R. v. Abma, 2019 BCPC 268

Citation: R. v. Abma 2019 BCPC 268 Date: 20190904 File Nos: 39810-2-KC; 39810-4- C Registry: Duncan IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. MICHAEL EDWARD ABMA ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. CUTLER Counsel for the Crown: M. Giri Counsel for the Accused: P. Hertzberg Place of Hearing: Duncan , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 21, 2019 Date of Sentence: September 4, 2019

[ 1 ] THE COURT: The offender is before the Court for sentencing after pleading guilty to possession of unloaded prohibited firearms, a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun and a 9 mm Sig Sauer handgun, with readily accessible ammunition capable of being discharged in the said firearms, without being a holder of an authorization or licence, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] The firearms were located as a result of police attending at the offender's house in the small community of Youbou on Vancouver Island in response to a report of a domestic dispute by his partner.

The dispute had occurred at the family residence on their 80 acre dairy farm, a short distance away in Ladysmith. [ 3 ] When the police arrived at the farm, the offender had left the residence and his partner advised the police that he possesses various firearms. The police were also advised of the property the couple had recently purchased as a retirement home in Youbou. The police attended at this location, where they found the offender. [ 4 ] They spoke to the offender about the complaint and the information they had been provided that he had firearms in his possession.

The offender initially denied possession of the firearms; however, on further questioning the offender indicated that there were firearms in the crawlspace of the Youbou residence. With the assistance of the offender, the police were able to access the crawlspace through a trap door in a broom closet in the residence. [ 5 ] The two firearms were located in cases hidden in a floor joist, wedged up in the wiring above the crawlspace. The sawed-off shotgun was stored in a medium-sized briefcase and the handgun was stored in a small black gun case. Each case contained ammunition for the firearms stored therein.

Photographs of the cases and the weapons and ammunition were produced to the Court. [ 6 ] The handgun had a loaded clip in its case for seven rounds, and the shotgun had five rounds stored in its case as well as cleaning tools. Suffice it to say, the ammunition stored with each firearm was readily accessible. [ 7 ] The firearms had not been registered in Canada, and the offender had no licence to possess them. [ 8 ] The Crown submits that an appropriate sentence for this offence is a period of incarceration in the range of 30 to 40 months.

Counsel for the offender submits that a sentence of less than 24 months is appropriate, and submits the offender ought to serve the sentence in the community pursuant to a conditional sentence order. [ 9 ] The criminal offence to which the offender has pled guilty addresses possession of prohibited and restricted firearms which present the most significant danger to public safety. The offence only applies if the firearm is loaded or if ammunition for the firearm is readily available.

The purpose of the prohibition contained in the Criminal Code is to intervene in this dangerous conduct before someone is actually harmed. Our Court of Appeal has stated that most unlawful possession of loaded firearms represent a "tragedy in gestation”. The offence is concerned with an individual's possession of a firearm that poses "a real and immediate danger to those in his orbit"; R. v.

Kachuol, 2017 BCCA 292 , paras. 26 and 29 . [ 10 ] The recent jurisprudence is clear that deterrence and denunciation are the paramount principles to be considered in sentencing for these offences in order to prevent a tragedy from occurring.

The courts have indicated the range of sentencing commences from the low end, where the violation is more of a regulatory or licensing matter, through to the high end, which addresses: … individuals who have loaded, restricted or prohibited firearms that they have no business possessing anywhere or at any time, and who are engaged in criminal conduct or conduct that poses a danger to others. ( R. v. Nur , 2013 ONCA 677 , para 206 ) [ 11 ] At paragraph 52 of Nur , Doherty J.A. indicated, and other appellate courts have concurred ( R. v. Nur , 2015 SCC 15 ; R. v.

Sellars , 2018 BCCA 195 ), that most offenders will fall at the "true crime" end of the spectrum as the conduct "is directly connected to criminal activity and/or poses some other immediate danger to other persons". [ 12 ] Our Court of Appeal in R. v. Holt, 2015 BCCA 302 held that an appropriate sentence for offenders found to be at the bottom end of the criminal range is close to three years incarceration. [ 13 ] Counsels' submissions for the most part focused on the range of sentencing for these offences, and where in that range the offender falls.

The Crown submits the offender's conduct places him near the bottom end of the true crime range, while counsel for the offender submits the offender is somewhere between the truly criminal end of the spectrum and the regulatory end of the spectrum. [ 14 ] I should indicate that while determining the range of sentencing may be a helpful starting point, the Court must be mindful that ranges established for sentencing for a particular offence are only guidelines.

The Court must consider all the factors and circumstances in a particular case and apply the various principles of sentencing which are set out in the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence to arrive at a fit sentence. [ 15 ] In this regard, sentencing is an inherently subjective and highly individualized exercise, tailored to various factors including the gravity of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, the harm caused by the crime, and the particular circumstances of the offender. [ 16 ] The Court must assess the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The Court must review the nature of the offence and address all aggravating and mitigating factors. It is also important that the Court ensure parity in sentencing of offenders. The Criminal Code and the jurisprudence is clear that the sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. [ 17 ] As indicated, the Court must assess the circumstances of the offence to determine, among other things, its gravity and the offender's moral culpability.

Accordingly, it is of assistance to canvass the history of the offender's possession of the firearms.

[ 18 ] There is no suggestion that the offender before the Court possessed the firearms as a tool to further some other criminal activity. The concern and focus of the Crown is the manner in which the firearms were possessed.

As well, there is no suggestion that the conduct of the offender before the Court constituted a regulatory breach as the offender had no licence, the firearms were not registered, they had been purchased illegally, and the offender had possessed the firearms for a lengthy period of time, knowing it was illegal to do so. [ 19 ] The Court was advised that the offender came into possession of the firearms approximately ten years ago, when he purchased them from a neighbour who was disposing of various items. The offender believed these would be interesting novelty items.

He apparently fired the weapons once, shortly after they were purchased, in a secluded area on his farm, and has not used them since. Up until July 2017, the firearms were kept locked in the bottom drawer of a large tool chest, kept in the workshop on the farm, and were never removed from the chest.

In July 2017, after purchasing the home in Youbou, the offender transported the toolbox, with the firearms locked therein, to the Youbou home, where they were stored in the crawlspace, and eventually located by the police. [ 20 ] As indicated, the firearms have never been registered in Canada, and the offender has never had a licence to possess the firearms. [ 21 ] In assessing the offender's possession of the firearms, one must have concerns with the clearly unlawful conduct and potential dangers involved.

And while the conduct warrants an appropriate severe sanction to deter the offender and others who may contemplate possessing firearms in such a manner, I do not believe that the possession in this case falls at the more serious end of the spectrum identified by the jurisprudence. [ 22 ] This is a situation in which the offender unwisely held on to the firearms, unlawfully, for an extended period of time. However, they were not stored in a location that presented a significant risk or danger to others. The firearms in this case were possessed in a rural area, and were not easily accessible.

They were rarely removed from the stored location or the secreted location in the crawlspace. They were fired on one occasion in a secluded area of the offender's farm many years ago. [ 23 ] Upon reviewing the jurisprudence addressing these sorts of offences, it is clear the possession in this case does not reach the level identified by the courts as constituting “a real and immediate danger to those in the offender's orbit”. [ 24 ] The starting point for determining an appropriate sentence for conduct violating s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Nur .

In Nur , the Court addressed the wide range of potential conduct captured by the codified offence in addressing whether a three-year mandatory minimum enacted by Parliament could result in a grossly disproportionate sentence for some offenders. [ 25 ] At paragraph 82, Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, stated: Section 95(1) casts its net over a wide range of potential conduct. Most cases within the range may well merit a sentence of three years or more, but conduct at the far end of the range may not.

At one end of the range, as Doherty J.A. observed, stands the outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade. ... [T]his person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public" (para. 51). At this end of the range -- indeed for the vast majority of offences -- a three-year sentence may be appropriate. A little further along the spectrum stands the person whose conduct is less serious and poses less danger; for these offenders three years' imprisonment may be disproportionate, but not grossly so.

At the far end of the range, stands the licenced and responsible gun owner who stores his unloaded firearm safely with ammunition nearby, but makes a mistake as to where it can be stored.

For this offender, a three-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to the sentence the conduct would otherwise merit under the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code . [emphasis added] [ 26 ] In reviewing the jurisprudence in British Columbia since Nur , addressed below, I am unable to conclude the offender’s conduct in the case before me falls in the same range as those offenders whose conduct was found to be “truly criminal”, warranting sentences at the high end of the range.

The offender’s conduct is less serious and less dangerous, and a sentence in the range of three years would be disproportionate. [ 27 ] In R. v. Holt , the offender had been stopped while operating a motor vehicle after spending the entirety of the evening consuming alcohol and smoking crack cocaine. He was found to be in possession of drugs, and a search of his vehicle located a backpack containing a loaded 22 calibre revolver and a box containing 43 cartridges capable of being discharged in the revolver.

It was noted that the offender had been arrested in a heavily populated urban area, and that the backpack was readily accessible to occupants of the vehicle. The Court of Appeal concluded that the offender’s conduct fell at the bottom end of the criminal range, and a sentence of close to three years would be appropriate. A sentence of 30 months was imposed. [ 28 ] In R. v.

Kachuol , the offender had been pulled over in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, and the police, while conducting an impaired driving investigation, located a loaded handgun with five bullets in the console between the driver and passenger seats of the car. The handgun was a prohibited firearm that had never been registered and the offender never had a licence to possess it. It is also worth noting that the offender at the time was prohibited from possessing any firearm as a result of a prior drug conviction.

The Court recognized that the offender’s conduct of possessing a prohibited handgun in a moving car, strategically placed for ready access, posed a real and immediate danger to those in his orbit, and was “truly criminal”. The Court further noted that the risk was increased as a result of the consumption of alcohol by the offender and the urban environment in which he possessed the firearm. The Court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment. [ 29 ] In R. v.

Do , 2019 BCCA 191 , our Court of Appeal addressed the lower court’s sentencing of an individual for numerous offences, including possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition without a licence. The circumstances were that the police had searched the offender’s residence finding drugs, along with drug paraphernalia relating to the sale of drugs. As well, a handgun and ammunition were in a case that was in plain view near a sofa bed on the floor. The police observed many people coming and going from the residence of which the offender was the sole occupant.

Aggravating factors included that the gun was kept in a townhouse in a busy urban area with many families nearby and for the purposes related to other criminal behaviour. In the result, the Court of Appeal sentenced the offender to three years imprisonment.

[ 30 ] In R. v. Brereton , 2015 BCCA 1553 , the offender was found guilty of numerous offences, including unlawful possession of cocaine, unlawful possession of a firearm, a Remington 870 express shotgun without a licence or registration certificate, and unlawful possession of a loaded, restricted firearm, a 357 Magnum revolver with readily accessible ammunition capable of being discharged in the firearm, without an authorization or licence and a registration certificate. The revolver was kept in the offender’s bedroom, and the police located 68 rounds of ammunition for the revolver in the kitchen.

The Court was very cognizant of the concerns with the drug activities at the residence, the location of the drugs and the firearms, and if there was any altercation or intrusion by other persons, it could very well turn dangerous and violent, thus increasing the prospect of a calamity. As well, the gun had never been registered in Canada, nor had the offender ever had a licence to possess it. The offender was 30 years of age, with a criminal record, and had possessed the guns and ammunition in conjunction with illicit drugs. He was sentenced to 26 months imprisonment. [ 31 ] In R. v.

Montevelli , 2019 BCSC 162 , the offender was being sentenced for being in possession of a loaded gun with ten rounds of ammunition, in a pizza restaurant in Richmond, British Columbia. The gun was in a small satchel he wore over his shoulder. He had entered the restaurant, wearing the satchel containing the gun, in the company of an adult woman and her mother and young child. Upon completing their meal, the offender accidentally left the satchel with the gun on the arm of the chair where he had been sitting. The Court sentenced the offender to 30 months imprisonment. [ 32 ] In R. v.

Sears , 2016 BCSC 965 , the police had attended at the offender’s residence to confirm the well-being of his wife. At some point, the offender went to his bedroom to lie down, and shortly thereafter the police saw the offender roll over with a handgun in his hand. After taking cover, the police observed the offender had dropped the handgun on his pillow about 12 inches from his head. The police were able to seize the handgun which was a semiautomatic with a live round in the chamber and several additional rounds in the magazine.

The Court was of the view that, despite the dangerous conduct of the offender, a sentence below the three year range was appropriate, recognizing in part that the offender was not furthering any other criminal activity, and was in his own residence at the time of the offence. The offender was sentenced to 25 months in jail. [ 33 ] In R. v. Porter , 2018 BCPC 341 , the offender had possessed a loaded handgun which he transported in his vehicle to an acquaintance's residence, where it was handled by others in an unsafe manner while the individuals were drinking.

One of these individuals had mental deficiencies and had pointed the loaded firearm at his face. The offender eventually left the residence with the handgun and attended at a sandpit where he fired three rounds from his vehicle. He then returned to his residence and stored the handgun, loaded, in the drawer of a bureau located by the front door of the residence, where it was located by the police when executing a search warrant. The handgun was unsecured, loaded and easily accessible.

The offender was sentenced to three years in jail. [ 34 ] These cases all address conduct where there was “real and immediate danger” to those in the offender’s orbit. As indicated earlier, the conduct of the offender before me did not create or pose a real and immediate danger to the degree that existed in these cases. This is not to minimize the offender’s conduct, as it was serious. However, it cannot be characterized as reaching the egregious level of other offenders whose conduct has been found to fall at the “truly criminal” end of the spectrum.

The offender’s conduct falls somewhere below the “truly criminal” end of the spectrum as it was less serious and posed less danger than those offenders who have been found to fall in that range. [ 35 ] The circumstances of this offence did not have the degree of criminal responsibility, in particular the immediate danger that existed in the cases reviewed above.

In my view, sentencing the offender to a period of incarceration at the end of the range as proposed by Crown counsel would be disproportionate when considering the nature of the criminal conduct committed by the offender before me, his personal circumstances, and when compared to sentences imposed on other offenders for this offence. [ 36 ] The mitigating factors in this case include a very favourable pre-sentence report which reveals the otherwise good character of the offender, who is a good father with a hard work ethic, and engages in pro-social activities.

He is 52 years of age and has owned and resided on a successful 80 acre dairy farm in the Cowichan Valley. [ 37 ] The offender has an unrelated dated criminal record from almost 30 years ago. Since that time, he has been an industrious, law- abiding citizen. Filed with the Court were numerous letters indicating the good character of the offender and the support he has in the community. [ 38 ] The offender had stored the firearms in a manner that significantly reduced any risk to the public and those in his orbit. He was not handling the firearms in a public place.

The defender has pled guilty, acknowledges his criminal conduct, and takes full responsibility for his actions. [ 39 ] The offender finds himself before the Court for sentencing as a result of his partner contacting the police and advising them of these weapons. While some offenders in the offender’s position might harbour ill feelings towards their partner for reporting the existence of the firearms to the police, the offender was quite clear before this Court that he does not harbour any ill will towards his partner, and understands why she reported the firearms to the police.

More importantly, he recognizes that he should not have had possession of these firearms, and that they were properly removed from his possession by the police. I accept that the offender is extremely remorseful for his conduct and fully accepts responsibility for the offences. [ 40 ] There are numerous aggravating factors in this case. Both firearms are prohibited weapons and were unlawfully possessed by the offender for a lengthy period of time. He possessed the firearms for approximately ten years, knowing full well that the possession of these firearms was illegal.

At one point while possessing the firearms, he contemplated surrendering the firearms to the RCMP pursuant to an amnesty program that had been established, but he did not. As well, some time ago, the offender filed an application for a licence to possess firearms, but he aborted the application a few years after initiating the same. [ 41 ] As indicated, the firearms in the possession of the offender had never been registered in Canada, nor was the offender ever licenced to possess them.

As well, on one occasion shortly after purchasing the firearms, he fired the weapons in a secluded area outside his residence. [ 42 ] Lastly, upon initially being questioned by the police with respect to the existence of these firearms, the offender denied possession of the firearms. However he did shortly thereafter acknowledge possession of the firearms and showed the police where they

were located once he was advised of the public safety issues. [ 43 ] I am satisfied that specific deterrence in this case is of limited import. The defendant clearly recognizes the gravity of this offence and the jeopardy he has foolishly placed himself in. I am unable to see any circumstance where he would place himself in such jeopardy in the future. Moreover, I am satisfied that he represents no threat to the community. [ 44 ] I must nonetheless be mindful of the principles of general deterrence and denunciation, which are primary considerations in these sorts of offences.

Parliament and the Courts in this country have repeatedly acknowledged that firearms are inherently dangerous and that it is appropriate that significant sanctions be imposed on offenders to signal the community’s disapproval of unlawful, careless and risky practices when possessing firearms. [ 45 ] In the result, after considering the various sentencing factors engaged in this matter, I am satisfied that a sentence in the range established for the truly criminal offender would be disproportionate in this case.

The offender’s conduct in this case did not create the real and immediate danger often observed in the commission of this offence. [ 46 ] However the offender’s conduct created needless risk to the community and those around him while he knew full well that possession of these firearms was illegal. The possession continued for many years and the firearms were fired, albeit many years ago, in a secluded location. [ 47 ] A significant sentence is appropriate to promote the principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

I am satisfied that a fit sentence in this case ought to be in the range of 18 months, and certainly less than two years. [ 48 ] Having found that a fit sentence would be less than two years, I am compelled to consider whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. [ 49 ] The fundamental principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code , including the objectives of denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring the offender and any other person from committing offences, separating offenders from society where necessary, and assisting offenders in their rehabilitation. [ 50 ] In particular, I am mindful of s. 718.2(

d) where the Code indicates “an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances”. Where possible, a sentence other than imprisonment that is reasonable in the circumstances should be crafted and consistent so that productive members of society will remain productive. [ 51 ] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , held a conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence, and will generally be better than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparation to the victim and community, promote a sense of responsibility in the offender, and acknowledge the harm done to the victim and the community. [ 52 ] The jurisprudence is clear that once the prerequisites of s. 742.1 of the Code are satisfied (a sentence of less than two years is appropriate and subsections (

a) through (

f) are satisfied), then the sentencing judge should give serious consideration to a conditional sentence in all cases where that would be consistent with the sentencing principles set out in s. 718 to 718.2. [ 53 ] None of the aggravating factors enumerated in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code apply to this offender. The offender does not pose a threat or danger to the community. He has in fact been a productive member of our community, with a successful business operation, employing numerous people, and he assists in the community.

Having the offender serve his sentence in the community in no way endangers the community. I am satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 to 718.2 . [ 54 ] Mr.

Abma, would you please stand. [ 55 ] On the single count of possession of unloaded, prohibited firearms with readily accessible ammunition without being a holder of an authorization or licence, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code , I am sentencing you to 18 months, to be served in the community by way of conditional sentence order. [ 56 ] You may have a seat now, Mr. Abma. [ 57 ] The terms of the conditional sentence order will be as follows. [ 58 ] You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court.

You must notify the Court or the conditional sentence supervisor ten days in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or the conditional sentence supervisor of any change of employment or occupation. [ 59 ] You must remain in British Columbia unless you have prior written permission from the Court or the conditional sentence supervisor to leave the province. [ 60 ] You must report in person to your conditional sentence supervisor here in Duncan by 4 p.m. today, September 4, 2019, and thereafter you must report as directed by your supervisor and in the manner directed by the supervisor. [ 61 ] When first reporting to the conditional sentence supervisor, you must inform him or her of your residential address and phone number.

You must not change your residence or phone number without written permission from your supervisor. [ 62 ] For the first six months of this order, you must remain inside your residence, under house arrest 24 hours per day. For the second six months of this order, you must remain on the lot of your residence 24 hours per day, and be inside of your residence and comply with a curfew from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. each day. For the last six months of this order, you must comply with a curfew and be inside

your residence from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. each day. [ 63 ] You must present yourself immediately at the door to your residence or answer the phone when any peace officer or conditional sentence supervisor attends at your residence or calls to check you are in compliance with the house arrest or curfew condition of this order. [ 64 ] During the second six months of this order, if you are outside your residence on the lot of your residence between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., you must leave a handwritten note on your front door indicating where on your property you may be found. [ 65 ] You may be away from your residence during the house arrest or curfew hours with the written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor.

Such permission is to be given only for compelling reasons. You may also be away from your residence during the house arrest or curfew hours in the event of a medical emergency, and then only while at a health care facility, or when traveling directly to or returning directly from the facility.

If requested, you must provide your conditional sentence supervisor with the written confirmation that you went to the facility, signed by a representative of the health care facility to which you went. [ 66 ] You must carry a copy of this order and any written permission from your conditional sentence supervisor with you at all times when you are outside your residence.

If a peace officer stops you for any reason, you must immediately provide the peace officer with a copy of this order and any written permission, without being requested to so. [ 67 ] You must not possess or consume alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicating substance except in accordance with a medical prescription. [ 68 ] During the last six months of this conditional sentence order, you are to complete 50 hours of community work service under the direction of your conditional sentence supervisor.

The 50 hours is to be completed no later than two weeks before the conclusion of the conditional sentence order. [ 69 ] You must not possess, either personally or through another person, any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or explosive substance, or anything that resembles a weapon or firearm, any weapon as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code , or any related authorization, licences or registration certificates.

You must not reside in any residence in which any other person keeps or stores any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or explosive substance. [ 70 ] No later than 5 p.m. today, you must telephone the RCMP police detachment in Ladysmith and speak to a peace officer.

You must tell the officer about this order and make arrangements to surrender all firearms, crossbows, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition or explosive substances, and all weapons, imitation weapons including imitation firearms, possessed by you or through another person, and any related authorizations, licences or registration certificates.

You must surrender all these items in the manner directed by the peace officer. [ 71 ] As well, I am making a number of ancillary orders which were sought by the Crown, and are not contested by the offender, and I believe are appropriate. [ 72 ] After considering the factors set out in s. 47.051(3) of the Criminal Code , I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to make an order in Form 5.04 authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from you for the purpose of registration in the DNA national databank.

You are to attend within 30 days of this order to the RCMP detachment in Ladysmith to submit to the taking of the samples. [ 73 ] I am, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , prohibiting you from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of ten years.

As well, you are prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life. [ 74 ] Lastly, all the items seized by the police upon attending at the Youbou residence of the offender are to be forfeited to the RCMP. [ 75 ] Ms. Giri. [ 76 ] MS. GIRI: There was a firearm seized from the Ladysmith residence as well, the 22. I am wondering if it can be all firearms and ammunition -- [ 77 ] THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. [ 78 ] MS. GIRI: -- items seized from the Ladysmith residence and the Youbou residence. [ 79 ] THE COURT: Yes, Mr.

Hertzberg, I am assuming you have no issue with that. [ 80 ] MR. HERTZBERG: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 81 ] THE COURT: No. So the order with respect to the forfeiture will apply to the items seized at both the Youbou residence and the Ladysmith residence. (REASONS CONCLUDED)