R. v. Louie Date:, 2012 BCPC 117

Citation: R. v. Louie Date: 20120403 2012 BCPC 0117 File Nos: 216315-4-C;216315-5-A;220131-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DEL JOHN LOUIE EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. WALKER Counsel for the Crown: L. Gauld Counsel for the Defendant: D. Silverman Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Judgment: April 3, 2012

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Del John Louie pled guilty to a number of offences for which he is now to be sentenced. These are my oral reasons and I reserve the right to edit them for style if a transcript is ordered. [ 2 ] He has pled guilty to assaulting Raymond Dixon, a bus driver, and causing him bodily harm on the 11th of February, 2011, in Burnaby. On that same day and in that same place, he also assaulted the son of the bus driver, Aaron Dixon, with a weapon.

While on bail on May 13th, 2011, he assaulted Constable MacKay and an Emergency Services worker, Leslie Hannochko, and committed another offence on the 30th of October, 2011, by breaching his undertaking by consuming alcohol which was a protective measure that had been put in place. [ 3 ] The details of the matters are these. On the 15th of February, 2011, the victim, Raymond Dixon, was working in his usual capacity as a bus driver which he had been doing for 25 years. He was driving a bus which was stopped at the Edmonds Loop in Burnaby.

As it happened, his son, Aaron, had accompanied him that day as he frequently did. It was an opportunity to spend time with his father and to socialize with passengers on the bus. [ 4 ] While the bus was stopped at the Edmonds Loop, both doors of the bus were open, that is, the front and back doors. There were passengers waiting to board at the front. The accused in the company of two of his friends got on via the back doors and walked towards the front. Mr. Dixon directed Mr. Louie to get off the bus and come back on the front after standing in line like everyone else. [ 5 ] Mr.

Louie continued to walk towards the front of the bus and suddenly sucker-punched the victim bus driver in the face. The blow was significant in as much as the victim was immediately pushed back into his seat and towards the window. [ 6 ] Meanwhile, the bus driver, Mr. Dixon, dispatched his son, Aaron, to go after the accused while the police were being called so that the police would be able to easily locate him. Aaron did so. In pursuing the accused, the accused tripped.

When Aaron attempted to restrain the accused, the accused picked up a four-foot-long stick which looked like a broom handle and swung it at Aaron Dixon's back. It was a hard and painful blow. [ 7 ] Mr. Louie was able to elude Aaron Dixon and ran off. He was soon after captured by the police. He himself was taken to Burnaby General Hospital because he was complaining of difficulty breathing. It may be that he was having an anxiety attack. In any event, he was then taken to the Burnaby detachment. [ 8 ] Meanwhile, the bus driver, Mr. Dixon, was being attended to in hospital.

Photographs entered as exhibits depict some of the injuries to him. They were gruesome photographs indeed. Mr. Dixon had to have several surgeries as a result of that one sucker-punch. He suffered broken orbital bones in two places. He required to have two screws placed into his face. He suffered nerve damage to five or six teeth. He has difficulty feeling his nose and his lips. There has been some nerve damage associated with his nose and he has difficulty breathing. He suffered a concussion, soft tissue injuries to his neck and back, and some cognitive impairment.

He also suffered terrible headaches and a reduction in his day-to-day enjoyment of life. [ 9 ] It is obvious from the emotional and touching victim impact statement which he read to the court that he suffered significant psychological harm as a result of this blow.

As a 55-year-old man who had driven bus for 25 years, he suddenly found himself in the position of feeling physically and psychologically weakened, depressed, unable to participate in the life of his young second family as he wished to do, anxious and concerned about his long-term ability to provide for and to participate fully in family life, and anxious about his return to work. Very clearly, the quality of his life was and continues to be affected. [ 10 ] I see Mr.

Dixon in the courtroom today and note that he is wearing bandages and I am guessing that he may have had the additional surgery that had been mentioned on the last occasion. [ 11 ] MS. GAULD: That is correct, Your Honour. [ 12 ] THE COURT: Thank you. [ 13 ] I will say that Mr. Dixon graciously mentioned in his victim impact statement that he respected the fact that Mr.

Louie had taken responsibility for his actions, had pleaded guilty, and spared the family the need for a trial which would have been stressful not only to the family members directly impacted, but to all the family members. [ 14 ] The second victim in this matter, Aaron Dixon, was also profoundly affected by the trauma of seeing his father harmed. As he said in his victim impact statement, he has suffered a loss of sense of security, and terrible shock at the senseless attack to which his father was subjected.

He has seen a change in his father's mental and physical abilities impacting on his father's life generally and on his own relationship with his father because they were no longer able to do all of the things that they had done in the past together. [ 15 ] A letter filed as an exhibit by Peter Arkell, the assault analysis and prevention specialist for Coast Mountain Bus Company, outlined the significant number of incidents ranging from verbal threats to spitting, assault and incidents involving weapons which happen throughout the Coast Mountain Bus system on an annual basis. [ 16 ] I note with interest that in 2010, the year immediately preceding this incident, there were 118 incidents.

That is a number that is lower than incidents reported in the years 2005 through 2009. One can only be hopeful that there will be a greater appreciation for and less tolerance for such senseless acts and an understanding of the harm caused by them. [ 17 ] Not only does Coast Mountain Bus suffer financial losses due to replacement of operators on sick leave, there are concerns for the safety of passengers and for the viability of the public transit system.

If people are afraid to use transit, then the legitimate societal interest in having people transported about Metro Vancouver as quickly and efficiently as possible is undermined. Of course, there are some people who have no options and who must take transit. There are others who believe in transit for environmental reasons. [ 18 ] The Manitoba Provincial Court in R. v. Ganton , [2006] M.J. 215 , said, and I quote:

The sheer number of people to whom transit workers are exposed creates, by definition, a vulnerability on the part of those bus drivers and it creates a potential danger, not only for those bus drivers, but as Ms. Helenchilde has said, for those individuals who ride the buses. [ 19 ] It went on to say that, "Bus drivers are at the mercy of whoever gets on the bus," and that passengers are held hostage by the shocking and uncivilized conduct. [ 20 ] Mr. Louie was released on an undertaking by the police.

There were a number of terms and conditions by which he was bound, notably that he was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour in the community and that he was not to possess or consume alcohol. [ 21 ] Nonetheless, on the 13th of May, 2011, the police responded to a noise complaint, a neighbour complaint, to an address in Burnaby. The hour was 1:41 in the morning. The police arrived. They could hear people talking within the suite and the police knocked on the door. It was answered by a Ms. Mack who was then Mr. Louie's girlfriend and she stated to the police that neither she nor Mr.

Louie had been drinking. [ 22 ] The police found Mr. Louie in the bedroom of the residence demonstrating slurred speech. He was off balance. He repeatedly told the police he was not drunk even though all of the physical indicia indicated otherwise. He provided a sample of breath taken with a roadside screening device and he failed that test. He was then arrested for breach of his undertaking. [ 23 ] Because, again, when being arrested, Mr. Louie exhibited signs of physical discomfort and indicated he was having trouble breathing, Emergency Health Services were called. They arrived at the scene. Mr.

Louie acted in a despicable and deplorable manner. He put up physical resistance to both the police officer and the EHS worker. He was kicking his legs and making it very difficult for the police to handcuff him. He was yelling and struggling. [ 24 ] Very unfortunately, he spat in the face of the EHS worker, and saliva also landed on the left cheek of the police officer. There were other displays of obnoxious behaviour and, at Burnaby General Hospital where he was taken, the doctors determined that Mr. Louie's medical concerns were false. [ 25 ] After this incident, Mr.

Louie was released by the court on a number of conditions including that he reside at a certain residential treatment centre. He completed that program. After that program was completed, he went to live in the home of his father. [ 26 ] On the 30th of October, 2011, at a quarter to 11:00 in the evening, the police responded to a call of two males fighting on the street on 86B Avenue in Surrey. They were yelling at each other. When the police arrived, it was obvious that the two were intoxicated. They were stumbling. Their voices were slurred.

There were no injuries. [ 27 ] The fight was broken up and, as it turned out, they were, in fact, friends. One of those two men was Mr. Louie, who was still on bail. Again, he presented some difficulties to the police when being arrested and he was then detained for breaching his bail conditions. He began to cry and told the police that his father would have a heart attack.

He presented real difficulties for his jailers when he was taken into custody and displayed great emotional volatility suggestive of a high level of intoxication. [ 28 ] There was another incident which was alleged by the Crown as an aggravating circumstance, but for which the Crown did not require a plea from Mr. Louie. It related to a November 26th, 2011, incident at a Tim Hortons in New Westminster in which Mr. Louie was found to be in breach of his curfew and, when searched, was found to have a small bag of marihuana in his possession. [ 29 ] Mr.

Louie's personal circumstances are that he is a now 22-year-old man. He had a birthday two weeks ago. He was born in Vancouver to Bonnie Louie and Larry Saliken. Bonnie Louie is a First Nations woman of the Klahoose people originating from the area located on Cortes Island at the northern end of the Strait of Georgia. His father is of Russian ancestry. [ 30 ] Bonnie Louie indicated to the writer of the presentence report that neither she nor her son had ever lived on the reserve, but rather in the Fraser Valley and other areas of Metro Vancouver. There had been some indication from Ms.

Louie that she had had recent contact with members of her band, but Mr. Louie indicates that they have not had any such contact. [ 31 ] Although Mr. Louie has not lived on a reserve, he has been exposed to a significant level of substance abuse by his mother and his sister, violence in his family, and told the writer of the presentence report that he has at times felt ashamed to consider himself Aboriginal. [ 32 ] Early life for Mr. Louie was very unsettled and traumatic.

He was at a young age apprehended by the Ministry of Children and Families because his mother was unable to care for him arising out of her own substance abuse and her lack of training in child care. He was returned after 10 months. [ 33 ] There was an early separation of his parents. Mr. Louie remained with his father. His sister went to live with his mother, but at the age of 12 or 13, he moved in with his sister and then later with his mother at the age of 16. [ 34 ] Unfortunately, that environment was less than structured, and he received very negative role modeling from his mother and his sister.

There are reports that the family had to move every three or four months because rent would not be paid. He had to lock his bedroom door because his mother would often be drunk. There were times that Mr. Louie would find that his mother would steal from him and sell his small possessions for drugs. [ 35 ] He later at age 16 moved out on his own and Mr. Ray Hartley who testified on the sentencing hearing and who is a worker with PLEA, a group that assists Aboriginal and other people who are affected by foetal alcohol syndrome, indicated that in his view, Mr.

Louie only began to live after he resided apart from his parents. [ 36 ] Mr. Louie does have a two-year-old daughter, named Nicole, but she lives with the mother's aunt because the mother of the child has her own substance abuse issues. Mr. Louie advised the writer of the presentence report that he wishes to have a presence in his

daughter's life when he has the capacity to do so. [ 37 ] In February 2011, just prior to the most serious offence that we are dealing with today, Mr. Louie began dating Ms. Mack. I mentioned her in relation to the October incident. He describes this relationship as very detrimental to his well-being because in her company he began to drink hard liquor heavily three or four days a week. He now no longer associates with her, nor any other people who are substance abusers. [ 38 ] Mr. Louie's educational background was difficult. It is not surprising given the family moved so very frequently.

He attended nine school throughout the Metro Vancouver and Mission areas. He did make some academic progress with adaptations, but as one might expect from a lack of structure in the household, he was frequently late. He had some behaviour issues in school, but he was well liked by his peer group. It was at age 15 that he met Mr. Hartley, the Youth Justice worker with PLEA, and through Mr. Hartley's supervision and guidance, a modified education program was established for him. [ 39 ] Mr. Louie found some work as a landscaper. He completed grade 10.

He has also expressed that he has certain interests and may wish to pursue demolition as a trade. [ 40 ] Mr. Hartley, testified that he found Mr. Louie to be very immature in his development, completely consistent with a diagnosis of foetal alcohol syndrome disorder, but was a respectful person whom he had invited into his own home.

His issue was his lack of impulse control, another keynote feature of those suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome disorder, and it is that lack of impulse control which led him to drink. [ 41 ] I should note that the Government of British Columbia has accepted the diagnosis of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder because Mr. Louie is receiving a pension for a person with a disability and he is living on $908 a month. His father reports that Mr.

Louie is actually smart with his money and is able to get by without the need to resorting to other sources to obtain funds to live. [ 42 ] As Crown counsel mentioned in her submission to the court, she acknowledges the diagnosis of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and noted that Mr. Louie has significant central nervous system damage and dysfunction which is associated with his clear history of exposure to significant amounts of alcohol during gestation and is complicated by his history of early neglect, removal to foster care, witness to parental violence in the home, and witness to parental substance abuse.

It is noted that Mr. Louie has difficulties with his memory and needs to be reminded. [ 43 ] It is encouraging to note that Mr. Louie has more recently been assessed and attending upon a psychiatrist who has prescribed an anxiety and mood disorder medication which has helped to alleviate some of those mood swings and has brought some calm to his state of mind and way of being. [ 44 ] A guilty plea was entered in July of last year. In addition to that guilty plea, Mr. Louie expressed to the writer of the presentence report his insight about the harm caused to both Mr.

Dixons and the other victims of his crimes and has indicated a willingness to do whatever it takes to overcome his barriers to peaceful conduct in the community. [ 45 ] Mr. Louie showed empathy towards the victims, stating that he wanted to apologize for his actions and he would understand if now the victims would feel scared and vulnerable at their places of employment. He stated to the probation officer that he feels bad for punching the bus driver and ashamed for spitting and kicking the paramedic, and that he should follow orders.

He also elaborated that the assaults would not have taken place if he had not been intoxicated and, rather, he would have walked away. [ 46 ] The Crown takes the sentencing position in this matter that a custodial sentence, real jail, of nine to 12 months followed by terms of probation are necessary to express denunciation for the conduct and to specifically deter Mr. Louie and deter others from behaving in such a way in the future. Because he is such a youthful offender, she is mindful of the need for rehabilitation, as well. [ 47 ] Counsel for Mr.

Louie agrees that jail is required, but argues that a conditional sentence served in the community can effect the same purposes of sentencing provided that appropriate terms are put in place to control Mr.

Louie's conduct in the community and to rehabilitate him to ensure that he causes no future harm. [ 48 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society achieved by imposing just sanctions that reflect one or more of the following sentencing objectives: denunciation, deterrence, and that is both specific and general, separation of offenders from society, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done, and promotion of a sense of responsibility and acknowledge of that harm done.

A sentence must also be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of moral responsibility of the offender. [ 49 ] While the concept of proportionality serves to promote justice for victims and confidence in the justice system, it also serves to restrain so that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. [ 50 ] On March 23, 2012, after submissions in this case were concluded, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. v. Ipeelee and R. v.

Ladue , 2012 SCC 13 , which dealt with the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders who had breached long-term supervision orders, very serious offences. The court took the opportunity to direct sentencing judges in the approach to be taken and the material to be considered in determining a fit sentence for any Aboriginal offender as required by s. 718.2 (

e) of the Criminal Code . That

section reads: ... all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [ 51 ] The court described the 1996 enactment of s. 718.2(

e) as a direction made by the Parliament of Canada to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders because their circumstances are unique and differ from those of non-Aboriginal offenders.

[52] The Supreme Court of Canada first considered the meaning of that

section in R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1S.C.R. 688, and held that it is a remedial provision designed to ameliorate the serious problem of over-representation of Aboriginalpeople in Canadian prisons and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing. Thus, a judgemust consider the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a

part in bringing the Aboriginal offender before thecourts and the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate because of the Aboriginal heritage or connection. [53] In Ipeelee, the most recent case, the court said: To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and howthat history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substanceabuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples.

These matters, on their own, do not necessarilyjustify a different sentence for Aboriginal offenders. Rather, they provide the necessary context for understanding and evaluating thecase-specific information presented by counsel. [54] The court went on to speak of the duty counsel have to bring individualized information before the court in every casebecause, of course, sentencing is an individualized process. The court went on to comment that: ... sentencing judges can endeavour to reduce crime rates in Aboriginal communities by imposing sentences that effectively detercriminality and rehabilitate offenders.

These are codified objectives of sentencing. To the extent that current sentencing practices do notfurther these objectives, those practices must change so as to meet the needs of Aboriginal offenders and their communities. [55] The court was very clear. It said:

Section 718.2(

e) is therefore properly seen as a “direction to members of the judiciary to inquire into the causes of the problem and toendeavour to remedy it, to the extent that a remedy is possible through the sentencing process” ... Quoting from their own decision in Gladue at paragraph 64: The purpose of sentencing is to promote a just, peaceful and safe society through the imposition of just sanctions that, among otherthings, deter criminality and rehabilitate offenders, all in accordance with the fundamental principle of proportionality. Just sanctions arethose that do not operate in a discriminatory manner.

Parliament, in enacting s. 718.2(e), evidently concluded that nothing short of aspecific direction to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders would suffice to ensure that judges undertooktheir duties properly. [56] It must be made clear that those comments and directions from the Supreme Court of Canada apply even here where Mr.Louie does not live in an aboriginal community.

However, it is to be assumed and the court is to take judicial notice that his life has beenimpacted significantly as a result of the harm caused to him by his family dynamic and the harm caused to his family as a result ofhistorical wrongs. The significance of this assessment relates to the level of moral blameworthiness of the offender. [57] In this case, the aggravating factors have been quite properly set out by both counsel. A strong young man then 21 years oldsucker-punched a 55-year-old bus driver who was doing his job, a public service, with passengers around him.

His son, who was merelytrying to apprehend the assaulter, was himself assaulted. As a bus driver, Mr. Dixon was a very vulnerable victim. [58] Mr. Louie reoffended on bail with violence using alcohol, breaching imposed conditions. These are aggravating factors insentencing. [59] The mitigating factors in sentencing are these. He is a very young man. He has one prior conviction. It is for assault and it isfor assaulting a bus driver by spitting at him several years ago. He did plead early guilty to these matters and accepted responsibility forthem. He avoided putting the victims through trial.

He expressed his remorse early and often. [60] He successfully completed three months of a treatment program prior to his last breach. He is now again living at a treatmenthome, a fully supported facility. He has been afflicted and will throughout his life be afflicted by foetal alcohol syndrome disorder andhis central nervous system dysfunction. These were not of his making. He worked hard for six years with his PLEA worker and showedrespect to that worker, although exhibiting the difficulties and the symptoms of those suffering from the disorder.

He lived a life of earlyneglect and harm caused by his family. [61] In all these circumstances, weighing all of society's interests, and taking into account the Supreme Court of Canada directiveswith respect to sentencing generally and specifically of Aboriginal offenders, I have reached a conclusion. The Court of Appeal hasrepeatedly said that the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and the promotion of moral responsibility can be accomplished byimposing a conditional sentence with appropriate terms. [62] Stepping back for a moment, it is obvious I have concluded that a jail sentence is required.

I have also concluded thatconsidering the degree of insight displayed by the accused, his sincere apology bravely uttered articulately to Mr. Dixon, and hiscontinuing efforts at rehabilitation, that the community would not be harmed if I were to allow him to serve what will be a lengthysentence in the community. [63] In arriving at this conclusion, I have placed some emphasis on the rehabilitation of the offender, not merely because he isAboriginal, but also because of his extreme youth and because of the steps that he has taken. [64] Stand up, Mr.

Louie. [65] Ordinarily, if I were to have sentenced you to real jail, the sentence would have been a sentence of nine to 12 months. I havedetermined that the appropriate sentence for you is one of an 18-month conditional sentence order. That is the maximum allowablesentence with respect to Information 216315-C-4 and that is with respect to the assault causing bodily harm of Mr. Dixon on Count 1 and

on Count 2 of harming Aaron Dixon by assaulting him with a weapon. [ 66 ] Those sentences are concurrent one with the other and they will be followed by a period of two years probation. I am about to tell you what the terms of your conditional sentence are. [ 67 ] I need you to understand that if you are alleged to breach any of the terms of my order, you will be brought back before me and I have a number of options.

I can take no action, I can suspend your conditional sentence and remit you to jail for a period of time, or I can revoke the entire sentence and you could end up spending much more time in custody than you would have had I sentenced you to straight jail. You have much at stake and the eyes of the community will be upon you. [ 68 ] The terms and conditions are these.

First of all, there are the mandatory conditions. [ 69 ] You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 70 ] You are to appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [ 71 ] You are to report before 4:00 p.m. on the 4th of April, 2012, to the supervisor at 275 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, B.C., and thereafter as and when directed by your supervisor. [ 72 ] You are to remain within British Columbia unless you receive written permission from the court. You are to notify the court or your supervisor in advance of any change of name, address, or occupation.

You are to reside at the Victory Wellness Centre located at 7702 120A Street, Surrey, British Columbia -- [ 73 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, that is correct, Your Honour [ 74 ] THE COURT: -- and you are not to change your residence without the prior written approval of your supervisor. [ 75 ] You are to obey all rules and regulations of your residence. [ 76 ] You are to remain in your residence or on the lot on which it is situated at all times except for the purpose of attending counselling sessions as directed, performing community work service, attending medical appointments or in the case of a genuine medical emergency, or with the written permission of your supervisor to be given for any compelling reason. [ 77 ] You shall attend and successfully complete such counselling, assessment, or treatment as directed by your supervisor. [ 78 ] You shall abstain from the consumption of alcohol and drugs as defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except as may be prescribed to you by your physician. [ 79 ] You are not to attend any bars, pubs, lounges, or stores where the primary item sold is liquor. [ 80 ] You are to complete under the direction and to the satisfaction of your supervisor 200 hours of community work service within the first year of this order. [ 81 ] You are not to have any contact direct or indirect with Raymond Dixon, Aaron Dixon, Megan Mack, Edwardo Suemitsu, Sean Bradley, Mortell Eskildsen, or Lesley Hannochko. [ 82 ] You are not to possess any weapons. [ 83 ] You are not to be found on any public transit in Metro Vancouver except in an entirely sober condition and with a valid fare. [ 84 ] You are to appear before this court within four months of today's date for the purposes of a review of your progress and the conditions of this order.

You will have noted that I have ordered complete house arrest except for the purposes that I told you about. Depending on your progress and your treatment needs, there may be some need to adjust that, but understand this. There will be no changes whatsoever unless you have earned them. [ 85 ] Now, those are the terms on the conditional sentence. As I have mentioned to you, that conditional sentence will be followed by two years of probation.

You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, report to court if and when required to do so by the court, notify the court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name, address, or occupation. [ 86 ] You are to report within 72 hours of the completion of your conditional sentence order to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, and thereafter as and when directed by your probation officer. [ 87 ] You are to reside where directed. [ 88 ] You shall take such counselling as directed by your probation officer. [ 89 ] You are not to possess any weapons. [ 90 ] You shall seek and maintain employment or enrolment in any educational or training program unless you are in a full-time treatment program. [ 91 ] You are not to possess or consume any alcohol or those drugs defined under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except as may be prescribed to you by your physician. [ 92 ] Now, the Crown had asked for ancillary orders and I will make the DNA order sought by the Crown.

[ 93 ] I direct you, Mr. Louie, to attend the Burnaby RCMP detachment and I am going to make it a date certain because we do not want you to miss going. It is very important that you go. I am directing you to go on Wednesday, April the 25th, 2012, to the Burnaby RCMP detachment at 6355 Deer Lake Avenue, Burnaby, B.C., to provide a sample of a bodily substance which will then be analyzed and placed in the national DNA databank. [ 94 ] I will also make the s. 110 firearms order sought by the Crown for a period of 10 years.

You are prohibited from possessing any weapons including firearms, ammunition, explosive substances, crossbows, prohibited weapons, and the like. The details will be written down for you in your order. [ 95 ] I am going to waive the victim fine surcharge. [ 96 ] MS. GAULD: Your Honour, I am going to ask that you include the no-contact conditions as part of the probation -- [ 97 ] THE COURT: Oh, yes, I had -- [ 98 ] MS. GAULD: -- as you did on the CSO? [ 99 ] THE COURT: -- meant to do so. [ 100 ] MS. GAULD: Thank you. [ 101 ] THE COURT: Yes.

All of the no-contact provisions that I previously mentioned involving Mr. Dixon -- both Mr. Dixons, Ms. Mack, Mr. Suemitsu, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Eskildsen, Ms. Hannochko, are all to be included in your probation order. [ 102 ] MS. GAULD: And, Your Honour, are you considering having a no-go to the establishments whose main purposes are alcohol as you did -- [ 103 ] THE COURT: I already mentioned -- oh -- [ 104 ] MS. GAULD: As part of the probation order. [ 105 ] THE COURT: -- on the probation order?

I had not considered that as part of the probation order because there are many people who are well and truly able to join their friends at a pub to have a lunch without drinking and that will be Mr. Louie's test because he is not allowed to have any alcohol on the order. [ 106 ] MS. GAULD: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 107 ] THE COURT: Now, that deals with the most significant of the offences for which Mr.

Louie is being sentenced, but there must also be repercussions for the 13th of May assault on the Emergency Services worker and Constable MacKay and that will be a three- month concurrent conditional sentence order. [ 108 ] All of the terms and conditions that apply on the first order except the community work service apply on this order, as well, and that is concurrent as I have said. [ 109 ] Victim fine surcharge waived. [ 110 ] MS. GAULD: And, Your Honour, on that matter, I would ask for DNA as a secondary -- [ 111 ] THE COURT: I was about to get to it. [ 112 ] MS.

GAULD: I am sorry, Your Honour. [ 113 ] THE COURT: There is a -- I will make the DNA secondary order and Mr. Louie will attend the same time and place, April 25th, Burnaby RCMP detachment, so that the DNA sample can be registered with respect to that conviction, as well, and I will order the concurrent s. 110 firearms prohibition. The victim fine surcharge also waived. [ 114 ] Finally, the last matter. That is the 216315-A-5 breach. The sentence is one day. You will not be taken into custody. The victim fine surcharge is waived. [ 115 ] MS.

GAULD: And, Your Honour, I am uncertain whether anything remains -- any counts remain outstanding on these files. If they do, I direct a stay of proceedings on all of them that remain outstanding. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]