R. v. Thomas Date:, 2016 BCPC 87

Citation: R. v. Thomas Date: 20160304 2016 BCPC 0087 File Nos: 26183-1-K; 26183-2-KA; 26316-1-K Registry: Quesnel IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SHANE ADRIAN JAMIE THOMAS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. DOULIS Counsel for the Crown: J. Johnston Counsel for the Defendant: K. Thomson Place of Hearing: Quesnel , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 4, 2016 Date of Judgment: March 4, 2016

[ 1 ] Shane Adrian Jamie Thomas is before the court today on the following three Informations: a. Information 26183-1-K, by which he was charged with Count 1, on July 2, 2015, uttering threats, contrary to s. 264.1(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code , and b. Count 2, on July 2, 2015, of assault, contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code . In both these cases, the offence was committed against Tamara Christine Geraldine Morgan. [ 2 ] Under Information 26183-2-KA, Mr. Thomas is charged with two counts of breach of undertaking given to Judge Gray on August 11, 2015, with respect to restrictions on his contact with Tamara Morgan. [ 3 ] On Information 26316-1-K, Mr. Thomas is charged with assault causing bodily harm to Tamara Morgan on December 18, 2015. Pleas and dispositions [ 4 ] With respect to Information 26183-1-K, Mr.

Thomas agrees that based on the facts underpinning that information and the counts of uttering threats and assault, Ms. Morgan has reasonable grounds to fear that Mr. Thomas will cause injury to her, and that a cause is made out for a peace bond or a recognizance pursuant to s. 810. The Crown and defence agree the s. 810 peace bond is a lesser included charge of uttering threats under s. 264.1(1) and that Mr.

Thomas can enter a plea in that regard pursuant to s. 606(4) of the Criminal Code . [ 5 ] The Crown directed a stay of proceedings on Count 2 of 26183-1-K, which was the charge of assault of July 2, 2015, contrary to s. 266 of the Code . [ 6 ] With respect to Information 26183-2-KA, Mr. Thomas entered a guilty plea to Count 1, that on December 18, 2015, he breached his recognizance, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code , by failing to leave the presence of Tamara Morgan upon her request, as set out in the recognizance of Judge Gray made August 11, 2015.

The Crown directed a stay of proceedings on Count 2 on that information, charging Mr. Thomas of breaching his recognizance by being in the presence of Ms. Morgan when either of them had been drinking, as prohibited by Judge Gray's recognizance of August 11, 2015. [ 7 ] Finally, with respect to Information 26316-1-K, Mr. Thomas entered a guilty plea on December 23, 2015, to the sole count on that Information, that on December 18, 2015, he assaulted and caused bodily harm to Tamara Morgan, contrary to s. 267(1) of the Criminal Code .

Circumstances of Information 26183-1-K [ 8 ] Information 26183-1-K is the information on which the Crown has accepted a peace bond as a resolution. [ 9 ] On July 2, 2015, a neighbour called the police to the residence of Mr. Thomas and his spouse, Tamara Morgan. The neighbour complained they had been fighting. The neighbour could hear people crash, bang, and smash stuff. The neighbour heard Ms. Morgan screaming, Mr. Thomas screaming, Ms. Morgan crying, and "the whole nine yards". From her listening post on the other side of the wall, the neighbour heard Mr.

Thomas, and I quote, "just vaguely him saying that I am just going to fucking get you, you're dead, and that is when I called you guys." [ 10 ] When the police interviewed Ms. Morgan, she was severely intoxicated. She was upset and jealous and concerned that Mr. Thomas was going to cheat on her. She and Mr. Thomas had been drinking and arguing and fighting. The fight escalated. [ 11 ] Ms. Morgan said that Mr.

Thomas said something about wanting to kill her, but she was confused about what happened and did not seem to really know what happened. [ 12 ] It appeared there was some sort of physical altercation, but it was unclear exactly what had happened. Mr. Thomas agrees that as a result of that altercation, Ms. Morgan has reasonable grounds to fear that Mr. Thomas will cause injury. [ 13 ] The defence agrees that Ms. Morgan has made out cause for a peace bond pursuant to s. 810 of the Criminal Code .

Information 26316-1-K [ 14 ] Information 26183-K-1, which was the information that is now being dealt with in terms of a peace bond, was scheduled for trial on December 21, 2015. Three days before the trial date, the offence under Information 26316-1-K, assault causing bodily harm, occurred. [ 15 ] On December 18, 2015, Mr. Thomas and Ms. Morgan were living together with four children. Mr. Thomas was the biological father of two of those children. Ms. Morgan was the biological mother of all four. At the time, they had been living in a relationship for four years. [ 16 ] Also at the time, Mr.

Thomas was subject to a recognizance of Judge Gray, as a result of Information 26183-1-K, which prohibited him from being in Ms. Morgan's presence when either of them had been drinking. The undertaking, as amended, also required Mr. Thomas to leave upon Ms. Morgan's request. [ 17 ] In the early morning of December 18, 2015, Mr. Thomas and Ms. Morgan were drinking in their residence. The four children were home.

[ 18 ] Ms. Morgan said, "We were hanging out, and all of sudden things got out of control. I escaped, I had my cell phone, he came out and I asked him to leave." Mr. Thomas did not leave. [ 19 ] Ms. Morgan explained Mr. Thomas' assault to the police as follows [as read in]: He attacked me outside and nobody stopped to help. I ran across the road to the Totem Pole, and he did things to me. I then ran to the corner trailer and I asked for help. I went back home, I couldn't find my cell phone, the place was wrecked. I couldn't find my bank card. I was cleaning and saw he was standing in the carport.

I knew he wasn't going to stop, so I ran next door and called the cops. I went to the neighbours' because they had the kids. I went back to the house and he was standing in the carport. He ran after me, screaming, "You called the cops." He knocked me to the ground and started hitting me in the face. He bit me three or four times in the face. I was calling for help from Otis [this is another neighbour, Otis Spidey]. He started choking me to get me to stop. My boyfriend's name is Shane Thomas and he caused these injuries. [ 20 ] When explaining her worst cut, Ms. Morgan said: And then he caught me . . .

And then he like -- threw me to the ground. And then he started to . . . I thought he hit me in the nose so bad that I started gushing out blood . . . But I didn't even realize it was my mouth. [ 21 ] She went on to say that: He choked me, because he was trying to get me to quiet, and that was another thing. He took me to the ground and I was like, "Otis help me, Otis help me." Because I knew Rambo [Rambo is the dog] ran outside. So like, please help me. He started choking me.

I somehow managed to get away from him. [ 22 ] She said: I somehow managed to get away from him, then all of a sudden Otis came out ready to charge. And then he backed off, all Shane said, "I didn't do nothing wrong. I didn't cheat or fuck all." Otis is ready to chase him down. Otis is like, "I don't give a shit, you're not fucking laying your hands on a woman or anything." [ 23 ] Mr. Thomas denied that he had done anything and Mr. Spidey was having none of it, and Mr. Thomas took off. [ 24 ] The officer asked to clarify some of the marks that Ms. Morgan had at the time.

Constable Lauren Smith said [as read in]: I understand you have some unique marks on your face and hands, can you tell me how those occurred, what he did to you to cause those marks. [ 25 ] Constable Smith says: The circular marks on your face here and your hand in the webbing there, what happened there, how did that happen.

[ 26 ] Morgan said, "bit me". He bit her about three times on her face. [ 27 ] Ms. Morgan was taken to the hospital and needed stiches to close her wounds. [ 28 ] At different times in the morning on December 18, 2015, Ms. Morgan went to two neighbouring houses to seek help. These were the houses of Terry Vickers and Otis Spidey. She went there at different times that same morning. [ 29 ] When she went to Terry Vickers, she asked him call 9-1-1. Mr. Vickers called the police shortly after 6:00 a.m. He said his neighbour, Tamara Morgan, had shown up at his residence, beaten by her husband, Shane Thomas.

She said that Mr. Thomas fled on foot, but Ms. Morgan was at her residence. Mr. Vickers thought Ms. Morgan needed an ambulance, as her face was cut up pretty bad. [ 30 ] While Mr. Vickers was on the phone with the dispatchers, Ms. Morgan left his residence and went to another neighbour's house, the house of Otis Spidey. [ 31 ] Mr. Spidey had just woken up and was making coffee. He heard banging at the back door. It was Tamara Morgan and she was covered in blood. She was crying. He helped her wash her face and gather her stuff. [ 32 ] Ms. Morgan went outside. Mr. Spidey saw that Mr. Thomas was on top of her. Mr.

Spidey opened the door and Mr. Thomas saw him. Apparently, Mr. Spidey is a fairly big man. Mr. Thomas got off Ms. Morgan and ran. Mr. Spidey ran after him but could not catch him. [ 33 ] Two RCMP constables responded to the complaint. They arrived on the scene at 6:20 a.m. They went into the Morgan/Thomas residence, as the door was wide open. The house was in complete chaos. The door was smashed. Food, articles of clothing, and various household items were thrown around the house in almost every room.

No one was home. [ 34 ] While in the Morgan/Thomas residence, the constables could hear someone crying in the neighbouring residence. This was the home of Otis Spidey. The officers knocked on the door, which Tamara Morgan answered. The constables saw that Ms. Morgan was badly beaten. She had many small cuts on her face, as well as a large deep cut on the right part of her upper lip. Her face and neck were bruised. Her injuries appeared fresh. The deep cut on her lip was bleeding. Ms. Morgan was crying uncontrollably. [ 35 ] Ms. Morgan told the police that Mr.

Thomas had fled on foot, and probably went to his sister's house on Lust Road. She said Mr. Thomas had attacked her on at least three different occasions while outside. At one point she had hoped someone would stop and help her, to save her, but no one did. She also said Mr. Thomas stole her bank card and cellphone. [ 36 ] The officers followed what they believed to be Mr. Thomas's footprints, but lost the track. No one responded to the officers knocking on Ms. Morgan's sister's door.

They knocked on the door, no one came, and the officers noted no fresh tracks. [ 37 ] The officers were driving up Mountain Ash Road at 7:00 a.m., about 40 minutes after they had arrived on the scene. While crossing Tamarack Road, they noticed a male walking towards them. The officer asked the man to identify himself. At first, he refused to do so. Upon been pressed, he said his name was Thomas. In any event, the officer recognized him as Shane Thomas. Eventually, Mr. Thomas produced his identification which confirmed his full and correct name. [ 38 ] The officers arrested Mr. Thomas for assaulting Ms.

Morgan and took him into custody. Mr. Thomas has been in custody since that time. [ 39 ] Mr. Thomas first appeared on Information 26316-1-K, the information charging him with assault causing bodily harm, on December 21, 2015. Ironically, this was the same day as his trial on Information 26183-1-K, the information charging him for uttering threats and assault, which is alleged to have occurred on July 2, 2015. [ 40 ] Mr. Thomas was too distraught to proceed and the trial was adjourned. Victim impact [ 41 ] The Crown has entered into evidence at this sentencing hearing, photographs of the injuries Mr.

Thomas inflicted on Ms. Morgan on December 18, 2015. Having seen Ms. Morgan on December 21, 2015, the Crown confirms the photographs do not exaggerate her injuries. Ms. Morgan appeared beaten up. She looked horrible. She still has a serious scar as a result of the injury to her lip and, absent serious cosmetic surgery, she will have that scar for life. [ 42 ] Mr. Spidey told the RCMP he had Ms. Morgan's four children overnight. That was untrue. The children were at Tamara Morgan's residence at the time of the incident. As a result of this incident, the children were apprehended and taken into care.

The children have not yet been returned to Ms. Morgan. [ 43 ] Ms. Morgan, herself an alcoholic, is now in a residential treatment program. [ 44 ] Although Ms. Morgan did not complete a written victim impact statement, the Crown says that on December 21, 2015, she was angry and willing to testify. She wanted Mr. Thomas to remain in custody. Circumstances of the offender [ 45 ] Probation Officer Su prepared a presentence report which sets out Mr. Thomas's circumstances, and that report has been filed as an exhibit in the sentencing hearing. [ 46 ] Mr.

Thomas is 23 years old and a member of the Fort Nelson Slavey First Nations. He spent his early childhood with his mother and stepfather in Fort Liard.

[ 47 ] When he was 12, Mr. Thomas went to live with his sister Shelly in Fort Nelson First Nations Reserve. His biological father, Edward Thomas, and brother also live on the reserve. While there, Mr. Thomas hunted and trapped with his father. He joined cadets and earned certificates, and stayed with the cadets until he aged out. [ 48 ] In 2010, Mr. Thomas moved to Quesnel to live with his sister Chivonne, who became his legal guardian. [ 49 ] Mr. Thomas says that while living with Shelly in Fort Nelson, he witnessed his sister physically abused by her domestic partner. [ 50 ] Mr.

Thomas started smoking marihuana and started drinking when he was 13, a year after he moved in with his sister Shelly Thomas on the Fort Nelson Reserve. He says he continued his marihuana use and sporadic drinking until 18 or 19. This escalated and intensified when his mother passed away. He also began using ecstasy and cocaine. Mainly, he uses alcohol and marihuana. [ 51 ] At some point, Mr. Thomas' mother died and this became a catalyst to Mr. Thomas spiralling into heavy alcohol and drug use. He also says he attempted suicide four times. [ 52 ] Mr.

Thomas attributes his assault on Tamara Morgan to his binge drinking and substance abuse. Mr. Thomas acknowledges his propensity for violence increases with his level of intoxication. [ 53 ] While in Quesnel, Mr. Thomas met Tamara Morgan. They had a relationship that lasted four years. She is the mother of his two children. [ 54 ] Mr. Thomas attended and completed a six-week residential treatment program in 2015 at the Round Lake treatment centre in Vernon. The December 18, 2015, offences must have occurred after Mr. Thomas had attended that treatment centre. [ 55 ] Probation Officer Su says that Mr.

Thomas has expressed distress and shame and great remorse for his actions in assaulting Tamara Morgan. He repeatedly states he does not remember what happened, due to his intoxication. [ 56 ] Probation Officer Su, on page 5 of the presentence report says [as read in]: He minimizes the violence and severity of the offence by emphasizing his behaviour was due to alcohol. He continues to stress his desire to quit drinking and using marijuana in hopes to reconcile with Tamara and continuing building his family. [ 57 ] Probation Officer Su's assessment of Mr.

Thomas was that his criminal behaviour is fuelled by his unstable mental health, substance abuse, poor coping mechanisms, impulsivity, and family-related stresses. [ 58 ] The court did not have the benefit of a psychological risk assessment in this case. Principles of sentencing [ 59 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing: 718.

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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; 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 and to the community. [ 60 ]

Section 718.1 of the Code codifies the proportionality principle, which requires a sentence to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 61 ]

Section 718.2 of the Code specifies that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for aggravating or mitigating circumstances, including those that are listed under that section. One of those aggravating circumstances is evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner. That is deemed an aggravating circumstance. A criminal record, particularly a lengthy one, is typically an aggravating factor, because it shows a person conducting himself in a manner contrary to law for an extended period of time. On the other hand, an early guilty plea and no criminal record is a mitigating factor. [ 62 ]

Section 718.2(

b) of the Code codifies the parity principle that requires a sentence to be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. [ 63 ]

Section 718.2(

c) codifies the totality principle, which requires a judge to ensure that when imposing consecutive sentences, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. [ 64 ]

Section 718.2(

d) of the Code is a restraint principle, which holds an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. [ 65 ]

Section 718.2(

e) is a second restraint principle which holds that: . . . all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances . . . should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. In this regard, the defence submits that, in light of Mr. Thomas's First Nation heritage, the principles espoused in Gladue, and as

explained in Ipeelee, apply. These are generally referred to as the Gladue factors. Crown authorities [66] The first Crown authority is R. v. Wallace, (BCCA). In Wallace, the accused attacked his recently-separatedspouse while she was alone in her home with her son. Mr. Wallace went into her home, found her in the bath, and tried to drown her. When she tried to save herself, he punched, kicked, choked and threatened her. He threw a video and a mirror at her.

He stopped theattack when the complainant's sister arrived in her residence and calmed him down. [67] Justice Proudfoot, for the majority of the Court of Appeal, commented had the complainant's sister not arrived when she did, theaccused would probably have killed the complainant. [68] Mr. Wallace was 28 years old at the time of sentencing and 26 at the time of the offence. He had a longstanding alcohol abuseproblem and was intoxicated at the time of the offence. Moreover, he had a criminal record with a previous conviction for assaultinganother woman with whom he was living in an intimate relationship. Mr.

Wallace could offer no explanation for the unprovoked attack,which went on for about a half an hour. The complainant suffered serious injuries which persisted for a year and a half after the attack. [69] A year after the attack, Mr. Wallace went to counselling for alcohol abuse. He got a job and a new relationship. Despite hisprotestations at sentencing he had reformed, the judge sentenced him to four months in jail with 12 months' probation. [70] Mr.

Wallace appealed the sentence and Justice Proudfoot stated on page 4: In my view the trial judge by imposing a sentence of only four months which is a lenient sentence in the circumstances gave theappellant the full benefit of any good conduct prior to sentence. The sentence for this serious offence with a previous conviction for asimilar type of offence could very easily have been in the range of 12 to 20 months if the sentencing had been dealt with in the normalfashion without the lapse of time. [71] The court went on to say that: Women are entitled to be protected from this type of brutal behaviour.

It is the courts that they look to for this protection. I agree withCrown Counsel and I repeat, this sentence was at the bottom end of the range, it is not unfit. [72] The court in Wallace reproduced what is now oft-cited passage from R. v. Stanley, a 1986 decision of our Court of Appeal,where Mr. Justice Lambert said: I wish to say particularly in this case that society has a deep interest in this kind of conduct. It is not a private matter between the partiesto the relationship nor a matter that goes away if there is forgiveness within the relationship. The kind of conduct endangers and imperilssociety.

In addition the guardians of the social interest, the people involved in social work and the police who are called out and intothese situations, must have the protection of the law and the understanding that these offences will not be ignored by society or thatforgiveness by one spouse will not put an end to the offence. [73] This passage was reproduced in whole or

part in R. v. Gill, 2014 BCCA 88 and last year in in R. v. T.E.C., 2015 BCCA43 in which the Court of Appeal commented: The jurisprudence of this country has long recognized the uniquely emotional and malevolent nature of domestic assaults and theinherent dangers they present, not only to the victims but to public interests as well. [74] The Crown relies on R. v. Gill, 2007 BCSC 1216, in which Masuhara J. upheld a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment for anassault causing bodily harm to a spouse. In that case, the accused was a 50-year-old longshoreman with a criminal record. He was analcoholic.

He inflicted a protracted beating on his spouse. The victim sustained a black eye, a small cut to her head, abrasions to herknees and scalp, and bruised ribs. [75] The sentencing judge, Provincial Court Judge Baird Ellan, imposed a 15-month jail sentence, which Mr. Gill appealed. As theCrown had proceeded summarily, he argued that the maximum sentence ought to be reserved for the worst offender in the worst kind ofoffence. The appellate court upheld the 15-month jail sentence. It was Mr. Gill's third conviction for spousal assault.

He also had aprevious conviction for assaulting another female family member. [76] Justice Masuhara referred to s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which enumerates spousal abuse as an aggravating factor. Herejected the offender's submission that the maximum sentence in

summary conviction offences is reserved for the worst kind of offender. In finding the sentence fit, Masuhara states at paragraph 20, in part: . . . The authorities express the duty of the courts to protect the vulnerable and unprotected against domestic violence. Denunciation bythe courts of such conduct through appropriate sentencing is critical to this object. [77] The Crown also relies on R. v. Akan, 2012 BCPC 3. In that case, Mr. Akan pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm, afterpunching his spouse in the face in their home.

She suffered an acute facial fracture, which the court accepted as a very serious injury. Still, the victim was a "very reluctant witness". [78] Mr. Akan was a 44-year-old aboriginal offender to whom the Gladue factors applied. He had an extensive criminal recordextending over a 22-year period. [79] In imposing sentence, Judge Ball, as he then was, gave paramountcy to the sentencing principles of denunciation and protectionof the public. Given the violent nature of the offence, Judge Ball determined a fit sentence was 16 months' jail, followed by 18 months'probation.

[80] The Crown further relies on R. v. Smith, a 2014 decision of the B.C. Provincial Court. In that case, Mr. Smith pleaded guilty toassault causing bodily harm and threatening his spouse, as well as to property and breach offences. The Crown proceeded summarily. [81] Mr. Smith and the victim had been cohabitating for approximately four years. Their household included four young children,who were present in the home at the time of the assaults and threats. Both the offender and the victim were addicted to crack cocaine. [82] In one offence, Mr. Smith choked his spouse to the point she nearly lost consciousness.

The following day, he punched her inthe jaw and head, and kicked her in the arm. The next day, he slammed her into a screen door and punched her in the jaw and head. Three days after that, he encouraged their two-year-old son by saying, "Choke Mommy out." [83] The victim's injuries consisted of a lump and swelling to her head, and bruising to her arms, back, and legs. [84] Judge Challenger commented at paragraph 19 that she was entitled to consider the nature of the harm done to the victim, andany sentence imposed should be increased to reflect the principle of retribution, as distinct from vengeance. [85] Mr.

Smith was a 33-year-old aboriginal offender to whom the Gladue factors applied. He had a criminal record with two priorconvictions for spousal assault, as well as for other offences. He was on bail at the time of the offence. All of his criminal offencesoccurred while he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The sentencing judge had before her a psychiatric report indicating Mr.Smith was at a high risk for spousal assault. [86] In imposing a sentence of nine months' jail, Judge Challenger commented: In cases of spousal assault, deterrence, both general and specific, and denunciation must be the paramount considerations in imposingsentence.

Section 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code states that it is an aggravating factor where the accused in committing the offenceabused his spouse or child. A custodial term is normally required, especially in cases where there has been bodily harm. Where theassaultive behaviour is repeated or persistent, a lengthy term may be warranted; R. v. Inwood (1989), (ON CA), 48C.C.C. (3d) 173 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Weekes, [1990] B.C.J. No. 1897 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Julian, [1990] B.C.J. No. 2775 (B.C.C.A.). [87] In Smith, as in the present case, the Crown relied on R. v.

Wallace, (BC CA), 17 B.C.A.C. 27 and R. v.Akan, 2012 BCPC 31 . [88] With respect to the Gladue factors, Challenger found the mitigation arising from the accused's experience as an aboriginalperson is outweighed by the seriousness of the offence. She said: [44] I find that Mr. Smith engaged in an ongoing pattern of control and degradation of his intimate partner. His conduct is consistentwith an all too common pattern of violence followed by apology and remorse followed by escalating emotional abuse and then furtherviolence.

He was able to maintain a relationship with his victim by manipulating her emotionally by threatening to commit suicide if sheleft him or threatening to take the children. In this matter, the assaults over the timeframe in the count were brutal and repeated. Theyoccurred in the presence of children. The threat to choke Ms. J. to death and the coaching of their child to repeat that threat is particularlyabhorrent. [45] This is clearly a case in which denunciation and general deterrence must be given significant weight. Mr.

Smith, unfortunately,has entrenched addictions and longstanding emotional issues which have caused him to act out as he did with Ms. J. and his previouspartner. His property and breach offences also result from his substance abuse. I conclude that his prospects for rehabilitation will belimited until such time as he embraces the need for significant and long-term intervention both with respect to trauma and substanceabuse. [89] Judge Challenger went on to find Mr. Smith to be a danger to any female with whom he may become intimate, and said atparagraph 46: . . . Mr.

Smith is wholly responsible for his conduct, although the responsibility for his condition lies, to a great extent, at the feet of hissociety. Defence's submission on sentence [90] Mr. Thomas attributes his assault on Tamara Morgan to his binge drinking and substance abuse. In his submissions,Mr. Thomson said that on the December 18, 2015 assault on Ms. Morgan was triggered by Mr. Thomas learning that Ms. Morgan hadcalled the police. [91] In the presentence report, Mr.

Thomas told Probation Officer Su he wanted to go to the New Life Treatment Centre inKamloops, and then return to Fort Nelson First Nations Reserve to engage in traditional values and beliefs. [92] At the sentencing hearing on March 1, 2016, Mr. Thomas wanted to return to Fort Nelson Reserve community. [93] The defence argues that Mr. Thomas has spent enough time in jail. Mr. Thomson proposes that Mr. Thomas be released andreturn to the Fort Nelson Reserve, subject to a probation order. Mr. Thomas intends to reside on the Fort Nelson Reserve with his38-year-old sister, Annabelle Bertrand. [94] Ms.

Bertrand addressed the court by telephone. She told the Court about herself and the Fort Nelson First Nation Reserve. [95] The Fort Nelson Reserve is a 15-minute drive from the Town of Fort Nelson. Ms. Bertrand lives on the reserve with her twosons, ages 11 and eight. She lives in a duplex. Her neighbour is a child care worker in the employ of the Band's Social ServicesDepartment. Ms. Bertrand also has other neighbours close by in a four-plex which is fully occupied. [96] Ms. Bertrand and Mr. Thomas's father, Edward Thomas, his sister, Shelly Thomas, and brother also live on the reserve.

[97] Ms. Bertrand depends on a cellphone. She does not have a landline, but there are landlines on the reserve, including one at hersister's residence. [98] Ms. Bertrand works full-time on the reserve for the community school. [99] She does not permit alcohol or drugs in her home. [100] Mr. Thomas's father and brother are also both sober. [101] She says there is a lot of support on the reserve from people trying to live a healthy and better lifestyle. [102] Although the reserve community has gas bars and convenience stores, it has no place to buy liquor.

The Band does not allow thesale of liquor or its delivery to the reserve. Public intoxication or liquor consumption is prohibited. [103] Ms. Bertrand says the Fort Nelson First Nations Reserve has a Health and Wellness Department. They provide support for theyouth and have a youth programs coordinator. Youth include anyone under the age of 30.

The youth coordinator arranges for youth togo hunting and fishing, among other things. [104] The Fort Nelson First Nations community also has three counsellors who provide drug and alcohol counselling. [105] The community has a justice department that assists people with court documents and referrals. They could assist ShaneThomas should he have related problems. [106] The Town of Fort Nelson has an RCMP Detachment. This detachment includes a First Nations constable who comes to thereserve, who Ms. Bertrand says she sees about twice a day. His name is Constable Craig.

The First Nations constable has an office inthe community. [107] Ms. Bertrand welcomes Shane Thomas into her home upon his release. [108] Ms. Bertrand confirms she would contact the police if Mr. Thomas were not to comply with the terms of his release. [109] Ms. Bertrand further confirms that both Mr. Thomas's brother and father welcome him home. They would include him in theirtraditional lifestyle, which includes hunting and trapping. [110] Ms. Bertrand says that there are educational and training opportunities for Mr. Thomas on the reserve. There, he couldcomplete Grade 12.

It also has a trades centre, where Mr. Thomas could obtain training in trades, such as welding. [111] Mr. Thomson argues that if further jail is required on the offence of assault causing bodily harm, then it should be in thecommunity, subject to a conditional sentencing order. [112] In considering whether a CSO (a conditional sentence order) is appropriate, it is important to note the Crown proceededsummarily. In such a case, the maximum sentence for assault causing bodily harm is 18 months.

Hence, it is open to the court to giveconsideration to a conditional sentence order, pursuant to s. 742.1 of the Code. [113]

Section 742.1 of the Code provides for the possibility of a conditional sentence as follows: 742.1 If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, forthe purpose of supervising the offender's behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community,subject to the conditions imposed under

section 742.3, if (

a) the court is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would beconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2; (

b) the offence is not an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment . . . [114] R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, sets out the principles to be applied under s. 742.1 as cited by JudgeYoung in R. v. Hildebrandt, 2015 BCPC 130 in paragraphs 62 to 66: [62] Firstly, a CSO is intended to address both punitive and rehabilitative objectives. The court in ordering a CSO generally includespunitive conditions that restrict the offender's liberty.

Therefore, conditions of house arrest or strict curfews should be the norm. [63] Secondly, the safety of the community not being endangered is merely one of the three prerequisites for imposing a conditionalsentence and is not the primary consideration. In considering the danger to the community, a judge must consider the risk of theoffender re-offending and the gravity of the damage that could ensue. In the case of violent offenders, a small risk of very harmful futurecrime may warrant a finding that this prerequisite has not been met.

The danger that the offender might pose may be reduced to anacceptable level through imposition of appropriate conditions. [64] Thirdly, a conditional sentence can provide a significant amount of denunciation, particularly when onerous conditions are imposedand the term of the sentence is longer than would have been imposed as a jail sentence.

Generally, the more serious the offence, thelonger and more onerous the conditional sentence would be. [65] Fourthly, a conditional sentence can also provide significant deterrence if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and judgesshould be wary of placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a conditional sentence and incarceration.However, Proulx, supra, does acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which the need for deterrence will warrant incarceration.

[66] Lastly, while aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender increase the need for denunciation and deterrence, aconditional sentence may be imposed even if such factors are present. [115] In R. v. Jilg, 2010 BCSC 1476 , the offender appealed the custodial sentence of 12 months imposed following hisconviction for assault causing bodily harm to his spouse. Mr. Jilg struck her on the face and head. At one point, he broke off the assaultwhen third parties interceded, but then restarted his attack with renewed vigour. He also forcefully propelled her into the wall and left.

The victim suffered significant injuries to her face and head. Mr. Jilg had no criminal record and argued the incident was out ofcharacter for him. [116] The trial judge concluded a conditional sentence was not appropriate because the accused's lack of insight and inability tocontrol his temper rendered him a danger to the public. On appeal, the appellate court substituted a conditional sentence for 12 months,after finding the trial judge had failed to consider whether the danger to society posed by Mr. Jilg could not be reduced by the impositionof appropriate conditions. Mr.

Jilg, unlike the accused, had no prior criminal record. Justice Rogers considered Proulx and found that aconditional sentence order was suitable in the circumstances. He was satisfied that Mr. Jilg had committed an isolated offence and thatstringent conditions would limit the risk he posed to the community. The appellate court then imposed a conditional sentence of 12months on the accused with a number of conditions, including a curfew. Additional authorities [117] In R. v.

Donnelly, 2010 BCSC 1786, the offender was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment on the assault causing bodilyharm, and one week concurrent for the assault on his young son, and probation for three years. The defence sought a conditionalsentence of between nine and 12 months. [118] Mr.

Donnelly had a shopping list of mitigating factors, including: a. he was 37 years old with no criminal record; b. he was qualified in a trade and had worked at that trade consistently; c. he had complied with his maintenance obligations since the breakdown of marriage; d. he had significant roots in the community and respect of friends and neighbours; e. he had suffered considerable stigma in the community already; f. he recognized the effect that his misuse of alcohol had on his conduct and had taken steps on his own to obtain professional help todeal with that issue; g. he had taken and completed a course in anger management; h. he was, at all times, cooperative with the police; i. he had been on bail without incident since his release in February 2009; j. he had pled guilty at the first opportunity once the precise nature of the charges had been resolved; k. he was remorseful; and l. there was no suggestion of a pattern of abusive conduct towards his spouse and this event, while not minimized, appeared to be anaberrant act. [119] The aggravating factors which the sentencing judge took into consideration in rejecting a CSO were those present in the casebefore me: m. the offender assaulted his wife in her home; n. the assault caused serious harm to her; and o. the assault was committed in the presence of the parties' two young children. [120] Justice Joyce reduced the nine months to six months.

Four months' time had already been served and he likely would have beeneligible for statutory release. Probation was reduced to one year. Both the sentencing judge and the appellate judge rejected aconditional sentence order, and from paragraph 28: [28] Spousal assault is a very serious matter, and a sentence for a serious spousal assault must impress upon the offender and othersthe abhorrence with which society ought to view violence committed a person's home. All persons have a right to feel safe within theirhome, from their spouses as well as from strangers.

If it is to act as a deterrent to others, the sentence for a serious spousal assault mustimpress upon others who might be inclined to engage in similar conduct that, if they are convicted, they will receive a punishment that ismore than simply a partial denial of one's liberty. [121] At paragraphs 32 and 33 of that decision: [32] It is my view that conditional sentence in this case would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and generaldeterrence.

A conditional sentence that would enable the offender to carry on with his daily life, going to work, watching his television,sleeping at home, subject perhaps to a curfew forcing him to remain in his home during the evening and night-time hours, would not, in

my view, send the message that spousal assaults are considered serious. Even a condition akin to house arrest would not, in my view,serve as an adequate deterrent. [33] In my view, this case demanded a sentence that informs others that if a spouse allows a domestic dispute to develop into physicalviolence, that spouse will face serious consequences. I believe that a sentence of incarceration was appropriate. [122] Gladue factors were not part of the consideration in the Donnelly decision. [123] In Gladue and Ipeelee the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted s. 718.2(

e) as it applies to sentencing aboriginal offenders. Thesentencing judge is statutorily obliged to consider the unique systemic and background factors which may have played a

part in bringingMr. Thomas to the court, as well as types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate because of his aboriginalheritage. [124] Mr. Thomas is a status Indian and a member of the Fort Nelson Slavey First Nation. He says his mother and grandparentsattended residential school. [125] In Ipeelee, the Supreme Court summarized the principles expressed in Gladue at para. 59: [59] The Court held ... that s. 718.2(

e) of the Code is a remedial provision designed to ameliorate the serious problem ofoverrepresentation of Aboriginal people in Canadian prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorativeapproach to sentencing ... It does more than affirm existing principles of sentencing; it calls upon judges to use a different method ofanalysis in determining a fit sentence for Aboriginal offenders.

Section 718.2(

e) directs sentencing judges to pay particular attention tothe circumstances of Aboriginal offenders because those circumstances are unique and different from those of non-Aboriginaloffenders ... When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, a judge must consider: (

a) the unique systemic or background factors which mayhave played a

part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts; and (

b) the types of sentencing procedures andsanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage orconnection ... Judges may take judicial of the broad systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people generally, butadditional case-specific information will have to come from counsel and from the pre-sentence report ... [126] Mr. Thomas is not required to establish a causal connection between the systemic and background Gladue factors and thecommission of the offences before the court.

In Ipeelee, the Supreme Court of Canada states at 83 that it would be extremely difficultfor an Aboriginal offender to ever establish a direct causal link between his circumstances and his offending.

The interconnections aresimply too complex. [127] In considering a fit sentence, I will do as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is to take judicial notice of thehistorical background of Canada's aboriginal peoples such as colonialism, displacement, and residential schools, and how it continues totranslate into a manner of social impoverishment such as on the educational front, income, and employment disadvantages, and higherrates of substance abuse, suicide, and higher levels of incarceration. [128] The presentence report indicates that Mr.

Thomas suffers all these disadvantages: he has yet to complete high school; he isunemployed; he suffers from substance abuse; he has attempted suicide; and now he is incarcerated. Specific considerations for youthful first offenders [129] Mr. Thomas is a young man, 23 years old. Even then, he strikes me as a very young 23-year-old. [130] Still, it is relevant that Mr. Thomas is a youthful offender to this sentencing hearing. In R. v.

Nakamura, 2012 BCSC 327, Justice Romilly said (at para. 73): [73] Thus, in the case of youthful offenders, the principle element for consideration, consonant with the maintenance of publicconfidence in the effective enforcement of the criminal law, should be the offender’s reformation and rehabilitation: R. v.Morrissette(1970), (SK CA), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 307 (Sask. C.A.) per Culliton C.J.S. at para. 11. [131] Nakamura is a case involving two young men, younger than Mr. Thomas, they were 18, charged with robbery and aggravatedassault.

Justice Romilly went on to state, at paragraph 74: [74] When considering sentencing options for a youthful offender, a court's first question is to ask whether a suspended sentence withprobation would not be a suitable sentence for the offender, and for the offence R. v. Beacon and Modney (1976), (AB CA), 31 C.C.C. (2d) 56 (Alta. S.C. App. Div.) per Sinclair J.A. at para. 8. [132] Donnelly indicates that such a sentence is not available in the circumstances, even for a youthful offender.

A suspendedsentence with probation is not suitable in the circumstances of this case. [133] I quote from paragraph 77 of Nakamura: [77] It is a general principle of sentencing that before imposing a custodial sentence on a first offender, the court should carefullyexplore the other dispositions available. A custodial sentence should only be imposed in cases where the circumstances are such or thegravity of the offence is such that no other sentence is appropriate: R. v. Biron (1991), (QC CA), 65 C.C.C. (3d) 221(Que.

C.A.) per Rothman J.A. [134] The circumstances of the offence in this case are grave: p. an unprovoked assault on Mr. Thomas's spouse; q. The attack left Tamara Morgan, a young woman, with a disfiguring facial scar, which can only be repaired through cosmetic surgery

which she manifestly has no money to pay for; r. The assault was done in the presence of their children. The assault resulted in all four of Ms. Morgan's children being apprehendedand taken into care. s. Mr. Thomas was on bail at the time for assaulting this very same victim. In order to be released from the offences charged on July 2,2015, Mr. Thomas agreed he would leave Ms. Morgan's presence when she asked him to do so, and that he would not be around her ifthey were drinking. This seemingly meaningless promise had the very tragedy the court tried to avoid by those conditions. t. The assault happened while Mr.

Thomas and Ms. Morgan were intoxicated. Mr. Thomas had just been to the Round LakeResidential Treatment Centre in Vernon prior to the assault for treatment; u. Although Mr. Thomas attacked Ms. Morgan in an uncontrollable rage, he seemed to have the wit to run off when a bigger manstepped in the fray to stop him. Mr. Thomas denied that he did anything and ran off; v. Mr.

Thomas blames his intoxication for the offence and cowers behind the shield of, "I don't remember what I did, I was essentiallytoo intoxicated." [135] Outside his early guilty plea, there is not much in this incident that justifies anything less than a custodial sentence. Back to Nakamura. [136] In paragraph 75 of Nakamura, Justice Romilly says: Even for youthful offenders, where the offence is serious or violent, deterrence to others should be the prime consideration taken intoaccount, even where the offender is young: R. v.

Campbell (1981), (BC CA), 64 C.C.C. (2d) 336 (B.C.C.A.); R. v.Gonidis (1980), (ON CA), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 90 (Ont. C.A.); and R. v. Ouellette (1990), (NBCA), 105 N.B.R. (2d) 222 (C.A.). [137] Finally, in paragraph 76, he states: [76] In R. v. Quesnel (1984), (ON CA), 14 C.C.C. (3d) 254 (Ont.

C.A.), Thorson J.A. stated at 255: There can, of course, be no quarrel with the proposition that from time to time a judge sentencing a convicted person, particularly ayouthful one as in this case, should indeed “take a chance” on such a person by exercising leniency in circumstances where leniencymight not otherwise appear to be called for.

In our opinion, however, there must be some factor present in this case before the sentencingjudge that is sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief on his part, going beyond a mere hope, that the leniency proposed to be extendedholds some prospect of succeeding where other dispositions available to him may fail.

Whether the factor present is an indication of remorse, a glimpsed change in attitude on the part of the convicted person, or some othersign or signal that the convicted person may have learned something beneficial from his or her past and present encounters with thecriminal justice system, there must be something positive weighing in his or her favour which can be looked on to support the judge’schosen course of action. [138] The question now is should this court take a chance on Mr. Thomas? Mr. Thomas strikes me as inchoate. He has yet tocomplete his education.

Although the Fort Nelson Band assisted him in obtaining some vocational tickets, he did not use those assets tosecure a place for himself in the workplace. It seems that, up to now, he has resided with women who have taken care of him. Althoughhe has fathered children, he has not donned the mantle of parental responsibility. [139] Mr. Thomas wishes he could take back his actions. He wants to turn back time, but knows this is something he cannot do. Henow wants to retreat to Fort Nelson, into his sister's care. [140] I have determined the appropriate sentence for the offences to which Mr.

Thomas has pled guilty by taking into considerationthe oral submissions of the Crown and defence in the context of the goals, principles, and objectives of sentencing, as set out in ss. 718through 718.2 of the Criminal Code. I have considered the presentence report. I have considered the information provided by AnnabelleBertrand. I have considered the case authorities to which the Crown referred, as well as a few others that I have mentioned. I haveconsidered Mr.

Thomas's personal characteristics, his aboriginal ancestry, his lack of criminal record, his youthful age, his bail status atthe relevant time, his guilty pleas, his remorse, and his conduct since arrest. [141] I have paid particular attention to the Gladue factors and I am satisfied that those factors, both systemic within society andspecific to Mr. Thomas, may have played a role in his criminal behaviour. [142] Before I pass sentence, I am just inviting counsel, is there something that I have said that you feel that I have somehowmisunderstood the evidence that was led? [143] MS.

JOHNSTON: No, Your Honour, thank you. [144] MR. THOMSON: No, Your Honour, thank you. [145] THE COURT: All right. Then Mr. Thomas, can you stand up here. [146] Mr. Thomas, with respect to Information 26183-1-K, I find that Tamara Morgan has reasonable grounds to fear that you willcause injury to her and that cause is made out for a recognizance pursuant to s. 810. You will therefore be subject to a recognizance,without deposit or sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and such other conditions as I will later go through.

[ 147 ] With respect to Information 26183-2-KA, with respect to the breach of undertaking given to Judge Gray on August 11, 2015, with respect to failing to remove yourself from Tamara Morgan's presence when she asked you to do so, I will sentence you to one month in jail, concurrent with any other sentence imposed today. As you have served more than that time in jail, this sentence has been served. [ 148 ] With respect to Information 26316-1-K, assault causing bodily harm on Tamara Morgan on December 18, 2015, this is the sentence that troubles me the most.

This is the offence which forced me to ask myself, should I take a chance on you, Mr. Thomas? I have decided I will. Your remorse, which I accept is heartfelt, has won you this leniency, and whether it is apparent to you or not, the justice system does care about you. [ 149 ] If allowing you to go back to Fort Nelson to find your lost self will accomplish that goal, than that is what we are going to do, but it will be on very strict terms. You cannot go back to reclaim your lost childhood, because you are no longer a child. We want to reclaim you for society.

We want you to be a good and responsible adult citizen of this country. This involves becoming educated, trained, working, caring for and supporting your children, and participating in your community in a meaningful and responsible manner. [ 150 ] In that regard, I am of the view that a 12-month conditional sentence is appropriate, less the time served in custody, followed by a 12-month probation order. [ 151 ] You have been in jail now for close to 78 days, and which means that you have a presentence credit of 117 days, approximately four months.

This will mean that the conditional sentence order will be for eight months, the terms of which I will set out in a moment. [ 152 ] Following the completion of the conditional sentence order, you will be on probation for a further 12 months on terms which I will describe. [ 153 ] Assault causing bodily harm is a designated offence.

I will make a DNA order, as requested by the Crown. [ 154 ] As you hunt and trap with your father, I will not make a discretionary firearms prohibition and none is sought. [ 155 ] The terms of conditional sentence order will be as set out below. [ 156 ] You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 157 ] You shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [ 158 ] You shall report in person to a conditional sentence supervisor no later than Monday at four o'clock, at the probation office at 208 - 350 Barlow Avenue in Quesnel, B.C., and you shall thereafter report as and when directed by the supervisor, in the manner directed by the supervisor. [ 159 ] You shall remain within the jurisdiction of the court, unless written permission to go outside the jurisdiction is obtained from the court or supervisor, and that includes going to Alberta, which people tend to do up in the Fort Nelson area. [ 160 ] You shall 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. [ 161 ] You shall be released today into the custody of your sister, Chivonne Squinas.

You will reside at her residence at [omitted for publication], Quesnel, B.C. except for the purposes of attending at the probation office in Quesnel, and for the purposes of travelling between Quesnel, B.C., and Fort Nelson, B.C. [ 162 ] In Fort Nelson, you will reside with Annabelle Bertrand at [omitted for publication].

You shall not change your address at any time without first obtaining the written consent of your supervisor. [ 163 ] Your probation officer must approve in writing your travel arrangements from Quesnel to Fort Nelson, B.C. [ 164 ] You shall obey all rules and regulations of your residence. [ 165 ] For the first three months of this conditional sentence order, you will remain in your residence, or the lot on which your residence is located, at all times, except between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m., or such other two-hour period as is approved in writing by your conditional sentence supervisor. [ 166 ] You may be outside your residence, Mr.

Thomas, at any time with the written consent of the conditional sentence supervisor, obtained in advance. Such consent is to be given only for: w. compelling personal, family, or employment reasons; x. when travelling directly to, or returning directly from, your place of employment; or y. while in the course of employment.

You shall provide the supervisor with written proof of employment; z. while travelling directly to or directly from an educational institution in which you are enrolled; or aa. while in the course of classes or extracurricular activities approved by the supervisor at such educational institution. You shall provide the supervisor with written proof of your educational enrollment, your attendance at class, and your involvement in extracurricular activities; bb. in the company of Annabelle Bertrand or such other adult as approved by the supervisor; and

cc. in the event of a medical emergency, and only when travelling directly to or returning directly from the hospital emergency ward. [ 167 ] Upon the expiration of the three-month term of house arrest, as set out above, you shall obey a curfew by being inside your residence, or on the lot on which your residence is located, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day, except as follows: dd. with the written consent of the supervisor, obtained in advance, such consent to be given only for compelling personal, family, or employment reasons; ee. when travelling to or from, directly from your place of employment, or while in the course of your employment.

You shall provide the supervisor with written proof of employment; ff. when travelling directly to or returning directly from an educational institute at which you are enrolled, or while in the course of classes or extracurricular activities approved by the supervisor.

You shall provide the supervisor with written proof of your educational enrollment, your attendance at classes, and your involvement in extracurricular activities; and/or gg. in the event of your own medical emergency, and only when travelling directly to or returning from a hospital emergency ward. [ 168 ] So for the first three months you are going to be under house arrest. You can only leave in those certain circumstances.

After three months, you are still going to be subject to a curfew to the end of your conditional sentence. [ 169 ] You shall present yourself at the door of your residence when any peace officer or supervisor attends there for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew/house arrest conditions of this order. [ 170 ] You shall respond personally and immediately to the telephone when a peace officer or your conditional sentence supervisor makes a telephone call to your residence for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew/house arrest conditions of this order. [ 171 ] You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Tamara Morgan, except as follows: hh. pursuant to a Family Court order which would include the purposes of arranging, facilitating, or exercising your access to your children; ii. through legal counsel; jj. while in attendance at court. [ 172 ] You shall not attend at or be within 50 metres of any place you know to be the residence, school, or workplace of Tamara Morgan, except as pursuant to a Family Court order. [ 173 ] You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or marijuana or controlled substances within the meaning of s. 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except prescribed by your physician. [ 174 ] You shall not enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, pub, bar, lounge, or other business premises from which minors are excluded by the terms of their liquor licence. [ 175 ] You shall not possess any weapon as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code , except for when engaged in lawful hunt and trapping within your traditional aboriginal communities, [ 176 ] You shall attend, participate in and successfully complete any assessment, counselling, or program as directed by the supervisor.

Without limiting the general nature of this condition, such assessment, counselling, or program may include and relate to: kk. anger management; ll. alcohol or drug abuse; mm. spousal abuse; nn. a full-time attendance program for alcohol or drug abuse; oo. such full-time attendance as directed by the conditional sentence supervisor, and you shall comply with all the rules and regulations of any such assessment, counselling, or program. [ 177 ] You must carry a copy of this conditional sentence order with you at all times when you are in public.

If you are stopped by a peace officer for any reason, you shall immediately provide the peace officer with a copy of this document without being requested to do so. [ 178 ] Following the expiration of this conditional sentence order, you will be on a year probation with very similar terms, except for the house arrest. [ 179 ] You will keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 180 ] You will appear before the court when required to do so, and you will notify the probation officer in advance of any change of name, and you will promptly notify the court or probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. [ 181 ] You will have to reside at a residence approved in advance by the probation officer, and you will not change your residence at

any time without first obtaining the written consent of the probation officer. [ 182 ] Within 72 hours after completing your conditional sentence order, you will report in person to the probation officer at the location nearest to the place of your residence at the time, and after that you will report as and when directed by the probation officer. [ 183 ] You will also be on a curfew for the purpose of your probation order, you will remain in your residence, or the lot on which your residence is located, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. each day, with the exceptions I set out before in the previous conditional sentence.

You can be out with the consent of your probation officer obtained in advance; travelling directly to or from your employment, or your educational institution where you are enrolled, or in extracurricular activities connected to that educational facility; or in the event of emergency. [ 184 ] You will have to present yourself at the door of the residence when any peace officer or probation officer attends there to ensure your compliance with the curfew. [ 185 ] You shall respond personally and directly to a telephone when a peace officer or probation officer makes a telephone call to your residence for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew conditions. [ 186 ] You will still be subject to the no-contact order that I described before with respect to Tamara Morgan.

Your contact will be limited to that allowed by court order, through legal counsel, or attendance at court. [ 187 ] Again, under the probation order as under the conditional sentence order, you will not attend within 50 metres of any place you know to be the residence, school, or workplace of Tamara Morgan, except as provided in a Family Court order. [ 188 ] You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or marihuana, or any controlled substance within the meaning of s. 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . [ 189 ] You will not go into any liquor store or any other liquor outlet, number 124 on the probation order. [ 190 ] You will carry a copy of the probation order with you. [ 191 ] You shall not possess any weapon as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code except those that are necessary for you to engage in hunting or trapping in his traditional aboriginal territories. [ 192 ] You are to attend and successfully complete any assessment, counselling, or program that your probation officer may require, including anger management, alcohol and substance abuse, spousal abuse, a full-time attendance program, and you will comply with all the rules and regulations of those assessments or programs. [ 193 ] You will carry a copy of your probation order with you at all times in public, and if you are stopped by a peace officer, for any reason, you will immediately provide the peace officer with a copy of your probation order once that is in force. [ 194 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051(3) (

b) of the Criminal Code , I make an order in the Form 5.04, authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances by any peace officer for the Province of British Columbia that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and registration, from Shane Adrian Jamie Thomas by May 31, 2016. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)