2019 QCCQ 15195, 2019 QCCQ 15195

R. c. Dorion 2019 QCCQ 15195 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL «Criminal and Penal Division» N° : 500-01-192254-198 DATE : November 28, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE MANLIO DEL NEGRO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY the QUEEN Prosecution v.

DORION, Ian Edward Accused ______________________________________________________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] On August 19, 2019, the accused pled guilty to one count of harassing communications pursuant to section 372 (3) (4) b of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] These allegations stem from an ongoing conflict with several employees and faculty at McGill University (“McGill”). [ 3 ] Furthermore, the accused was also involved in ongoing litigation at the Small Claims Division of the Quebec Court involving employees at McGill. [ 4 ] During the sentencing hearing, the accused did not clearly describe the nature of his grievances at Small Claims Court but the general gist of his grievances appeared directed towards the personnel and faculty at McGill for alleged incidents which would have occurred during his time there as a student. [ 5 ] Be that as it may, the accused informed the Court that the above-mentioned civil litigation was dropped following his plea for the case at bar. [ 6 ] As discussed above, the accused was a student at McGill which granted him the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 2017. [ 7 ] The accused represented himself throughout the proceedings, steadfastly refusing the assistance of counsel.

However, during his plea, he was assisted by counsel, M e Ian Gemme who volunteered to assist him as a friend of the Court. [ 8 ] By the accused’s own admissions, he has filed complaints at the Quebec Bar against counsel appointed to him by the court for the purpose of prohibiting him from personally cross-examining the complainant in another file (500-01-180611-185), involving some of the same complainants as the case at bar.

He has also filed a complaint with the Bar against Crown counsel acting for the prosecution for case number 500-01-180611-185, and also for the case at bar. [ 9 ] Moreover, the accused also filed a complaint with the Police Ethics Committee against the detectives in charge of investigating the allegations regarding the various complainants in the above-mentioned cases. BACKGROUND INFORMATION [ 10 ] The accused was initially charged in another file bearing case number 500-01-180611-185.

The allegations relate to charges of criminal harassment, section 264(1) (3)b of the Criminal code and harassing communications, section 372(3) (4)b of the Criminal code regarding the complainant Christopher Buddle, Dean of Students at McGill University. [ 11 ] The charges in the above-mentioned file stem from 29 emails the accused allegedly sent to Mr. Buddle and other employees of McGill, from February 2018 to January 2019. [ 12 ] Subsequently to the above-mentioned file, the accused was arrested following incidents relating to a long standing conflict with employees at McGill.

After his arrest, he appeared in custody on July 18, 2019. Following a bail hearing held on July 19, 2019, bail was denied by the Court’s decision, rendered July 22, 2019. Pursuant to

section 524 of the Criminal Code , his bail, in file number 500-01- 180611-185, was revoked. [ 13 ] Consequently, the accused remained in custody until August 19, 2019, where, following a guilty plea, the prosecution consented that he be released from custody in both of the forgoing cases pending the sentencing hearing. The sentencing hearing was postponed until August 29, 2019.

[ 14 ] During the sentencing hearing held on August 29, 2019, Crown Counsel notified the Court that the charges laid in file number 500-01-180611-185, would be stayed following the disposition on sentence for the case at bar. [ 15 ] With regard to the case at bar, the accused testified and admitted to sending nine emails to personnel employed at McGill from March to July 2019. The last email was sent on July 12, 2019, to John GALBRAITH, a professor at McGill.

The subject of this email was: “ The age of uncertainty by John Kenneth Galbraith ”. [ 16 ] This email was also forwarded to other McGill employees and also to legal counsel for McGill University, who reacted as follows upon reading the email sent by the accused: Email from Line Thibault, dated July 12, 2019. […] Il me semble qu’Ian a tendance à s’agiter lorsqu’il fait face à un délai qu’il doit respecter. Or c’était aujourd’hui le délai pour répondre au juge Forlini concernant les témoins et le temps requis pour procéder. Je crois qu’il ne l’a pas fait; Il a donné plusieurs signes de panique hier et aujourd’hui.

Messages téléphoniques vulgaires et relativement menaçant à ton assistante, Morton Mendelson (à la maison) et moi (au bureau ce matin et juste maintenant sur mon portable, cette fois c’était la bande son du film Dumb and Dumber pendant une scène où un des personnages a une diarrhée explosive (selon David Schaffer qui était dans mon bureau au moment de l’appel et connait le film. D’ailleurs il reçoit lui-même ces appels sonores de temps en temps).

Dans les derniers jours, il a envoyé des messages plus irrationnels que d’habitude à la secrétaire du juge Forlini; Le message ci-dessous peut être vu comme une provocation, une tentative de me faire réagir pour pouvoir s’en plaindre par la suite. Le message est très évidemment adressé à moi, malgré qu’Ian prétend écrire à John Galbraith. Je n’ai pas de doute qu’il comprend parfaitement la portée de ce qu’il a écrit, à moins qu’il ait perdu contact avec la réalité, ce qui est possible, je suppose.

J’ai tendance à croire qu’il veut provoquer une nouvelle crise et qu’il vaudrait mieux l’ignorer; En revanche, le fait qu’il exprime l’idée de se suicider dans un grand éclat et qu’il donne RV à quelqu’un de l’autre côté présente une menace claire. Plusieurs personnes pourraient être à risque; Je voudrais savoir ce que vous pensez. Faut-il alerter la police? Je ne me sens pas particulièrement menacée personnellement, mais le message me fait peur pour tout le monde contre qui il est en colère, et ça fait beaucoup de monde, sans compter les pauvres innocents qui pourraient se trouver sur son chemin.

Le fait qu’il ait appelé Morton Mendelson à la maison peu de temps avant ce message ajoute à mon inconfort. [ 17 ] A review of the other emails sent by the accused clearly shows that, during that time, the accused harboured a deep sentiment of hostility towards the personnel at McGill. Somehow the accused felt that he had been wronged by the university and its staff. According to him, this was his way of expressing his frustration towards his alma mater. [ 18 ] Although the accused does not have any criminal record, the evidence during the sentence hearing showed that he signed a peace bond by virtue of

section 810 of the Criminal Code , on November 29, 2017, for a duration of 12 months [1] . The complainants for that case also involved personnel employed at McGill. [ 19 ] This said, it is well known that a peace bond cannot be considered as a criminal conviction. However, the events that occurred in the courtroom on November 29, 2017, are a record of events that took place in a public courtroom, and as such, are proof of what happened therein. [ 20 ] The application of

section 810 of the Criminal Code , in file number 500-01- 153036-170, did not require a determination of whether the accused was guilty. The application of

section 810 , was directed at the prevention of harm and not the creation of an offense. The precondition for the application of this disposition is that there were reasonable grounds, on a balance of probabilities, for the applicant’s fear and anticipation of harm.

By agreeing to engage in a peace bond, the accused necessarily admitted that the complainants had reasons to fear him or anticipated him to cause them harm. [ 21 ] In the circumstances, the Court takes note that the conditions of the peace bond were no longer in force when the offenses for the case at bar took place as the conditions prescribed by the peace bond expired on November 29, 2018. [ 22 ] Moreover, the conditions of the peace bond expressly prohibited the accused from going to McGill campus; prohibited him from communicating with McGill University cleaning staff and imposed a ban to communicate with any employee of McGill University, except via mail or email. [ 23 ] Given that entering into a peace bond does not result in a criminal conviction, and is not a sentence, the Court will not consider the peace bond as an aggravating factor on sentencing for the purposes of this case.

The Court will simply take notice that, in the past, several employees at McGill had reasonable grounds to fear the accused, and that the accused had admitted that their grounds to fear him were reasonable, which is the pre-condition for the application of the peace bond. Position of the parties [ 24 ] The prosecution argued that, in view of the preventive custody served by the accused prior to his plea for a total of 31 days, a suspended sentence of two years with probation would be warranted in the circumstances.

As such, by virtue of section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code the entire sentence credit would be 45 days. [ 25 ] The accused, on the other hand, submitted several arguments for the imposition of an unconditional or conditional discharge by virtue of

section 730 of the Criminal Code . He submits that such a disposition would be in his best interest and not contrary to public

interest. The testimony of the accused during the sentencing hearing [ 26 ] Following his plea on August 19, 2019, the accused was released from custody. His sentence hearing was postponed to August 29, 2019, where the accused testified. Further submissions on sentencing were made by the accused on October 15, 2019. [ 27 ] His testimony, during these hearings, can be summarized as follows: Testimony of August 29, 2019 • He stated that he completed a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) degree from McGill in 2017.

Although his testimony was not entirely clear on this point, it seems that his studies began in 1988 and then, over the years, he continued his education at several universities throughout the Province of Québec: Laval University, University of Montréal, and at McGill University where he was readmitted in 2016 to later complete his degree in 2017; • He claims to having been bullied by the cleaning staff at McGill during his time there; • About the emails relating to the charges, he described them as satirical, insulting, friendly reminders to the various recipients of the emails; • The accused turned 50 years of age this year.

When questioned about his past work experience, the accused expressed his love of travel and study. He also testified about his love for living in Switzerland and to having received an inheritance in 2010; • Regarding his work experience, he mentioned having worked temporarily for the Government of Canada on a contractual basis for employment that required security clearance by the Government of Canada in 2001 and 2009 (Exhibit SD-2); • The accused submitted a character reference in the form of a letter written by his parents, dated October 15, 2019.

In their letter, his parents express that their son has changed since the events, that he is calmer now.

They mentioned that he is now focused on finding meaningful employment, is doing volunteer work at the Ottawa Public Library, and eventually hopes to pursue a career in real estate; • Regarding the allegations against their son, they state that their son was “ nearly derailed by wrongful accusations and harassment .” They further elaborate on a subjective note that: “ no real purpose will be achieved by imposing further punishment, and that their son has suffered enough the last three years .”(Exhibit SD-3) [ 28 ] The accused submitted additional arguments during the sentencing hearing on October 15, 2019, that can be summarized as follows: • In order to explain his behaviour with respect to the harassing emails he sent, the accused said that he was acting under emotional distress as he was being harassed by the security and cleaning staff at McGill during his studies there.

He shamelessly argued that he has been falsely accused by McGill; • He also said that he was under a great amount of stress at the time of the events as his mother had been diagnosed with cancer; • The accused provided an impressive compendium of case law relating to sentences relating to unconditional and conditional discharges rendered by various courts throughout Canada; • During his plea, he asked the Court to consider the following factors: his guilty plea; that the possibility of him reoffending are practically nil; that he wants to seek professional help and therapy; that he has improved over the last few months; that he is ashamed of his behaviour; that he has abandoned his civil lawsuits against McGill and its employees; • He testified about wanting to let go of the past.

He admitted that his behaviour, in the circumstances, was inappropriate, and that this was not a way of retaliating to express his frustrations and recriminations against McGill and its employees; • At one point the accused testified as follows: “ sometimes you get wronged and you can’t always get what you want.” • He testified about wanting to get counselling, and about wanting to enroll in Real Estate College and that he’s seeking gainful employment; that he is expecting to work in Ottawa, and that he has signed up his profile with various employment agencies throughout Ottawa; • He argued that the entire proceedings of the criminal justice process, namely the prosecution launched against him and his subsequent incarceration, has served to deter him from reoffending again.

He stated that “ he is a prime candidate for rehabilitation ”; • He argued that he is a person of generally good character; that he was in a rut when these events occurred, and that he will seek counselling for himself in order to get the help that he needs to better himself; • He testified about having performed community service for a total of 70 hours at St. Vincent-De-Paul in Ottawa (exhibit SD-6).

Furthermore, he states that he wants to continue his volunteer work there (Exhibit SD-9); • In relation to community service, he tendered into evidence proof that he has performed 126 hours of community service at the House of Lazarus (exhibit SD-6). He says that he is also willing to perform more community service at the house of Lazarus in the future (Exhibit SD-7);

• Regarding the future, he plans to volunteer at the Ottawa Public Library (Exhibit SD-8); • He has also joined VO (Volunteer Ottawa) to offer his services as a volunteer for the greater Ottawa area. [ 29 ] In conclusion, the accused ends his testimony by telling the Court that his old habits of responding inappropriately are now behind him and that he is a prime candidate for rehabilitation. For these reasons he deems that a discharge is the appropriate sentence for his case. Purpose and principles of sentencing [ 30 ] Generally speaking, sentencing is not an exact science [2] .

The Quebec Court of Appeal communicates its views as follows: [29] Sentencing is not an exact science. It is primarily a matter of discretion: (…) [t]he language in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Code is sufficiently general to ensure that sentencing judges enjoy a broad discretion to craft a sentence that is tailored to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.

The determination of a “fit” sentence is, subject to some specific statutory rules, an individualized process that requires the judge to weigh the objectives of sentencing in a manner that best reflects the circumstances of the case. [ 31 ] The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out from sections 718 - 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 32 ] As such, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiative, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful society by imposing sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: 718.

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

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. [ 33 ] This being said,

section 718.1 of the Criminal Code is clear: “a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. The criteria for granting a discharge under

section 730 of the Criminal Code . [ 34 ] Recently in R . c. Kanatsiak [3] , Judge Galiatsatos J.C.Q, summarized the legal framework of analysis for granting discharges. Judge Galiatsatos expresses himself as follows: [58] The discharge is one of the most lenient sentences available under the Criminal Code . [59] The Court’s authority to grant an offender a discharge is not based on some unfettered or arbitrary exercise of discretion. [60] Instead, s. 730(1) C.C. sets out two conditions which must be met before a discharge may be granted by a sentencing Court: 1.

A discharge must be in the best interests of the accused (“l’intérêt véritable”); and 2. A discharge must not be contrary to the public interest. [61] Thus, a discharge will be permissible only when the Court is satisfied that the two prerequisites exist.

i) The best interests of the accused [62] Strictly speaking, in common parlance, it will always be in the accused’s “best interests” not to have a criminal record. Alas, something more is required by s. 730(1) C.C., beyond the generic and ever-present interest of every citizen to not have a criminal record. Otherwise the first criterion would be universally applicable, which runs against the well-entrenched principle of statutory

interpretation that Parliament does not speak in vain. [63] Similarly, the simple fact of being a young first offender does not suffice, in and of itself, to warrant a discharge.

[64] In R. c. Corbeil-Richard, the Quebec Court of Appeal observed that “en principe, l’intérêt de l’accusé présuppose que ce dernier est une personne de bon caractère, qui n’a généralement pas d’antécédents judiciaires et qui ne présente pas de problème en matière de dissuasion spécifique et de réhabilitation.” [65] In R. v.

Elsharawy, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal similarly indicated that the first factor presupposes that the accused is a person of good character, usually without previous conviction or discharge, that he does not require personal deterrence or rehabilitation and that a criminal conviction may have significant adverse repercussions. This was quoting from the leading case of R. v.

Fallowfield, in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal explained that s. 730 should not be exercised as an alternative to probation or to suspended sentences, nor should it be applied routinely to any particular offence. [66] This requirement of significant consequences has been a constant in the case law since the early 1970s. In R. v. Sanchez-Pino, a shoplifting case, the Ontario Court of Appeal referred to “a person of good character, or at least of such character that the entry of a conviction against him may have significant repercussions”.

Other terms used have been “excessive and disproportionate prejudice caused by a conviction,” “very serious consequences”, “serious and disproportionate effects” or “significant repercussions outside the ordinary consequences of a criminal conviction.” The consequences on one’s employment or career is but one example that comes to mind. [67] As pointed out by the Quebec Court of Appeal in R. c. Naimer, even though the possibility of professional consequences may suffice to establish the “best interests” of the accused in obtaining a discharge, said possibility must be beyond merely theoretical or hypothetical.

It must be supported by evidence. [68] Through the years, other appellate courts have often similarly held that there should be some evidence of the potential consequences, significant repercussions or disproportionate effects, as opposed to pure speculation. Mere allegations will not suffice. [69] If the criterion of “best interests of the accused” is not met, the analysis is complete.

It will be unnecessary to assess the public interest factor. ii) Not contrary to the public interest [70] As for the second factor, it involves a consideration of the principle of general deterrence with attention being paid to the gravity of the offence, its incidence in the community, public attitudes towards it and public confidence in the effective enforcement of the criminal law. [71] Generally speaking, s. 730 will apply to what may loosely be described as less serious offences; it is only common sense that the more serious the offence, the less likely it will appear that an absolute discharge, or even a conditional one, is not contrary to the public interest. [72] Nevertheless, no type or category of offence is prima facie excluded, provided they are statutorily available for discharges. [73] In R. c.

Hudon, the Quebec Court of Appeal recognized that the “public interest” criterion requires the sentencing judge to be sensitive to the reaction of the reasonable and well-informed citizen if a discharge were to be granted. (References omitted) THE ISSUE [ 35 ] In applying the above-mentioned criteria, has the accused established that a discharge, either unconditional or conditional, is warranted for the case at bar? [ 36 ] The Court concludes that he has not for the following reasons. ANALYSIS [ 37 ] The facts of this case should not be considered trivial, despite that the offense has been laid as a

summary conviction offense, the offense of harassing communications, nonetheless, remains objectively serious. [ 38 ] The harassment lasted approximately six months from March to July 2019, in nine different emails delivered to various members of the McGill community. Moreover, the victims were further subjected to civil lawsuits that were eventually discontinued by the accused. The Court cannot ignore the anguish, stress, preoccupations which defendants face in having to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits brought on by vengeful, vexatious litigants.

Strictly speaking, even if these lawsuits are ultimately unfounded, one must nonetheless take the necessary steps to defend oneself against the allegations, all of which involve time, financial resources, major inconveniences and obviously the inherent stress/anxiety of being involved in ongoing litigation. [ 39 ] The offense cannot be equated as a spontaneous, thoughtless error of judgment.

The harassment was directed at specific victims with the premeditated intent of harassing them over a relatively long period of time. [ 40 ] The contents of several emails impart a mean-spirited, malicious intent to badger the serenity of the victims. The tone of the emails contained facetious humour, interlaced with personal insulting comments, whose sole purpose was meant to diminish, humiliate, degrade and insult its recipients. [ 41 ] In view of the above, the degree of moral blameworthiness of the accused should be considered as being considerable in the circumstances.

[ 42 ] In cases such as this one, denunciation will often be a primary sentencing objective for this type of offense; together with general deterrence, sentences for this offense are aimed at sending a message to the offender and like-minded offenders [4] . [ 43 ] Recently, the Quebec Court of Appeal, in Calise [5] , confirmed a suspended sentence for an accused seeking a discharge in a case involving criminal harassment. [ 44 ] Judge Duval Hessler expresses herself as follows at paragraph 6: [6] An accused who pleads guilty may be discharged in lieu of a conviction “if the Court considers it to be in the best interest of the accused and not contrary to the public interest”.

This Court has observed that an accused’s best interest is manifested where he/she is of good moral conduct, has no criminal record, is not deserving of a deterrent sentence or one focused on rehabilitation, and for whom a conviction will not have patently harmful consequences. [References omitted] [ 45 ] In another recent case, a request for a discharge was denied for a young student having obtained the degree of masters in engineering, following his plea for simple assault and criminal harassment. [6] [ 46 ] For the case at bar, based on the evidence provided by the accused, it was not proven that the burden of a criminal record would affect his work or, otherwise, reduce his employment prospects in any way for the range of employment that may be available to him. [ 47 ] To suggest otherwise would simply amount to speculation, which is an insufficient ground to request a discharge. [ 48 ] Moreover, the Court cannot ignore that by the accused’s own admissions, he is presently unemployed, does not have a career, stated occupation, profession, craft or job to speak of.

Most of his stated employment in the past has been sporadic, temporary employment, barely lasting more than a year. [ 49 ] His eagerness to engage in community service is late, to say the least, as most of the steps taken by the accused to offer his services to the community were undertaken following his conviction. In the circumstances, it seems that the primary reason the accused undertook measures to offer his services to the community were a last-minute attempt of wanting to shed a positive outlook to his situation at the sentencing hearing.

I must say that the Court has serious reservations about the accused’s sincerity with respect to his undertakings. [ 50 ] Furthermore, the Court does not accept as credible, the accused’s intention of pursuing a career in real estate.

His stated ambition, in the Court’s view, is simply too vague, obscure, speculative, advanced solely for the purpose of enhancing his image in the eyes of the Court in view of obtaining a discharge. [ 51 ] At 50 years of age, the accused is still living with his parents at their farm and despite obtaining a degree from McGill in 2017, has yet to find any gainful employment to speak of. Furthermore, the evidence does not show that the accused undertook any steps in securing any gainful employment since his graduation.

His stated ambitions are deceptive, false hopes which lack any reasonable air of reality. [ 52 ] In the circumstances, the Court does not deem the accused’s testimony as being neither credible or realistic. [ 53 ] Notwithstanding that he does not have a criminal record, in view of the nastiness, mean-spirited, demeaning content of his emails, the Court cannot accept the accused’s assertion that he is a person of good character in the circumstances. The evidence simply does not support his view. His degree of responsibility for the offense he has committed should be considered as being significant.

Moreover, his behaviour throughout the proceedings demonstrates that he can become vindictive and vengeful with whomever he perceives to be crossing his path.

The Court emphasizes that, in the past, the accused has admitted during a peace bond hearing, that several McGill employees had reasons to fear him. [ 54 ] As mentioned above, according to his own admission, he has filed several complaints at the Quebec Bar against several attorneys and the detectives who were in charge of this case with the Police Ethics Committee; as if the harassing emails were not enough, he dragged the victims of his criminal harassment into civil litigation to add extra grievance to their situation. [ 55 ] Throughout his testimony the accused expressed no remorse for his crimes or acknowledged the impact that his crimes may have had on the victims.

Although the Court recognizes that the lack of remorse of the accused should not be considered as an aggravating factor on sentencing, the Court nonetheless deems that his lack of remorse is a good reflection of his character and personality. [ 56 ] It is the Court’s view that the sentence suggested by Crown Counsel, a suspended sentence with probation, even in considering the preventive custody of 45 days is lenient to say the least. In the Courts’ view, an additional custodial term of imprisonment would have been warranted in this case.

This being said, the Court deems that it will is not necessary to intervene with counsel’s suggestion as his submission falls within the acceptable range of sentences for similar offenses. [ 57 ] In conclusion, the accused has failed to establish that a conviction would cause him “significant repercussions”, “excessive and disproportionate consequences”, or “very serious consequences”, as understood by the case law, extending beyond the ordinary consequences of a criminal conviction. [ 58 ] As noted by the Quebec Court of appeal in R. c.

Naimer [7] , even though the possibility of professional consequences may suffice to establish the “best interest of the accused” in obtaining a discharge, said possibility must be beyond merely theoretical or hypothetical. Furthermore, the notion of best interest of the accused must be supported by evidence. This said, there is not one iota of evidence supporting any of the above-mentioned criterion in this case.

[ 59 ] Through the years, other appellate courts have often similarly held that there should be some evidence of the potential consequences, significant repercussions or disproportionate effects, as opposed to pure speculation. Mere allegations will not suffice. [ 60 ] If the criterion of “best interest of the accused” is not met, the analysis is complete, it will be unnecessary to assess the public interest factor.

For the case at bar, the accused has without any shadow of a doubt, failed to establish that the “best interest” criteria is applicable in the circumstances, consequently it will be unnecessary to assess the public interest factor. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: TAKES INTO ACCOUNT the 31 days of pre-sentence custody already served by the accused; suspends the passing of sentence and IMPOSES a probation order for a duration of three years at the following conditions: • Keep the peace, be of good conduct, and appear before the Court when required to do so.

Inform the Court or the probation officer of any changes of address or name, and notify them rapidly of any changes in employment or occupation. • Abstain from communicating or attempting to communicate in any matter either directly or indirectly with all employees, professors, members of the faculty, administrative staff, including the employees of the maintenance department and security department of McGill University, either current or past, and members of their families. • It is forbidden from being in a radius of 300 metres of the entirety of the McGill University campus, including annexes, administrative offices and all buildings affiliated with McGill. • Abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly with, Me.

Line Thibault, General Counsel for McGill University, Mr.

Christopher Buddle, Dean of students at McGill University, Christopher Carson, Associate Director for McGill University security services, Suzanne Fortier, Professor, John Galbraith, Fabrice Lebeau, all employees/staff of McGill University including the employees of the maintenance department and the security department, and the members of their families. • Abstain from communicating, via email or any other form of electronic communication, including all forms of social media with all employees, professors, members of the faculty, administrative staff, including the employees of the maintenance department and security department of McGill University, either current or past, and members of their families. • Abstain from being in a radius of 300 metres from the residence, place of work or place of study of all employees, professors, members of the faculty, administrative staff, including the employees of the maintenance department and security department of McGill University either current or past and members of their families. • Abstain from being in possession of any weapons or imitation of weapons, including starter pistols or pellet guns, firearms, crossbows, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substances, knives (except in restaurants for a lawful purpose) and edged weapons.

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE CONDITIONS, THE OFFENDER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • Report to a probation officer within 12 hours following the issuance of this order and afterwards whenever required by the probation officer and in the manner directed by him for the first 24 months of the probation. • Perform 180 hours of community service within a period of 12 months from the coming into force of this order and comply with the terms and conditions of execution of the community service established by the probation officer. • Undergo any treatment or therapy recommended by the probation officer. • Take all necessary steps to find employment and provide proof to the probation officer.

ORDERS the accused, by virtue of

section 737 of the Criminal Code to pay the victim surcharge. CONDEMS the accused to pay the costs.

__________________________________ MANLIO DEL NEGRO, J.C.Q. M e Francisco Molina Crown attorney The accused represented himself Dates of hearing: July 23, 29, and August 19 and September 29 and October 15, 2019