R. v. Luba, 2022 BCPC 49

Citation: R. v. Luba 2022 BCPC 49 Date: 20220330 File No: 262974-1; 263604-4 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Criminal Court) REGINA v. EMILY JOYCE LUBA REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. RIDEOUT Counsel for the Crown: E. Leno Counsel for the Defendant: Z. Zwanenburg Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 31, 2022 Date of Judgment: March 30, 2022 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on April 1, 2022. The changes have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. I. INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] Emily Luba (the “accused”) has pled guilty to a charge that on April 14, 2021, at Vancouver, BC, she committed mischief by wilfully obstructing, interrupting, or interfering with the lawful use of the property of Polaris Realty Canada Ltd. (“Polaris”) located at 999 W. Hastings Street (“Polaris protest”). [ 2 ] The accused has also pled guilty to a charge that on July 1, 2021, at Vancouver, BC, she committed mischief by wilfully defacing the wall of a church, the property of St. Jude’s Parish, with paint, resulting in damages not in excess of $5,000 (“St.

Jude’s protest”). [ 3 ] The first Information in time was sworn on July 14, 2021. The second Information in time was sworn on August 20, 2021. [ 4 ] The accused has no prior criminal record. She is now to be sentenced for her criminal actions. ISSUE [ 5 ] The sole issue to be determined is what is a fit, just, and proportionate sentence having regard to the circumstances surrounding the offences, her past and present personal circumstances, and applying the purposes and principles of sentencing contained in

Part XXIII of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “ Code ”). BACKGROUND [ 6 ] At the time the accused committed the offences, she was a follower of a protest group known as the Braided Warriors. The Braided Warriors define themselves as a group of Indigenous youth warriors fighting for Indigenous sovereignty on the unceded territories of the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish, and Musqueam Nations. [ 7 ] The Braided Warriors’ mission is to defend the land and people from capital colonial violence. Their mission includes their opposition to all resource extraction.

One of their goals is to stop the insurers of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (the “TMEP”) and the related work they facilitate through the staging of protests at the premises of various insurance companies. (

i) Polaris protest [ 8 ] At or around 8:00 AM on April 14, 2021, the Braided Warriors were involved in two protests. One took place at 250 Howe Street, which is described as a mixed use commercial building. The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is located in this building. [ 9 ] The second protest took place at the Polaris property. In both protests, some of the protesters chained the main doors of both protest locations with padlocks. They also chained themselves to each other by locking themselves into a PVC pipe with a chain weaved through it.

This device is commonly known as a “Sleeping Dragon”. [ 10 ] At both protest locations, there were also freestanding protesters, some of whom were carrying signs objecting to the TMEP. [ 11 ] Members of the Vancouver Police Department (the “VPD”) attended at both protest locations. [ 12 ] At the Polaris property, the VPD members attempted to negotiate a resolution, but the protesters refused to speak to the police or even acknowledge their presence.

In response, the protesters would sing and chant over police attempts to negotiate a resolution. [ 13 ] A Musqueam Nation Liaison Officer (the “MNLO”) attended the Polaris property. He spoke to the accused and a co-accused advising them that the police were legally executing their duties and the protesters had to leave to avoid being arrested for mischief and obstructing a peace officer.

He did not receive any response from either the accused or her co-accused. [ 14 ] The VPD members on scene at the Polaris property, including the MNLO, were unable to identify a leader of the protest. [ 15 ] Members of the Vancouver Fire Department (the “VFD”) attended at the Polaris property on two occasions. On both occasions, they advised the protesters who had chained themselves to the property that their actions created a safety concern and were contrary to a fire bylaw. They directed the protesters that they had to unlock themselves from the doors of the building.

The protesters refused to respond or acknowledge the VFD’s directions. [ 16 ] The VPD members came to the conclusion that they would have to move the freestanding protesters away from the protesters who had chained themselves to each other and to the Polaris property. This decision would enable the VFD members to cut the padlocks and chains. [ 17 ] The VPD had to use physical force to move the freestanding protesters to clear a space.

During this manoeuvre, protesters were yelling, swearing, and assaulting the VPD members. [ 18 ] The VFD members were able to cut the chain attached to the main entrance leaving the protesters bound in the Sleeping Dragon. The protesters were again provided with the opportunity to leave to avoid arrest. The protesters refused to comply. [ 19 ] The VFD members were able to free the protesters from the Sleeping Dragon. The accused was arrested, and when the police were handcuffing her, she went limp.

She had to be carried to the police wagon. [ 20 ] The accused refused to identify herself despite being advised that she could be charged with obstruction. She was eventually identified through a BC identification card. [ 21 ] Protesters arrested at both protest locations were transported to the VPD jail. At the jail, the protesters continued to sing and chant solidarity songs. It would appear that they anticipated being arrested as they had the name and phone number for a lawyer printed on their arms.

[ 22 ] Ultimately, they were released on a police undertaking with area restrictions to the two protest locations. [ 23 ] The Director of Operations at the Polaris property advised that due to safety concerns, the Polaris property was closed down for the day at a significant financial cost. (ii) St. Jude’s protest [ 24 ] On May 28, 2021, 215 unmarked graves were discovered at a former residential school in Kamloops.

Subsequently, there were other unmarked graves located at other former residential schools in Canada. [ 25 ] The discovery of the unmarked graves were highly publicized and were shocking to Canadians. [ 26 ] The Catholic Church’s involvement in administering the residential schools became a target of anger for many Canadians, including those of Indigenous heritage. [ 27 ] Since the discovery of the unmarked graves, 12 churches in British Columbia have been vandalized.

Many of the churches were splashed with red paint or orange paint being the colours of clothing associated to the young residents of the residential schools. [ 28 ] The St. Jude’s Parish is located on Renfrew Street in Vancouver, BC. The church was established in 1947 and is officially recognized as a shrine. The church has a congregation of almost 1,000 parishioners. The majority of the parishioners are of Filipino, Chinese, and Italian descent. Most of the parishioners are elderly. [ 29 ] Just before 11:00 PM on July 1, 2021, the accused and her twin sister attended the church.

Two witnesses observed them throwing orange paint onto the church using two small cups and scooping the paint out of a larger bucket. [ 30 ] One of the witnesses began to film the accused and her sister and attempted to intervene without success. After a short period of time, the accused and her sister walked away leaving behind the bucket of paint. One of them was wearing a jacket that had the words, “The Church is Complicit” written on the back. [ 31 ] The VPD attended at the church, and photographs were taken. The photographs depict orange paint splashed the walls and doors of the church.

A large banner attached to the church was also defaced with numerous orange handprints. There was also a small sign posted on the church that read, “Every Child Matters; Support the Ninety-four Recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. [ 32 ] Members of the church were contacted. They quickly attended at the church and were able to remove the paint with the use of a power washer before the church service scheduled for July 2 nd . [ 33 ] The VPD were able to trace the paint left at the church back to Home Depot, where it was determined that the accused’s sister had purchased paint.

The VPD discovered that the accused and her sister lived together. [ 34 ] A search warrant was obtained to search their residence. A search was conducted during the course of which clothing was located with orange paint on the clothing. [ 35 ] A search warrant was also obtained to search any cellular telephones in their possession. Evidence was located on both of their cell phones linking them to the vandalism of the church.

The evidence included a selfie photograph of the accused and her sister sitting on a bus with orange paint on their clothing. [ 36 ] They were both arrested on August 11, 2021, and subsequently released on undertakings to appear in court. POSITION OF THE PARTIES (

i) The Crown [ 37 ] In relation to the Polaris protest, the Crown seeks a fine of $2,000.00, coupled with a 12-month Probation Order to include area restriction conditions. [ 38 ] In relation to the St. Jude’s protest, the Crown seeks a Suspended Sentence, coupled with a 12-month Probation Order.

The Crown’s position is that the Probation Order must include an area restriction condition to the church and a further condition that the accused perform 40 hours of community work service. [ 39 ] The Crown submits that the primary sentencing considerations for public disorder offences are general and specific deterrence and denunciation.

The Crown concedes that rehabilitation should be taken into account, but the weight to be accorded to rehabilitation should be reduced. [ 40 ] Crown’s other submissions can be summarized as follows: • That the accused is 27 years old and would not be described as a youthful first offender; • That the accused is intelligent as she is enrolled in a Master’s Degree program; • That while the accused’s sister received a Conditional Discharge following a guilty plea for the mischief that occurred at St.

Jude’s Parish, she was only involved in one criminal mischief; • That Judge Burgess imposed Suspended Sentences on two Braided Warrior protesters, who had no prior criminal records and they were both involved in two separate protests in circumstances similar to the case at bar: R v Panganiban et al , (8 December 2021),

Vancouver 32605-1 & 262312-1 (BCPC) [“ Panganiban” ]; • That while there are cases where Conditional Discharges have been granted, those cases generally involve circumstances that are less aggravating than in the present case at bar; and • That it would be contrary to the public interest to impose a Conditional Discharge pursuant to s. 730(1) of the Code . [ 41 ] The Crown submitted that the following circumstances amounted to aggravating circumstances with respect to the Polaris protest: • That access to the Polaris property was blocked for 4.5 hours; • That the use of chains, locks, and the Sleeping Dragons demonstrated that this protest was planned and sophisticated; • That businesses located in the Polaris property had to be closed for the day due to safety concerns; • That tenants within the property were fearful and had to exit the property through an underground loading bay exit; • That businesses within the property lost thousands of dollars; • That significant VPD and VFD resources were required to break up the protest; • That the accused and other protesters were given many opportunities to leave the scene to avoid arrest; and • That the accused failed to cooperate with the VPD after her arrest. [ 42 ] The Crown submitted that the following circumstances amounted to aggravating circumstances with respect to the St.

Judge’s protest: • That the St. Jude’s Parish was a place of worship for a large multi-ethnic congregation of mostly elderly parishioners. [ 43 ] The Crown submitted the following circumstances amounted to mitigating circumstances with respect to both protests: • That the accused has no prior criminal record; and • That the accused has entered a relatively early guilty plea. [ 44 ] The Crown filed a book of authorities in relation to sentences imposed in cases involving civil disobedience occurring at various protest sites. [ 45 ] In the Analysis

section of this decision, reference will be made to some of the referenced Crown authorities if useful for explaining the sentence to be imposed. (ii) The Accused [ 46 ] The accused is 27 years of age. In 2016, she received an Honours Bachelor of Arts Degree in Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of Colgate located in upstate New York.

This earned her a prestigious research fellowship which allowed her to conduct research with Rwandan refugees in Uganda. [ 47 ] It is her intention to pursue a Master’s Degree in counselling at Simon Fraser University (“SFU”) or overseas at the University of Edinburgh. [ 48 ] SFU requires a criminal record check if one wishes to enrol in their Master’s Degree counselling program. [ 49 ] She also has future plans to travel to Ireland for a working holiday. She has been granted a Working Holiday Visa Authorization that was issued on January 12, 2022, and must be exercised within twelve months of the issue date.

The Authorization notes that the grant of permission is subject to “normal border immigration controls.” [ 50 ] Over the last four years, she has worked as a front-line worker. She has volunteered for organizations supporting those impacted by homelessness, poverty, addiction, mental health, and trauma. In that capacity, she has previously worked as a Youth Support Worker for the Directions Youth Services, and she was a Housing Support Worker at Progressive Housing Society. [ 51 ] The accused filed 10 letters of support.

Several of the letters of support report that she is passionate and committed to working with the homeless and the Indigenous community in Vancouver. Her work included: being part of a group of six to eight “Fire Keepers”, who assisted the homeless camped at the Strathcona Park in October 2020; working with Indigenous women and girls at the Downtown Eastside Women’s Centre; and raising funds for the local homeless community in her spare time. [ 52 ] Currently, she is employed part-time by the Elizabeth Fry Society in the Third Party Administration Program (the “TPAP”).

The senior worker for the TPAP wrote a letter of support in which she states, in part: Emily is detail-oriented, passionate, and extremely confident … She has built a great rapport with clients in every office location that she has worked at. She goes above and beyond to ensure that the clients are taken care of, and have the necessary support that they require. [ 53 ] The accused sought counselling to address issues related to her relationship with her mother, dealing with her emotions in a healthy manner, and being able to make better decisions in relation to her mental health.

[54] From September 2021 through to the present, the accused has been receiving counselling through the Rhodes CounsellingCentre. Her counsellor provided a letter of support which reads, in part: Thus far, Emily has made the effort to attend all her scheduled counselling sessions. She demonstrates an eagerness and drive to betterherself and the lives of others. Overall, Emily has shown growth and development in how she handles her mental well being.

In sum,[she] is a hard-working, responsible and humble individual. [55] After the mischief charges were laid, her actions in participating in the two protests attracted significant public scrutiny throughthe social media. As a consequence, she says that she now bears the stigma of being vilified on various social media platforms. [56] The accused also addressed the Court through a lengthy letter of apology. In the letter, she addresses her personal anxieties andhow those anxieties led her into making poor decisions. [57] She extended an apology to those who were impacted by the protest at the Polaris property.

She noted, in part: I think of the people who were frightened by not being able to get out of the office building I was helping blockade and feel deep regretfor putting them in a panic-inducing situation. It was not safe. I held innocent people hostage and caused them trauma. The harm Icaused the community isn’t okay. [58] She extended an apology to the parishioners of the St. Jude’s Parish. She noted, in part: I think of the church congregation who felt scared to worship due to the fear of escalating actions after I covered their church in orangepaint.

The congregation is composed of people, mostly elderly, none of whom are to blame for residential schools. I also know St. Jude’sparish is a congregation of many immigrants, and Canada mean something to people who have had challenging paths to get here and/orface tough situations back home. LEGAL FRAMEWORK [59] Absolute or Conditional Discharges are mandated by s. 730 (1) of the Code: 730

(1) Where an accused, other than an organization, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence, other than an offence for which aminimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or for life, the court beforewhich the accused appears may, if it considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, insteadof convicting the accused, by order direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on the conditions prescribed in a probation ordermade under subsection 731 (2). [60] The leading case in British Columbia on the application of this

section is R v Fallofield, (BC CA), [1973] 6WWR 472, [1973] BCJ No 559 [“Fallofield”]. The Court made the following conclusions as to the exercise of the discretion to grant adischarge: 21 From this review of the authorities and my own view of the meaning of s. 662.1, I draw the following conclusions, subject, of course,to what I have said above as to the exercise of discretion.

(1) The

section may be used in respect of any offence other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or theoffence is punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or for life or by death.

(2) The

section contemplates the commission of an offence. There is nothing in the language that limits it to a technical or trivialviolation.

(3) Of the two conditions precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction, the first is that the Court must consider that it is in the bestinterests of the accused that he should be discharged either absolutely or upon condition. If it is not in the best interests of the accused,that, of course, is the end of the matter. If it is decided that it is in the best interests of the accused, then that brings the nextconsideration into operation.

(4) The second condition precedent is that the Court must consider that a grant of discharge is not contrary to the public interest.

(5) Generally, the first condition would presuppose that the accused is a person of good character, without previous conviction, that it isnot necessary to enter a conviction against him in order to deter him from future offences or [*455] to rehabilitate him, and that the entryof a conviction against him may have significant adverse repercussions.

(6) In the context of the second condition the public interest in the deterrence of others, while it must be given due weight, does notpreclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions.

(7) The powers given by s. 662.1 should not be exercised as an alternative to probation or suspended sentence.

(8) Section 662.1 should not be applied routinely to any particular offence. This may result in an apparent lack of uniformity in theapplication of the discharge provisions. This lack will be more apparent than real and will stem from the differences in the circumstancesof cases. [61] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is contained in s. 718 of the Code: 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect forthe law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the followingobjectives:

(

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [62] It is fundamental that any sentence imposed be proportionate as required by s. 718.1 of the Code: 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [63] Generally, in cases involving civil disobedience, the objectives of general and specific deterrence, and denunciation will beparamount: R v Charlebois, 2011 ABPC 238 at para 34. [64] In civil disobedience cases, rehabilitation has little application if the accused’s beliefs are entrenched to the point that they cannotbe persuaded of the error of their ways: R v Avrett et al, 2001 BCPC 281 at para 63.

ANALYSIS [65] It has been long held in Canada that civil disobedience can play an important role in our democracy: R v Saul et al, 2002 BCPC693 at para 57 [“Saul”]. [66] However, the methodology of the civil disobedience in the promotion of a cause cannot transform illegal actions into legalactions: R v Pratt and Stevenson, (SK PC), 1990 CarswellSask 425, [1990] 3 CNLR 120 at para 28. [67] In Panganiban, the accused pled guilty to one count of mischief in relation to an incident that commenced on March 2, 2021, andcontinued on until March 3, 2021. [68] The accused formed part of a group of protesters, some of whom were members or were associated with the Braided Warriors.The protesters invaded the intersection located at Clarke Drive and Hastings Street in Vancouver. [69] At para 14, the Court found that this major intersection/thoroughfare was blocked for more than twenty-four hours.

Emergencyaccess was completely blocked through the intersection. Approximately 26,000 cars travel through the intersection in the combinedmorning and afternoon rush hours over any given two day period. The Port of Vancouver had 1,400 trucks scheduled to the port that dayand over 1,000 of those trucks had to be rerouted. The Port had an injunction in place prohibiting blocking access to the Port. [70] Panganiban and her co-accused, Woodhouse, also pled guilty to committing mischief on April 14, 2021, in a protest bycompletely blocking entry into or out of 250 Howe Street in Vancouver.

This protest was taking place at the same time of the protest atthe Polaris property. [71] At para 15 of her judgment the Court noted: [15] The second offence, on April 14, 2021, involving both accused, also had an impact on the community. The incident not only tied uppolice and fire services but created real concern for the safety of the people inside the building. This was a private building, not a publicspace, and the accused were active participants in blocking all access to the building. Not only did this prevent emergency personnelfrom entering the building, but it made prisoners of all the people inside.

These accused have shown little insight into these impacts onothers in the community. [Emphasis added] [72] With respect to the mischief involving the blocking of the intersection at Clarke Drive and Hastings Street, the Court found thefollowing aggravating factors at para 37: • That the protest was planned and occurred in the face of an existing injunction; • That the public was endangered by the actions of the accused and other protesters by blocking emergency access; • That the magnitude of the protest had a significant impact on the community at large; • That the protest was prolonged over two days and the protesters ignored repeated demands by the police to clear the roadway; • That the accused was one of four who remained in the center of the intersection over the two days; • That the accused was uncooperative with the police before and after her arrest; and • That the protest was apparently intended to influence the Supreme Court in its adjudication of another protest-related case. [Emphasis added] [73] In relation to the mischief involving both accused at 250 Howe Street, the Court found the following to be aggravating factors: • That it took place at a private building and not a public place;

• That it was planned, coordinated, and required special equipment; • That both the accused played key roles by using their chained bodies and the Sleeping Dragon device to barricade the doors; • That all doors leading into or out of the property were barricaded resulting in the residents being “trapped” in the building ; • That even when first responders expressed the safety concerns to the protesters they refused to leave; and • That VFD and VPD resources were tied up during the protest. [Emphasis added] [ 74 ] In mitigation, the Court took into account the personal circumstances of each accused, including their career goals, character reference letters, their guilty pleas, and the fact neither had a prior criminal record. [ 75 ] At para 42 of her judgment, the Court found that neither of the two accused acknowledged the harm done to the community through their offending behaviours.

The Court found it to be “notable” by an absence of any thought for the people in the community who would have suffered anxiety or mental distress as a result of their conduct. [ 76 ] At para 43, the Court also found that the blockading of 250 Howe Street created a situation with potential serious harm to the people trapped inside the building. [ 77 ] In passing sentence, the Court found that the granting of a Conditional Discharge was in the interests of both accused but contrary to the public interest.

A Suspended Sentence with probation was imposed on both accused. [ 78 ] As noted, the Court in Panganiban found that the residents in the Howe Street building were trapped and that the situation created the potential for serious harm. Unlike the circumstances in Panganiban , here the residents in the Polaris property at the time of the Polaris protest were able to exit the building through a service bay. [ 79 ] The accused’s conduct in relation to the Polaris protest was largely physically passive.

This is different from the circumstances in Saul , where the Court found that the actions of the accused established a “danger of violence” and the use of “camouflage, the military style fatigues, face masks and hoods … is frightening and dangerous”: Saul at paras 66-67. [ 80 ] In addition, the accused did not use a weapon as was the case in R v Markiewicz , 2016 BCPC 378 [“ Markiewicz ”].

In that case, the offender brandished a weapon during the course of a protest relating to the TMEP. [ 81 ] In relation to both protests, there were no injunctions or other court orders in place at the time of the commission of the offences.

Existence of such injunctions or orders would be aggravating factors and would likely render the granting of a Conditional Discharge contrary to the public interest: Panganiban at para 37. [ 82 ] A failure to acknowledge harm done to individuals or to express genuine regret arising from unjustified civil disobedience will impact the public interest component in determining whether or not a conditional discharge would be in the public interest: Panganiban at para 42, and Markiewicz at para 58 . [ 83 ] In relation to the Polaris protest, neither the VPD nor the VFD were able to identify a leader of the protest. [ 84 ] It was fortunate that in relation to the St.

Jude’s protest, the paint was power washed off the church that evening. The congregation did not suffer any financial damage, although knowledge of the paint being splashed on the church would undoubtedly be upsetting to the pastor and the congregation. [ 85 ] I accept and adopt the position of the Crown that there are significant aggravating factors as noted in its submission: paras 41-42.

However, there are also significant mitigating factors to consider. [ 86 ] I find that the accused has expressed a profound understanding and acknowledgement of the harm that she caused to the residents of the Polaris property and the congregation of St. Jude’s Parish. [ 87 ] I find that she has expressed genuine remorse and regret for her actions that resulted in emotional harm done to the residents of the Polaris property and the congregation at St. Jude’s Parish. [ 88 ] I find that her apology to the residents of the Polaris property and the congregation of St. Jude’s Parish is heartfelt and genuine.

She has clearly developed insight into her behaviour.

As she noted in her letter of apology, she now realizes, “that protest acts do not really do anything other than inconvenience and upset innocent people trying to get through their work days”. [ 89 ] The character reference letters filed in this case establish that she has dedicated much of her young adult life to helping marginalized people in our community, in particular, residents of the Downtown Eastside impacted by homelessness, poverty, addiction, mental health and trauma. [ 90 ] She wishes to continue with that life direction through the Master’s Degree Counselling program available at SFU or the University of Edinburgh. [ 91 ] The registration of a criminal record would likely have a significant negative impact on her quest to secure a Master’s Degree at either university. [ 92 ] Conclusions (5) and (6) in Fallofield are particularly apposite in this sentencing process:

(5) Generally, the first condition would presuppose that the accused is a person of good character, without previous conviction, that it is not necessary to enter a conviction against him in order to deter him from future offences or [455] to rehabilitate him, and that the entry of a conviction against him may have significant adverse repercussions.

(6) In the context of the second condition the public interest in the deterrence of others, while it must be given due weight, does not preclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions . [Emphasis added] [ 93 ] I find that the accused has accepted responsibility for her criminal behaviour by pleading guilty to both offences. [ 94 ] I take into account that the accused has no prior criminal record. [ 95 ] I take into account that charges were laid after the two protests. [ 96 ] I find that the granting of a Conditional Discharge would clearly be in the best interests of the accused. [ 97 ] I find that a reasonably well informed public, aware of the circumstances surrounding her involvement in both protests, her antecedents and future goals, her acknowledgement of harm done, her genuine expression of remorse and regret, and her heartfelt and genuine apology would find that the granting of a Conditional Discharge would not be contrary to the public interest.

DISPOSITION [ 98 ] The accused is sentenced to Conditional Discharge pursuant to s. 730(1) of the Code in relation to Informations 262974-1 and 263604-1. [ 99 ] Victim surcharges shall apply. I am satisfied the surcharges should be enhanced to reflect the harm done to the residents at the Polaris property and the parishioners of St. Jude’s Parish. Accordingly, in relation to Information 262974-1 the surcharge is $500.00. In relation to Information 263604-1 the surcharge is $750.00. The total for the surcharges is $1,250.00.

The surcharges are to be paid in full on or before the last business day in March of 2023. [ 100 ] On both Informations, the accused will be bound by concurrent Probation Orders of twelve months. [ 101 ] The conditions that apply to Information 263604-1 are as follows: • The mandatory statutory conditions shall apply; • You shall report in person to a Probation Officer at 275 E.

Cordova Street in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, on or before 3 PM on March 31, 2022, and, thereafter, as when and where directed by your Probation Officer; • When first reporting to your Probation Officer you shall provide to your Probation Officer your residential address and contact cellular telephone number and not to change your residential address or your cellular telephone number except with the prior written permission of your Probation Officer which permission can be in electronic format; • Within the first two months of this Order, you shall write a letter of apology of not less than 500 words to the pastor and the congregation of St.

Jude’s Parish in a form as approved by your Probation Officer; • Within the first eleven months of this order, at the direction of your Probation Officer, you shall participate in and successfully complete 40 hours of community work service to the satisfaction of your Probation Officer; and • You shall not attend on the property of St.

Jude’s Parish located at 3078 Renfrew Street, in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, including any adjacent parking lot or sidewalk. [ 102 ] The conditions that apply to Information 262974-1 are as follows: • The mandatory statutory conditions shall apply; • You shall not attend at 999 West Hastings Street in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, including any adjacent sidewalk, laneway or parking lot; and • You shall not have in your possession outside of your residence any utility chains, zap straps, PVC pipes or duct tape unless possessed for lawful employment purposes. ____________________________ The Honourable Judge G.

Rideout Provincial Court of British Columbia

CORRIGENDUM – Released April 1, 2022 [ 103 ] Paragraph 8 should read: At or around 8:00 AM on April 14, 2021, the Braided Warriors were involved in two protests. One took place at 250 Howe Street, which is described as a mixed use commercial building. The Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is located in this building. ____________________________ The Honourable Judge G. Rideout Provincial Court of British Columbia