R. v. Rempel, 2023 BCPC 113

Citation: R. v. Rempel 2023 BCPC 113 Date: 20230412 File No: 35767-1 Registry: Dawson Creek IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. CALVIN JAXON REMPEL ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.P. MacCARTHY Counsel for the Crown: N. Theriault Counsel for the Accused: G. Stasiuk Place of Hearing: Dawson Creek , B.C. Date of Hearing: April 12, 2023 Date of Sentence: April 12, 2023

Introduction [ 1 ] THE COURT: Calvin Jaxon Rempel is before the court. He is charged on the single count on Information 35767-1 that on or about the 20th of August, 2021, at or near Dawson Creek, British Columbia, in committing the assault of a Kody Puge, he did cause bodily harm to Kody Puge contrary to s. 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code . This matter was set for trial on today's date, however, as a result of discussions between Crown counsel and Defence counsel, the matter has been resolved without the necessity of a trial. Therefore, pursuant to s. 606(4) of the Criminal Code , Calvin Jaxon Rempel has maintained his innocence and plea of not guilty with respect to Count 1, but does plead guilty to the lesser included offence of common assault of Kody Puge.

Hereinafter, I will refer to Kody Puge as the “Complainant” and I will refer to Calvin Jaxon Rempel as the “Offender”. [ 2 ] The task of this court is to determine a fit sentence for the Offender with respect to the entered plea of guilty to common assault of the Complainant. Crown seeks a suspended sentence for the Offender with 12 months of probation. Defence seeks a conditional discharge for a period of between 12 and 18 months. Facts and Circumstances of the Offence [ 3 ] The Crown's recitation of the circumstances surrounding this offence are not significantly in dispute.

On August 20, 2021 in the early morning of that day, the Offender, with some younger friends, attended at a residence of another friend in Dawson Creek. The Offender was not consuming any substances as he was the designated driver. The others were drinking. He was sober. One of the people accompanying the Offender was a Mr. F. whom I understand at that time was a youth and the Offender at that time was aged 19. Mr. F. (hereinafter the “Youth”) entered into the residence followed by Mr. Rempel.

The Youth was apparently looking to acquire some vaping juice from the supply of the owner of the residence and which the Youth believed was in the owner’s possession. Upon the arrival of the Youth and the Offender there were approximately 10 to 15 people in attendance at the house party. Shortly after arriving at the house party the Offender came into contact with the Complainant, Kody Puge.

I am given to understand that the Offender and the Complainant were of approximately the same age and the same stature. [ 4 ] The Crown circumstances indicate that the Offender and the Complainant knew each other, but did not necessarily have a history of animus between them. However, it has been made clear in the recitation of the circumstances that the Offender knew of the Complainant as a result of the fact that the Offender's then girlfriend (and now his partner with the plans to be married), and was the former girlfriend of the Complainant.

As a result of comments apparently made on a repeated basis by the Offender's girlfriend to him, about the mistreatment she had endured at the hands of the Complainant, the Offender knew about the Complainant. [On Record Discussions About Audio Issues and Their Required Resolution] [ 5 ] THE COURT: Also, the Offender had an unsatisfactory opinion about the Complainant. The Complainant and the Offender engaged in an argument which then proceeded into a physical altercation.

The Offender admits that he struck the first blow, but says he and the Complainant were standing face to face and that the blow that he landed apparently was in the Complainant’s facial area and not from behind the Complainant; following that first blow there were other subsequent blows administered by the Offender to the Complainant.

That resulted in the Complainant falling to and remaining on the ground and thereafter being apparently unable to defend himself against the Offender’s further blows. [ 6 ] At that point, the Youth arrived on the scene and took the opportunity to become engaged in the physical altercation by stomping on the head and facial area of the now prone Complainant. That resulted in some significant injuries to the Complainant. Those were described as a broken jaw requiring hospitalization and at least a couple of surgeries. During the course of his recovery, the Complainant had his jaw wired.

The Offender gave a statement to the police in which he admitted the assault, but denied that he was the cause of bodily harm to the Complainant. Parenthetically, I note that the Youth, who was at that time a youth for the purposes of the criminal justice system, apparently pled guilty to common assault with respect to the Complainant, at a separate and earlier sentencing. [ 7 ] The Complainant was given an opportunity to provide a victim impact statement. No victim impact statement has been provided to Crown.

Hence, there is little indication as to what continuing results may have flowed from the injuries sustained during the altercation. Specifically there is nothing specific in the circumstances about either financial loss or continuing problems other than to say the Crown has indicated that the Complainant did recover from the injuries sustained at that time. [ 8 ] The Offender is a young man who, as indicated above, was 19 at the time of this offence. He comes before this court without any criminal record. He was raised in the Dawson Creek area where he obtained his high school graduation.

He comes from a large family who have a farm outside of Dawson Creek. That farm continues to be run as a family farm business following the passing of the Offender's father some six months after the events that bring the Offender before this court. The Offender has been both a worker on the farm and continues to provide assistance to his brother who is running the family farm. [ 9 ] However, the Offender has used his experience of operating heavy equipment on the farm to secure employment in the pipeline construction industry.

That pipeline construction is camp work, such that he is in town for approximately two weeks and out of town for approximately two weeks on a rotation basis. He and his present partner (being his girlfriend at the time of the offence) have a child together. They have plans of becoming married in the not-too-distant future. The Offender, therefore, has a very positive prosocial background. He has a very exemplary work record for a young person.

He has plans which may see him continue on with an apprenticeship in the field of plumbing, which is the field in which his father was qualified, prior to his passing. [ 10 ] In the Offender's direct submissions to the court during this sentencing hearing he indicated that he was highly regretful and remorseful for his participation in this event and acknowledges his fault by starting the fight. I take it from his statements to the court, he certainly seems to be sincere in that regard and he has significant insight into the significant injuries that were sustained by the Complainant.

Again in that regard, he expresses his remorse. The Crown's Sentencing Position

[ 11 ] Crown indicates that denunciation and deterrence should be the prime focus of any sentence in this matter and submits that this court should impose the suspended sentence for a period of 12 months which is available under s. 731(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . Mitigating and Aggravating Factors Identified by Crown [ 12 ] In that regard, Crown relies upon a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. In terms of mitigating factors, Crown accepts that it is mitigating that a guilty plea has been entered with respect to this particular offence before the court. That plea has spared the court time and resources and also the need for the Complainant to have testified in court. However, it is noted by Crown that the guilty plea was proffered very late in the day.

It is also mitigating that the Offender is a young man now age 21 and furthermore he comes before this court with no criminal record. [ 13 ] With respect to aggravating factors, Crown says that the complainant in this matter received very significant injuries which took some significant time to recover. Also, it is noted that, during the recovery, there were at least two periods of hospitalization. It is also aggravating, says Crown, that at the time of this offence, the Offender was sober while the Complainant had been consuming alcohol, thereby making him more vulnerable says Crown.

However, the amount of alcohol consumption and the degree of the Complaint’s level of impairment are not known. [ 14 ] Thus Crown submits that while specific deterrence and denunciation may be achieved by way of a conditional discharge, but in matters of this nature, it is important that general deterrence form part of the sentence in order to send a strong message to the community that physical altercations of this nature must be denounced by the community, such that there will be significant consequences for persons who are engaged in this type of criminal behaviour.

Defence's Position on Sentencing [ 15 ] Defence, of course, focuses on the rehabilitative aspects of sentencing. In that regard, it submits that the Offender should be granted a conditional discharge which is available under s. 730 of the Criminal Code . Defence points to the positive background of the Offender who has the support of his family, a prosocial life, the acceptance of new responsibilities in terms of parenthood, and the desire to improve himself through future training in the field of plumbing.

It is also submitted that in terms of rehabilitation, this Offender already has led a lifestyle which has reached the level of rehabilitation that is often sought for individuals who come before the criminal courts, and for whom rehabilitative sentences are sought. [ 16 ] It is not suggested that there is a specific impairment of job prospects for the Offender if he obtains a criminal record.

However, it is submitted that a criminal record certainly may have some general impairment with respect to future job prospects, especially if the Offender seeks to enter into and become a qualified tradesperson. [ 17 ] Defence points to the fact that the Offender was one of the few people who was apparently sober at the house party where the altercation took place. That demonstrates his responsibility by looking after others. Defence says that this offence must be viewed within a certain context, notwithstanding that it resulted in unfortunate injuries to the Complainant.

In particular Defence notes that the altercation was fueled by the Complainant’s past history of mistreatment of a person with whom the Offender was then in a romantic relationship and who has become the Offender’s intimate partner and fiancé. That of course is not a defence, but is suggested that it is an important context in which this offence occurred. Purposes, Objectives, and Principles of Sentencing [ 18 ] The purposes and principles of sentencing are found in s. 718 , 718.2 of the Criminal Code .

These sections codify those principles that plainly state the intention and rationale for imposing a particular sentence.

Section 718 of the Code outlines the fundamental purposes of sentencing as, and I quote: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 19 ]

Section 718.1 directs that: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 20 ]

Section 718.2 under the heading, "Other sentencing principles," states in part that: A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing … (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances,

including their health and financial situation … (

b) shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (c) . . . (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. [21] I note parenthetically that there is no information before me that the Offender or the Complainant were identified as beingIndigenous individuals or, as referenced in the Code, as being Aboriginal. Suspended Sentence [22] The British Columbia Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285 , [2015] B.C.J.

No. 1335; 2015BCCA 285, reviewed the nature of a suspended sentence and noted at paragraphs 19 and 20 as follows: Nature of the Suspended Sentence [19] Where no minimum sentence is required, the Criminal Code permits a court to suspend the passing of a sentence, rather thanimpose a sentence (s. 731(1)(a)), and to place a person on probation for a maximum of three years (s. 732.2(2)(b)). If an offender who ison probation is convicted of an offence, the suspension of the sentence may be revoked and the offender may be brought back before thecourt for sentencing.

At that point, the judge may impose any sentence that could have been imposed at the time the sentence wassuspended (s. 732.2(5)(d)). [20] If probation is ordered, the judge must impose certain mandatory conditions found in s. 732.1(2) and may also impose optionalconditions (s. 732.1(3)(a)-(g.2)).

Under s. 732.1(3)(h), the Court may also impose any other “reasonable condition … for protectingsociety and for facilitating the offender’s successful reintegration into the community”. [23] In Clayton Ruby's Sentencing, 8th edition (Ruby), at pages 334 to 436, the use of a suspended sentence and an accompanyingprobation order is canvassed in further detail. Ruby states that a suspended sentence and probation are especially useful in cases that donot require a period of incarceration for deterrence or denunciation.

The learned author notes that the imposition of a suspended sentenceis not confined to offences that do not require deterrence. The suggestion is made that where a suspended sentence and probation areimposed, general deterrence can be achieved because a period of imprisonment remains a possibility if the offender chooses to avoid thecontrols selected by the court for his rehabilitation. Thus, an offender who "chooses to avoid controls" by breaching may very well endup in prison (see Ruby, pages 434 and 435, paragraph 10.5). [24] Parenthetically, I note that Kelly J.A. in R. v.

Hudson, (1968), (ON CA), 2 CCC 43 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph11 opined that a suspended sentence could conceivably be more onerous than a sentence involving immediate imprisonment. Such mightbe the case if an offender were to breach in the last month of the probationary period and thus be exposed to serving a full termappropriate for the offence of which he was convicted notwithstanding that he had virtually completed the term of his probationsatisfactorily.

Ruby further notes a suspended sentence and imposition of probation is unlikely to be appropriate if any offender hasmany previous criminal convictions, there is previous criminal convictions, there is a sophisticated criminality, or there are very seriouscharges. [25] Notwithstanding the existence of such factors, they do not militate absolutely against the use of the suspended sentence and theimposition of probation (see Ruby, page 435, at paragraph 10.5).

Similarly, a suspended sentence may be appropriate even if probationhas not been successful in the past, especially if any previous probation was somewhat helpful.

In situations where the offender has beenon several probation orders with "discouraging results," the court should pause long and "have knowledge of grave and weighty mattersin mitigation, before trusting the offender with a further period of probation," noting further that while the community is well served bya factor of rehabilitation, it is also entitled to protection against the offender who "demonstrates that they are a bad risk." In support ofthis proposition, Ruby cites R. v.

Walker, 1981 3 A.CrimR. 200, at page 203 (See Ruby, page 435, at paragraphs 10.6). [26] Thus, Ruby notes that the most obvious use of a suspended sentence and a probation order is in the case of first offenders whohave committed crimes that are not too serious. In such situations, the court should explore other dispositions which are open to it andimpose a custodial sentence only where "the circumstances are such or the offence is of such a gravity that no other sentence can beappropriate" (see Ruby, pages 435-436, at paragraph 10.7).

The availability of a suspended sentence is statutorily permitted in thesepresent set of circumstances. Conditional Discharge [27] A conditional discharge is available under s. 730 of the Criminal Code and s. 730(1) sets out the requirements. Thoserequirements have been interpreted by the decision of our Court of Appeal in R. v. Fallofield, (1973) (BC CA), 13CCC (2d) 450. The statutory requirements are that the conditional discharge must be in the best interests of the accused and not contraryto the public interest. [28] Fallofield sets out several requirements with respect to the use of a conditional discharge.

An important thing is that it is notavailable in situations where there is a mandatory minimum sentence, which is not the situation in the present case. Fallofield indicates tous that the

section contemplates the commission of an offence, but there is nothing in the language that limits the offence to a technical ortrivial violation.

[29] Fallofield tells us that of the two conditions precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction, the first is that the court must considerthat it is in the best interests of the accused that he should be discharged either absolutely or upon condition. If it is not in the bestinterests of the accused, that of course, brings the consideration of a conditional discharge to an end. If it is decided that it is in the bestinterests of the accused, then that brings the next consideration into operation.

That second condition precedent is that the court mustconsider that a grant of the discharge is not contrary to the public interest. [30] Fallofield further indicates that the first condition would presuppose that the accused is a person of good character, withoutprevious convictions, and that it is not necessary to enter a conviction against the person or to deter him from future offences or torehabilitate him and that the entry of a conviction against him may have significant adverse repercussions. [31] In the context of the second condition, that is of public interest in the deterrence of others, Fallofield tells us that this conditionmust be given due weight, but it does not preclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions. [32] Fallofield also indicates that the discharge should not be exercised as an alternative to either probation or a suspended sentence.

Italso indicates that the court should not be utilizing the discharge provisions routinely in any particular offence that may give rise to anapparent lack of uniformity in the application of the discharge provisions. Fallofield also indicates that this lack of uniformity will bemore apparent than real and will stem from the differences and the circumstances of each case. Case Authorities Relies Upon by Defence [33] Defence has put before this court for consideration the following cases: (

a) R. v. Popovich, 2021 BCPC 278; and (

b) R. v. L.A., 2023 BCPC 12. R. v. Popovich [34] The Popovich decision is, in fact, one of my own. That decision is placed before this court for consideration given both thefactual circumstances in that case and the resulting disposition. Popovich also involved a young person, who at the time of the offencewas approximately 24 years of age and the complainant in that case was his romantic partner at age 21. The circumstances and theoffending behaviour of Mr.

Popovich were more egregious than the present case, both in terms of the fact that that it was a case ofintimate partner violence and the frequency of the violence. There were at least three occasions during which the Mr.

Popovich assaultedhis girlfriend and there were some significant injuries sustained by her. [35] The Popovich decision at paragraphs 61 to 75 canvassed a number of case authorities in which the issue of whether or not thesentencing court could or should consider whether or not the career prospects of the accused persons in those cases would besignificantly impaired by a criminal record. [see: especially R. v. R.A.R., 2016 BCJ No. 1959, 2016 BCPC 276 and R. v.

Ranspot, 2017BCPC 101 , 2017 BCJ No. 655; 2017 BCPC 101]. [36] In the Popovich case, the accused had started working as deck hand in the marine transport and tug boat industry in and aroundVancouver Island and across the border into the United States. It was accepted that a criminal record could significantly impair hisburgeoning career. At the end of the day, notwithstanding the concerning offending circumstances, a conditional discharge was grantedwith terms imposed upon Mr. Popovich for a period of 28 months.

There were multiple and significant conditions including counsellingand 40 hours of community work service. R. v. L.A. [37] The L.A. case is a decision of the Honourable Judge Doulis of our court. It involves a Youth Criminal Justice Act sentencing. TheL.A. decision is useful because of its extensive review of case authorities regarding the granting of conditional discharges in assaultcases. At paragraph 37, Judge Doulis specifically mentions and thereafter considers R. v. Kibangula, 2021 BCSC 1431, R. v. Manahan,2018 BCPC 332 and R. v. Smith, 2018 BCPC 266.

Several other cases are mentioned in paragraph 47, including Popovich, and thereafterare considered by Judge Doulis. Several of the situations in those cases involved individuals who came before the court with a priorconditional discharge and sometimes involving more serious assaults than occurred in the present case before me or were beingsentenced after a trial. At paragraph 47 Judge Doulis further noted that the court has granted a conditional discharge even in cases wherethe offences included assault causing bodily harm or assault with a weapon. [38] In particular, the decision of R. v.

Jassal, 2007 BCPC 231, which was a decision of Judge M.R. McMillan of our court, is usefulwhen considering the use of conditional discharges. That decision involved an offender who was charged with assault causing bodilyharm against his spouse. It occurred in front of the two-and-a-half-year-old daughter. The decision in Manahan cites and follows thefollowing passage from the Jassal decision: [46] The prerequisites for the imposition of a conditional sentence are set out in the case of R. v.

Fallofield [citation omitted] adecision of our Court of Appeal. [47] Those principles are usefully summarized in some of the cases provided by Ms. Tiwana. They are: R. v. Saunders, [1993] B.C.J.2887, a decision of our Court of Appeal allowing an appeal and substituting a jail sentence with a conditional discharge where the chargewas assault causing bodily harm; R. v. Carroll, [1995] B.C.J. 365, a decision of our Court of Appeal, where the Court in that casereiterated the principle that the public interest in general deterrence does not preclude a discharge; R. v.

Tone, [2003] B.C.J. 1688, adecision of Associate Chief Justice Dohm, where the accused pled guilty to an assault causing bodily harm and where the complainantsuffered very serious injury, a conditional discharge was imposed; and R. v. Bertuzzi, (ON CA), [2004] B.C.J. No.2692, a decision of my brother Judge Weitzel, where he imposed a conditional discharge in a case of an assault causing bodily harm inthe context of a hockey game.

[ 39 ] Other decisions in both Manahan and Jassal are cited as being examples in which a conditional discharge was granted even where significant injuries may occur. Analysis [ 40 ] I acknowledge the direction given to this court by higher courts such as our Court of Appeal, in R. v. T.E.C ., 2015 BCCA 43 which emphasise that denunciation and deterrence are extremely important factors in cases of this sort and in particular in domestic assaults.

I am mindful that there are some significant aggravating factors which have been mentioned by Crown in this case. [ 41 ] In particular, there are the injuries which were sustained by the Complainant.

However, as previously indicated, the absence of a victim impact statement leaves this court in some doubt as to the continuation of any ongoing problems which may have resulted from the injuries sustained by the Complainant and in particular which may have resulted from the blows struck by the Offender. [ 42 ] It is also a consideration that although it was the Offender in this case who threw the first blow, there is a strong possibility that the significant injuries that were sustained by the Complainant were actually at the feet of the Youth, who gratuitously stomped on the head and face of the prone Complainant. [ 43 ] I am also mindful and accept that there are significant mitigating factors which have been identified by Defence and which I have referenced above.

I am of the view that in this case that the Offender has a positive background, prosocial in nature, and hence, I accept that based on the information before me, the commission of the offence in this case was certainly out of character for the Offender. [ 44 ] I am also mindful that I do not have any specific evidence before me as to the potential of a negative impact on the Offender in terms of his future working career. [ 45 ] In that regard, I do note that the Popovich case canvassed those issues and that the conclusions reached followed the decision of Judge Gouge R. v. R.A.R ., [2016] B.C.J.

No. 1959, 2016 BCPC 276 . In that decision, Judge Gouge referenced the decision of Rothman J. in R. v. Moreau , [1992] J.Q. No. 1226 ; 76 CCC (3d) 18, which recognized the potential adverse effects of a criminal record on future employment prospects of an offender as a basis to grant a discharge. Specifically, Judge Gouge set out that proposition and then noted at the end of paragraph 26 of R.A.R. as follows: As I read that passage, Justice Rothman intended to make two distinct points: (

i) a conditional discharge may be granted, in an appropriate case, even if a criminal record would have no adverse effect on the employment prospects of the accused; and (ii) the court may draw an inference about the effect of a criminal record on the employment prospects of the accused even if there is no evidence on the point.

Justice Rothman’s conclusion on the second point is supported by the catalogue of authorities found in Hust at paragraphs 22 - 38. [ 46 ] I am also taking into account as a significant mitigating factor the direct submissions by the Offender to the court regarding his insight and his remorse for the injuries caused to the Complainant in this altercation. I do acknowledge that deterrence and denunciation, of course, apply both specifically and generally.

This is not, perhaps, the usual situation, but the effects of violence in our communities cannot be overlooked and must be considered to be of great concern to the communities and, hence, taken into account by courts in imposing sentences in matters of this nature. [ 47 ] However, I must also take into account the circumstances of the individual who is before me for sentencing. Clearly, for many reasons it is in the best interests for this young man to receive a conditional discharge. He has many positive prospects in front of him.

He has employment in pipeline construction and he has assumed responsibility for a young family. I am taking those factors into consideration plus the fact that he has no criminal history. Therefore I can conclude that this Offender deserves to be granted a conditional discharge and should be spared a criminal record that will arise from the imposition of a suspended sentence.

In my view, in this particular case and given all the circumstances that when sentencing this particular Offender for this offence, the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence may be achieved without imposing a suspended sentence. [ 48 ] I am going to get Mr. Rempel to please stand. Conclusions and Sentence Imposed [ 49 ] I am of the view that this is an appropriate case in which the tests laid out in R. v. Fallofield have been met and it thereby allows me to grant this Offender a conditional discharge. Therefore, I will be granting a conditional discharge to Mr. Rempel.

However, the terms are going to be relatively significant in nature, including some rehabilitative terms, all which will must be satisfied in order to gain the full benefit of that conditional discharge. [ 50 ] Mr. Rempel, I am going to grant you a conditional discharge. However, the terms of the conditional discharge that I am imposing upon you will be for a period of 18 months. I am going to outline the terms and conditions. I want you to listen carefully because these are court orders.

After I have read them out, I must get you to acknowledge to me that you understand all of them and, further, that you are going to follow all of those orders. Do you understand that? [ 51 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 52 ] THE COURT: Thank you. [ 53 ] So the standard terms will be as follows. [ 54 ] 2001: you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. You must notify the court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the officer of any change in employment or occupation.

[ 55 ] 2002: you must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with -- the full name of the complainant? [ 56 ] THE CLERK: Kody Puge. [ 57 ] THE COURT: Kody Puge, K-o-d-y, Puge, P-u-g-e. [ 58 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 59 ] THE COURT: No exceptions. [ 60 ] The no-go provisions, 2005-1: you must not go to or be within 50 metres of any place where Kody Puge lives, works, attends school, worships, or happens to be.

If you see them, you must leave their presence immediately without any words or gestures, no exceptions. [ 61 ] Reporting condition: you must report in person to a probation officer at Dawson Creek Community Corrections, 205 - 1201 103rd Avenue, Dawson Creek, B.C., V1G 4J2, telephone, 250-784-2288, toll-free, 1-877-248-6767, by 3:00 p.m. today, being April 12, 2023, and after that, you must report as directed by your probation officer. Such reporting may be by way of telephone at the direction of your probation officer. [ 62 ] 2106: your reporting ends when you have satisfied your probation officer that you: (

a) have completed all your community service work; (

b) completed all your counselling and treatment; and (

c) your officer has told you that you are no longer required to report. [ 63 ] Counselling 2501: you must attend, participate in, and complete any intake, assessment, counselling, or education program as directed by your probation officer. This may include counselling or programming for violence prevention. [ 64 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 65 ] THE COURT: 2509: you must complete 30 hours of community work under the direction of your probation officer.

Your community work service must be completed within 12 months of the date of this order. [ 66 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 67 ] THE COURT: 2512: any hours spent attending counselling under this order will result in a one-for-one reduction in your community work service hours. [ 68 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 69 ] THE COURT: I am of the view that those provisions are satisfactory. I just want to canvass with Crown whether there are any other suggestions with respect to any of the conditions that I have imposed upon Mr. Rempel? [ 70 ] CNSL N. THERIAULT: No, Your Honour. [ 71 ] THE COURT: All right.

I will ask defence the same thing, any practical problems? I do not want to find out, for example, that he and the complainant are working in the same business or -- [ 72 ] CNSL G. STASIUK: No. [ 73 ] THE COURT: -- attending in public locations together because the Complainant works in the only grocery store available to Mr. Rempel. [ 74 ] CNSL G. STASIUK: I don't think there's any submissions, Your Honour. They have avoided each other for -- since August of 2021, I believe. They have managed to do that -- [ 75 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 76 ] CNSL G.

STASIUK: -- and I will talk to him specifically about his obligations if he should encounter him on the street. [ 77 ] THE COURT: Thank you very much. All right. So, Mr.

Rempel, you have heard me read out all of those terms and conditions, have you, sir? [ 78 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour. [ 79 ] THE COURT: Okay, and you understand that those are court orders -- [ 80 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 81 ] THE COURT: -- and they are not simply an inconvenient suggestion to you; do you understand that? [ 82 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 83 ] THE COURT: In other words, all of that is something you must do? [ 84 ] THE ACCUSED: Yeah. [ 85 ] THE COURT: Is that a yes?

[ 86 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 87 ] THE COURT: Thank you, and you understand that if you were to breach any of the terms of your conditional discharge, that may result in further charges against you and that would possibly end all the advantages that you have obtained from receiving a conditional discharge and specifically not having a criminal record if you fulfill all the terms and conditions? [ 88 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 89 ] THE COURT: Do you understand that? [ 90 ] THE ACCUSED: Yeah. [ 91 ] THE COURT: Thank you. I am attending remotely but he is in the courthouse.

I expect that the court registry can prepare the form of the sentencing documents for him and he will be able to make his appointment today with the probation officer. I am assuming correctly? [ 92 ] THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honour. [ 93 ] THE COURT: Then that concludes the sentencing with respect to this matter. [ 94 ] Mr.

Rempel, I wish you well in continuing your pursuits both employment-wise and then, of course, being a new parent and fulfilling all your parental responsibilities in the years to come. [ 95 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you. [ 96 ] THE COURT: That concludes my sentencing with respect to this matter. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)