R. v. Paradis, 2016 BCPC 354

Citation: R. v. Paradis 2016 BCPC 354 Date: 20161107 File Nos: 34310-1K, 34310-2-KA, 33546-1-B Registry: Williams Lake IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. CARMEN EARL SHANE PARADIS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.T. DOULIS Counsel for the Crown: C. Los Counsel for the Defendant: B. W. Smith Place of Hearing: Williams Lake , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 26, 2016 Date of Judgment: November 7, 2016 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on October 28, 2019. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] On October 26, 2016, Carmen Earl Shane Paradis pled guilty of the following four offences: Information 34310-1-K Count 1: Carmen Earl Shane Paradis, on or about the 21 st of June, 2016, at or near Williams Lake in the Province of British Columbia, without lawful authority, confined Marlee Duncan, contrary to s.279(2) of the Criminal Code . Count 2: Carmen Earl Shane Paradis, on or about the 21 st of June, 2016, at or near Williams Lake in the Province of British Columbia, did knowingly utter threats to Marlee Duncan to cause her death or bodily harm contrary to s. 264.1(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . Information 34310-2-KA Count 1: Carmen Earl Shane Paradis, from the 18 th day of July, 2016 to the 29 th day of July, 2016, at or near Williams Lake in the Province of British Columbia, having been released pursuant to

Section 515 of the Criminal Code , did fail to comply with a condition of an undertaking or recognizance by failing to report as directed, contrary to Section 145(3) of the Criminal Code. Information 33546-1-B Count 1: Carmen Earl Shane Paradis, on or about the 15 st of July, 2016, at or near Williams Lake in the Province of British Columbia, was at large without lawful excuse before the expiration of a term of imprisonment to which he was sentence, contrary to Section 145(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES Information 34310-1-K (unlawful confinement and uttering threats) Crown’s Submissions as to the Circumstances of the Offence [ 2 ] On June 21, 2016, at 9:40 p.m., the Williams Lake RCMP received a 911 call reporting a domestic assault in a motorhome at 200 Hummingbird Drive, Williams Lake, B.C. The caller said Mr. Paradis had been beating up Marlee Duncan for the past three hours and they had both come into her residence, screaming and throwing things around at one another. [ 3 ] The police responded to the complaint.

While approaching the motorhome, the police could hear loud arguing. One of the responding officer observed Mr. Paradis standing over a female, subsequently identified as Marlee Duncan, with his fist cocked back as if he was about to hit her. The officer could hear Ms. Duncan saying “No”. The police arrested Mr. Paradis for assault. [ 4 ] Marlee Duncan provided an audio statement in which she said that she and Mr. Paradis were drinking whiskey and snorting Tylenol 3s until Mr. Paradis turned against her.

She says for the following two hours he hit her up to 70 times, choked her and threatened to kill her if she tried to leave. Ms. Duncan said at one point she attempted to leave through the window of the motorhome, but Mr. Paradise pulled her back by the hair and continued the assault. [ 5 ] The attending officers noted Ms. Duncan had bruising and swelling on her face. Defence’s Submissions as to the Circumstances of the Offence [ 6 ] Mr. Paradis and Ms. Duncan established an intimate relationship four or five months before the offence. She is much younger than Mr.

Paradis and liked to party, drink whiskey and take pills. Because he is usually working, Mr. Paradis does not engage in these sorts of activities. In order to continue to be with Ms. Duncan, Mr. Paradis “went along” and tried going down the party path, something he acknowledges was a bad decision on his part. [ 7 ] Mr. Paradis has very little memory of the offences. He is not sure why he engaged in drinking and taking T3s with Ms. Duncan on the evening of June 21, 2016, as it had been his intention to end the relationship. Defence counsel says that although Mr. Paradis does

not deny the offence, the forensic evidence suggests that Ms. Duncan was hit far less than the 70 times she alleged. Nevertheless, Mr. Paradis was stunned by what he had done while under the influence of the toxic brew of drugs and alcohol. He said it opened his eyes. He does not blame Ms. Duncan for the incident giving rise to these offences and takes responsibility for the offence with his guilty plea. Information 34310-2-KA (failing to report as directed) [ 8 ] On June 22, 2016, Mr. Paradis was released on a recognizance of bail, entered into before the Honourable Judge Morgan.

The following day, on June 23, 2016, Mr. Paradis reported to the bail supervisor at the Williams Lake Community Corrections office. On July 15, 2016, he reported to his bail supervisor in person. He was ordered to report again one time during the week of July 18 to 22, 2016, which he failed to do. Information 33546-1-B (unlawfully at large) [ 9 ] On June 15, 2016, Mr. Paradis pled guilty to driving while his driver’s licence was suspended contrary to Section 234(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act.

I sentenced him to a $500 fine and 14 days imprisonment to be served intermittently from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:p.m. on consecutive weeks beginning on Friday, July 8, 2016, at the Williams Lake RCMP Detachment. On Friday, July 15, 2016, Mr. Paradis failed to attend the Williams Lake RCMP detachment for his weekend sentence scheduled to begin that day at 5:00 p.m. [ 10 ] Mr. Paradis has an explanation as to why he failed to report to his bail supervisor for his second weekend of his intermittent sentence. He had his 20 year old daughter living with him around that time.

She began using speed, crack cocaine and crystal meth. He told her she had to leave his home if she was going to continuing to use these streets drugs because they could trigger his own addictions. She left and disappeared and has not been seen since. There was an ongoing search for her whereabouts. Her disappearance was weighing so heavily on his mind Mr. Paradis failed to attend to his own responsibilities. Circumstances of the Offender [ 11 ] Mr. Paradis is 46 years old and a member of the Esketemc First Nation, of the Secwepemc (Shuswap) people, located at Alkali Lake, B.C.

He has a Grade 7 education and grew up principally in Williams Lake. Mr. Paradis attributes his history with the criminal justice system, in part, to growing up watching his parents drink and fight. His mother went to a residential school near Sugar Cane Reserve. Alcohol, drugs and violence were prominent in his home life. [ 12 ] In addition to his 20 year old daughter who went missing, Mr. Paradis also has a teenage son who resides with his mother on the Sugar Cane Reserve. When not in custody, Mr. Paradis sees his son regularly. He is proud his son has never been in trouble.

In order to be a better parent to his son, Mr. Paradis decided he should attend a residential treatment centre. Prior to his arrest and detention he was working with Victoria Scott at the Three Corners Health Services Society. Three Corners provides both traditional and contemporary health care services to members of the Secwepemc First Nations. Mr. Paradis has never been to treatment. His offences against Ms. Duncan convinced him he needs treatment and he is committed to attending the Round Lake Treatment Centre in Kamloops, B.C. [ 13 ] Mr.

Paradis is regularly employed in highway construction with Lake Excavating. He understands he is able to return to that employment after his release. [ 14 ] Mr. Paradis is also skilled in art. His pen and ink drawings are hanging in various galleries throughout B.C. He wants to continue to pursue his art but most of all, he wants to break the cycle of drugs, alcohol and jail. Criminal Record [ 15 ] Mr. Paradis has a criminal record extending back to 1986. His most recent conviction was on June 15, 2016, at which time he was sentenced to 14 days jail to be served intermittently. Mr.

Paradis has ten convictions for driving offences (including impaired driving); seven convictions for theft under $5,000; two convictions for obstructing a peace officer; two convictions for assault; and one conviction for escaping lawful custody. For his March 9, 2011 conviction for assault, Mr. Paradis was sentenced to six months in custody less 16 days time served. It appears this assault, which occurred on February 21, 2011, was a “K” file, an administrative term used to designate cases involving domestic violence.

Victim Impact Statement [ 16 ] The Court has not been provided with a Victim Impact Statement Crown’s Position on Sentence [ 17 ] With respect to Information 34310-1-K, which charges Mr.

Paradis with the unlawful confinement of and uttering threats to Marlee Duncan, the Crown is seeking a term of imprisonment of six to nine months, followed by 18 months’ probation, an ancillary DNA Order and a s. 110 discretionary firearms prohibition for five years. [ 18 ] With respect to Information 34310-2-KA (failing to report as directed), the Crown seeks 14 days in jail to be served concurrently with the jail sentence imposed for the offences of unlawful confinement and uttering threats charged under Information 34310-1-K. [ 19 ] With respect to Information 33546-1-B (unlawfully at large), the Crown seeks a 45 day jail sentence to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed on Informations 34310-1-K and 34310-2-KA.

Pre-sentence custody

[20] Mr. Paradis has been in custody since September 24, 2016. He also has two additional days in custody from his arrest anddetention in June 2015. As of today, November 7, 2016, Mr. Paradis has served 47 days in custody. The Crown agrees Mr. Paradisshould receive enhanced credit for the time served, based on R. v. Summers, 2004 SCC 26. Credit for his time in pretrial custody will becalculated on a one point five to one basis, for a total of 68 days. Defence’s Submissions on Sentence [21] The Defence substantially agrees with the range of sentencing proposed by the Crown.

The Defence argues that for theoffences of unlawful conferment of and uttering threats to Marlee Duncan, the jail sentence ought to be closer to six months than nine. Applicable Legislation Maximum and Minimum Terms of Imprisonment [22] The Crown has proceeded summarily in all the offences before the Court.

In such circumstances, the offences of utteringthreats (264.1 (1)) and unlawful forcible confinement (279)(2) each attract a maximum term of imprisonment of 18 months; the offencesof breach of recognizance (s. 145(3) and being unlawfully at large (s.145(1)(b)) each attract a maximum term of imprisonment of sixmonths. None of the offences during the material time attracted a minimum jail sentence. Purpose and principles of sentencing [23]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code, sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is to contribute, along with crimeprevention initiatives, respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, by imposing just sanctions, to haveone or more of the following objectives:(

a) denunciation; (

b) deterrence; (

c) protection of the public; (

d) rehabilitation of the offender;(

e) reparation to victims; and (

f) promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. [24] In R. v. Berner, 2013 BCCA 188 , Madam Justice Ryan stated at §9: “The purpose of sentencing is to protect the publicthrough sanctions a court imposes upon a person found guilty of committing an offence.” [25]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code codifies the proportionality principle, which requires the sentence to be proportionate to thegravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In R. v.

Safarzadeh-Markhali, 2016 SCC 14 states, inpart at paras 70-71: Proportionality in the sense articulated at s 718.1 of the Code — that a sentence be proportionate to the gravity of an offence and anoffender’s degree of responsibility — is a fundamental principle of sentencing . . . proportionality is “the sine qua non of a just sanction”.It is grounded in elemental notions of justice and fairness, and is indispensable to the public’s confidence in the justice system. [26] The gravity of the offence refers to what the offender did wrong.

It includes two components: (1) the harm or likely harm to thevictim; and (2) the harm or likely harm to society and its value: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 , at para. 130. [27] Other important sentencing considerations are also set out in

section 718.2: a.

Section 718.2(

a) states a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigatingcircumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

Section 718.2(a)(ii) indicates that “evidence that the offender, in committing theoffence, abused the offender’s spouse or common law partner is deemed to be aggravating circumstances. A criminal record,particularly a lengthy record, is typically an aggravating factor because it shows a person conducting himself in a manner contrary to thelaw for an extended period of time. On the other hand, an early guilty plea is generally a mitigating factor. b.

Section 718.2(

b) codifies the parity principle which requires a sentence to be similar to sentences imposed on similar offendersfor similar offences in similar circumstances. c.

Section 718.2(

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

Section 718.2(

d) codifies the restraint principle which holds that “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictivesanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances”; and e.

Section 718.2(

e) also codifies the restraint principle which holds that “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that arereasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginaloffenders.” In R. v. Gladue, (SCC), and R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 , the Supreme Court of Canada hasinterpreted s. 718.2(

e) as it applies to sentencing Aboriginal offenders. The sentencing judge is statutorily obligated to consider theunique systemic and background factors which may have played a

part in bringing the aboriginal offender before the court, as well as thetype of sentencing procedures and sanctions that may be appropriate, because of his aboriginal heritage. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [28] The aggravating factors in this case include: a. With respect to Information 34310-1-K (unlawful confinement and uttering threats): i. Ms. Duncan was Mr. Paradis’ common-law partner at the time of the offences and therefore in a position of trust;

ii. The offences against Ms. Duncan occurred over a three hour period; iii. Ms. Duncan was injured; iv. Mr. Paradis has a lengthy record extending back to 1986, which includes two prior convictions for assault, the last being inMarch 9, 2011, and that one against a domestic partner; b. Information 34310-2-KA (failing to report as directed), Mr. Paradis has a prior conviction on July 16, 2007, for breaching a courtorder; c. With respect to Information 33546-1-B (unlawfully at large), Mr. Paradis has a previous conviction for escaping lawful custodyon July 20, 1992; and e.

With respect to all the charges before the Court, Mr. Paradis has a lengthy criminal record. His last conviction was on June 15,2016, for driving while disqualified. [29] With respect to all offences for which Mr. Paradis is being sentenced today, the most significant mitigating factor is his earlyguilty plea. An early guilty plea is particularly mitigating in a case involving domestic violence because it spares the victim having totestify in court and the further trauma of reliving the offence. [30] With respect to the offences for breach of a recognizance and unlawfully at large, I accept that Mr.

Paradis was distraught overthe disappearance of his daughter which likely caused him to overlook his own obligations to report to his bail supervisor and the RCMPdetachment for his intermittent sentence. [31] In considering a fit sentence, the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue and Ipeelee directs the sentencing judge to take judicialnotice of the historical background of Canada's aboriginal people, such as colonialism, displacement, and residential schools, and how itcontinues to translate into all manner of societal impoverishment such as on the educational front, income and employmentdisadvantages, and higher rates of substance abuse, suicide, and higher levels of incarceration.

Mr. Paradis has provided evidenceindicating he suffers from many of these disadvantages commonly referred to as Gladue factors. His mother went to a residential schoolnear the Sugar Cane Reserve. Drugs, alcohol and violence have plagued his life since he was a young boy. He has only Grade 7education; he suffers from substance abuse; he has a lengthy criminal record; he never met his daughter until she was 18 years old, andnow she has disappeared. I am satisfied that those factors, both systemic within society and specific to Mr. Paradis, have likely played arole in his criminal behaviour.

Authorities Considered [32] Neither the Crown nor the Defence provided the Court with any case law in support of their position. I reviewed andconsidered a number of authorities for guidance on the appropriate sentence for the offences of unlawful confinement and utteringthreats in the context of domestic violence. Unlawful Confinement and Uttering Threats [33] R. v. Fagg, 2015 BCSC 1694 , is a recent decision of Mr. Justice A. Saunders. After a four day trial, Mr.

Fagg wasconvicted of one count of uttering threats of death or bodily harm, contrary to s. 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code; one count of assault,contrary to s. 266(a); and one count of unlawful confinement contrary to s. 279(2). The circumstances were more serious than those inthe case before me and the Crown proceeded by indictment, although the offender was a young man without any significant criminalrecord. Nevertheless, Mr. Fagg showed no remorse, no sympathy and no insight into his behaviour. [34] Mr. Justice A.

Saunders imposed a global sentence of one year imprisonment allocated as follows: for the offence of utteringthreats, a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment; in respect of assault, a concurrent sentence of six months' imprisonment; and in respectof unlawful confinement, a concurrent sentence of 12 months. The term of imprisonment was followed by 24 months’ probation. [35] In R. v.

Snelgrove, 2005 BCCA 51 , the offender was convicted of unlawful confinement and assault with a weapon forbreaking into the home of his common-law spouse, confining and assaulting her for about 30 minutes in the presence of their four monthold baby. He was high on cocaine at the time. The sentencing judge imposed a jail sentence of four years for the confinement and oneyear concurrent on the assault. The Court of Appeal reduced the jail sentence for the confinement to 18 months, but added 18 months’probation, in part, because the offender did not receive expected treatment in prison for his drug addiction.

A significant factor in Mr.Snelgrove’s case was that he had a previous conviction for a serious incident of kidnapping, extortion, and forcible confinement forwhich he ultimately received a 10 year jail sentence. [36] Fagg and Snelgrove were considered by the Saskatchewan Court of the Queen’s Bench in R. v. Mackinnon, 2016 SKQB 64. In Mackinnon, the 42 year old offender was convicted of assault and unlawful confinement of his former common-law spouseas well as with breach of probation.

Dawson J. states, at para. 28: The offence of unlawful confinement and assault constitute grave and serious offences. [37] After considering a number of authorities from across Canada, Dawson J. sentenced Mr. MacKinnon to eight months jail inrelation for unlawful confinement and three months consecutively for assault followed by two years’ probation. [38] In R. v. Rahaman, 2008 ONCA 1 , the first time offender pled guilty to unlawful confinement, assault, and carrying a

weapon for the purpose of committing an offence. All these offences were committed against his former girlfriend. The sentencingjudge rejected the Defence’s submission for a Conditional Sentence Order, and instead, imposed a sentence of nine months in jailfollowed by two years’ probation. In upholding that sentence, Watt, J.A, for the unanimous Court of Appeal stated at para. 46, in part: [46] In cases involving violence arising out of an existing or failed domestic or romantic relationship, the predominant sentencingobjectives are denunciation and deterrence. . .

Further, sentences imposed must promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and anacknowledgement of the harm done, not only to the immediate victim, but also to the community at large. In cases like this, thelikelihood of enduring psychological trauma to the victim from the irrational, controlling and obsessive nature of the misconduct issignificant. [Citations omitted] . . . [49] . . . Unlawful confinement, brandishment of a weapon and assault will not be tolerated as acceptable methods to rekindle a flaggingromantic relationship. [39] Rahaman was considered in Fagg and R. v.

Vignjevic, 2016 BCSC 475 , both of which are decisions of the B.C.Supreme Court for offences tried in Williams Lake, B.C. In Vignjevic, Justice Abrioux cited Rahaman for the principle that thatdenunciation and deterrence are the predominant objectives in sentencing where there is “violence arising out of an existing or faileddomestic or romantic relationship.” [40] For his convictions for unlawful confinement uttering threats, Mr. Paradis can expect a denunciatory sentence that not onlyprotects Ms. Duncan and his other potential victims, but also to denounce crimes of violence in domestic relationships: see R. v.

K.S.C.,2015 BCPC 199 . [41] In R. v. Oxford, 2010 NLCA 45 , the Newfoundland Court of Appeal held that a period of six months imprisonmentwas a fit sentence for unlawful confinement in circumstances involving domestic violence. [42] In R. v. Antle, (NL PC), the 51 year old offender was convicted of assault, assault with a weapon, unlawfulconfinement and uttering threats against his common-law partner. These offences occurred one evening while the offender and victimhad been drinking. They began to argue and the argument escalated culminating in the offender committing the offences charged.

TheCrown proceeded by way of indictment on all counts. The victim was injured but not hospitalized. [43] Mr. Antle had a criminal record, but not for violent offences. His criminal record consisted primarily of driving relatedoffences, crimes of dishonesty, public disturbances and breaches of court orders. Judge Goulding held the sentences for unlawfulconfinement can range from five or six months for less severe cases and up to three years in more extreme cases. The sentencing judgerelied on R. v.

Crocker, (NLCA), in which the Newfoundland Court of Appeal commented “that while sentences foruttering threats to cause bodily harm can range up to one year it is frequently the case that the sentence is often served concurrently foroffences committed in conjunction with the threat.” [44] Mr.

Antler received a combined sentence of 18 months imprisonment, allocated as follows: for the assault, aggravated bychoking, a seven month jail sentence; for the unlawful confinement, a five month consecutive jail sentence; assault with a weapon asentence of six months consecutive jail sentence; uttering threats a sentence of three months concurrent to the six months imposed forassault with a weapon. A period of two years’ probation followed his jail sentence. [45] In R. v.

Bullerwell, 2016 BCSC 1024 , the offender was sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by 18 months'probation after having been found guilty of breach of recognizance and uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm. Madam JusticeFleming upheld the sentence on appeal. In R. v. K.S.C., 2015 BCPC 199 , Judge Giardini discusses the principles regarding abreach of recognizance at paras. 82 and 83: [82] In this regard, both counsel referred to a case submitted by the Crown, R. v.Seaward, [2003] N.J. No. 307. It is a decision ofJudge Gorman of the Newfoundland Provincial Court.

In that case, the court reviewed the nature of breach orders and noted thefollowing. [83] It is important that court orders be respected. It is critical that offenders not breach court orders or their undertakings to the courtwhile on release. The proper administration of justice and the public's confidence in the administration of justice depends on compliancewith such orders. When such orders are breached, courts must stress the sentencing principles of specific and general deterrence.

Thesetype of offences strike at the heart, purpose, and intent of our criminal justice system because they rob the victims of any sense ofsecurity that the court might provide through such orders. These types of offences make the court look impotent. [46] It is for this reason that breaches of court orders ordinarily attract a consecutive rather than concurrent sentence otherwise thereis no punishment for the breach. [47] In R. v.

Tulk, (NLSCTD), the Offender was sentenced to 90 days for assault on his spouse; 90 days forunlawful confinement; and 60 days for a secondary assault all to be served concurrently and intermittently with 18 months’ probation andancillary orders to follow. Justice Whalen set out the following non-exhaustive list of factors a sentencing judge ought to consider in adomestic assault case: a. How violent was the assault or what degree of force was used? b. Was a weapon involved? c. Were there serious or any lasting injuries or any injuries?

d. For what length of time did the assault continue? e. Was this an isolated incident? [ 48 ] In considering the fit sentence with respect to the offences of unlawful confinement and uttering threats perpetrated against Marlee Duncan charged under Information 34310-1-K, the evidence indicates: a. the violence did not occur in the presence of children; b. no weapon was used; c. the incident was prolonged - over a three hour period; d. although not trivial, Ms. Duncan’s injuries were not lasting.

Although they did required treatment, they did not require her hospitalization; e. there was no evidence the violence was symptomatic of a pattern of abuse which Mr. Paradis repeatedly visited upon Ms. Duncan; and f. the incident appears to have been the spawn of an alcohol and drug fuelled evening of high risk entertainment to which both parties were willing participants. [ 49 ] In considering the appropriate sentence, I have taken into consideration the submissions of counsel, the principles of sentencing set out in the sections 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the case authorities referred to above.

I have considered Mr. Paradis’ personal circumstances, his aboriginal ancestry, his criminal record, his guilty pleas and his desire for rehabilitation. I have also considered it significant that in most respects, the Crown and Defence’s positions on sentence formed a joint submission. DISPOSITION [ 50 ] For the offence of uttering threats as charged under Count 1 of Information 34310-1-K, I sentence Mr. Paradise to a term of imprisonment of six months. [ 51 ] For the offence of unlawful confinement as charged under Count 2 of Information 34310-1-K, I sentence Mr.

Paradise to a term of imprisonment of six months. [ 52 ] For the offence of breach of an undertaking as charged under Information 34310-2-KA, I sentence Mr. Paradise to a term of imprisonment of 14 days. [ 53 ] For the offence of being unlawfully at large as charged under Information 33546-1-B, I sentence Mr. Paradise to a term of imprisonment of 45 days. [ 54 ] All jail sentences I have imposed today will be served concurrently. [ 55 ] Mr.

Paradis is entitled to 68 days of pre-sentence credit, which leaves him 112 days left on his jail sentence. [ 56 ] With respect to Counts 1 and 2 of Information 34310-1-K, these are the charges of unlawful confinement of and uttering threats to Marlee Duncan, following Mr.

Paradis’ release from jail there will be an 18 month period of probation on the terms set out below. [ 57 ] You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 58 ] You shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [ 59 ] You shall notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name, or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. [ 60 ] Within 72 hours after completing your jail sentence you shall report in person to the probation office located at Suite 100 - 640 Borland Street, Williams Lake, B.C. and after that you shall report as and when directed by the probation officer. [ 61 ] When first reporting to the probation officer you shall inform him/her of your present residential address and phone number, and you shall not change your address or phone number at any time without first providing written notice to your probation officer. [ 62 ] You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Marlee Duncan except by further order of this Court. [ 63 ] You shall not attend at, or be within 50 meters of any place which you know to be the residence, school, or workplace of Marlee Duncan except while on a highway in a moving motor vehicle in transit to somewhere else. [ 64 ] You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or controlled substances within the meaning of

Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except prescribed for your use by a physician. [ 65 ] You shall not possess any weapon as defined in

Section 2 of the Criminal Code . [ 66 ] You shall not possess any knife outside of your residence except for the immediate preparation or eating of food, or for purposes directly and immediately related to your employment.

[67] You shall attend, participate in and successfully complete any assessment, counselling, treatment program or other program asdirected by the probation officer. Without limiting the general nature of this condition, such assessment, counselling or program mayinclude and relate to: (

a) anger management (

b) alcohol or drug abuse (

c) spousal abuse prevention (

h) such full-time attendance program as may be directed by the probation officer and you shall comply with all rules and regulations of any such assessment, counselling or program. [68] Pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(

b) of the Criminal Code, I make an Order in Form 5.04 authorizing the taking of the number ofsamples of bodily substances by any peace officer for the Province of British Columbia that is reasonably required for the purpose offorensic DNA analysis and registration from Carmen Earl Shane Paradis by December 15, 2016 [69] You are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device,ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for five years. ________________________ J. T.

Doulis Provincial Court Judge Province of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM – Released October 28, 2019 [1] In the Reasons for Sentence dated November 7, 2016, paragraph 45 is corrected as follows: [45] In R. v. Bullerwell, 2016 BCSC 1024 , the offender was sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by 18 months'probation after having been found guilty of breach of recognizance and uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm. Madam JusticeFleming upheld the sentence on appeal. In R. v.

K.S.C., 2015 BCPC 199 , Judge Giardini discusses the principles regarding abreach of recognizance at paras. 82 and 83: [82] In this regard, both counsel referred to a case submitted by the Crown, R. v.Seaward, [2003] N.J. No. 307. It is a decision ofJudge Gorman of the Newfoundland Provincial Court. In that case, the court reviewed the nature of breach orders and noted thefollowing. [83] It is important that court orders be respected. It is critical that offenders not breach court orders or their undertakings to the courtwhile on release.

The proper administration of justice and the public's confidence in the administration of justice depends on compliancewith such orders. When such orders are breached, courts must stress the sentencing principles of specific and general deterrence. Thesetype of offences strike at the heart, purpose, and intent of our criminal justice system because they rob the victims of any sense ofsecurity that the court might provide through such orders. These types of offences make the court look impotent. ______________________________ The Honourable Judge J.T. Doulis Provincial Court of British Columbia