R. v. Manuge Date:, 2016 BCPC 68

Citation: R. v. Manuge Date: 20160209 2016 BCPC 0068 File No: 40503-1 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ANTHONY JEROME MANUGE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.T. DOULIS Counsel for the Crown: T. Lawrence Counsel for the Defendant: R. J. Climie Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Judgment: February 9, 2016 [ 1 ] THE COURT: On June 22nd, 2014, Anthony Jerome Manuge, (“Mr. Manuge), was charged by way of Information 40503-1,

[ 1 ] THE COURT: On June 22nd, 2014, Anthony Jerome Manuge, (“Mr. Manuge), was charged by way of Information 40503-1, with 19 offences. The Crown proceeded by indictment. [ 2 ] On July 29, 2015, Mr. Manuge entered a guilty plea and was convicted of Counts 1, 10, and 17 of Information 40503-1, as follows: Count 1: Anthony Jerome Manuge, on or about the 15 th day of May, 2014, at or near Prince George, in the Province of British Columbia, did without lawful excuse store a firearm in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons, contrary to Section 86(1) of the Criminal Code .

Count 10: Anthony Jerome Manuge, on or about the 15 th day of May, 2014, at or near Prince George, in the Province of British Columbia, did possess a prohibited device, “an over-capacity cartridge magazine”, other than a replica firearm, knowing that the was not the holder of a licence under which he may possess it, contrary to Section 92(2) of the Criminal Code .

Count 17: Anthony Jerome Manuge, on or about the 17 th day of April, 2014, at or near Prince George, in the Province of British Columbia, did knowingly utter or convey a threat to, or cause a threat to be received by, John Larlee, to cause death or bodily harm to Cpl. Warwick or a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, contrary to

Section 264.1(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] On July 29, 2015, the court requested a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric assessment pursuant to s. 721 of the Criminal Code . On October 9th, 2015, Probation Officer Jeffrey Grainger, prepared and filed with this Court his pre-sentence report with respect to Mr. Manuge. This report was marked as Exhibit 1 in the January 29th, 2016 sentencing hearing. [ 4 ] On October 27th, 2015, Dr. David Morgan, a consulting forensic psychiatrist for the Forensic Psychiatric Service Commission filed his report with the court.

This report was marked Exhibit 2 on the January 29th, 2016 sentencing hearing. [ 5 ] On January the 29th, 2016, at the sentencing hearing, Mr. Climie, counsel for Mr. Manuge, filed with the court the expert report of Dr. Dorothy Ryan, registered psychologist. This report is marked Exhibit 3 on the sentencing hearing. With the consent of Crown and defence, the Prince George RCMP major exhibit flowchart setting out the exhibits that had been seized by the RCMP in their investigation of this matter, was marked as Exhibit 4 on the January 29th, 2016 sentencing hearing.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [ 6 ] My findings of fact with respect to the circumstances of the offence and the offender have been gleaned from the submissions of counsel, the four exhibits filed in the January 29th, 2016 sentencing hearing and exchange of emails between Mr. Manuge and his brother, Dennis Manuge. [ 7 ] As I proceed and prior to passing sentence, I invite you to bring to my attention any reference I have made to a material fact which you say is inaccurate.

If I agree with you, it may influence my decision as to the appropriate sentence. [ 8 ] I will deal first with the criminal harassment and this is count number 17. [ 9 ] Mr. Manuge is 52 years old. He was an infantry man in the Canadian Forces for ten years, from the time he left high school in 1981, until he was honourably discharged in 1990. Following his discharge Mr. Manuge became a Microsoft certified systems engineer and thereafter steadily employed in the technology field. [ 10 ] Mr. Manuge suffers from a constellation of physical, mental, emotional and psychological maladies.

These include a severe shoulder injury, multi-level degenerative disc disease, debilitating chronic pain and fatigue, tinnitus, post-traumatic stress disorder, general anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. Some or all of these conditions occurred while Mr. Manuge was enlisted in the Canadian Forces. [ 11 ] Despite these significant medical issues Mr. Manuge carried on with his life. By 2004 his pain became such that Mr. Manuge could no longer work. He fell into debt and despair. He applied to Veterans Affairs for financial benefits, a process he found slow, frustrating and disappointing.

Eventually Veterans Affairs did provide Mr. Manuge with an earning loss benefit. [ 12 ] In March of 2014 Veterans Affairs withheld his benefit for two months when it discovered it had accidentally overpaid Mr. Manuge and reclaimed the overpayment in a single lump sum. Mr. Manuge's financial situation went from bad to desperate. [ 13 ] Mr. Manuge had appeared before the panel of the Veteran's Review and Appeal Board, which I am going to call the “VRAB”, and was dissatisfied with the outcome. On April 16th, 2014, at 8:04 p.m. in the evening, Mr.

Manuge sent an email to the VRAB chair, John Larlee, Veteran's Affair Director of Appeals and Legal Issues, Charles Keliher and the Ministry of Veteran Affairs, Julian Fantino. He copied his email to Veterans Affairs Ombudsman, Guy Parent, Member of Parliament, Peter Stoffer, Registered Psychologist, Julia Ting, and three others. In this email Mr. Manuge refers to the lack of response to his inquiries. He says that he is “done being jerked around, and time to make things right.” He asked Mr. Larlee and Mr.

Fantino to use their power to do the right thing for veterans. [ 14 ] He ends the email with the comment, "I am done being nice. My patience has run out. I am not about to take my own life." He includes in his email his own address and phone number. He also copied this email to his younger brother, Dennis Manuge. [ 15 ] Mr. Manuge's strife with Veterans Affairs is something he shared with Dennis Manuge, also a Canadian Forces veteran. In

2008 Dennis Manuge initiated a class action proceeding in relation to disability benefits as a result of injuries enlisted men sustain on duty. The certification of that class action was litigated up to the Supreme Court of Canada in Manuge v. Canada 2010 SCC 67 . The Supreme Court upheld the federal court certification order allowing the class action to proceed. In his interview with Dr. Morgan, Mr. Manuge said it took his brother eight years to get Veterans Affairs to recognize his disability. [ 16 ] Mr. Manuge acknowledged to Dr. Morgan that he and his brother fed off each other.

In fact, Dennis Manuge appears to have played a significant role in winding him up. [ 17 ] On April 16th in 2014, at 9:49 p.m., Dennis Manuge sent Mr. Manuge an email aggressively supporting his brother's efforts to obtain disability benefits from Veteran's Affair. In this email Dennis Manuge not only offers support, but denounces Veterans Affairs in the most inflammatory manner. [ 18 ] At one point in his email Dennis Manuge accuses Veterans Affairs and the VRAB of holding Mr. Manuge physical, mental, financial well-being hostage because of their sibling relationship.

Dennis Manuge copied this email to the same nine persons to whom Mr. Manuge had sent his email less than two hours earlier. [ 19 ] These people included John Larlee, Charles Keliher, Julian Fantino, and others. And I note that Dennis Manuge introduces into their dialogue the term "hostage". [ 20 ] On April 17th, 2014, at 1:25 p.m., Mr. Manuge replied to his brother's email, which he dutifully copied to the same nine recipients to whom he and his brother had sent the April 16th, 2014, emails. Mr.

Manuge wrote [as read in]: Dennis, These people are so dishonest they wouldn't understand the truth if it smacked them in the face. When it comes to rhetoric, Fantino, the conservative street gang, are the absolute master of that game. Remember, they put the "con" in conservative. Like I have said in the past, you are a kinder and gentler Manuge. For me the best defence is a good offence. Instead of being held hostage, it is time to start taking hostages.

My thoughts go to things like rolling into Charlottetown with the media so they can't kill us privately like they did Greg Matters, chaining all the doors shut and holding 1,100 VAC employees hostage for the long weekend. What can I say? It is my military training coming out. You know, all that shit we were brain washed with, that never goes away. BTW [I take to mean, by the way], that piece of shit Corporal Colin Warwick is still in Prince George, so if they send the RCMP to my door, I can likely get some payback for Greg. Unlike Greg, I am not afraid. I am trained and determined.

I am ERT's worst nightmare. [ 21 ] The reference to Charlottetown relates to the fact that Mr. Larlee and others in Veterans Affairs, or the VRAB, are located in Charlottetown on Prince Edward Island. [ 22 ] Greg Matters, to who Mr. Manuge refers in his email, was a Canadian Forces veteran fatally shot by the RCMP Corporal Colin Warwick on September 10th, 2012, in Prince George.

This incident was well-publicized and ultimately investigated by the Independent Investigations Office, which is responsible for conducting investigations into all officer-related incidents which result in a death or serious harm in the province. [ 23 ] Mr. Manuge included, at the bottom of his email, a link to the website, providing information with respect to the coroner's inquest into the death of Greg Matters. Mr. Manuge told Dr. Morgan he knew Greg Matters was murdered by the RCMP because he had seen the post-mortem report. [ 24 ] Shortly after sending the email reproduced above, Mr.

Manuge sent another email (at 2:03 p.m.), to Dennis Manuge, with copies to Mr. Larlee, Mr. Keliher, and Mr. Fantino. In this email Mr. Manuge refers to himself as an instrument of death. He threatens that if he does not receive a call back before noon his next stop is a Service Canada Office "with my video camera, to see if they can get me some funds for the Easter weekend. Let us show the public the truth about how Mr. Harper and Fantino are treating vets". [ 25 ] On April the 20th, 2014, Mr. Manuge again emailed his brother with copies to Mr. Larlee and other members of the Veterans Affairs.

After wishing him happy Easter, Mr. Manuge quotes the American writer, Edward Abbey, " a patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government". [ 26 ] Veterans Affairs brought Mr. Manuge's emails to the attention of the RCMP. Ultimately the April 17th, 2014, email sent at 1:25 p.m., became the basis for the charge of uttering threats, set out in count 17 of Information 40503-1. [ 27 ] Mr. Manuge maintains he never intended to act upon his threats. He told Dr. Morgan he sent the email in order to provoke thought and not to threaten anyone.

He said he would not commit any violence or take matters into his own hands. [ 28 ] Dr. Morgan, in his October 16th, 2015, risk assessment, says: In his interview with Corporal Washbrook, Mr. Manuge clearly stated that he does not wish to harm anyone. He does not have a history or other antisocial behaviour. If anything, he has a strong sense of duty and is pro-social. His sense of duty is relevant, as Mr. Manuge clearly expects the VA [Veterans Affairs] to adhere to the social contract. FIREARMS OFFENCES, COUNTS 1 AND 10 [ 29 ] As a result of Mr.

Manuge's email sent on April of 2014, the RCMP commenced an investigation. They learned Mr. Manuge had five restricted handguns registered in his name. The RCMP obtained a search warrant of Mr. Manuge's residence, which they executed on May 15, 2014. The RCMP discovered a number of firearms in the residence, all lawfully owned.

[ 30 ] The only unlawful items found in the residence were three over-capacity magazines for a non-restricted rifle, for which Mr. Manuge was properly licensed. [ 31 ] The RCMP located a SOCOM 16 semi-automatic rifle in a locked gun safe in the basement of the Manuge residence. The rifle was loaded with one of the over-capacity cartridge magazines containing 22 rounds of ammunition. This SOCOM 16 is a non-restricted firearm, legally owned.

Section 5, the storage, display, transportation and handling of firearms by individuals regulation, that is SOR 98- 209 , allows a person to store a non-restricted firearm only if it is, (

a) unloaded, (

b) rendered inoperable or stored in a secured locked container, receptacle or room that cannot be readily broken into, (

c) is not readily accessible to ammunition. [ 32 ] The charge of unsafe storage, s. 86(2) CCC , is based on the fact that even though the SOCOM 16 rifle was in a locked gun safe, it had attached one of the over-capacity magazines. Hence, the firearm was readily accessible to ammunition. [ 33 ] In Canada a cartridge magazine must hold five or less rounds of ammunition. A magazine which is designed to hold more than five rounds is not legal if it has been altered to prevent that occurrence.

Usually this is done by inserting an aluminum pin in the cartridge magazine, a position that prevents insertion of more than five cartridges. If that pin is removed, then an otherwise legal cartridge magazine becomes a prohibited device.

See: Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/98- 462, which is the regulations prescribing certain firearms and other weapons, components and parts of weapons, accessories, cartridges, magazines, ammunition and projectiles as prohibited, restricted or non-restricted; and that is SOR 98-462. [ 34 ] There is no suggestion that Mr.

Manuge did not legally acquire the over-capacity magazines, but at some point they were unpinned, thereby allowing for more than five rounds of ammunition, contrary to the Firearms Regulations. At the time they were seized, two of these over-capacity magazines contained twenty rounds of ammunition and one contained 21 rounds. [ 35 ] Mr. Manuge had a sizeable collection of firearms for recreational purposes. Prior to the events bringing him to court today Mr. Manuge was the director of the Prince George Rod and Gun Club. He used to shoot clay targets for sport and helped arrange shoots. Mr. Manuge founded the B.C.

Clays Association and was vice-present of the national association. There is no suggestion Mr. Manuge collected these firearms for any purpose other than his personal interest and recreation. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 36 ] At the time of these offences Mr. Manuge was struggling in every aspect of his life. Physically he was in chronic pain from a shoulder injury and degenerative disc disease. Mentally he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, a general anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. At the same time Mr.

Manuge was caring for his wife of 24 years, who was suicidal and suffering from her own serious mental health issues. Financially Mr. Manuge was mired in debt, desperate and overwhelmed. [ 37 ] Emotionally Mr. Manuge was frustrated and angry with Veterans Affairs, who made him feel worthless, useless and helpless. There was no local Veterans Affairs office in Prince George and Mr. Manuge's case manager was based in Whitehorse. Mr. Manuge felt as though he were held hostage in his own home, waiting for Veterans Affairs to provide him answers that were never forthcoming.

His phone calls and emails went unanswered, his requests for benefits denied, delayed, or discounted. Mr. Manuge became fixated with Veterans Affairs mistreatment of himself, his brother, and Greg Matters. He believed his own advocacy invited retribution and he was singled out and treated unfairly because of his brother's activism. [ 38 ] Although Mr. Manuge continues to suffer anxiety, depression and trauma, his life has changed since the dark days of the spring of 2014. He is being treated for his chronic pain by Dr. Paul Etheridge, of the Okanagan Interventional Pain Clinic.

He receives ultrasound guided pain killing injections that are effective. He has been assessed by a number of experts in psychiatry and psychology, including Dr. Julia Ting and Dr. Dorothy Ryan, both of the B.C. Operational Stress Injury Clinic, Dr. Udumaga and Dr. Morgan. These experts variously diagnosed Mr. Manuge as suffering from a major depressive disorder, general anxiety disorder, and specified trauma and stress-related disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and chronic pain.

These are the diagnostic formulation based on the DSM-5 , which is the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders in the 5th edition. [ 39 ] Since 2012, Mr. Manuge has been a patient of the B.C. Operational Stress Injury Clinic which assesses and treats ex-military and RCMP personnel living with operational stress injury. Previously Mr. Manuge saw Dr. Julia Ting via telepresence. He now sees local psychiatrist Dr. Dorothy Ryan, who has assessed him for Veteran Affairs. [ 40 ] In a report, Dr. Ryan states: Mr.

Manuge's present physical, mental, emotional and psychological instability is directly linked to his ten years of military service and continued struggles to have his conditions recognized by Veterans Affairs. Mr. Manuge intends to continue his treatment with Dr. Etheridge and Dr. Ryan, which he finds beneficial. [ 41 ] In terms of Mr. Manuge's risk to reoffend, Dr. Morgan considers significant the following factors:

a) Mr. Manuge has no history of violent offending;

b) Mr. Manuge has no history of violent attitudes;

c) Mr. Manuge has no history of recent problems with violent ideation;

d) Mr. Manuge has no recent history of instability;

e) Mr. Manuge has no history of relationship difficulties or employment problems;

f) Mr. Manuge has no personality disorder, as evidenced by his history of relationships and occupational stability;

g) Mr. Manuge is unlikely to experience problems with his living conditions in the future;

h) Mr. Manuge has no history of problems with treatment or supervision;

i) Mr. Manuge is unlikely to experience problems with professional services or plans;

j) Mr. Manuge does have a traumatic experience from childhood. He felt unloved and bullied;

k) Mr. Manuge may have perceived Veterans Affairs' conduct with respect to his disability claim as bullying and rejection; and

l) Mr. Manuge may have experienced some difficulties with insight. [ 42 ] Although Dr. Morgan does not say so, the factors enumerated above lead to the inexorable conclusion that Mr. Manuge is a low risk to re-offend. [ 43 ] In terms of risk reduction, Dr. Morgan opines that it is important that Mr. Manuge continue to work with Dr. Ryan to assist him in developing more resilience to stress and help him develop alternative coping mechanisms. [ 44 ] Veterans Affairs is now compensating Mr. Manuge for the physical and psychological injuries which Dr. Ryan attributes to his military service. Mr.

Manuge is working with the Royal Canadian Legion, who is assisting him with his appeals. Also, Mr. Manuge has also entered into a consumer credit proposal to repay his debts in a manageable and responsible manner. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT [ 45 ] The principal victim in the uttering threats was John Larlee, the chair of the Veteran's Review and Appeal Board. Mr. Larlee was working in Charlottetown in PEI when Mr. Manuge was sending off his alarming emails. He says that Mr. Manuge's emails referring to himself as an instrument of death and taking hostages, gave him and his staff cause for concern. Mr.

Larlee no longer works for the VRAB. REMORSE [ 46 ] Mr. Manuge has entered a timely guilty plea. If he feels badly for the threatening and inflammatory emails to Mr. Larlee and others, he has not said so. Still, he says he would never harm anyone and he does take responsibility for his actions. He has assured Probation Officer Grainger that in any future communications with Veteran's Affair, he will not do anything hastily and he will stick to the facts. [ 47 ] Dr. Morgan offers a helpful suggestion that Mr. Manuge may wish to meet with the RCMP members in order to develop a better relationship with them.

CHARACTER EVIDENCE [ 48 ] Probation Officer Grainger contacted Brock Bailey, who has known Mr. Manuge for years. Mr. Bailey is a former firearms instructor for the federal government. He also volunteers at the Prince George Rod and Gun Club. Mr. Bailey told Probation Officer Grainger that he has no concerns regarding Mr. Manuge's handling of firearms. Mr. Bailey said he was aware the Mr. Manuge had medical issues and was impressed that Mr. Manuge would not bring his weapons to the club if he is having medical or mental health issues. Mr. Bailey is aware of Mr.

Manuge's current legal status and continues to support and interact with him. POST-CHARGE BEHAVIOUR [ 49 ] As Mr. Manuge has no criminal record, his only interaction with community corrections is his presentence supervision on a recognizance of bail. His bail supervisor, Joy Pyle, indicates she has not had any issues with Mr. Manuge during his supervision. [ 50 ] Mr. Manuge was arrested on June 22nd, 2014. He was cooperative with the police from the outset. He has been on bail since that time, now over a year and a half. This is a significant period during which there have been no reported difficulties. Mr.

Manuge has been cooperative and compliant throughout the period of supervision. When directed to attend appointments with doctors and others he has done so and fully cooperated with the assessment process. This cooperation extended to consenting to Dr. Morgan having copies of all his medical record. CRIMINAL RECORD [ 51 ] Mr. Manuge has no criminal record.

CROWN'S POSITION ON SENTENCE [ 52 ] The Crown seeks a six-months conditional sentence order followed by two or three years of probation, a mandatory firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code , a forfeiture order for the unsafely stored rifle and three over-capacity magazines. [ 53 ] In proposing this sentence Mr. Lawrence says he weighed the unique facts of this case with society's concern for firearms. Mr. Lawrence considered important Mr. Manuge's service to our country and the fact that Mr. Manuge has been struggling with a terrible mental illness. Mr.

Lawrence submits the utmost consideration of the court should be with respect to rehabilitation. He points to Dr. Ryan and Dr. Morgan's reports, which make it clear that Mr. Manuge ought to continue to receive counselling. [ 54 ] The Crown finds the firearms offences troubling. Mr. Lawrence says that had it not been for the firearms offences, the Crown would have sought a suspended sentence. Mr. Lawrence points out that all illegal items, such as oversized magazine, cause concern to public safety. Even if Mr. Manuge was not someone who intended to use them in any manner, his house could be broken into and those

weapons would end up in the wrong hands. This is one reason the possession and use of firearms is so highly regulated. [ 55 ] The Crown submits that in this case specific deterrence is unnecessary. Mr. Manuge has learned a life-altering lesson. There have already been significant consequences in Mr. Manuge's life arising from the charges before the court today. Mr. Manuge was a firearms enthusiast and active in the local rod and gun club. These activities have been taken away. With the imposition of the mandatory firearm prohibition, Mr.

Manuge will be unable to participate in those activities for a very long time. [ 56 ] Also, Mr. Manuge has been on onerous bail conditions for a significant time. Moreover, during the course of this matter being before the courts, Mr. Manuge's marriage broke down. [ 57 ] The Crown submits that it is clear from the pre-sentence reports there is no need for Mr. Manuge to be personally deterred by his sentence. At this point any sentence is going to focus on maintaining and hopefully improving Mr. Manuge's mental health. [ 58 ] What the Crown struggled with is the need for general deterrence.

Any sentence has to account for general deterrence. Mr. Manuge is not a gangster. He has no criminal background. He belongs to a class of offenders that needs to be dealt with differently than criminals who are members of organized crime. [ 59 ] It is for the sake of general deterrence the Crown seeks a conditional sentence. There is no need for Mr. Manuge to go to a brick or mortar jail. He could serve his jail sentence in the community. There is no need to bind him by onerous conditions of house arrest or curfew.

The CSO, albeit largely symbolic, would address general deterrence. [ 60 ] The Crown submits that in Mr. Manuge's case utmost consideration ought to be given to rehabilitation. Mr. Lawrence submits the conditions recommended by Mr. Grainger in his pre-sentence report should be incorporated into both a CSO and a probation order. [ 61 ] A conviction of an offence under 92(2) of the Criminal Code carries with it a mandatory firearm prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code, for ten years. It also attracts a mandatory weapons forfeiture order under s. 491 of the Criminal Code .

The Crown seeks the outright forfeiture of the items 10, 16, 18 and 28 of the major exhibit flow chart. These are the rifle and the three over-capacity magazines. [ 62 ] With respect to the other items seized by the police, the Crown seeks an order they can be returned to Mr. Manuge's properly licenced delegate. Mr. Lawrence asks the Court to allow six months for the delegate to collect the items, failing which they will forfeit to the Crown for destruction. PROBATION CONDITIONS [ 63 ] The Crown recognizes that Mr.

Manuge needs to have ongoing contact with Veterans Affairs and recommends contact on those conditions suggested by the probation officer Grainger. The Crown further seeks a specific no-contact provision with respect to Mr. Larlee, who has left the employ of Veterans Affairs. The Crown seeks a general counselling condition and a Rogers order. The Crown does not seek the condition recommended by Probation Officer Grainger that Mr. Manuge sign any waiver of release of information as required by his probation officer.

ANCILLARY ORDERS [ 64 ] Uttering threats is the secondary designated offence and the Crown has discretion whether or not to make such an order. The Crown asks the court to give some consideration into making him provide a sample. CROWN AUTHORITIES [ 65 ] In seeking the sentence set out above the Crown relies on the recent decision of Judge Keyes in R. v. Haus 2016 BCPC 11 . There are many points of similarity between Haus and in the instant case, and a few significant differences.

Accordingly, it is important to consider the facts in Haus . [ 66 ] In Haus , the first-time offender was an avid weapons and firearms collector. Unfortunately, Mr. Haus' passion for collecting seduced him into acquiring prohibited firearms and devices. This came to the attention of the police, who searched his home pursuant to warrant and seized an extensive firearm collection. [ 67 ] Mr. Haus pleaded guilty to six firearms offences, including:

a) possessing firearms without a licence and registration certificate, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code ;

b) possession of a prohibited device, contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code ;

c) possession of prohibited ammunition, contrary to 92(2) of the Criminal Code ;

d) unsafe storage of a firearm, contrary to s. 96(2) of the Criminal Code ;

e) possession of firearms knowing the serial number was defaced, contrary to s. 108(1) (

e) of the Criminal Code ; and,

f) possession of prohibited firearms loaded or with readily accessible ammunition, without a registration, contrary to s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code . [ 68 ] Mr. Haus’ prohibited firearms included an M16 rifle, an AK-47 rifle, a .9 millimetre short-barrelled shotgun, and a .9 millimetre Ruger pistol. The prohibited device included 22 magazines for the M16 and 13 for the AK-47 rifle, all capable of holding 30 rounds, and some drum magazines capable of holding a hundred rounds. All of these magazines were unpinned and loaded with ammunition well over the permissible limit and placed in the immediate vicinity of the rifles.

[ 69 ] Mr. Haus’ collection included five cartridges which were prohibited ammunition. These were shotgun shells containing a highly illegal flechette darts, a Daniel Defence M4 Carbine, a fully-automatic rifle with the serial number defaced, next to several M16 magazines, and an AK-47 rifle with a folding stock and a defaced serial number on the same shelf as the AK-47 loaded magazines. A fully-loaded 10-round registered Ruger .9 millimetre pistol was in a shelving unit in the master bedroom.

The RCMP found a high- capacity AK-47 magazine containing 44 rounds, as well as high quality ballistic armour. [ 70 ] In the laundry room the police located three unpinned AR-15 drum magazines containing 100 rounds each and four unpinned 30-round magazines for the AK-47. The TV room cabinet harboured a twelve-gauge shotgun. Sequestered in a wooden case fashioned to look like a book was a loaded .9 millimetre handgun with a two-inch barrel, hence a prohibited weapon. [ 71 ] Like Mr. Manuge, Mr. Haus was a middle aged man with no criminal record. He had a stellar reputation in the community.

He did not possess or use any of the firearms for a criminal purpose or to harm anyone. He was a true, blue collector of weaponry of all kinds and allowed his obsession to overcome his common sense. He allowed his “otherwise harmless hobby to lead him into a serious conflict with the law.” [ 72 ] Haus is significant in that it was decided after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the three-year statutory minimum for a sentence under s. 95(2) in R. v. Nur , 2015 SCC 15 . The sentencing judge in Haus found that although Mr.

Haus’ offences were not simply technical, such as an error in licencing, they were within the least blameworthy end under the spectrum as discussed by Nur . In this regard her comments in paragraphs 86 to 87 are apposite: [85] No one was harmed. No one was endangered. No harm was intended. There were no ill-gotten gains. There were no surrounding circumstances of criminal behaviour. It was simply that Mr. Haus foolishly allowed his obsessive pursuit of an intriguing hobby to lead him astray. [85] On the other hand, it cannot be said that this offence was in any way inadvertent. Mr.

Haus knew his collection of these items was illegal. That was part of the thrill of keeping them in his collection. [87 I am satisfied that Mr. Haus would never use any of these weapons in [any] fashion that would be dangerous. It could be argued that this collection poses a danger because other persons could break into his home and steal the weapons and use them for nefarious purposes. On the other hand, the same can be said of every firearm legitimately possessed by every licensed gun owner, or indeed of any motor vehicle belonging to anyone. [ 73 ] The sentencing judge imposed the following penalty:

a) Mr. Haus’ collection of firearms accumulated over many years and worth $50,000 was forfeited to the Crown for destruction. It should be noted that Mr. Haus did not contest the forfeiture;

b) A six-month CSO for the offences of possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, possession of illegal capacity magazines and prohibited ammunition;

c) A three-month CSO for the offences of unlicensed possession, unsafe storage and possessing firearms with defaced serial numbers;

d) All sentences would be served concurrently;

e) A DNA order; and

f) A mandatory firearm prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code . DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS ON THE FACTS [ 74 ] Mr. Climie, on Mr. Manuge's behalf, made lengthy submissions with respect to many of the facts I have referred to earlier in this judgment. I will not repeat the submissions at this juncture, but acknowledge they were made and informed my findings of fact. [ 75 ] Mr. Climie says the defence substantially agree with the facts as presented by the Crown. He points out, however, the threat set out in Mr. Manuge's April 17th, 2014, email is somewhat oblique. Mr.

Manuge does not deny the fact that a threat was intended. Still, he has no intention of following through with any inference that may be drawn from what he said in the email. He emphasized that the email was addressed to his brother with copies to Veterans Affairs officials. [ 76 ] The defence accepts that Mr. Manuge's statement, "It's time to start taking hostages and if ERT is sent in it will get payback", can be inferred to be a threat to cause bodily harm, and therefore will support the charge of uttering threats under s. 264.1(1) (a). Mr. Manuge accepts responsibility for the offence.

Still, in the continuum of such offences, Mr. Manuge's email is at the low end of the range. In terms of the essential elements of the offence of uttering threats, it barely makes it. [ 77 ] With respect to the timing of Mr. Manuge's guilty plea, Mr. Climie notes that the information was sworn on July 22nd, 2014. Mr. Manuge has been compliant on very strict bail terms for over a year and a half. There have been no difficulties with Mr. Manuge while he was waiting for disposition of this matter. Before he could enter a guilty plea, Mr. Manuge needed to sort things out, including his mental condition.

In the circumstances, Mr. Manuge entered a guilty plea in a timely way. [ 78 ] Mr. Climie emphasizes Mr. Manuge's difficult and troubled childhood, in which he suffered violence at the hands of his parents, bullying at school and from his older siblings. This set the stage for how Mr. Manuge perceived his treatment from Veterans Affairs. It took Mr. Manuge many long frustrating years to have Veterans Affairs recognize and compensate his disabilities. [ 79 ] During this time Mr. Manuge lived in chronic pain with no respite. He was but one veteran battling with Veterans Affairs

Canada for redress from post-traumatic stress syndrome. In fact, Mr. Climie submits Veterans Affairs' poor treatment of servicemen suffering from PTSD is sufficiently notorious it is something of which the court can take judicial notice. DEFENCE POSITION ON SENTENCING [ 80 ] Mr. Climie submits there is no need whatsoever for specific deterrence. Mr. Manuge's situation has improved significantly since the time of the offences. His prognosis is positive. Veterans Affairs has been responsive to Dr. Ryan's report and now recognizes Mr.

Manuge suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and is compensating for his service-related problems. Veterans Affairs now deals with Mr. Manuge in an appropriate manner. [ 81 ] Mr. Manuge is getting treatment and relief for his chronic pain. He has resolved his acute financial problems. He has gained some optimism for the future. [ 82 ] The defence argues a fit sentence is a suspended sentence with two years' probation. Mr. Climie argues the suspended sentence is still a jail sentence, specific deterrence is unnecessary and general deterrence can be equally satisfied by a suspended sentence as with the CSO.

Mr. Climie points out that Mr. Manuge lost all of his firearms. [ 83 ] With respect to terms, Mr. Manuge would like to be able to contact his Veterans Affairs Inquiry Resolution officer, Stephanie Ashley. He is agreeable to a term that requires him to leave upon request and to cease communication with Veterans Affairs if asked to do so. Mr. Climie submits there is no need for a provision in the probation order requiring Mr. Manuge to sign all waivers, releases of information requested by the probation officer, and Mr. Climie makes no submissions on Mr. Manuge's behalf with respect to the ancillary orders.

ANALYSIS [ 84 ] The principles of sentencing in s. 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. [ 85 ]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code , the court applies the proportionality principle, which requires the sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender. [ 86 ]

Section 718.2(

a) requires the sentencing judge to consider all aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating the offence or the offender. Relevant factors such as the presence or absence of a criminal record may push a sentence up or down the scale of appropriate sentence for similar offences. Consideration of all aggravating and mitigating factors ensures that the sentencing is approached in an individualized manner and each case is decided on its own facts. [ 87 ]

Section 718.2 (

b) of the Criminal Code codifies the parity principle which requires the sentence “to be similar to ‘sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances.” [ 88 ] 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.” [ 89 ]

Section 718.2 (

d) and (

e) of the Criminal Code codify the restraint principle that holds that “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances” and that “all available sanctions, other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstance of aboriginal offenders.” [ 90 ] I therefore determine the appropriate sentence for each offence by taking into consideration the following:

a) the oral submissions of the Crown and defence;

b) the pre-sentence reports and expert reports filed in the sentencing hearing as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3;

c) the goals, principles and objectives of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code ;

d) the relevant case authority, including Haus and others;

e) Mr. Manuge's personal circumstances as discussed above, including his age, his physical injuries and chronic pain; his mental illness; his family circumstances; his financial distress; his sense of duty; his military service; his lack of criminal record; his timely guilty pleas; his prospects for rehabilitation; his bail conditions; his time on bail; his conduct under bail supervision; his low risk to reoffend; his interest in participation in recreational sport shooting; his contributions to the community; his support of others in the

community; the impact of a lengthy firearms prohibition; the impending loss of firearms; and the impact on the victims. [91] With respect to uttering threats, s. 264.1(2)(

a) provides that when the Crown proceeds by indictment, as it has done here, themaximum term of imprisonment for the offence of uttering threats is five years. The Crown and defence agree that for the offence ofuttering a threat, a suspended sentence with a term of probation is an appropriate sentence in all circumstances. [92] In considering whether a non-custodial sentence is appropriate, I am guided by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision ofR. v.

Knott 2012 SCC 42, at paragraph 10, where Justice Fish said for the court: In appropriate cases, probation orders serve that purpose as an effective and efficient alternative to unnecessary institutional confinement(Mathieu, at para. 20; R. v. Proulx,2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 32; R. v. Shoker, 2006 SCC 44 ,[2006] 2S.C.R. 399, at para. 10). [93] The Supreme Court in Knott noted that the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code are meant to takeinto account the correctional imperative of the sentence individualization.

In this regard, the facts in this case before the court areunique. Sentence individualization in this case must take into account the perfect storm of events which gave rise to an otherwise lawabiding citizen being charged and convicted of uttering threats. A significant fact in the commission of this offence was the state of Mr.Manuge's mental illness at the time. [94] In R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2015 BCCA 22, Madam Justice Garson affirmed that jurisprudence which establishes that the relativeimportance of deterrence and denunciation is attenuated when sentencing mentally ill offenders. [95] In R. v.

McConnell, 2014 BCSC 1743, Justice Romilly, upon canvassing the authorities, states at paragraph 21 that a sentencingjudge must not only determine whether an offender is mentally ill, but also the extent to which an offender's mental illness contributed tothe impugned conduct in question and the impact of that finding on the appropriate sentence. [96] The expert reports filed as Exhibit 1, 2 and 3 in the sentencing hearing makes it clear that Mr. Manuge was suffering fromcongeries of mental illness when he began writing and sending his alarming emails in April 2014.

I accept there is a causal connectionbetween his mental illness and the commission of the offence, such that it diminishes his culpability. [97] I might add that it was unfortunate that the person with whom Mr. Manuge was corresponding at that time, that is to say hisbrother, Dennis Manuge, was unable to be the sober voice of reason and instead of winding him up, calm him down. [98] I accept that Mr. Manuge had no intention to storm Charlottetown and hold 1,100 Veterans Affairs' employees hostage for thelong weekend. When he wrote his email Mr.

Manuge was in no condition physically, mentally or financially to carry out such a threat. He was undoubtedly just letting off steam. He wanted Veterans Affairs and the VRAB to understand how angry and frustrated anddesperate he was. [99] As Dr. Morgan surmises in the report, Mr. Manuge wanted to get people to listen to him. [100] Mr. Climie argues that the Veterans Affairs poor treatment of servicemen suffering from PTSD is sufficiently notorious it issomething of which this court can take judicial notice. I am mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in R. v.

Spence 2005 SCC71, that the threshold for judicial notice is strict. A court may properly take judicial notice of facts that are either: (1) so notorious as tobe generally accepted as not to be subject of debate among reasonable people; or (2) capable of immediate and accurate demonstration byresort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy. [101] I cannot take judicial notice of the Veterans Affairs poor treatment of servicemen suffering from PSTD because I do not evenknow that to be a fact.

I do accept that the task of determining causation of historical injuries can be extremely difficult and noadjudicator ought to be subject to the scurrilous rhetoric that Mr. Manuge unleashed on Mr. Larlee and others in April 2014. [102] I am prepared to take judicial notice that chronic pain and depression, on their own, are devastating and isolating conditions.

Itdoes not take much to convince me that when a middle-aged, law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying citizen finds himself in chronicpain, mental anguish, unable to work, pay his bills, sleep at night, or see any relief from his distress, bad things can happen. [103] I also considered that modern technology facilitating instant messaging removes the restraint of time.

Today a person can dashoff an angry and thoughtless email, hit send all and launch it into cyberspace at the speed of light with consequences that can never beundone. [104] I agree with the Crown and defence that an appropriate sentence is one that focuses on Mr. Manuge's rehabilitation throughongoing counselling. That can be achieved with a suspended sentence and a two-year period of probation. [105] The Crown seeks a probation period between two to three years. Mr. Manuge has been on bail now since June 22nd, 2014. Heappears to be well along the path to recovery.

I believe a further two-year period of supervision by the community corrections ought tosuffice. FIREARMS OFFENCES [106] The offence of possessing a prohibited device, contrary to s. 92(2), where the Crown has proceeded by indictment as it has donein this case, attracts a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years for a first offender. There is no statutory minimum sentence. [107] The offence of careless storage of a firearm, contrary to s. 86(2) of the Criminal Code, where the Crown has proceeded byindictment, attracts a maximum term of imprisonment of two years for a first offender.

There is no statutory minimum sentence. [108] The Crown relies on Haus in support of the six-month conditional sentence, with respect to Mr. Manuge's firearms offences.

Mr. Climie says Haus is distinguishable in the facts and a suspended sentence is appropriate. [ 109 ] I agree with the defence that the firearms offences in the Haus case were far more serious, both in terms of the number and variety of illegal of firearms and the manner in which some of the firearms were stored. Moreover, Mr. Haus was convicted of six firearms offences, including the offence under s. 95(2) , possession of prohibited firearms loaded, or with readily accessible ammunition, without registration. Mr.

Manuge has pled guilty to two firearms offences involving one rifle and three magazines. [ 110 ] The Crown argues that a sentence for counts 1 and 10 must take into consideration general deterrence in light of society's pressing concerns with these firearms offences.

It is for this reason that Crown argue the CSO is an appropriate sentence. [ 111 ] I am mindful of the sentencing judge's comment in Haus as to who is to be deterred by the sentence and I quote from paragraph 91: [91] I must therefore craft a sentence that will deter other members of the public from acquiring illegal weapons or modifying them to make them illegal. If Mr. Haus were a member of the criminal underworld, [that] sort of sentence required to deter him or others like him might be in the realm of several years' incarceration. Mr.

Haus, however, is an otherwise outstanding example of good citizenship. [ 112 ] and paragraph 92: [92] In my view, a fit sentence in this case must be one which would deter other persons like Mr. Haus, such as otherwise law-abiding gun owners who might be tempted to acquire prohibited weapons or modify weapons illegally to add to their collections. A fine would not likely deter a person willing to spend $50,000 on their collection. A suspended sentence with probation is primarily used for rehabilitative purposes, and I am satisfied that Mr.

Haus requires no such rehabilitation; he has learned his lesson. [ 113 ] I highly doubt that either a six-month CSO or a suspended sentence is likely to deter someone from acquiring a prohibited device who intends to use it for a criminal purpose. I agree wholeheartedly with the Crown that Mr. Manuge, like Mr.

Haus, belongs to a class of offenders that needs to be dealt with differently than criminals or members of organized crime. [ 114 ] I do believe, however, that a criminal conviction, in itself, even one which does not involve a custodial sentence, would deter an otherwise law-abiding sportsman from acquiring a prohibited device. A criminal conviction is a significant deterrent to those without a criminal record. It stigmatizes the offender. It closes doors to employment opportunities and social advancement.

Moreover, a criminal conviction which is accompanied with onerous bail conditions, a lengthy probation order, a ten-year firearms prohibition, could be devastating to a law-abiding sportsman who enjoys shooting clay targets recreationally. [ 115 ] I also agree that in this case Mr. Manuge has likely learned his lesson. He is obviously a man of modest means. He will lose his firearms collection, which is a valuable asset. He has lost the one recreational activity he was able to do with his physical disabilities and obviously enjoyed, namely sports shooting.

As a result of the mandatory ten-year firearms prohibition, he will most likely be separated from the social life associated with that activity. [ 116 ] I am also guided by the decision of R. v. MacDonald , a 2014 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, 2002, that was cited in Haus at paragraph 74 of that decision. [125] ... the fact the Crown has proceeded by indictment cannot be, by itself, an aggravating factor that is given weight by a court in the process of arriving at a fit sentence.

The mode of election certainly impacts procedure and the maximum sentence that is available, but plays no role in the process of considering the purposes and principles of sentencing and applying them to the circumstances of the offence and those of the offender. [ 117 ] This is relevant as there are cases where the Crown has proceeded summarily involving more serious offences than the one now before the court, which resulted in fines and mandatory firearm prohibitions. For example, R. v.

Ongaro , 2014 BCPC 118 , cited in paragraph 76 of Haus, the offender was fined $2,500 when he crossed the border into Canada from the United States on his way to Alaska with a loaded handgun in his motorhome without a Canadian licence permitting him to possess such a handgun. And in R. v. McLellan, 2015 BCPC 129 , the offender was charged under s. 95(1) with possessing a partially-loaded speed loader with three rounds for a .357 revolver, in his backpack, in the passenger seat of his vehicle and a loaded Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver in his duffel bag in the back seat.

He was fined $2,000. [ 118 ] I have also considered the case of R. v. Carrillo , 2015 BCCA 192 , in which Chief Judge MacKenzie for the unanimous Appellant Court, upheld a suspended sentence for a person described as a mid-level trafficker. At paragraph 35 the Chief Judge discussed whether a suspended sentence was strictly rehabilitative or whether they could address deterrence.

He says: Although suspended sentences are primarily rehabilitative in nature, they can also address deterrence because an offender can be punished for repeating his criminal conduct during the period of probation, and face serious consequences from the conviction at hand: Criminal Code ss. 732.2(5) and 733.1(1). This feature of suspended sentences (sometimes referred to as the “Sword of Damocles”) represents an underlying but pervasive threat to the offender’s liberty. [ 119 ] Less helpful is a case of R. v. Libon , 2013 BCCA 156 . Mr.

Libon was convicted in the provincial court of uttering threats and unsafe storage of a firearm. Justice Kay sentenced him to 20 months' probation and a ten-year firearm prohibition. Mr. Libon appealed that to the B.C. Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. There is no indication of who was the target of Mr. Libon's threats. [ 120 ] For all the reasons set out above, I am of the view that this case a suspended sentence can satisfy the sentencing principles of deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, proportionality.

The offence, under s. 92(2), also attracts a mandatory firearms prohibition under s. 109 for ten years and a forfeiture order under s. 491 of the Criminal Code . The DNA order under s. 478.051(3)(

b) is discretionary. [ 121 ] So, Mr. Manuge, I would just ask you to stand. I am going to suspend the passing of sentence and place you on a two-year period of probation. If you breach that probation order, you may end up back here before the court, either charged with a breach of a

probation order or sentenced for the original offence. [ 122 ] The mandatory probation orders will be:

a) You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

b) You shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court;

c) 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;

d) You shall report in person to a probation officer no later than 4:00 o'clock today on February the 9th, 2016, at the probation office located at 101 - 250 George Street, Prince George and after that you shall report as directed by the probation office;

e) When first reporting to the probation officer you inform him or 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.

f) You will not attend at any office of Veterans Affairs without a prior invitation or appointment, without the written consent of your probation officer;

g) You shall immediately leave the presence of any member of Veterans Affairs upon his or her request, or on the request of your probation officer, and have no further contact or communication with that person, or return to that person's presence without the prior consent of the probation officer.

h) You shall not possess any weapons as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code ;

i) You shall attend, participate in and successfully complete any assessment, counselling or program as directed by the probation officer, and without limiting the general nature of this condition, such assessment, counselling program that may relate to anger management.

j) You shall attend, participate, and successfully complete any counselling, assessment or program directed by the probation officer, and you shall comply with all the rules and regulations of such assessment and counselling programs;

k) You shall take reasonable steps to maintain yourself such that your mental health needs will not be likely to cause you to conduct yourself in a manner dangerous to yourself or anyone else, and it is not likely that you will commit any criminal offence. At the discretion of the probation officer you will attend, from time to time, upon your physician for the purposes of receiving such medical counselling and treatment as may be recommended, except that you shall not be required to submit to any treatment or medication to which you do not consent. If you do not consent to any form of medical treatment or medication recommended for you, you shall notify the probation officer immediately;

l) You shall provide your treating physician with a copy of this order, the name, address and telephone number of the probation officer. You shall instruct your treating physician that if you fail to take medication as required by him or her, that he or she is to advise the probation officer immediately. [ 123 ] There is a mandatory prohibition order under s. 109 . Mr.

Manuge, you are prohibited from possessing any firearms other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of ten years, and any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life. [ 124 ] There will be a forfeiture order pursuant to s. 491 of the following items: a SOCOM 16 rifle, serial number 20130349-13-356, calibre 7.62; a magazine clip with 20 rounds of ammunition; the over-sized magazine clip that had been seized by the officers in their investigation of this matter, another prohibited over-sized magazine with a .212 and .380 live round that was seized by the RCMP in their investigation of this matter; and also, a third over-sized prohibited magazine that was seized by the RCMP in their investigation of this matter.

All those will forfeit to the Crown for destruction. [ 125 ] The remaining items that have been seized by the RCMP in their investigation of the matter will be returned to your delegates, provided that delegates are properly licensed and attend at the RCMP station and they obtain the items within six months of this order. Should they fail to do so, the items will be forfeited to the Crown for destruction. [ 126 ] With respect to the discretionary DNA order, I am declining to make such an order. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)