His Majesty the King - v. -, 2023 SKPC 4

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKPC 4 Date: January 19, 2023 Informations: 991144489, 991169493, 90436063 and 991173173 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: His Majesty the King - and - Lyle Jacques Chartier Appearing: Mr. Brent P. Slobodian For the Crown Mr. Ian I. Goldberg For the Offender SENTENCING DECISION S.D. SCHIEFNER, J INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Lyle Chartier has pled guilty to seventeen offences set out in four different Informations. Many of the offences to which Mr.

Chartier has pled guilty are serious, including possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a firearm (with readily accessible ammunition) in a motor vehicle, possession of a firearm and ammunition while prohibited by court order, operating a motor vehicle while prohibited by a court order, and resisting arrest. The issue I must decide is the appropriate sentence to impose for these offences. [ 2 ] The Crown submits that a total global sentence in the range of 6 years would be fit and just in light of Mr. Chartier’s prior

criminal record, the seriousness of the offences, and the need to deter the dangerous combination of drugs and guns on our streets. Thedefence argues that a sentence in the range of 2 ½ years to 3 ½ years would be more appropriate in light of Mr. Chartier’s personalcircumstances. In my opinion, this case turns on the proper application of the totality principle.

Because of the number of offences, Imust not only ensure the sanction for each individual offence is fit and just, but also I must ensure that the cumulative sentence – afteradding up all the individual sentences – is not unduly harsh. [3] Although many are serious, no individual offence committed by Mr. Chartier would justify a sentence in the range of sixyears. However, when I add up all the individual sentences that I would be required to impose, his total cumulative sentence is 6 years. A sentence of such length would be too harsh in light of Mr. Chartier’s personal circumstances.

A sentence of this length would add onemore person of Aboriginal descent to our already over-crowded jails for longer than necessary. I have determined that a total globalsentence of 54 months (4 ½ years) will adequately denounce Mr. Chartier’s dangerous conduct, will deter others from making the samemistake, and will give meaning to the principles set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Gladue, (SCC),[1999] 1 SCR 688 [Gladue]. [4] These reasons explain how I came to this decision.

However, before I provide that explanation, I need to provide somebackground on the circumstances of the offences, more details regarding the sentencing positions of the parties, and a

summary of theobjectives of sentencing, including the totality principle. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES The offences from November 2, 2020 – Information 991144489: [5] All of the counts on Information 991144489 arose out of an arrest that occurred on November 2, 2020 in the City of PrinceAlbert. However, some background is relevant. In October of 2020, Mr. Chartier came to the attention of members of the Prince AlbertPolice Service, who suspected that he was trafficking in drugs. On October 20, 2020, members of the Integrated Crime Reduction teamobserved Mr. Chartier in a motor vehicle and approached his vehicle.

When members did so, Mr. Chartier drove over a curb (and apedestrian walkway) and then fled the scene at a high rate of speed on a busy street. Members began pursuing Mr. Chartier’s vehicle. Forreasons of public safety, the police soon broke off their chase and Mr. Chartier got away. I will discuss this incident again later in thesereasons for decision. [6] A few days later, members of the Prince Albert Police Service received additional source information that Mr. Chartier wasin possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. On November 2, 2020, members observed Mr.

Chartierdriving a motor vehicle in Prince Albert. The vehicle was full, with two people in the front and two people in the back. Membersfollowed the vehicle as Mr. Chartier drove from place to place. At about 2:30 p.m., multiple police vehicles blocked his vehicle frommoving. Mr. Chartier was in the driver’s seat and he had three passengers. Mr. Chartier was arrested, and the vehicle was searched.During the search of Mr. Chartier’s vehicle, a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun was found on the floor near Mr. Chartier’s feet. Membersalso found a machete lying in the same area.

Officers also found four 12 gauge shotgun shells sitting in an open compartment in thecentre console within easy reach of Mr. Chartier. In addition, a conducted energy weapon (CED) was located between the frontpassenger seat and the centre console. This device was visible to and within reach of Mr. Chartier. Finally, on the floor of the rearpassenger seat, the police found a hatchet. [7] A small red pouch was observed hanging from the rear-view mirror over the centre console. In the pouch, the police foundseven bags each containing methamphetamine and three bags each containing cocaine.

In total, there was 33.8 grams ofmethamphetamine and 8.8 grams of cocaine. The pouch containing these drugs was in plain sight and within easy reach of Mr. Chartier.When arrested, Mr. Chartier was holding a phone. The phone was seized and, while police had possession of it, several Facebookmessages were observed coming to the phone. Some of the messages received on Mr.

Chartier’s phone were recorded by police and readas follows: “Sorry bro I’ll just het half ball again Come see me at 13th East 594” “Wru can I come grip 60” “Were are you at taylors or what cause I was 60 worth asap tho im at my mom” [8] In addition, Mr. Chartier had $2,070.00 in Canadian currency in the pocket of his pants, comprised of 76 x $20.00, 9 x$50.00, and 1 x $100.00. In addition, on the floor of the front passenger seat, the police found a digital scale and packaging material

(sandwich bags). The inside of Mr. Chartier’s vehicle was stocked with alcoholic drinks and littered with junk. [ 9 ] After searching Mr. Chartier’s vehicle, police obtained a warrant and searched his residence at Unit #2 1249 – 15 th Street West, Prince Albert. During the search of the residence, police discovered a small amount of cocaine (0.2 grams) in Mr. Chartier’s room, as well as two digital scales, unused packaging material (sandwich bags), and 9.9 grams of a buffing agent (baking soda). [ 10 ] Mr. Chartier gave a statement to police after being arrested. In his statement, Mr.

Chartier admitted that he had been trafficking drugs and stated that he “had been trafficking drugs for as long as he could remember”. Mr. Chartier also admitted to possessing the sawed-off shotgun. [ 11 ] The police filed a report prepared by Constable Khenneth Wilkins. Constable Wilkins is an experienced drug investigator working with the F Division Gang Task Force. In his report, Constable Wilkins made numerous observations about the evidence obtained by police during Mr. Chartier’s arrest.

These observations can be summarized as follows: - Those involved in selling hard drugs, like cocaine and methamphetamine, tend to purchase “bulk” quantities of drugs (because of the cheaper price) and then package the drugs into smaller amounts to sell to users. When drugs are packaged for sale, they are measured, placed in the corner of a sandwich bag, and then tied off.

These smaller packages of drugs – referred to as “pieces” - are small, easy for the seller to carry, and in a quantity that is more desirable for users. - Both cocaine and methamphetamine are commonly sold to a user in amounts between 1 gram and 3.5 grams – the larger amount being referred to as an “eight ball”. Mr. Chartier was found in possession of both “pieces” (quantities of drugs ready for sale) and bags of drugs larger than would be commonly sold on the street. - Mr. Chartier had 8.8 grams of cocaine with him in the car.

This was made up of one larger bag weighing 7.0 grams and two smaller pieces, one weighing 0.5 grams (worth approximately $40.00 on the street) and one weighting 1.3 grams ($80.00). - Mr. Chartier had 33.8 grams of methamphetamine. This was made up of three larger bags (weighing 6.5 grams, 6.8 grams and 6.9 grams) and four smaller pieces, each weighing approximately 3.5 grams - eight ball size (worth approximately $150.00 on the street). - To be sold to a user, the four larger bags of drugs that Mr. Chartier had with him in the car would normally be packaged into small amounts before being sold. Mr.

Chartier had a digital scale and packaging material both with him in the car and at home. - The estimated street value of all of the cocaine that was found in Mr. Chartier’s vehicle was approximately $520.00. The estimated street value of all of the methamphetamine that was found in Mr. Chartier’s vehicle was approximately $1,500.00. [ 12 ] Information 991144489 originally contained 15 indictable offences. Mr. Chartier elected to be tried by a Provincial Court Judge and a trial was scheduled for February 16, 2022. On that day, the trial did not proceed. Rather, Mr.

Chartier pled guilty to ten counts and the Crown agreed to withdraw the rest. The counts that Mr.

Chartier pled guilty to are as follows: 489(1) possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. 489(2) possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. 489(3) being an occupant in a motor vehicle in which he knew a firearm was present – being a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun. 489(4) being an occupant in a motor vehicle in which he knew a prohibited weapon was present – the conducted energy weapon. 489(5) possessing a firearm (12 gauge shotgun) with readily accessible ammunition. 489(8) storing a firearm (12 gauge shotgun) in a careless manner. 489(9) possessing a weapon (CED) for a dangerous purpose. 489(10) possess property (cash) obtained by crime. 489(13) operate a motor vehicle while prohibited by court order. 489(14) possess a firearm (12 gauge shotgun) while prohibited by court order. 489(15) possess a prohibited weapon (CED) while prohibited by court order.

489(16) breach of a probation order dated January 15, 2020. The Offences set forth in Informations 991169493 and 90436063 : [ 13 ] Following his arrest on Information 991144489 (and after serving a period of incarceration after pleading guilty to evading police and driving while prohibited for the incident that occurred on October 20, 2020), Mr. Chartier was released on August 9, 2021. Mr. Chartier’s release was subject to a number of conditions, including the obligation to report to a probation officer in Prince Albert and to reside at a residence in Ile-a-la Crosse. [ 14 ] Mr.

Chartier’s release order required him to report immediately after being released from custody. He failed to do so. Mr. Chartier’s probation officer waited a few days but, when he/she had not heard from Mr. Chartier by August 12, 2021, a breach report was submitted. Mr. Chartier’s release order also required him to reside in Ile-a-la Crosse and to comply with a curfew of 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. A curfew check was conducted by an RCMP officer on August 14, 2021 during the hours of Mr. Chartier’s curfew and he was not at his approved residence. [ 15 ] As a result of the foregoing, Mr.

Chartier pled guilty to follows offences: 493(1) breach of release order fail to report to probation officer. 063(1) breach of release order fail to reside/maintain a curfew. The offences from September 16, 2021 - Information 991173173 : [ 16 ] Mr. Chartier’s release order also prohibited him from attending at Prince Albert except for court purposes. Nonetheless, on September 16, 2021, the Prince Albert Police Service received information that Mr. Chartier was back in the city and was selling drugs from a private residence.

By this time, a warrant for his arrest had been issued because of the breaches of his release order. As a result, the police began monitoring that residence. At approximately 5:35 p.m. on September 16, 2021, Mr. Chartier and another male were observed leaving the residence. An officer monitored his movements. The two men made a couple of stops and, at one of these stops, Mr. Chartier got in the back seat of a grey truck. At this point, the police decided to arrest Mr. Chartier. They prevented the truck from leaving, removed the driver from the driver’s seat and attempted to place Mr. Chartier under arrest.

However, Mr. Chartier tensed his body and refused to provide or show his hand to the arresting officer. Mr. Chartier kept trying to put his hand behind his back and the officer could not see what he was doing. The officer repeatedly told Mr. Chartier to show his hand. Even when other officers joined in the arrest, Mr. Chartier refused to give up his hands and he had to be dragged out of the vehicle by brute force. When officers removed Mr. Chartier from the vehicle, he was handcuffed and searched for officer safety, as was the truck. Mr.

Chartier had $170.00 and two small bags of cocaine in his pockets, each weighing approximately 0.7 grams. A duffle bag was located in the back seat where Mr. Chartier was seated. When searched, the officers found 18 rounds of SKS ammunition in the duffle bag. [ 17 ] As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Chartier has pled guilty to the following offences: 173(1) possess ammunition (SKS rounds) while prohibited by court order. 173(3) resist a police officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duties. 173(5) breach of release order – not to possess drugs, not to attend Prince Albert, etc.

SENTENCING POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 18 ] This is a contested sentencing with a significant gap between the position of the parties. The Crown’s Sentencing Position

[ 19 ] The Crown seeks a significant period of incarceration. The Crown’s submissions emphasized denunciation and deterrence in light of the seriousness of the charges, Mr. Chartier’s prior criminal record, and the fact that the offences occurred despite Mr. Chartier being bound by two prohibition orders (firearms and driving), a probation order, and a release order. The Crown takes the position that many of the sentences to be imposed ought to be served consecutive in light of the dangerous and socially destructive combination of drug trafficking and guns. The Crown recommended that I sentence Mr.

Chartier as follows: Count: Offence: Crown’s Sentencing Position: 489(1): Possess drugs for trafficking (Meth) 18 months 489(2): Possess drugs for trafficking (Cocaine) 18 months (concurrent to 1) 489(3): Occupant in MV with firearm (shotgun) 18 months (consecutive to 1 & 2) 489(4): Occupant in MV with weapon (CED) 12 months (concurrent to 3) 489(5): Possess weapon with ammunition (shotgun) 36 months ( consecutive to 1 & 2, concurrent to 3 & 4) 489(8): Careless storage of a firearm (shotgun) 12 months (concurrent to 3, 4 & 5) 489(9): Possess weapon for dangerous purpose (CED) 6 months (concurrent to 3, 4 5 & 8) 489(10): Possess proceeds of crime (cash) 6 months (concurrent to 1 & 2) 489(13): Operate motor vehicle while prohibited 6 months (concurrent to 1, 2 & 10), (together with a 3- year driving prohibition) 489(14): Possess firearm while prohibited (shotgun) 12 months ( consecutive to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 & 13) 489(15): Possess weapon while prohibited (CED) 6 months (concurrent to 14) 489(16): Breach of probation order – by multiple means 4 months (concurrent to 1 & 2) 493(1): Breach of release order – reporting 1 month ( consecutive to Inf. 489) 063(1): Breach of release order – residence 1 month (concurrent to 493) 173(1) Possess ammunition while prohibited 6 months ( consecutive to Inf. 489 & 493) 173(3) Resist arrest 6 months (concurrent to 1) 173(5) Breach of release order 2 months (concurrent to 1 & 3) Total Global Sentence: 6 years & 1 month [ 20 ] In support of its sentencing position, the Crown relied upon several decisions: • The decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R v Kamara , 2020 SKCA 76 [ Kamara ].

Mr. Kamara was found to be a “significant player” in the drug trade – a person motivated by profit who “cooked” cocaine and supplied drugs to street level dealers. Mr. Kamara’s sentence of 6.5 years was upheld on appeal. • The decision of my brother Judge K.A. Lang in R v Thompson , 2021 SKPC 13 . Mr. Thompson was found guilty after trial of eight gun-related offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (with extra ammunition nearby) and possession of a firearm while prohibited by court order. Mr.

Thompson had a very significant prior criminal record that included over 100 offences, including prior weapons convictions, several assaults, and armed robbery. Mr. Thompson also had significant Gladue factors. The Court imposed a total global sentence of 6 years and 1 month, including 5 years for possessing a loaded firearm in a public place, an additional 1 year for doing so after having been prohibited by a court order from possessing any firearms, and finally one additional month for breaching his release order while awaiting trial.

• The decision of my brother Judge R.J. Lane (now retired) in R v Bellerose , 2019 SKPC 13 . Following a search of his residence, Ms. Bellerose was found in possession of 30.1 grams of methamphetamine, together with an electronic scale, packaging material, and multiple cell phones. Ms. Bellerose was found to be a mid-level trafficker – she sold drugs to street level dealers – and to supply her own addiction and to put a roof over her head. Ms. Bellerose was sentenced to 27 months. • A decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in R v Brown , 2020 ONSC 6355 . Mr.

Brown was found in possession of both cocaine (10 grams) and fentanyl (4 grams), as well as in possession of a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle he was driving. The handgun, which was loaded and had an oversized magazine was found by police underneath the mat beneath the driver’s seat. Mr. Brown pled guilty to possession of the drugs for purposes of trafficking and was sentenced to 2 years, 3 months and 10 days. However, Mr. Brown took the gun charges to trial. When convicted, Justice Roberts dealt with the challenge of what additional sentence Mr. Brown should receive for his gun charges. Mr.

Brown had only a few entries on his criminal record, but they were serious (armed robbery, forcible confinement, and assault with a weapon). Justice Roberts imposed an additional 4 years for the weapons charges, resulting in a total global sentence of 6 years, 3 months and 10 days. • The decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R v Bear , 2016 SKCA 140 [ Bear ]. This case dealt with the distinction between consecutive and concurrent sentencing. Ms. Bear was found in possession of illicit drugs on two occasions.

On the first occasion, she was found in possession of 55 grams of methamphetamine, 26 grams of crack cocaine, 133 hydromorphone pills and $2,850.00 in cash. She was released on bail. Fourteen months later, Ms. Bear was found in possession of 16.8 grams of crack cocaine, 4 hydromorphone capsules, 12 diazepam pills, 1000 syringes and other drug paraphernalia. The original sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 3 ½ years for each count, all sentences concurrent to each other. The Court of Appeal granted the Crown’s appeal and increased Ms. Bear’s sentence.

In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence for the second incident of drug trafficking should be served consecutive to the first – and not concurrently. But that would have resulted in a total global sentence of 7 years. The Court of Appeal found that such a sentence would be unduly harsh and reduced the effective length of Ms. Bear’s sentence to 4 ½ years. The Defence’s Sentencing Position [ 21 ] Through counsel, Mr.

Chartier argues that a sentence in the range of 2 ½ years to 3 ½ years would be more appropriate given mitigating personal circumstances, including Gladue factors, and a generous helping of judicial restraint. The details of Mr.

Chartier’s sentencing position are as follows: Count: Offence: Defence Position: 489(1): Possess drugs for trafficking (Meth) 12 - 18 months 489(2): Possess drugs for trafficking (Cocaine) 12- 18 months (concurrent to 1) 489(3): Occupant in MV with firearm (shotgun) 6 months (concurrent to 1 & 2) 489(4): Occupant in MV with weapon (CED) 6 months (concurrent to 1, 2 & 3) 489(5): Possess weapon with ammunition (shotgun) 18 to 24 months ( consecutive to 1, 2 & 3) 489(8): Careless storage of a firearm (shotgun) 1 month (concurrent to 5) 489(9): Possess weapon for dangerous purpose (CED) 3 months (concurrent to 5) 489(10): Possess proceeds of crime (cash) 3 months (concurrent to 1 & 2) 489(13): Operate motor vehicle while prohibited 3 months (concurrent to 1 & 2) 489(14): Possess firearm while prohibited (shotgun) 2 months (concurrent to 5) 489(15): Possess weapon while prohibited (CED) 2 months (concurrent to 4) 489(16): Breach of probation order – by multiple means 1 month (concurrent to 1 & 2) 493(1): Breach of release order – reporting 1 month (concurrent to Inf. 489) 063(1): Breach of release order – residence 1 month (concurrent to Inf. 493 & 493) 173(1) Possess ammunition while prohibited 3 months (concurrent to Inf. 489 & 493) 173(3) Resist arrest 1 month (concurrent to 1)

173(5) Breach of release order 1 month (concurrent to 1 & 3) Total Global Sentence: 2 ½ years to 3 ½ years. [ 22 ] In support of his sentencing position, Mr. Chartier relied upon the following decisions: • The decision of my brother Judge D. Kovatch in R v Noname , 2021 SKPC 46 [ Noname ]. Mr. Noname pled guilty to possession of an unloaded, sawed-off shotgun, with readily accessible ammunition. Mr. Noname was young (22y), had numerous Gladue factors, and a modest criminal record. While Mr.

Noname had lived a troubled and transient life prior to his charges, the Court was satisfied that he had taken significant, positive steps in his life. While acknowledging that the sentencing range for possession of a firearm with readily accessible ammunition in public would normally begin at 3 years, the Court concluded that a lengthy period of incarceration was not necessary or appropriate in Mr. Noname’s case in light of his Gladue factors and the changes he had made in his life. The Court imposed a sentence of 9 months in custody followed by 2 years of probation. • The decision of my sister Judge F.

Daunt in R v Morin , 2019 SKPC 69 [ Morin ]. Mr. Morin was arrested in a bar. When searched, he had several rounds of .22 ammunition in his pockets. When Mr. Morin’s vehicle was searched, police found a sawed-off .22 rifle. Mr. Morin pled guilty to a charge of possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, together with a charge of possession of a firearm while prohibited. Mr. Morin had an unenviable criminal record that began when he was 14 years of age and continuing into adulthood, when he received a penitentiary sentence.

While in custody, he was recruited into the Terror Squad, a regional Aboriginal gang. When released, he could not find work and so turned to selling drugs and violence. At some point, Mr. Morin tried to leave the gang. He was beaten, tortured and his index finger was cut off. Mr. Morin told court he had the firearm for his own protection and for the protection of his then pregnant girlfriend. The Court noted that a 3 year sentence is commonly imposed for similar offences, but concluded that a lengthy period of incarceration would be counterproductive to Mr. Morin’s efforts to leave his gang life behind.

The Court also concluded that Mr. Morin’s moral culpability was lower than might otherwise be expected because of the unique circumstances at the time of his arrest and because of numerous Gladue factors. The Court imposed a total global sentence of 18 months. To do so, the sentence for possession of the firearm while prohibited was made concurrent. • The decision of Judge P.M. Doherty of the British Columbia Provincial Court in R v Grosskleg , 2018 BCPC 88 [ Grosskleg ]. In this case, Mr. Grosskleg was running a dial-a-dope business that trafficked in heroin. After he was arrested, Mr.

Grosskleg’s house was searched. Police seized 31.5 grams of cocaine and two handguns, one of which was fully loaded with plenty of spare ammunition close by. The Court found a number of mitigating factors, including the fact that, after his arrest, Mr. Grosskleg was cooperative with police, he had no previous criminal convictions for these types of offences. Of significance, the Court found that Mr. Grosskleg had been targeted by a major crime figure over drug debts, almost killed, and then forced to sell drugs to clear his debt. Mr.

Grosskleg was given a total global sentence of 30 months. • The decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench in R v Loreth , 2021 SKQB 184 [ Loreth ]. Ms. Loreth was in possession of illicit drugs on two occasions. On the first occasion, Ms. Loreth had 21.9 grams of cocaine, packaged in 33 individual bags weighing between 0.5 grams to 1.0 gram. In addition, Ms. Loreth had five morphine pills and two rocks of crack cocaine weighing 4.6 grams. Ms. Loreth was released. Six months later police observed a known drug user at Ms. Loreth’s residence.

Her residence was searched, and police found 45.2 grams of methamphetamine and 22.9 grams of cocaine. The Court found Ms. Loreth to be a low-level trafficker with a severe drug addiction. Ms. Loreth was sentenced to 10 months for the first incident and 18 months for the second to be served consecutively. Ms. Loreth’s total global sentence was 28 months. • The decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in R v Prosser , 2014 ONSC 6466 . When Mr.

Prosser was arrested, police found 81.78 grams worth of packaged cocaine, $3,480.00, multiple cell phones, packaging material and a semi-automatic pistol, with 36 rounds of ammunition. The accused had the support of his family and expressed a desire to change his life. The Court was satisfied that he had good prospects for rehabilitation. The accused was 18 years of age and had no prior criminal record. He was sentenced to 24 months for possession of the firearm and 6 months consecutive for possession for the purpose of trafficking. The sentence was upheld on appeal.

However, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the sentence was “lenient” in light of the serious offences for which he was convicted. See: R v Prosser , 2016 ONCA 467 at para 29 . GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [ 23 ] At its core, the purpose of sentencing is to promote a peaceful and safe society through the imposition of just sanctions. To help courts arrive at a just sanction, a number of principles and objectives are set out in the Criminal Code .

For example, s. 718 includes the principles of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, reparation to victims, promotion of a sense of responsibility, and acknowledgement of harm done.

Section 718.2 sets forth a list of additional factors that must be taken into consideration during the

sentencing process, including the principles of parity, totality, and restraint. The objective of sentencing is to find a fit and just sanction inlight of the gravity of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, and the harm caused by the offences. Often this goal is easier tostate than it is to achieve. [24] By its nature, sentencing is a highly individualized process and judges enjoy broad discretion in sentencing. Whatever weighta judge may accord to the various objectives and principles listed in the Criminal Code, the resulting sentence must be proportionate.See: s.718.2.

Proportionality is essential to a just and fit sentence. To determine a proportionate sentence, the Court must first considerthe offender’s conduct at the societal level, including the harm done to victims and the community – to ensure that the sentence reflectsthe gravity of the offences. This is closely tied to denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures the public’s confidence in thejustice system.

The sentence is then tempered at the individual level – by looking at the circumstances of the offender to ensure that thesentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Doing so, both serves the interests ofrestraint and ensures justice for the offender. See: R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 at para 37, [2012] 1 SCR 433 [Ipeelee]. Preferred Approach When Dealing with Multiple Offences [25] The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal set forth the preferred approach when sentencing for multiple offences in R v Smith, 2019SKCA 100 at paras 149 to 154, 382 CCC (3d) 455 [Smith].

Step 1: The sentencing judge must first determine a fit and just sanction foreach individual offence based on the gravity of that offence, the offender’s moral culpability in committing that particular offence, andthe impact of that offence on the community. Step 2: The sentencing judges must then decide if any or all of the offences will be servedconcurrently or consecutively to one another.

Step 3: If consecutive sentences are imposed for any of the offences, the sentencing judgemust then examine the cumulative sentence under the totality principle to ensure that the aggregate total sentence is not too long, undulyharsh, or would exceed the overall culpability of the offender. Step 4: If an adjustment to the total sentence is necessary, the preferredapproach is to direct that individual sentences be served concurrent to each other rather than reducing the length of the individualsentences. See also: R v Taylor, 2010 MBCA 103, 263 CCC (3d) 307 [Taylor].

Consecutive vs Concurrent Sentences [26] Some courts have stated that there is a presumption that all sentences will be served consecutive to each other unless there is avalid reason at law to do otherwise. See: R v S.P.M., 2005 NLCA 36 at para 11, 198 CCC (3d) 383. Other courts have described thepresumption the other way round. See: R v Whitefish, 2019 SKPC 34 at para 37. Regardless of how the sentencing judge approaches theissue of consecutive vs concurrent sentences, unless the judge specifically directs otherwise, all sentences imposed on the same day willbe served concurrent to each other.

However, the Criminal Code specifically directs that the sentences for certain offences must beserved consecutive to each other. For example, s. 85.1 directs that consecutive sentences must be imposed for offences involving the useof a firearm in the commission of certain other offences (manslaughter, sexual assault, robbery, etc.) or in flight after committing orattempting to commit any indictable offence. [27] In addition, s.718.3(4) of the Criminal Code directs that the sentencing judges shall consider imposing consecutive sentencesin a variety of circumstances.

Two of these circumstances are relevant to these proceedings. Clause 718.3(4)(b)(

i) of the Criminal Codedirects the sentencing judge to consider imposing consecutive sentences for offences that do not arise out of the same event, series ofevents or criminal transaction. Also, clause 718(4)(b)(ii) directs the sentencing judges to consider imposing consecutive sentences foroffences committed while an offender is on bail.

See: R v McKinney (1963), (SK KB), 40 CR 137 (Sask QB)[McKinney]. [28] A review of case law would suggest that the most common situation where a sentencing judge will impose concurrentsentences is where more than one conviction arises from a single criminal “adventure”, “enterprise” or “transaction”. See: R vAgecoutay, 2009 SKCA 100 at para 63, 247 CCC (3d) 75. Imposing concurrent sentences for closely related offences arising out of thesame incident is to avoid the potential for double punishment.

As a corollary, the most common situation where a sentencing judge willimpose consecutive sentences is where the offences are not interrelated or do not share a common criminal nexus. If the offences areseparate and distinct, then consecutive sentences ought to be imposed. See: Taylor at para 11. See also: R v Sand, 2019 SKQB 123 atparas. 111 to 115. [29] The other situation where a sentencing judge may impose consecutive sentences is where the offences involve the separateinvasions of the community’s right to peace and order.

For example, the distinct offences of drug trafficking and possession of a weapon(even if for the purpose of furthering the trafficking enterprise) engage different legally protected interests and thus may be imposedconsecutive to each other, even if arising out of the same transaction. See: R v Boyd, 2016 ONCA 380 at para 3. See also: R v Bedi, 2015ABCA 361 at paras 11 and 12, 609 AR 74.

The Totality Principle [ 30 ] The totality principle is a means to ensure that consecutive sentences do not result in a global sentence that is unduly long or too harsh. In practice, it is an extension of the principle of proportionality. It applies as a last step in the sentencing process wherein the sentencing judges must consider the cumulative effect of all of the individual sentences.

If the aggregate of these sentences would result in a total sentence that is unduly long, too harsh or would exceed the overall culpability of the offender, then the sentencing judge may adjust the sentences to arrive at a global sentence that is in aggregate “just and appropriate”. See: R v Nagy , 2013 BCCA 419 and Bear . For example, a cumulative sentence may offend the totality principle if its effect is to impose a “crushing sentence” not in keeping with the offender’s age, circumstances, and future prospects.

See: R v Louison , 2008 SKCA 69 at para 10 [ 31 ] As noted, if an adjustment to the combined sentence is determined to be necessary, the preferred method is to first adjust one or more of the individual sentences by making them concurrent. If further adjustment is required and appropriate, the length of individual sentences may be reduced below what would otherwise have been imposed. However, if an adjustment to the sentence is required because of totality, the former approach is more advisable.

Doing so permits individuals sentences to retain precedential value for the purpose of parity and allows for proper appellate review. See: Smith at para 152 . APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE OFFENDER Circumstances of the Offender [ 32 ] Mr. Chartier is 29 years of age and Métis. His mother is from Ile-a-la Crosse and his father is from Buffalo Narrows. They both attended residential schools. Initially, Mr. Chartier grew up with his parents in Ile-a-la Crosse. Unfortunately, both his mother and father struggled with alcohol and drugs addiction. His parents sold drugs to support their addiction. When Mr.

Chartier was growing up, his parents would lock him (and his siblings) out of the home after school – even in the cold. There was domestic violence in the home and there were times when there was not enough food to eat. At age 10 or 11, Mr. Chartier’s parents were arrested for possession for the purpose of trafficking. As a result., Mr. Chartier (and his siblings) were moved to Buffalo Narrows to live with his grandparents. Unfortunately, while Mr. Chartier was living with his grandparents, he suffered sexual abuse at the hands of an uncle. Mr.

Chartier left his grandparent’s home at age 15 and was unable to continue school. As he grew, Mr. Chartier began using drugs - first marijuana and then hard drugs – as his parents had. [ 33 ] As a young adult, Mr. Chartier worked a variety of productive jobs to support himself. However, about five years ago (when he was 24), Mr. Chartier’s addictions grew to the point where he was unable to hold down a job. Ultimately, Mr. Chartier began selling drugs to support his addiction and pay his basic living expenses. Growing up, Mr. Chartier has been over-exposed to violence. He witnessed his uncle being shot.

His cousin committed suicide and it was Mr. Chartier who found the body – his cousin was hanging from a rope in a shed. Finally, Mr. Chartier was shot in the leg. At the time of sentencing, Mr. Chartier was awaiting surgery to remove a bullet fragment from his leg. Criminal Record [ 34 ] In total, Mr. Chartier has 29 entries on his criminal record. For a relatively young person, this is a troubling record. It began in 2007 when Mr. Chartier was 14 years old. He has 11 convictions as a youth, with offences such as assault with a weapon, break and enter, and careless use of a firearm. As an adult, Mr.

Chartier has 18 convictions, including two for assaults, one for break and enter, and three for theft. Of significance to these proceedings, in January of 2020 (11 months prior to the first offence I deal with), Mr. Chartier was sentenced for two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon and one count of leaving the scene of an accident. He was sentenced to 12 months in custody (plus probation). In July of 2020 (four months prior to the first offence I deal with), Mr. Chartier was sentenced for assaulting someone and received four months in custody. Then in June of 2021, Mr.

Chartier pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle while prohibited by a court order and attempting to evade police. For these offences, Mr. Chartier was sentenced to an additional four months in custody, followed by 12 months of probation. Aggravating Factors [ 35 ] Mr. Chartier’s criminal record is aggravating both because of the number of entries and because there are entries for related offences, including the unlawful possession of firearms. Mr. Chartier is being sentenced for 17 offences that occurred over a one-year period. None of these were impulsive acts and Mr.

Chartier had multiple opportunities to stop offending. On each occasion when

offences were committed, Mr. Chartier had not been in the community very long – having just been released from custody. Finally, it is an aggravating factor that all of the incidents occurred while Mr. Chartier was either on probation or on bail or bound by a court order. Finally, Mr. Chartier’s defiance of the law can be inferred from the fact that he committed further offences when he was on bail awaiting trial. See: McKinney . See also: R v Fyfe , 2017 SKQB 5 at para 86 . Mitigating Factors [ 36 ] Mr. Chartier’s guilty pleas are a mitigating factor, as are his personal circumstances. Mr.

Chartier is Métis with relevant Gladue factors. His troubled childhood shed light on his moral culpability. As a child, Mr. Chartier was exposed to addiction, violence, and poverty. He is a survivor of abuse, and his parents modeled the sale of drugs as a means of income. [ 37 ] I also acknowledge that s. 718.2 (

e) of the Criminal Code is a remedial provision aimed at addressing the over-incarceration of Aboriginal people and to “encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing”. See: Ipeelee at para 59 . In R v Chanalquay , 2015 SKCA 141 , 472 Sask R 110, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal states that “ Gladue and Ipeelee are not unvarnished calls to impose shorter jail terms on Aboriginal offenders” (para 36).

Rather, the Gladue analysis requires me to consider how the person’s history and background illuminate the question of moral blame. [ 38 ] While I have considerable sympathy for Mr. Chartier, his intentional involvement in the drug trade and his dangerous decision to arm himself with weapons, including a sawed-off shotgun, must be denounced. In light of the toxic impact of hard drugs in the City of Prince Albert and Mr. Chartier’s willingness to possess weapons of violence and intimidation to protect his drug trade, there is no alternative but to impose a lengthy period of incarceration.

To do otherwise would not reflect the gravity of the offences and would risk a loss of confidence by the public in our justice system. This is not a case where there is an alternative to incarceration. The question to be decided is how long Mr. Chartier’s sentence will be. DISPOSITION WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL OFFENCES [ 39 ] With these principles in mind, I will now turn to the individual offences and determine a fit and just sanction for each count prior to the application of the totality principle.

Information 991144489 – Counts 1, 2 and 10 – Drugs and Proceeds: [ 40 ] Courts in Saskatchewan have repeatedly said that the range of sentences for trafficking in hard drugs, like cocaine and methamphetamine, is 18 months to 4 years. See: R v McIntyre , 2012 SKCA 111 , 405 Sask R 28 [ McIntyre ]. However, in Mr. Chartier’s case, his counsel argued that a lesser sentence would be appropriate in light of his personal circumstances. Defence pointed to cases like Noname and Loreth where the Court departed from the sentencing range. Unfortunately for Mr.

Charter, this is not one of those cases where departure from the sentencing range is appropriate (at least not at this stage in the analysis). [ 41 ] On November 2, 2020, Mr. Chartier was found in possession of 33.8 grams of methamphetamine and 9 grams of cocaine. The circumstances are not consistent with a person merely selling enough drugs to support an addiction and not for profit. Both the quantity of drugs and cash found on Mr. Charter was significantly more than would be expected if he was just selling to support his own addition.

The circumstances are consistent with a high-volume, street-level drug dealer. Mr. Chartier admitted that he sold drugs to pay for drugs for his own use and to pay some of his living expenses . The inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Chartier was selling drugs for profit. The scale of his drug business grew to the point where he felt the need to carry weapons of violence and intimidation, including a sawed-off shotgun, and a machete. One of his passengers had a conducted energy weapon – another had a hatchet. Simply put, Mr. Chartier was driving around the City of Prince Albert in a mobile drug house.

This is exactly the situation for which the sentencing range identified in McIntyre was established. [ 42 ] On the other hand, while Mr. Chartier has an unenviable criminal record, he does not have any prior drug convictions. Also, from a Gladue perspective, Mr. Chartier grew up in a home where he was exposed to drug abuse and where the sale of drugs as a means of financial support was normalized. The appropriate sentence for the drug offences (counts 1 and 2) is 18 months in custody on each count. Mr. Chartier was also found in possession of the proceeds of crime – proceeds derived from the sale of drugs.

The appropriate sentence for count 10 is 6 months. In my opinion, both of the drug offences (counts 1 and 2) and the proceeds offence (count 10) have a close and clear criminal nexus. As such, the sentence for each of these offences ought to be served concurrent to each other.

Information 991144489 – Counts 5, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14 & 16 – Weapons: [ 43 ] Mr. Chartier has pled guilty to a number of weapons related offences as a result of his arrest on November 2, 2020 – with count 5 being the most serious.

Section 95 captures a broad spectrum of conduct, ranging from technical breaches (something akin to a regulatory offence posing little risk to the public) to truly criminal conduct that places the public at risk of significant and immediate harm. The sentence for an offender whose conduct is on the “truly criminal” end of the spectrum tends to be between 2 and 3 years of imprisonment. However, if the possession of a firearm is associated with other criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, the sentencing range increases to 3 to 5 years. R v Nur , 2015 SCC 15 , [2015] 1 SCR 773. [ 44 ] In Mr.

Chartier’s case, his counsel argued that a lesser sentence would be appropriate in light of his personal circumstances. Defense points to cases like Morin and Grosskleg where the Court departed from the sentencing range. Unfortunately for Mr. Chartier, this is not one of those cases where departure from the sentencing range is appropriate. While the shotgun was not loaded, it was at his feet, with ammunition within an easy reach, as he drove around the city selling drugs. It is particularly aggravating that Mr. Chartier was on probation for weapons offences when he was found with a sawed-off shotgun.

Under the circumstances, an appropriate sanction for the s. 95 offence is 36 months, with an additional 6 months for possession while prohibited. Both of these sanctions must be consecutive to each other and consecutive to the sentences for the drug offences. All three of these crimes engage significantly different legally- protected interests. See: Bedi at paras 11 - 12 . See also: Kamara at para 61 . [ 45 ] As for the other weapon related offences from November 2, 2020, short periods of custody will represent a fit and just sanction in light of the circumstances and Mr. Chartier’s record.

However, since they were all part of the same ongoing criminal transaction, these sentences may be served concurrently. Information 991144489 – Count 13 – Drive while Prohibited: [ 46 ] On November 2, 2020, when Mr. Chartier was driving around the City of Prince Albert with guns and drugs in his vehicle, he was prohibited from driving because of a previous driving offence. A fit and just sanction would be 4 months in custody – the same sentence he received for a similar offence. His counsel suggests that the sentence imposed for this offence should be served concurrently. I disagree.

Again, the driving offence engages a separate and distinct interest protected at law. A concurrent sentence would mean that there would be no consequences for Mr. Chartier’s decision to flout his driving prohibition. In addition to incarceration, a new driving prohibition is also appropriate – for 2 years (to begin after he is released from custody). Informations 991169493 and 90436063 [ 47 ] Mr. Chartier was released from custody on August 9, 2021 on the conditions that he report to a probation officer and that he reside with family in Ile-a-la Crosse. He did neither.

His counsel suggests that any sentence imposed for these offences should also be served concurrently. Again, I disagree. Concurrent sentences would mean that there would be no consequences for Mr. Chartier’s decision to flout his release conditions. Doing so would neither denounce Mr. Chartier’s actions nor deter anyone else from ignoring the conditions of their release. A fit and just sanction would be 2 months in custody on each count (concurrent to each other but consecutive to all other sentences imposed this date). Information 991173173 [ 48 ] On September 16, 2021 there was a warrant for Mr.

Chartier’s arrest and he was breaching a term of his release order by being in Prince Albert. There is no dispute that Mr. Chartier’s actions on that day had nothing to do with going to court. When police lawfully attempted to detain and then arrest him, he vigorously resisted. Luckily, no one got hurt. However, that outcome had more to do with the training of the officers. Mr. Chartier was physically non-compliant until he was massively overpowered. It was a dangerous and unnecessary situation caused entirely by Mr. Chartier’s defiance.

To make matters worse, he was in possession of ammunition contrary to a prohibition order of the Court, as well as a small quantity of illicit drugs. [ 49 ] His counsel suggests that any sentence imposed for these offences should also be served concurrently. Again, I disagree. Concurrent sentences would mean that there would be no consequences for Mr. Chartier’s actions in flouting his court order and resisting arrest. Concurrent sentences would neither denounce Mr. Chartier’s actions nor deter anyone else from making the same mistake.

A fit and just sanction would be 6 months in custody on each count (concurrent to each other but consecutive to all other sentences imposed on this date).

The “Last Look” - the Totality Analysis [ 50 ] It is now necessary to examine the total cumulative sentence when each of these individual sentences are added up.

It results in a global sentence (prior to the application of totality) of 72 months (6 years) of incarceration, allocated as follows: Count: Offence: Sentence prior to totality analysis: 489(1): Possess drugs for trafficking (Meth) 18 months 489(2): Possess drugs for trafficking (Cocaine) 18 months (concurrent to 1) 489(10): Possess proceeds of crime (cash) 6 months (concurrent to 1) 489(5): Possess weapon with ammunition (shotgun) 36 months ( consecutive to 1, 2 & 10) 489(3): Occupant in MV with firearm (shotgun) 18 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(4): Occupant in MV with weapon (CED) 12 months (concurrent to 5) 489(8): Careless storage of a firearm (shotgun) 6 months (concurrent to 5) 489(9): Possess weapon for dangerous purpose (CED) 6 months (concurrent to 5) 489(16): Breach of probation order – by multiple means 4 months (concurrent to 5) 489(14): Possess firearm while prohibited (shotgun) 6 months ( consecutive to 1, 2, 10, 5, 3, 4, 8, 9 & 16) 489(15): Possess weapon while prohibited (CED) 6 months (concurrent to 14) 489(13): Operate motor vehicle while prohibited 4 months ( consecutive to 1, 2, 10, 5, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14 & 15) 493(1): Breach of release order – reporting 2 months ( consecutive to Inf. 489) 063(1): Breach of release order – residence 2 months (concurrent to 493) 173(1) Possess ammunition while prohibited 6 months ( consecutive to Inf. 489 & 493) 173(3) Resist arrest 6 months (concurrent to 1) 173(5) Breach of release order 2 months (concurrent to 1 & 3) Total Global Sentence: 72 months (6 years) [ 51 ] Although each of the above sanctions are individually fit and just, in my opinion, 6 years in jail is too harsh.

It exceeds what is appropriate and would not represent justice for Mr. Chartier. At this stage, it is important to consider Mr. Chartier’s personal circumstances as they relate to his moral blameworthiness. In particular, I am mindful of the caution in Gladue and Ipeelee about the over-representation of people of Aboriginal descent in our jails. Although Mr. Chartier willingly and repeatedly made a number of very dangerous decisions that put our community at risk, the total sentence that results is simply too harsh, particularly in light of his personal circumstances. Simply put, Mr.

Chartier grew up in a harsh and unforgiving world – a world of abuse, suicide and violence. His own parents both normalized drug use and modeled the sale of drugs for profit. Gladue calls upon me to examine Mr. Chartier’s moral culpability through a lens that takes into consideration the fact that his life experiences have been different from mine – in fact different from most people. The bullet fragment in Mr. Chartier’s leg speaks to just how different his life experiences have been. When I examine Mr. Chartier’s conduct through that lens, I find that a sentence of 6 years in custody is excessive.

He is young and says he seeks to make changes in his life. As a consequence of his actions, he must be separated from society for a period of time. However, it will not take 6 years to achieve the principles of sentence. [ 52 ] In my opinion, a global sentence of 54 months (4 ½ years) in custody will appropriately denounce Mr. Chartier’s actions, will deter others from making the same mistakes he made, and will give meaning to the principles articulated in Gladue . A sentence of 54 months is more consistent with the normal length of sentence for the most serious of the individual offences involved - s. 95.

To make this adjustment to Mr. Chartier’s sentence, I direct that the sentences for the drug offences on Information 991144489 - being counts 1, 2 and 10 - shall be served concurrent to the sentences for the weapons related offences on that Information – being counts 5, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 16. [ 53 ] Mr. Chartier’s individual sentences shall be adjusted as follows:

Count: Offence: Sentence: 489(5): Possess weapon with ammunition (shotgun) 36 months 489(1): Possess drugs for trafficking (Meth) 18 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(2): Possess drugs for trafficking (Cocaine) 18 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(3): Occupant in MV with firearm (shotgun) 18 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(4): Occupant in MV with weapon (CED) 12 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(8): Careless storage of a firearm (shotgun) 6 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(9): Possess weapon for dangerous purpose (CED) 6 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(10): Possess proceeds of crime (cash) 6 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(16): Breach of probation order – by multiple means 4 months (concurrent to count 5) 489(14): Possess firearm while prohibited (shotgun) 6 months ( consecutive to 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 & 16) 489(15): Possess weapon while prohibited (CED) 6 months (concurrent to 14) 489(13): Operate motor vehicle while prohibited 4 months ( consecutive to 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 & 16) 493(1): Breach of release order – reporting 2 months ( consecutive to Inf. 489) 063(1): Breach of release order – residence 2 months (concurrent to 493) 173(1) Possess ammunition while prohibited 6 months ( consecutive to Inf. 489 & 493) 173(3) Resist arrest 6 months (concurrent to 1) 173(5) Breach of release order 2 months (concurrent to 1 & 3) Total Global Sentence: 54 months (1642 days) Credit for Time Spent on Remand [ 54 ] As of December 2, 2022, Mr.

Chartier had spent 613 days on remand awaiting trial or resolution of his charges. These proceedings were adjourned for my decision on sentencing. As of the date of this decision, Mr. Chartier will have spent 661 days on remand. With appropriate credits applied, this is the equivalent of 992 days (or approximately 32 ½ months). CONCLUSION [ 55 ] After adjusting Mr. Chartier’s sentences to conform with the principle of totality and after providing appropriate credit for the time that he has spent on remand, Mr.

Chartier’s sentence for each the offences to which he has pled guilty shall be as follows: Count: Offence: Sentence: 489(5): Possess weapon with ammunition (shotgun) 36 months (less 992 days for remand credit) 489(1): Possess drugs for trafficking (Meth) 18 months (548 days - time already served) 489(2): Possess drugs for trafficking (Cocaine) 18 months (548 days - time already served) 489(3): Occupant in MV with firearm (shotgun) 18 months (548 days – time already served) 489(4): Occupant in MV with weapon (CED) 12 months (365 days - time already served) 489(8): Careless storage of a firearm (shotgun) 6 months (183 days - time already served)

489(9): Possess weapon for dangerous purpose (CED) 6 months (183 days - time already served) 489(10): Possess proceeds of crime (cash) 6 months (183 days - time already served) 489(16): Breach of probation order – by multiple means 4 months (122 days - time already served) 489(14): Possess firearm while prohibited (shotgun) 6 months ( consecutive to 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 10, & 16) 489(15): Possess weapon while prohibited (CED) 6 months (concurrent to 14) 489(13): Operate motor vehicle while prohibited 4 months ( consecutive to 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 & 16) 493(1): Breach of release order – reporting 2 months ( consecutive to Inf. 489) 063(1): Breach of release order – residence 2 months (concurrent to 493) 173(1) Possess ammunition while prohibited 6 months ( consecutive to Inf. 489 & 493) 173(3) Resist arrest 6 months (concurrent to 1) 173(5) Breach of release order 2 months (concurrent to 1 & 3) Total Global Sentence: 54 months (less remand credit of 992 days) [ 56 ] With the imposition of this sentence, Mr.

Chartier will have approximately 650 days left to serve (or a little over 21 months). Because the sentence to be served from this day forward is less than 2 years, Mr. Chartier’s sentence will be served in a provincial correctional centre. Ancillary Orders [ 57 ] Either as required by law or as an exercise of my discretion, I granted a DNA order, a firearm prohibition for life, and a 2-year driving prohibition. The DNA order shall attach to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, and 15 of Information 991144489.

The firearm prohibition shall attach to counts 3, 4, 5, 9, 14 and 15 of Information 991144489, as well as count 1 of Information 991173173. The driving prohibition shall attach to count 13 of Information 991144489 and will begin upon Mr. Chartier’s release from custody. [ 58 ] As for victim surcharges, I exercise my discretion to waive these fees (which would have been $2,900.00). Mr. Chartier was unemployed prior to going into custody, he has spent most of the last two years in jail, he will be serving a significant further period of incarceration, and he has no obvious means of employment upon his release.

While victim surcharges serve an important social function, attempting to collect the applicable fees from Mr. Chartier within the time prescribed by the statute after he is released from custody (45 days) is impracticable and would represent an undue financial hardship. Dated this 19th day of January, 2023, at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. __________________________ S.D. SCHIEFNER, J