2018 QCCQ 12354, 2018 QCCQ 12354

R. c. El Hussein 2018 QCCQ 12354 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Criminal and Penal Division" No.: 500-01-143861-166 500-01-128284-152 DATE: August 21, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE GUYLAINE RIVEST, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Prosecution v.

YOUNES TOUFIK EL HUSSEIN Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING [1] ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In 2005, the accused El Hussein was hired by the Tekeyan Armenian Cultural Association. This Association is also a mandatary of the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ). The accused was employed as a representative.

He was thus authorized to perform various transactions in the SAAQ databases, such as transfers of ownership and vehicle registrations. [ 2 ] Several times between February 27, 2013, and September 30, 2015, an accomplice approached the specific counter where the accused was working.

The accomplice presented the accused with false documents for the purpose of making fraudulent transactions appear lawful between individuals and used car vehicle dealers. [ 3 ] The accused pleaded guilty to several charges related to the acts of breach of trust he committed. [ 4 ] The defence proposes that the Court grant the accused a conditional discharge and sentence him to a probation order including, inter alia , the condition to make a donation of $1,000 and perform community service. [ 5 ] Although the prosecution concedes that it would be in the best interests of the accused to discharge him, it argues that this would be contrary to public interest.

Rather, it suggests that the Court sentence the accused to a six month prison term, to be served in the community, and order him to perform community service. ISSUE [ 6 ] Pursuant to s. 718 Cr. C. , what is the just and appropriate sentence for the accused, in connection with the objectives of respect for the law and the maintenance of a “just, peaceful and safe” society? BACKGROUND The scheme [ 7 ] The joint statement of facts filed , and the particulars added by the parties , reveal the following. [ 8 ] Steven Thresh is a co-accused in this case.

Between March 2013 and July 2015 [2] , he presented himself before the accused 67 times using different, but real, identities to fraudulently register and transfer ownership of several vehicles. It should be noted that these vehicles were initially stolen and their serial numbers replaced by false ones. [ 9 ] The evidence shows that the accused knew , or ought to have known , that in so doing, he was entering false information in the SAAQ databases [3] .

However, it does not reveal whether the accused knew that the vehicles he was fraudulently registering had been stolen [4] . [ 10 ] For his participation in this scheme, the accused received a small financial compensation, i.e., an amount of approximately $10 to $20 per transaction. [ 11 ] Because Steven Thresh identified himself under the names of actual persons, the accused was therefore in possession of another person’s identity information, knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the information would be used to commit an indictable

offence including fraud, deceit or falsehood as an element of the offence. Moreover, at the accused’s home, the police seized several documents containing personal information concerning actual individuals, including addresses, licence plate numbers, and driver's licence numbers. It goes without saying that the possession of this information by the accused was not authorized by the SAAQ [5] . [ 12 ] Finally, during a search conducted in a storage space rented by the accused, the police seized 12 unregistered licence plates issued by the SAAQ.

The accused was not authorized to possess these licence plates as they were the exclusive property of his employer [6] . The accused’s situation [ 13 ] The accused testified at the sentencing hearing. [ 14 ] He was born in Lebanon. He immigrated to Canada at the age of 26 and subsequently obtained Canadian citizenship. He is now 51 years old. He lives with his parents and his 15-year-old daughter, of whom he has had full custody since she was 2 years old. [ 15 ] He takes care of his 82-year-old father and 70-year-old mother.

Because his parents have various health problems, and the accused is the only one of his siblings that lives near them, he drives them to their numerous medical appointments. [ 16 ] The accused also visits an elderly couple [7] at least once a week to attend to their needs (medical appointments, groceries, etc.). The accused is described as very helpful and trustworthy. [ 17 ] He is an accomplished father: he is available and devoted regarding his daughter’s education.

In fact, he obtained a letter of recommendation from the vice-principal of a school once attended by his daughter, attesting, among other things, that he is a “very committed father who is involved in all aspects of his daughter’s life” [8] . [ 18 ] The accused submits that his daughter suffered enormously during his absence after he was arrested in the present case. According to him, he was held in custody for 35 days [9] . [ 19 ] The accused has now been released. He explaines that he experienced a lot of stress and anxiety due to the very difficult detention conditions he endured [10] .

These conditions had repercussions on his physical and mental health. In fact, he has been taking antidepressants since February 2016. [ 20 ] As for education, the accused obtained a diploma in information technology , in Lebanon. Afterwards, he obtained a visa to immigrate to Canada and held various positions, including in the food industry. While working, he enrolled in various universities and completed courses in information technology.

He also did some volunteer work in 2008 , for the Government of Canada. [ 21 ] The accused held several positions in various sectors (IT consultant, restaurant industry), and in November 2005, he started his job as mandatary of the SAAQ. The accused describes himself as an employee who provides excellent customer service and who has never received any complaints whatsoever. He stayed at this job until his arrest , in the fall of 2015. He has not been able to find a new job since then [11] because of security checks, which revealed the existence of this case.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 22 ] The defence argues that a conditional discharge is the appropriate sentence given that the accused has no prior criminal record, has never breached the conditions of his release, and has no pending cases. It contends that there is no risk the accused will reoffend. The fact that the accused was not driven by greed is also a factor to consider according to the defence, not to mention that he was not the ring leader or “highly placed” (or “highly ranked”) within “the organization”.

Moreover, the evidence does not establish that the acts committed by the accused had any financial repercussions on the victims. [ 23 ] The defence submits that the Court must also consider the accused’s age, the fact that he is a caregiver, that this case has had significant consequences for him and his family, and that he lost his job despite having always been an asset to society.

He also lost his taxi permit as a result of this case. [ 24 ] The defence suggests that the discharge be subject to conditions, within the framework of a 2-year probation order, so that the accused can perform 180 hours of community service and make a donation of $1,000, in order to “give back to society”. [ 25 ] The prosecution concedes that it would be in the accused’s best interests to discharge him.

However, for the following reasons, it contends that a discharge would be contrary to public interest: the duration and the considerably repetitive nature of the acts constituting the offences, the fact that the accused was a public official who breached the position of trust he was in, and the fact that the accused did not cease his criminal activity on his own – rather, his arrest put an end to it. [ 26 ] For those reasons, to respect the principles of sentencing, in particular deterrence and denunciation, the prosecution believes a prison sentence should be imposed.

However, considering the accused’s personal situation, the prosecution believes that it may be served in the community (conditional sentence). It also suggests imposing community service in the context of a probation order. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES [ 27 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing, that is, to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender personally and other persons from committing such offences, separate the offender from society, where necessary, assist in rehabilitating offenders, provide reparation s for harm done, and promote a sense of responsibility in the offender. [ 28 ] It is important for the courts to seek to harmonize the sentence with those usually imposed for similar offenders in similar circumstances. [ 29 ] Also, the Court must impose the least restrictive sentence possible. Thus, if appropriate in the circumstances, the Court should

not impose a sentence that deprives the offender of his liberty. It should consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable. [ 30 ] To arrive at a just sanction, the Court must seek a balance between the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender [12] . This is the principle of proportionality. ANALYSIS [ 31 ] The objective seriousness of the different offences to which the accused pleaded guilty varies according to their nature: • possession of property obtained by crime (licence plates) (s. 355( b )(

i) Cr. C. ): imprisonment not exceeding two years; • possession of identity information (ss. 402.2(2) and (5)(

a) Cr. C. ): imprisonment for no t more than five years; • breach of trust (s. 122 Cr. C. ): imprisonment not exceeding five years; • forgery (s. 367(

a) Cr. C. ): imprisonment not exceeding ten years; • unauthorized use of computer (s. 342.1(1)(

a) Cr. C .): imprisonment for no t more than ten years. [ 32 ] The offences at issue are serious, particularly those liable to imprisonment for no more than ten years. Furthermore, having been committed by a public official who breached the relationship of trust with his employer. [ 33 ] Case law is clear: the objectives of denunciation and general and personal deterrence must prevail, especially considering the context in which the offences were committed.

They certainly do not fall at the low end of the seriousness scale. [ 34 ] However, these principles should not be the sole aspects considered in the analysis.

The Court must assign them some weight but should not consider them in a disproportionate manner by eclipsing the principle of personalization of the sentence, particularly where the offender convincingly demonstrates , on a balance of probabilities , that he or she is rehabilitated. [ 35 ] To determine whether the accused has made such a demonstration, the aggravating and mitigating factors related to his situation and the commission of the offences must be analyzed.

Mitigating factors [ 36 ] From all of the facts at issue, the Court accepts the following: • the guilty pleas that obvliated the need to hold a lengthy trial; • pre-sentencing custody equivalent to 50 days; • the accused’s compliance with all the conditions of release imposed by the Court since the beginning of the proceedings, and the fact that he has no pending cases; • the fact that the accused was not the leader or “highly placed” in the group of individuals who participated in the crimes and that he dealt only with Steven Thresh; • the fact that he was not motivated by greed; • the absence of a criminal record; • the loss of his job and the fact that he has not been able to find new employment despite numerous steps taken to return to the job market, having always been an asset to society before his arrest; • the loss of his taxi permit as a result of this case; • his constant dedication towards his parents, his daughter and an elderly couple; • the consequences of his conduct for himself and his family; and • the remorse expressed regarding the acts he committed. [ 37 ] In this regard, the Court thinks it is correct in stating that the acts committed by the accused, in the context of his employment within the public service, undermine the confidence of citizens in their government institutions.

Indeed, people do not expect their personal information to be misused. [ 38 ] In the context of sentencing, s. 718(

f) of the Cr. C . emphasizes the importance of promoting a sense of responsibility in the accused through the acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community. Yet the evidence is silent regarding any such realization by the accused. Let’s not forget that, not only his employer, but also the people whose confidential information was used for criminal purposes, are victims of the accused actions. The accused did not address this aspect during his testimony [13] . [ 39 ] The Court notes that the remorse expressed by the accused is focus s ed more on the impact his conduct had (and still has) on his personal life and that of his family.

[ 40 ] The accused says he is prepared to perform community service and make a donation. However, this is insufficient , to convince the Court that he is really concerned about the adverse repercussions his actions may have had on society. Given that the accused’s acknowledgment of the harm done is essentially focus s ed on himself and his family, the suggestion to perform community service and make a donation has only little value, especially since the accused does not have the means to pay the suggested amount of $1,000. He proposes to rely on the generosity of his father, whom he will eventually reimburse.

In the circumstances, the Court deems inappropriate to place such a burden on the accused and even more so on his father. [ 41 ] As for the risk of re-offending, the Court considers it to be a neutral factor, not having had the benefit of a pre-sentence report to shed concrete light on this subject. For that reason, even though the accused has not re-offended to date, the Court prefers to proceed cautiously, especially considering the accused’s limited introspection with respect to the consequences that his actions had on society.

It should be noted, however, that this is merely one element to consider among others. [ 42 ] Regarding the guilty pleas, the prosecution submits that their tardiness should not be ill-considered mainly because the parties were previously engaged in lengthy negotiations, and the pleas obvliated at least two weeks of trial time. Consequently, the Court will not take into account the fact that the guilty pleas were entered more than 28 months after the proceedings began [14] as compared to a plea entered at the first opportunity.

Aggravating factors [ 43 ] The aggravating factors to consider are as follows: • the breach of the relationship of trust with the accused’s employer (the SAAQ); • the fact that this was not an isolated act committed impulsively; rather, the accused committed criminal acts on at least 67 occasions; • the diversity of criminal acts committed, i.e., 5 different offences; • the period over which the accused’s criminal activities extended, i.e., approximately 31 months [15] ; • the fact that the accused did not stop his criminal activity on his own.

Rather, it was his arrest that terminated it; • the acceptance of money (even though the amounts were insignificant [16] ) in exchange for turning a blind eye on transactions that he knew or should have known were fraudulent. [ 44 ] On this issue, the parties submit that the accused did not commit these acts for the purpose of enriching himself by obtaining “huge amounts”. Thus, they think this element should be considered a mitigating factor. [ 45 ] It is true that the accused did not receive much money as compensation for his participation in the criminal activity at issue.

However, the Court must take into account the fact that he nevertheless received compensation (aggravating factor), without considering that he was motivated by greed (mitigating factor). Therefore, in the circumstances, this element is neutral. [ 46 ] As for the accused’s age, contrary to what the defence claims, the Court does not consider this factor to be mitigating, but rather neutral, or even aggravating. Over the course of his criminal activities, the accused did not act with “the ardour of youth, without any thought” [17] .

On the contrary, he committed these acts repeatedly and knowingly, taking advantage of his many years of experience as a mandatary to commit criminal acts. [ 47 ] In addition, it is reasonable and logical to infer that , but for his participation, the fraud committed by Steven Thresh would have been more difficult to carry out, especially since Thresh did not know anyone else who worked for the SAAQ [18] .

The accused therefore played a significant role and used this opportunity to deliberately further this criminality. [ 48 ] The repetition of the wrongful acts by the accused reveals the premeditated nature of the offences. In fact, his conduct reflects not only an intention to commit the offences, but also to re-offend. This is indisputably an aggravating factor [19] .

It is even more so given the duty of loyalty that the SAAQ expected from the accused, whom it obviously trusted as he had held this position for a long time. [ 49 ] What is more, after each transaction, the accused had the opportunity to reflect, reconsider his actions and put an end to them. Instead, he chose to continue his criminal activity until it was discovered by the police. Principles applicable to granting a discharge [ 50 ] Section 730(1) Cr.

C . sets out two conditions for granting a discharge: (1) it must not be an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed or an offence punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or more; (2) the Court must be convinced that it is in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest that the accused be discharged. [ 51 ] In the case at bar, the first condition is met given the objective seriousness of the various offences referred to earlier [20] . [ 52 ] Moreover, since the prosecution concedes that it is in the accused’s best interests that he not be convicted, it now remains to be determined whether this measure is in the public interest.

[ 53 ] To this end, the Court must ask whether the public could lose confidence in the credibility of the justice system if the accused were to be discharged. This criterion should be assessed in light of what a reasonable and informed person would think [21] about the accused’s acts and his particular situation. Case law submitted by the defence [ 54 ] To illustrate the fact that a conditional discharge is appropriate in this case, the defence submitted several judgments to the Court.

The comparative approach has its limits, however, because the factual disparities that necessarily accompany the sentencing process make it difficult to find a case that is truly similar to this one. That is why, because of the significant differences with this case, they must be distinguished. [ 55 ] In Harbour [22] , the Court of Appeal found that the accused’s conduct was mostly the result of a single ill-advised decision, reflecting an error of judgment [23] .

That is not the accused’s situation here. [ 56 ] In Beauchamp [24] , the accused fraudulently claimed the reimbursement of amounts totalling over $200,000 from a succession. However, the facts are so different from those in this case that they are difficult to compare. [ 57 ] In R . c. Blain , [25] the accused, an electoral officer, forged three invoices in his wife’s name for work that was not performed. He received two cheques totalling $7,750, which he unlawfully cashed.

He was discharged absolutely, mainly because he reimbursed the total amount and because the offence he committed was not related to the municipal election that was to be held the same year. Moreover, the Court found that the commission of the offence was more the result of a serious lack of judgment than true criminal intent [26] . The facts concerning Mr. El Hussein are entirely different.

The Court cannot come to the same conclusion considering the very long period over which the accused committed the criminal acts and their considerable repetition. [ 58 ] In Turner [27] , a Walmart cashier colluded with other employees, each in turn failing to charge for certain items. They thus benefitted from bills that were lower than what they should have paid. The amounts totalled approximately $1,800. At the time of sentencing, the judge took into account the accused’s young age, i.e., 20 years old, the fact that she underwent therapy, was working, and was an asset to society.

He also took into account the positive pre-sentence report attesting that the risk of re-offending was at the lowest possible level [28] . All of these elements are absent in this case. [ 59 ] In Pelletier [29] , the “glowing” [30] pre-sentence report stated that the accused had lacked judgment and maturity by unlawfully pocketing amounts of money from the sale of tickets to the museum where he worked. It should be noted that the accused was in his early twenties at the time of the events.

The risk of re-offending was also assessed as being “very low”. [ 60 ] According to the judge’s conclusions, this was “l’un des beaux exemples de réhabilitation qu’il ait été donné au Tribunal d’observer”. [31] The accused showed impeccable progress ion by making useful contributions to his development.

Among other things, he: • performed community service voluntarily while awaiting sentencing and his volunteer work was characterized as “exemplary”; • pursued high-level university studies; he excelled and received honours; • fully reimbursed the amounts at issue. [ 61 ] The accused’s near complete rehabilitation and the little difference between the defence’s suggestion (conditional discharge with community service) and that of the prosecution (suspended sentence also with community service) also weighed in the balance.

No such elements are present in this case, although our Court of Appeal [32] has held that a discharge is not an exceptional measure to be granted only in exceptional cases. [ 62 ] In Poirier , [33] Auclair-Bergeron , [34] Paradis [35] and Hellstrom , [36] the accused all established that before committing the offences, they experienced hardship that contributed to the commission of their crimes. In this case, the Court knows very little about the reasons that pushed the accused to engage in such criminal behaviour.

The evidence is indeed silent on the accused’s underlying motivation as he did not elaborate on the subject during his testimony, merely stating: “I don’t know how it happens”. [ 63 ] Counsel for Mr. El Hussein submits that he could have committed these offences either due to wilful blindness or his excessive trust in his accomplice. This argument remains speculative, however, as it was not established by the accused or in the joint statement of facts presented to the Court. [ 64 ] Thus, the evidence does not reveal a dark period at the time the offences were committed.

On the contrary, the accused seems to have been in full possession of his faculties, even describing himself as a very happy person before the events. Today, he clearly no longer recognizes himself as the person he was before. He has lost his self-confidence, is now on medication, suffers from depression and anxiety, and is desperately seeking employment. Nevertheless, this does not explain why he committed the crimes.

Case law submitted by the prosecution [ 65 ] The prosecution referred to the following judgments in support of its suggestion of a term of imprisonment to be served in the community: • Murdoch [37] : On 12 separate occasions, the accused misappropriated amounts totalling $1,555 from her employer. She testified that she had gone through a difficult financial situation, which led her to commit these offences.

The trial judge found that the accused’s situation did not constitute “exceptional circumstances” justifying a departure from the guideline established by the courts according to which a fit sentence for most categories of trust thefts or trust frauds by employees is one that features a jail term [38] . The Court of Appeal confirmed the judge’s conclusion but reduced the six month prison sentence to 73 days to be served intermittently.

• Couture [39] : The accused, a foreman for the city of Sherbrooke, unlawfully obtained construction material. He also offered to forge invoices for contractors. The Court reiterated the principle that in cases of breach of trust by a public official, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence are of utmost importance. These objectives cannot be overlooked [40] . • Douab [41] : The accused was the treasurer of a student association from which he fraudulently appropriated $3,600.

The Court found that the assessment of what is required in the public interest is directly related to the difference between the sentencing measure proposed by the defence (a discharge) and that proposed by the prosecution (a six-month custodial sentence). The greater this difference, the less the public interest will accommodate a discharge. Conversely, the smaller the difference between them, the more the public interest is likely to be adequately served by a sentencing measure that does not entail a conviction.

In other words, the bar is higher if the crime being punished warrants a prison sentence, for example [42] . Thus, even though the best interests of the accused called for a discharge, the Court found that the public interest did not favour such a measure.

It sentenced him to four months imprisonment to be served in the community. • Villarceau [43] : The accused, who was employed by Passport Canada, pleaded guilty to several charges related to fraud in the issuance of passports. [ 66 ] The Court adopts the principles set out in these judgments but finds it nevertheless appropriate to distinguish Villarceau , particularly regarding the consequences that such fraud on passports may have on society in comparison to the acts at issue in this case.

Indeed, the potential risks incurred by the use of false passports by terrorist organizations, criminal groups operating in the field of illegal immigration and human trafficking are objectively more serious [44] . The respective sentencing suggestions of the parties indicate this clearly [45] . [ 67 ] A parallel may however be drawn between that decision and the facts of this case with respect to the importance for the government of maintaining the integrity of confidential information in the hands of its various institutions.

Criteria set out in Lévesque [46] [ 68 ] Because the facts of the present case resemble fraud, the parties ask the Court to analyze them in light of the criteria established in Lévesque [47] . [ 69 ] The Court has already considered all these criteria in its analysis, except for an aspect of the accused’s behaviour after the commission of the offence. The Court is not aware of the accused’s degree of cooperation with the police. Did he cooperate with the police investigation? Did he make an incriminating statement? Did he instead try to hide his criminal acts? The Court does not know.

One thing is certain, he pleaded guilty before the Court and has not committed any other offence since then, which are factors to consider, as previously mentioned. CONCLUSION [ 70 ] In

summary, the Court has considered all the circumstances adduced, the applicable sentencing principles and objectives, the case law, and weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors. These mitigating factors, however, do not outweigh the existing aggravating factors, despite the many qualities of the accused who portray a shining picture of his commitment to his family and an elderly couple.

In fact, the Court is of the view s that we are not in presence of a case where the evidence of rehabilitation is so convincing that the principles of denunciation and deterrence that should prevail in such matters may be set aside. [ 71 ] In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to denature the sentence by showing the accused leniency by granting him a discharge.

The context, duration, frequency, and diversity of the criminal acts committed, especially considering that the accused took advantage of his privileged position as a mandatary of the SAAQ, do not weigh in favour of such a measure, which would be contrary to the interests of society. [ 72 ] That is why the various behaviours adopted by the accused must be denounced and sanctioned fairly to maintain public confidence not only in the administration of justice, but also in the functioning of its governmental institutions.

The public interest will thus be better served. [ 73 ] Considering the teachings of our Court of Appeal in Abouabdellah [48] , the Court finds that the accused will not suffer punishment disproportionate to his offence if he is not granted a discharge. [ 74 ] Rather, a prison sentence must be imposed on the accused to respect the principles of sentencing. In the Court’s view, this consequence is not disproportionate to the acts he committed.

Conditional sentence [ 75 ] As the legislature did not exclude breach of trust offences from the conditional sentence regime, it remains an available sentence in this case, if the conditions set out in s. 742.1 Cr. C . are met and it is justified in the circumstances. Proulx [49] informs us of the criteria that should be considered. [ 76 ] A conditional sentence of imprisonment (to be served in the community) is a punitive measure that restricts an accused’s liberty because he or she is confined to remain in their home and respect a curfew. The accused thus serves his or her sentence under strict supervision.

If any of the conditions imposed are breached, the accused runs the risk of incarceration. [ 77 ] Considering the accused’s specific situation, that is, a single father and caregiver with no criminal record who has not committed any other offences since his arrest and the fact that he served the equivalent of 50 days in pre-sentencing custody, the Court finds, as the prosecution argues, that this prison sentence may be served in the community. Indeed, in this case, the imposition of strict

conditions in the context of this conditional sentence meets the objectives of denunciation and deterrence prescribed by the principles of sentencing in connection with the accused’s offences. [ 78 ] For the reasons set out in paragraph 40 of this judgment, the Court finds it inappropriate to order the accused to make a donation or perform community service [50] .

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 79 ] SENTENCES the accused, concurrently on all counts, to a prison sentence of six months to be served in the community, subject to the following conditions: (1) within 24 hours of this order, report to a supervisor and thereafter, report to the supervisor when required and in the manner directed by the supervisor or his/her duly designated substitute; (2) keep the peace and be of good behaviour; (3) appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; (4) notify the Court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation. (5) remain within the jurisdiction of the Court unless written permission to go outside that jurisdiction is obtained from the Court or the supervisor; (6) for the first three months of the conditional sentence, remain inside his home twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and for the last three months from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., the whole subject to the following exceptions: ➢ for appointments with his supervisor, according to the terms set by the supervisor; ➢ for legitimate and paid employment, and for this purpose, the accused must provide his detailed work

schedule to the supervisor in advance. He must also travel to and return from his work place directly; ➢ for a medical emergency or to travel directly to a medical appointment for himself or a member of his immediate family; ➢ to purchase food, goods or services necessary for life, for a maximum period of four hours, once a week, on Wednesday, between 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM or during any other period of time deemed reasonable by his supervisor, with the supervisor’s written position; ➢ for the exercise of religious worship at a specified place and according to the

schedule established in writing by his supervisor; ➢ December 24, 25 and 31, 2018 and January 1, 2019; ➢ for any other valid purpose with his supervisor’s written permission. (7) maintain a working telephone land line at all times (if the accused does not have such a telephone line, the Court grants him seven days from this order to have one installed) and abstain from adding a call forwarding device; (8) answer all telephone calls made to his home; (9) abstain from having a telephone conversation longer than fifteen minutes with a third party; (10) advise the supervisor within twenty-four hours of any change in telephone number; (11) allow the supervisor or the supervisor’s duly designated representative to have free access to his residence at all times; (12) abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, with Steven Thresh. [ 80 ] IMPOSES , in accordance with s. 731 Cr.

C ., a probation order for a period of eighteen months (starting at the end of the imprisonment term to be served in the community), subject to the following conditions: 1) keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2) appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; 3) notify the Court in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court of any change of employment or occupation; 4) abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, with Steven Thresh. __________________________________ GUYLAINE RIVEST, J.C.Q.

Me Jean-Christofe Ardeneus For the prosecution Me Debora De Thomasis For the accused Date of hearing: June 1, 2018