish that there are no other reasonable alternatives other than to impose a CSO. [ 56 ] Reflective of their submissions in relation to I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P., the Crown submits that any sentence falling short of a CSO would fail to address the purposes and principles of the YCJA . In particular, a noncustodial order would fail to adequately address the principle of accountability. [ 57 ] The Crown does not oppose a credit for time served at a ratio of 1:1. The Crown is opposed to a credit at a ratio of 1.5:1. B.

A.F. [ 58 ] A.F. submits that a fit and just sentence would be the imposition of concurrent 12 month CSOs to be followed by a 2 year Intensive Support and Supervision Order (“ISSO”). [ 59 ] A.F.’s submissions in support of such a disposition can be summarized as follows: • He is now 18 years old and will be 19 years old in February 2018; • He has graduated from high school and successfully completed vocational programs at the BYCC;

• Since December 16, 2013, he has spent approximately 823 days in custody in relation to various offences, including the index offences; • He has the support of his family and a home to go to; • He has realistic goals of attending VCC to complete its culinary program Level I and Level II. The program requires that he be at VCC at 7 AM and into the late afternoon; • The Native Court Worker, his social worker and his probation youth worker all support his career goals; • He is of Aboriginal heritage and has expressed a desire to further explore that heritage; • The testimony of Mr.

Bunker and the submissions of his social worker and probation youth worker establish that he has had a complete behavioural turn-around since he turned 18 years old; and, • His good behaviour has resulted in his transfer to Open Custody and achieving level 4 status designation. [ 60 ] A.F. submits that he has essentially completed all necessary programs at the BYCC and, therefore, should receive a credit for time served at a ratio of 1.5:1. VII. LEGAL FRAMEWORK A. In the Context of the YCJA [ 61 ]

Section 3 of the YCJA , under the heading of Declaration of Principle, reads in part as follows: 3

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

a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by (

i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, (ii) promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons who have committed offences, and (iii) supporting the prevention of crime by referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community to address the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour; (

b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability and must 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. … [ 62 ] The principle of accountability contained in s. 3(1)(

a) is achieved through the imposition of meaningful consequences for the offender and sanctions that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society. [ 63 ] Furthermore, the provisions of the YCJA establish that the imposition of jail is a last resort. In R. v. A.J. , 2013 BCPC 44 , at para. 52 , Giardini, PCJ notes: 52 Furthermore, the provisions of the YCJA , start from the position that when sentencing young persons jail is a last resort.

Section 38 (1) sets out the purposes and general principles designed to hold young persons accountable for their offences through the imposition of "just sanctions that have meaningful consequences" for the young person, that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society thereby contributing to the long term protection of the public. Section 38 (3) provides that in determining a youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account: (

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. [64] Additionally, s. 39(1)(

a) provides: 39

(1) A youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under

section 42 (youth sentences) unless (

a) the young person has committed a violent offence; (

b) the young person has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences; (

c) the young person has committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more thantwo years and has a history that indicates a pattern of either extrajudicial sanctions or of findings of guilt or of both under this Act or theYoung Offenders Act,

chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985; or (

d) in exceptional cases where the young person has committed an indictable offence, the aggravating circumstances of the offence aresuch that the imposition of a non-custodial sentence would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles set out in

section 38. [65] Sections 39(2) and (3) emphasize that a youth justice court must not impose a custodial sentence unless there are no otherreasonable alternatives that are available. [66] By operation of s. 38(2) the sentence that the court imposes must not result in a greater punishment than that which isappropriate for an adult convicted of the same offence committed in similar circumstances.

The sentence must be similar to sentencesimposed in the region on similar youths found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances. [67] It is also clear that the principles and provisions of the YCJA are different in a material nature from those that are applied toadults. It is clear that the criminal justice system in relation to youth is separate from the criminal justice system for adults: R. v. S.P.G.,[2012] B.C.J. No. 1889. B. In the Context of Section 42(2)(

n) Under the YCJA [68] The maximum custodial sentence that is available under the YCJA is 3 years where the offence carries a maximum penalty oflife imprisonment or where more than one youth sentences is imposed with respect to different offences. The continuous combinedduration of those youth sentences shall not exceed 3 years: ss. 42(2)(

n) and 42(15) YCJA. C. In the Context of Participating in a Riot [69] In R. v. M.J.D. and S.P.M., 2013 BCPC 52, at paras. 91 and 95. Giardini, PCJ. characterized the nature of a riot as follows: 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) (BC CA),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 "contributed tothe 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 the analyticalframework for sentencing an accused for participating in a riot. That framework was adopted by Judge Wingham in R. v. B.G. (28 August2012), Vancouver Registry 22591-1-V, unreported, at paras. 12 and 13, but modified to address the principles of youth sentencing.

Thefactors 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. D. In the Context of an Institutional Riot [70] Many of the authorities referenced by both the Crown and counsel for the youths related to sentencing cases for youths whoparticipated in the 2011 Stanley Cup.

In many instances youths who were charged with and pled guilty to participating in the 2011Stanley Cup riot had no criminal records and were of prior good character and reputation. [71] It was not an uncommon submission in the Stanley Cup sentencing proceedings that most of the youths involved in the riot wereimpacted by varying degrees of intoxication. It was also not an uncommon submission that the youths spontaneously participated in the

riot as a “mob mentality” spread through the thousands of revellers in the downtown core of Vancouver: see for example, R. v. C.M.B. , [2013] B.C.J. No. 501, at para. 99 . [ 72 ] The vast majority of the sentences that were imposed on youths who were charged with and pled guilty to participating in the 2011 Stanley Cup riot resulted in noncustodial sentences. [ 73 ] There were various dynamics in play which fuelled the 2011 Stanley Cup riot.

Those dynamics include but are not limited to: the thousands of revellers compressed at the Live Site; favourable weather; availability of alcohol; and, under-resourcing of police. [ 74 ] Institutional riots in a secure prison facility have a different dynamic. In most incidents, including the riot at the BYCC, inmates are dissatisfied with some aspect of their incarceration and take it out by rioting and damaging property: see for example, R. v. Anderson , [2005] B.C.J. No. 2685, at para. 15 (“dissatisfaction about the food”) and R. v. Nguyen , [2008] B.C.J.

No. 2697, at para. 4 (inmates “took exception” to a Correctional Officer’s direction to isolate an inmate). [ 75 ] In cases involving riots in an adult correctional facility, general deterrence is the paramount factor taken into account by a sentencing court: Anderson , supra , at para. 48. The range of sentence to be imposed will depend upon the degree of culpability of the offender.

Those who assume a leadership role will attract a more severe sentence than those who participate to a lesser degree: Ibid . at paras. 49 and 50. [ 76 ] By its nature, those who participate in an institutional riot in a secure facility leading to the destruction of property are engaged in an “insurrection” that society must condemn: Nguyen , supra , at para. 28. [ 77 ] An offender who participates in a riot in a secure prison facility and goes further by starting a fire can expect that his degree of moral culpability will be elevated as it demonstrates a “cavalier disregard for the risk to the guards’ lives as well as the lives of their fellow inmates”: Anderson , supra , at para. 52. [ 78 ] The gravity of participating in a riot is increased when it takes place in a secure prison facility.

When a riot occurs in a secure prison facility, “order, security and confidence are dealt a savage blow”: R. v. Sallis (Mark David) (1993), [1994] 15 Cr. App. R. (S.) 281. [ 79 ] Outside the parameters of an institutional riot in a secure prison facility, there is Canadian judicial authority establishing that the commission of a criminal offence by an inmate while in a secure prison facility can be an aggravating factor on sentence: R. v. Murray , [2015] N.J. No. 348 (Nfld. and Lab. S.C.), at para. 21 (accused convicted of assault with a weapon in a federal penitentiary) and R. v.

D.V., Unreported Decision, June 28, 2017, Kelowna File 8555-1; Vancouver File 23603-1; Vancouver File 23615-1 (B.C. Prov.

Ct.), at para. 48 (young offender damaged property at the BYCC in excess of $5,000.00). [ 80 ] The foregoing cases clearly establish that an inmate’s participation in a riot in a secure prison facility, which in this instance would include the BYCC, is a significant factor in determining a fit sentence. [ 81 ] Where, as in this case, the riot includes significant property damage and the potential endangerment of life arising from a fire, accountability is a paramount consideration pursuant to s. 38(1) of the YCJA .

Of course, the degree that accountability will play in the sentencing process must also take into account the respective degrees of responsibility of each of the youths to be sentenced, along with the other purposes and principles set out in the YCJA . E. Calculation for Credit for Time Served 1. General Principles [ 82 ] Section 38(3)(

d) of the YCJA directs that: “In determining the youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account … the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence.” [ 83 ] The wording “shall take into account” has been interpreted to mean that the sentencing judge must consider the time spent in pre-sentence custody as a factor in fashioning the appropriate sentence, although there are a number of ways in which to do this: see R. v.

D.S ., 2008 ONCA 740 , at para. 26 . [ 84 ] Like the other factors listed in s. 38(3) of the YCJA , determining credit for time served involves the exercise of judicial discretion based upon the circumstances of the individual and the circumstances of the offence and taking into account the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in ss. 38(1) and (2) of the YCJA : R. v.

R.R.J. , 2009 BCCA 580 , at para. 49 . [ 85 ] Section 42(12) of the YCJA directs that: “A youth sentence or any part of it comes into force on the date on which it is imposed or on any later date that the youth justice court specifies.” [ 86 ] This provision has been interpreted to mean that normally, youth sentences begin to run on the date that they are pronounced and so pre-sentence custody is generally not part of the imposed sentence.

Therefore, because pre-sentence custody is not considered part of the sentence proper the youth justice court has the flexibility to impose the maximum sentence allowed under the YCJA so long as the youth justice court has taken into account pre-sentence custody in fashioning a fit sentence: Ibid . at paras. 55 - 57 and 60. 2.

Granting Less than 1:1 Credit or No Credit [ 87 ] Case authority seems to establish that a youth justice court will only reduce or deny credit altogether where the nature of the crime was violent and the deduction of pre-sentence custody will result in a sentence of insufficient length to hold the young offender accountable and/or reduce their chances of successful rehabilitation: see in particular R. v. M.B., supra , at para. 11; and also R. v. B.S.A ., 2013 BCSC 75 and R. v. A.D., 2010 BCPC 66 .

[88] In this case, the Crown does not submit that the Court should give credit at a ratio less than 1:1. Rather, the Crown is opposedto credit being enhanced at a ratio of 1.5:1. 3. Granting Enhanced Credit [89] In 2009, legislative amendments to the Code capped credit for pre-sentence custody at a ratio of 1:1, with the ability to giveenhanced credit up to 1.5:1 if “the circumstances justify it”: s. 719(3.1) of the Code. [90] The “circumstances” justifying enhanced credit for adult offenders need not be exceptional or unique.

The loss of early release,taken alone, will generally be a sufficient basis to award credit at the rate of 1.5:1. A rule that resulted in longer sentences for offenderswho do not obtain bail compared to otherwise identical offenders would be incompatible with the sentencing principles of parity andproportionality: R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 27. [91] The “circumstances” justifying enhanced credit for adults discussed in Summers, Ibid, has been used to justify giving enhancedcredit at a ratio of 1.5:1 for a young offender who is being sentenced as an adult: R. v. H.L., 2013 ONSC 7050, at paras. 61-62; R. v.

C.S.,2014 ONSC 4362, at para. 78, and see R. v. M.W., 2017 ONCA 22, at para. 78. [92] In relation to youth custodial sentences, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. M.B., supra, at para. 8, stated that because youthsentences are comprised of 2/3 custody and 1/3 community supervision under the YCJA, pre-sentence custody results in a delay ofeligibility for community supervision. Consequently, the same rationale which is used to justify enhanced credit for adults can also beused for youths. [93] Similarly, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R. v.

J.E.O., supra, at paras. 45-47, found that subject to the sentencing judge’sdiscretion, a 1.5:1 ratio was justified for young offenders because of the apportionment of CSOs. The Court also provided a non-exclusive list of factors to consider if a sentencing court was considering moving away from credit for pre-sentence custody at 1.5:1, atpara. 48: 48 A range of matters may be taken into account by a youth court judge considering whether to move away from giving credit for pre-sentencing custody at the rate of 1.5:1. In this regard, the non-exclusive list of factors identified by Scott C.J.M. in R. v.

A.A.Z., supra, atpara. 150, is helpful: - Will the young person be able to achieve desired rehabilitation objectives if pre-sentence detention is credited: B. (D.), [2006] O.J.No. 112, at para. 24, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in D.B., 2008 SCC 25 , [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3; R.R.J. at para. 63; andE.L. (2006) at para. 10? - Do the circumstances and consequences of the offence require the maximum sentence be imposed without giving credit for pre-sentence detention: N.W.P., 2008 MBCA 101 , [2008] M.J.

No. 304, at para. 5; and R.R.J. at para. 57? - Will the youth sentence sufficiently hold the young person accountable (or be a "fit one") if credit for pre-sentence detention isgiven: D.W. at para. 2; K.E.J.L. at para. 40; R. v. C.J.A., 2005 SKCA 85, at para. 42, 262 Sask. R. 300; and D.D.T. at para. 55? - Can the pre-sentence detention be taken into account by adjusting the type or severity of the sentence: J.R.L. at para. 47; Ferriman,[2007] O.J.

No. 3958, at para. 8; and S. (D.) at para. 26? - How long was the pre-sentence detention, what were the reasons for the delay, and was the young person able to access programsand services while in pre-sentence detention: K.E.J.L. at para. 40; and C.J.A. at paras. 38, 42? - Was there a joint submission and/or extensive negotiations concerning the rehabilitative needs of the young person: R. v. B. (T.)(2006), (ON CA), 78 O.R. (3d) 721 at para. 10 (C.A.)? [94] In R. v. D.V., supra, at paras. 84-86, Shaw P.C.J. applied R. v.

Pratt, [2007] BCJ No. 670 (BCCA) for the proposition that theapproach taken in calculating credit for adults does not apply to young offenders because they have full access to programming while onremand. In sentencing D.V. to a global 3 year sentence for a variety of serious offences, the Court calculated pre-sentence credit at a ratioof 1:1 due to D.V.’s “pattern of troublesome and disruptive conduct while in custody ...”. VIII. ANALYSIS A.

Overview of the Riot [95] A.F., I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P. together planned a “standoff” with the staff at BYCC as a result of disciplinary measures thatwere imposed after the tattoo making instruments and other contraband was found in the Fairweather unit. [96] As events unfolded on July 19, 2016, staff at the BYCC observed suspicious activity taking place between the youths living inthe Fairweather unit (excluding E.).

The youths appeared to be highly energized as depicted in the CCTV footage. [97] When the youths eventually climbed up onto the window ledge and the cupboards in the kitchen area, they were armed withplastic bottles filled with hot water. When staff members tried to persuade the youths to come down from their elevated positions, theywere met with a barrage of threats, insults and profanities, principally directed by I.M. and D.P. [98] Mr.

Bunker’s decision to have staff retreat from the Fairweather unit was principally motivated by his fear that the situationcould get out of control with the potential of harm coming to staff members and the youths involved in the “standoff”. [99] I find that A.F., I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P. achieved partial success in their “standoff” with the staff at the BYCC when staffretreated from the Fairweather unit. It was their provocative conduct that persuaded Mr. Bunker to have the staff back off.

Their decisionto then participate in the systematic and gratuitous destruction of the Fairweather and Fernie units is inexplicable.

[ 100 ] The destruction of the Fairweather and Fernie units were deliberate criminal acts that ranged over five plus hours resulting in the property damage exceeding $150,000. Significant first responder units were deployed at a significant expense to the taxpayer.

In addition, staff on duty at the BYCC worked overtime as a consequence of the riot. [ 101 ] I find that A.F., along with I.M. and D.P., was principally responsible for taunting staff with threats, insults and profanities when he was positioned on the window ledge in the Fairweather unit. [ 102 ] As I found in relation to the role of I.M. and D.P. for their involvement in the fire, I find that A.F. must also bear greater responsibility because of his role in the fuelling of the fire in the Fairweather unit.

The fire not only put the youths living in the Fairweather unit at risk, it also put the other 48 detained youths and 19 staff members at the BYCC at risk if the fire had gotten out of control. [ 103 ] The BCCA in R. v. Peepre , 2013 BCCA 115 , at para. 27 , establishes that “special considerations” apply to individuals who participate in a riot.

Individuals who participate in a riot commit deliberate criminal acts that have grave consequences for the safety and security of the community. [ 104 ] By extension I find there was the potential for grave consequences for the safety and the security of the custodial community of the BYCC resulting from the riot which precipitated the fire. B.

Summary of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Relation to the Riot 1. Aggravating Factors • The riot erupted in a custodial facility housing 48 detained youths with 19 staff on duty. There were also contractors and volunteers at the BYCC that evening; • The riot was completely unnecessary.

It involved the gratuitous and systematic destruction of the Fairweather and Fernie units; • The riot put all of the residents, staff, contractors and volunteers at the BYCC at risk of harm, particularly after D.P. started the fire in the Fairweather unit and I.M. and A.F. added fuel to that fire; • While the riot was not planned, the “standoff” with the BYCC staff was planned over a considerable period of time; • A.F. failed to comply with the staff directions during the course of the “standoff”; • A.F. verbally barraged the BYCC staff during the course of the “standoff” with threats, insults and profanities; • Significant victim impacts; • Significant property damage in excess of $150,000, the cost of which is borne by the taxpayer; • The riot required the deployment of a significant number of first responders, many of whom were off-duty at the time of deployment which increases the cost borne by the taxpayer; and, • Overtime salaries for staff on duty at the BYCC. 2.

Mitigating Factors • The entry of guilty pleas; • His expressed genuine remorse for his involvement in the riot; • He enjoys the support of immediate and extended family members; • He is 18 years of age and is aging out of the youth criminal justice process; • His Aboriginal heritage and his desire to explore his Aboriginal heritage; • He has completed his high school and other vocational programs at the BYCC; • He has realistic career goals to become a chef. These goals are supported by the Native Court Worker, his social worker and his probation youth worker; • Mr.

Bunker’s testimony, supported by A.F.’s youth worker, that he has matured; • His improved behaviour has resulted in his transfer to Open Custody and achieving a level 4 status designation at the BYCC; and, • The riot was not planned and/or premeditated. C. Overview of the Circumstances Relating to File 23652-1 [ 105 ] A.F. and D.V. were transferred to the Venture unit due to disciplinary concerns arising from their conduct. [ 106 ] They became agitated and were resistant to staff commands when they began acting out by throwing items around the Venture unit.

[ 107 ] When they eventually complied with staff commands to go to their respective rooms they then, without permission, left their rooms and began to cover-up windows, cover-up CCTV cameras and cover their faces with clothing. They failed to comply with staff commands, in particular the commands of Mr.

Mattu that they return to their rooms. [ 108 ] They both became equally involved in starting the fire in the Venture unit which posed a risk to themselves, 47 other youths, and 17 staff members at the BYCC. [ 109 ] They refused to comply with staff commands until their demands were met, which included being given smoothies. Their behaviour in starting the fire was demonstrably immature and really quite senseless. [ 110 ] BFD members and EHS were deployed.

This use of resources obviously reduced their availability to provide emergency services to other Burnaby residents. [ 111 ] The fire resulted in a sprinkler head releasing water into the Venture unit. The Venture unit sustained $12,300 worth of damage. D.

Summary of the Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Relation to File 23652-1 1. Aggravating Factors • The fire took place in a custodial setting which put at risk the other 47 youths and 17 staff members at the BYCC; • He defied staff commands; • There were no provocations that would justify his conduct in starting the fire in the Venture unit; • Victim impacts; • This was a planned confrontation; and, • The fire and consequential water damage resulted in property damage of approximately $12,300, the cost of which is borne by the taxpayer. 2.

Mitigating Factors [ 112 ] The mitigating factors in relation to the riot file apply equally in relation to this file. E. Calculation of Credit for Time Served [ 113 ] As I found in determining the calculation of credit for time served for I.M., I.N., F.N. and D.P., I find the circumstances surrounding the riot at the BYCC to be alarming.

The actions of all of the youths, to a lesser or greater degree, resulted in the systematic and gratuitous destruction of the Fairweather and Fernie units over five plus hours. [ 114 ] I find that A.F. played a significant role in the riot by taunting the staff with threats, insults and profanities; participating in the destruction of property in the Fairweather unit; breaking into the staff office and then participating in the destruction of property in the staff office; being a party to breaking into the Fernie unit and participating in the destruction of property in the Fernie unit; and, feeding fuel to the fire started by D.P. in the Fairweather unit. [ 115 ] I need not repeat the significant risks surrounding the impacts of the fire. [ 116 ] A.F.’s subsequent involvement in setting a fire in the Venture unit occurred not only after he participated in the riot, but while he was awaiting disposition in relation to serious outstanding offences. [ 117 ] I find that the granting of credit for time served at a ratio of 1:1 will not only hold A.F. accountable for his criminal behaviours, but will also allow him to access ongoing programs at the BYCC. [ 118 ] I set the credit for time served at 6.5 months to be applied against A.F.’s global sentence.

IX. SENTENCES TO BE IMPOSED [ 119 ] I recognize that a youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under s. 42(2)(

n) of the YCJA unless any of the criteria contained in s. 39(1)(a) - (

d) apply. [ 120 ] A.F. has a serious criminal record that includes 12 convictions for breaching court orders or failing to comply with court orders. As set out in his PSR, A.F. has failed to comply with conditions imposed when he was in custody. [ 121 ] I have considered all of the alternatives to the imposition of a CSO. [ 122 ] The deliberate criminal acts of all of the youths who rioted on July 19, 2016, resulted in the systematic and gratuitous destruction of the Fairweather and Fernie units over five plus hours.

The overall cost to the taxpayer has been discussed earlier in this ruling and need not to be repeated. [ 123 ] I have also taken into account the serious circumstances surrounding A.F.’s involvement in starting the fire in the Venture unit in October 2016 while he was awaiting disposition of serious outstanding offences. [ 124 ] Again, the overall cost to the taxpayer arising from the fire was not insignificant.

[ 125 ] In assessing whether or not there is a reasonable alternative to the imposition of a CSO, I have taken into account submissions of Crown counsel, A.F.’s sentence proposals, the submissions of the Native Court Worker, submissions of A.F.’s social worker, submissions of his mother and submissions of his youth probation officer. [ 126 ] I have considered all of the filed Forensic Reports and A.F.’s PSR. [ 127 ] I have considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I accept A.F.’s apology for his conduct as sincere. [ 128 ] I find that there is no reasonable alternative but to impose a CSO.

I also find an alternative sentence to the imposition of a CSO would, in these circumstances, be contrary to the purposes and principles set out in ss. 3(1) and 38(1). [ 129 ] That being said, I was greatly impressed by A.F.’s desire to put his criminal ways behind him. He plans to re-engage with his family and to live with them in Surrey. He has a career goal to become a chef. He has put together realistic plans to enrol in the culinary program at the VCC. This plan has been endorsed by the Native Court Worker, his social worker, his youth probation officer and his mother.

This plan is to be encouraged. [ 130 ] I was impressed that A.F. has not only identified with his Aboriginal heritage, but he also wants to explore and expand that heritage as he goes forward. This is to be encouraged. [ 131 ] A.F. does have a significant mental health history as discussed in this ruling.

However, he is currently stable and appears focused on his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. [ 132 ] A.F. will continue to have supports arising from his DAA designation and there will be financial supports available to him in some measure until he reaches the age of 25 years. [ 133 ] It does appear to be the case that A.F. has matured which has moderated my position on sentence. [ 134 ] Pursuant to s. 42(2)(n), he is sentenced on count 1 of file 23364-1 to a 12 month CSO. On count 3, he is sentenced to an additional consecutive 4 month CSO.

On count 6, to a concurrent 12 month CSO. [ 135 ] Pursuant to s. 42(2)(n), he is sentenced on count 2 of File 23652-1 to a 2 month CSO to run consecutively with sentences imposed in file 23364-1. On count 8, he is sentenced to a concurrent 1 month CSO. [ 136 ] The global CSO is 18 months. He will be credited for 6.5 months’ time served against the global sentence. Subject to his continuing good behaviour, I am recommending that A.F. remained in Open Custody for the balance of his custodial sentence.

I am recommending that while he remains in custody that he be provided with opportunities and programs to advance his desired goal of becoming a chef. [ 137 ] Pursuant to s. 42(2)(k), he will be subject to a 1 year concurrent probation order on both files. [ 138 ] There will be an ancillary order pursuant to s. 42(2)(

s) that he provides a sample of his DNA. There will also be an order pursuant to s. 51(3) for a period of 2 years commencing on the first day of his completion of the custodial portion of the sentences. ___________________________ The Honourable Judge G. Rideout Provincial Court of British Columbia