R. v. Forner, 2019 BCPC 208

Citation: R. v. Forner 2019 BCPC 208 Date: 20190816 File No: 46016-1 Registry: Penticton IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SHARON CONSTANCE FORNER

Section 517 - An order bans publication of the evidence and information given to the court during a bail hearing as well as the reasons given by the judge until the accused is discharged or, if ordered to stand trial, the trial has ended. (When the application is made by the accused the order must be granted by the court but the order is discretionary when sought by the Crown.)

Section 539 of the Criminal Code - provides that evidence given at a preliminary inquiry should not be published until the accused has been discharged or, if ordered to stand trial, the trial has ended. ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. KOTURBASH Counsel for the Crown: J. Swanson Counsel for the Defendant: T. Zanatta (as agent for J. Dosanjh) Place of Hearing: Penticton, B.C. Dates of Hearing: August 7, 2019 Date of Judgment: August 16, 2019 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Following the preliminary hearing, Ms. Forner re-elected to Provincial Court and pled guilty to break and entering Ms.

Rinas' residence in Osoyoos while at the same time assaulting Ms. Rinas with a knife. Although she did not stab or strike Ms. Rinas with the knife, she did hold it in a threatening manner when she entered the residence. Position of the Parties

[ 2 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of four to six years. Mr. Dosanjh on behalf of his client seeks a sentence substantially less. He argues that Ms. Forner has spent more than enough time in custody awaiting sentencing on this matter and says a sentence of time served followed by three years' probation would be appropriate. Because Ms. Forner has been in custody for 330 days and is entitled to enhanced credit of 495 days, a time-served sentence is essentially a 16-and-half-month jail sentence. The Circumstances of the Offence [ 3 ] On August 8, 2018, at 8:54 a.m., Ms.

Rinas called police to say a woman tried to enter her residence. Moments earlier she had heard a knock at her door. She looked out and saw a woman with a long wig. The woman opened the door and said, "I want to see your new baby." Ms. Rinas shut the door on the woman, but did not lock it. The woman opened the door again and came at her wielding a large butcher knife over her head. Ms. Rinas pushed the woman out, locked the door, and contacted the 911. Also at home with Rinas was her newborn baby and four-year-old daughter. [ 4 ] Ms.

Rinas had a security camera at the door to her residence and the camera recorded the perpetrator's actions. The footage shows a woman wearing a wig and dish gloves approach the door. She is seen entering the residence, then being pushed out, pausing, then pulling out a large butcher knife from the back of her waistband and re-entering the residence. It is apparent from the video that the woman is intoxicated. Ms.

Rinas did not know the woman, but recalled on another occasion seeing the woman walk towards her from a nearby apartment complex and stop to congratulate her on having her baby. [ 5 ] Upon viewing the footage, police quickly recognized the perpetrator as Ms. Forner. They spoke with Ms. Forner's friend who said he had given her a wig because she was going to attend a gay pride parade with her -- or with him. He said he was concerned about her heavy drinking and that she talked about losing a child.

Photos of the woman were found out by police through social media and others within Osoyoos came forward identifying Ms. Forner. [ 6 ] Police attended Ms. Forner's apartment. When she opened the door, they noticed that her painted toenail beds were the same as that on the video. She was arrested, but not told anything about a baby. She was given her rights to counsel and responded, "I can't afford myself, why would I want to bring a kid in here? I can't afford a baby." Despite these comments to police, Ms. Forner maintains that she has no memory of the offence.

She proffered the following possible explanation for her behaviour. She said she had recently seen her former boyfriend who had left her and went on to have a child with another woman and that she might have emotionally snapped. [ 7 ] Not surprising, Ms. Rinas found the incident very traumatic. She remains fearful that Ms. Forner might exact revenge and is unable to let her children out of her sight. She says she would feel much safer if she knew Ms. Forner was not allowed to return to Osoyoos, especially to her residence which is only 120 metres from where Ms.

Rinas lives with her children. [ 8 ] Not only did Ms. Forner's crime impact the victim, but it also had a serious impact on the citizens of Osoyoos and the entire Okanagan Valley. Both parents and children have seen the chilling video on the Internet. Most are left wondering and concerned how something like this, something straight out of an Alfred Hitchcock horror movie, could happen in their small town or valley. Fortunately, nobody was physically hurt. Circumstances of the Offender [ 9 ] Ms. Forner is 46 years old. She is unemployed, lives alone, and collects a disability pension. Ms.

Forner has been in a few failed relationships. Two relationships were abusive and all ended, according to Ms. Forner, because she was unable to have children. Ms. Forner had a brother who was supportive and attended some of the court appearances; unfortunately he passed away earlier this week. She does not have a relationship with her sister. She claims to have a close relationship with her mother who also lives in Osoyoos, but according to the presentence report, Ms. Forner has not had any contact with her since being charged. [ 10 ] Ms.

Forner suffers from depression and on two occasions tried to take her own life. The first was in 2009 and the second in 2018 while in custody on this matter. She is a chronic and severe alcoholic and has been for the past 16 years. Before her arrest, she admits consuming on average 15 beer a day along with rye whiskey and marihuana. She often starts drinking as soon as she wakes up and does not stop until she goes to bed or passes out. At the time of the incident, she was also combining alcohol with her medication for depression.

She told the psychologist that interviewed her following the charges that it was like pouring gasoline on fire. The time she has spent in custody on this matter is the longest period of sobriety that Ms. Forner has experienced in over a decade. [ 11 ] It is apparent that alcohol is at the root of all her previous offending behaviour. She has been convicted of stealing alcohol, impaired driving, and breaching court orders. She was even involved in a serious impaired driving accident and, because of it, is not able to work.

She does not have any previous violent related convictions. [ 12 ] Despite her history with alcohol, Ms. Forner acknowledges that she has always denied needing help. Even when asked about treatment by the presentence report writer, she did not present as being overly interested or enthusiastic, but said she would attend if required. She was released on bail to a full-time live-in recovery facility, but was unable to abide by the rules and was discharged from the program.

Through her counsel, she says she has developed a better appreciation for the need for treatment, has taken some programming dealing with addiction issues while in custody and is going to AA regularly in the institution. She is willing to attend treatment, residential treatment, and follow the rules of whichever facility or treatment facility is prepared to take her. [ 13 ] Ms. Forner has expressed genuine remorse for her actions. She expressed regret for her actions in the reports prepared for court and then again directly to Ms. Rinas in court. However, when talking about the impact the crime has had on Ms.

Rinas, Ms. Forner always seems to circle back and reflect on how it has impacted her. Her most telling comment in this regard can be found in the psychologist's report when she is quoted as saying: I am not the victim in all of this. It is sickening. My sentencing does not begin until I walk out the doors and into the community. I want Ms. Rinas to know how sorry I am and how bad I feel for her. I am so grateful that no one got hurt. [ 14 ] She is described by the professionals as suffering from severe alcohol abuse disorder and is assessed as a low moderate risk for

future violence with her level of risk increasing if she is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Clearly, if Ms. Forner does not successfully address her addiction issues, she will, in my opinion, remain a risk to the public. As the Crown points out, it is difficult to determine how she will manage in the community. She has few supports, has lost one recently and was unsuccessful in her last attempt to comply with the rules of the recovery home that she was sent to on bail. However, as Mr. Dosanjh reminds, Ms.

Forner did have a large gap in her criminal record between 2012 and 2018 when she appears to have acted in a prosocial manner. He also points out that when she was discharged from the recovery home, she did not flee or consume alcohol, but continued to report each day and kept her electronic supervision equipment charged. The Objectives of Sentence [ 15 ] The paramount sentencing objectives are denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation from society, and finally rehabilitation because, as the Crown points out, successful rehabilitation is the best way of protecting the public.

Ultimately, the sentence I impose must be one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by Ms. Forner and her degree of moral culpability. The Mitigating Factors 1. Ms. Forner pled guilty after a preliminary hearing, but well before the trial. Her guilty plea spared Ms. Rinas from having to testify and relive these events at trial, albeit it did not spare her from testifying at the preliminary hearing. 2. I accept that Ms. Forner is remorseful for her actions. 3. Ms.

Forner has some insight into her offending behaviour and has expressed some willingness to consent to both a treatment and medication condition. 4. Ms. Forner has used her time wisely in custody. She has taken 21 courses while in custody. A number of them relate to substance abuse. She is also attending AA on a regular basis and, by all accounts, she is a model prisoner and doing well, certainly better than she did at the facility she was released to on bail which was not a positive experience. 5. Although Ms.

Forner has had some setbacks in her life, including failed relationships and an inability to conceive, I would not, as counsel has characterized her upbringing or life, as tragic. Her problems are not unlike others who do not resort to crime. Her upbringing is not mitigating. 6. Mental illness, in order for mental illness to be considered a mitigating factor, its nature and effects must be proven under s. 724 and not just alleged. The offender must show a causal link between the illness and the criminal conduct. The illness must be an underlying reason for the improper conduct.

In this case, the professionals have not identified any underlying mental illness beyond depression, nor have they drawn a link between her depression and her offending behaviour. [ 16 ] However, Ms. Forner's actions are sufficiently bizarre and out of character that both counsel in their submissions refer to mental illness as being a contributing factor, something beyond the severe alcohol abuse disorder recognized by the experts. Essentially they say, and I agree, people just do not do what Ms. Forner did because they are drunk.

I accept that there may have been some type of mental health issue at play that was exacerbated by her consumption of alcohol and prescription medication. [ 17 ] The troubling

part is that we do not know specifically what that or those issues were, nor can we say that they have been addressed through treatment. In this regard, her mental health is both mitigating and aggravating. The Aggravating Factors 1. Pursuant to s. 348.1, it is a statutory aggravating factor to break into a residence knowing that it is occupied and assault the occupant. 2. The presence of children. Ms. Rinas' seven-week and four-year-old children were both present. 3. The location of the offence.

The victim's home and the home of her two children was a place of security and places like it always warrant exceptional protection from invasion. 4. Premeditation. Although Ms. Forner would like me to believe that there was no planning on her part and that her actions were all the product of an emotional breakdown and entirely spontaneous, the evidence demonstrates otherwise. She put a wig on and gloves on to disguise herself, equipped herself with a large butcher knife, walked over to the victim's residence, knowing the victim had a newborn baby.

When she is pushed out of the residence the first time, she pauses before pulling the knife from the back of her waistband. It is obvious she had time and did contemplate her next move before pulling out the knife. When she is arrested by police, she makes comments about a baby consistent with having some knowledge as to why the police were there. 5. Motivation. Her motivation was to steal or harm a baby. As I pointed out during my exchange with Mr. Dosanjh, I see this as more aggravating than theft of money or property which is often the motivating factor in a more typical home invasion case. 6.

Attempts to disguise herself, although unsophisticated, it was an attempt nonetheless. 7. The nature of the weapon. Ms. Forner did not brandish a small pocketknife or a kitchen knife, but a very large butcher knife, in the context, the type of weapon that could only have a single purpose in mind.

Section 718.2(iii.1) also makes it a statutory aggravating factor when the evidence demonstrates a significant impact on the victim. Here, I consider not only the obvious significant impact it had on Ms. Rinas, but also the impact that it has had on the community. 9. Criminal record. Ms. Forner has a criminal record, albeit a minor criminal record, but a record that demonstrates a serious

struggle with being able to comply with court orders. 10. Consumption of alcohol and non-prescription drugs. Addiction can be essential in assessing the accused's moral culpability, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the risk of recidivism. Past failures to take advantage of treatment and counselling programs can be an aggravating factor. [ 18 ] In Ms. Forner's case, she has been convicted on more than one occasion of crimes associated to her consumption of alcohol and has had the benefit of multiple probation orders.

She was in a serious car accident while impaired, yet none of this inspired her to change or gain control of her addiction issues. This incident is not the first time that it has been brought home to Ms. Forner that she does not do well when she consumes alcohol. [ 19 ] Ms. Forner has long known the negative effects of alcohol on her actions and her behaviours. She commented in the report that she would often ask people the next day whether she had anything to apologize for from her drinking the night before. She was also aware of the harmful effects of combining her medication with alcohol.

She said it was like pouring gasoline on fire. Because of her conscious decision not to deal with her alcoholism, Ms. Forner must accept a high degree of responsibility for her actions that were influenced by her consumption of alcohol. [ 20 ] Although both dealing with consumption of drugs and not alcohol, the following cases are instructive on assessing blame when it comes to addiction and violence. In R. v. Hamlyn , 2016 ABCA 127 , the Alberta Court of Appeal commented that the accused was convicted of assaulting a co-worker.

At the time of the assault, he had been using synthetic marihuana despite knowing that it made him paranoid and delusional. The Alberta Court of Appeal observed that this reckless behaviour equated to an extremely high degree of personal responsibility or moral blameworthiness. [ 21 ] In R. v.

Newton , 2016 BCSC 1440 , the court held that the fact that the accused made a conscious decision to embark on the use of mind-altering drugs which carried a high risk of "inducing behaviour out of their conscious or rational control" must understand that they will be held accountable for the harm they do to others while they are intoxicated or in an altered state. The court went on to say the accused's state of extreme intoxication by illegal drugs was an aggravating factor. It said he knew he had an addiction problem, but turned down any help. [ 22 ] Ms.

Forner's consumption of alcohol and prescription drugs was highly reckless and irresponsible and endangered the welfare of Ms. Rinas and her children and is an aggravating factor. Sentencing Precedents [ 23 ] Both counsel diligently researched the law to try and find cases that have similar features to Ms. Forner's. I want to thank them for that as well as their very able submissions. In the end, both agree that none directly on point could be found. This poses a significant challenge because the range for this type of offending behaviour is so broad. Some of the cases provided by Mr.

Dosanjh surprisingly lend some support for a sentence as low as 90 days. I have carefully reviewed and considered all of the cases provided and have drawn upon their similarities and differences in helping me reach an appropriate sentence in the case at hand. Banishment Order [ 24 ] If I do impose a probation order, the Crown has asked that I consider either banishing Ms. Forner from Osoyoos entirely or place an area restriction on her. Ms. Forner's current residence, as I indicated, is only 120 metres from Ms. Rinas' residence. Banishment conditions are rare.

In most cases, it is fundamentally wrong to foist one community's problem onto another. owever, such a condition will be fit if it is reasonable and desirable for protecting society and facilitating the reintegration of the offender into the community. [ 25 ] The purpose of such a term is to remove the offender from the place where she habitually gets into trouble or associates with or where she has threatened or terrorized a particular individual. Banishment orders cannot be penal such that their sole purpose is to promote deterrence or denunciation.

Instead, they can be an effective tool to manage risk for a victim. [ 26 ] In R. v. Felix , 2002 NWTSC 63 , the appellate court upheld a banishment order where the accused had a serious record for spousal violence and was on probation when he committed the most recent assault. The court recognized that since both parties lived in a small northern community, it would have been impossible to prevent future encounters with the victim unless the offender lived elsewhere. [ 27 ] Ms. Rinas has expressed concerns about Ms. Forner potentially exacting revenge on her for complaining to the police.

This is not an uncommon reaction, albeit there is no evidence to support the concern at this point. However, it remains somewhat unclear what motivated the attack and there is nothing to suggest that the root cause has been adequately addressed. Furthermore, given the chilling nature of the attack, one can assume that Ms. Rinas would not be able to live her life nor allow her kids to live life to the fullest if she knew that Ms. Forner was allowed to return to Osoyoos. The town is simply too small. [ 28 ] Ms.

Forner argues that she needs to return to Osoyoos because she cannot afford to live anywhere else and her support network, her roommate, and her mother live in Osoyoos. However, she has not had contact with her mother since being charged and little is known about her roommate. What we do know is that neither of these individuals were successful if, in fact, they even tried curtailing Ms. Forner's serious addiction to alcohol over the last 16 years. Her brother, who was supportive and attended some of the appearances, tragically passed away earlier this week and I am, as I indicated, sorry for your loss, Ms.

Forner. [ 29 ] Ms. Rinas' and her children's safety, however, both physically and psychologically, outweigh Ms. Forner's need to remain in Osoyoos and the possible disruption that will flow from any removal. [ 30 ] When the court imposes a banishment term, it must also give careful consideration to its impact and weight on the overall sentence. In R. v. R.R.M. , 2009 BCCA 578 , the British Columbia Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in not reducing the overall length of a jail sentence in exchange for imposing the banishment order. "In practical terms" -- the court states:

In practical terms, the removal of a person from his home and place of business for two years would be regarded by many reasonable, well-informed people, as punishment at least the equal of six months’ imprisonment … [ 31 ] According to the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, a three-year banishment order could be considered almost the equivalent of a nine-month jail sentence. In practical terms, if I do impose a probation order and I do impose a banishment order, I must consider it as a mitigating factor and adjust the sentence accordingly. [ 32 ] Crown has also asked that I include a condition restricting Ms.

Forner's access to persons under the age of 16. Mr. Dosanjh, on his client's behalf, argues that the restriction is too broad and the court should consider a lower age and include some exceptions, and I agree. Sentence [ 33 ] Ms. Forner has done well in the institution. She has taken programming for substance abuse and attends AA on a regular basis. However, these steps do not equate to addiction treatment, nor has she received any form of psychiatric or psychological treatment or counselling, yet claims that her mental health was at the root of her offending behaviour.

To simply let her walk out of the jail door today, as Mr. Dosanjh has asked me to do on his client's behalf, would not be responsible or an adequate response to the protection of the public. Ms. Forner needs proper treatment and counselling before she can return to the community to live a prosocial life. In a previous case, the case of Ms.

Leer, I learned that psychiatric and psychological counselling for women inmates is far superior in the federal institution than it is in the provincial institution. [ 34 ] I have also discussed previously in other cases the challenge the current law creates for courts imposing lengthy sentences and at the same time being able to impose probation orders. Unless the new time of any sentence I impose is two years or less, I cannot impose any probation on Ms. Forner. Without probation, I would be unable to address Ms. Rinas' and my concern about Ms.

Forner returning to live in Osoyoos, nor would I be able to impose other conditions that I feel are necessary for Ms. Forner's reintegration into the community. [ 35 ] In the case at hand, I see probation as a critical component to adequately protecting the public.

I have already expressed my intention to include a banishment order if I do impose a probation order and, as such have considered all of the mitigating factors including a banishment order and reduced the jail sentence I would have imposed accordingly. [ 36 ] After considering the gravity of your offending behaviour and the degree of your moral culpability and responsibility, Ms. Forner, I have determined that the following sentence is a fit and proper sentence. The sentence I would have imposed would have been 1,226 days. You have been in custody for 330 days. With enhanced credit, that is 495 days.

The actual sentence is 731 days.

Because 2020 is a leap year, this is a two-year sentence which means your sentence will be served in a federal penitentiary for women, but it also allows me to impose a probation order and I am going to impose the maximum period of probation of three years. [ 37 ] The terms of the probation order will be as follows: [ 38 ] 2001 -- you are okay, ma'am? [ 39 ] THE ACCUSED: I did not really catch the last part. [ 40 ] THE COURT: You are being sentenced to two years of new time, you will be serving your sentence in a federal penitentiary for women, and I am going to be imposing the maximum period of probation to follow that which is three years. [ 41 ] The conditions of the order are as follows. [ 42 ] 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 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. [ 43 ] 2002, you must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with Ms.

Rinas or any members of her immediate family, and it is Katherine Rinas or any members of her immediate family. [ 44 ] 2005, you must not go to any residence, school, or workplace of Katherine Rinas or members of her immediate family. [ 45 ] 2104, you must report in person to a probation officer within two business days after your release from custody, unless you have obtained, prior to your release, written permission from the probation officer to report elsewhere or within a different timeframe.

After that, you must report as directed by the probation officer. [ 46 ] 2203, you must reside at a residence approved in advance by your probation officer, and you must provide your probation officer with your phone number, and you must not change your residence or phone number without written permission from your probation officer. [ 47 ] 2209, for the duration of this order, you must obey a curfew by being inside your residence between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day.

You must present yourself immediately at the door to your residence or answer the phone when any peace officer or probation officer attends at your residence or calls to check your compliance with the curfew conditions of this order. You may be away from your residence during the curfew hours with the written permission of your probation officer. Such permission is to be given only for compelling reasons. You must carry the written permission when you are outside your residence during the curfew hours. [ 48 ] 2301, you must not be within a 50-kilometre radius of Osoyoos, British Columbia.

The exceptions are as follows: with the written permission of your probation officer, in which case, you must carry the written permission with you when you are in the prohibited area; and (

b) one attendance in the company of a peace officer for the purposes of retrieving your personal belongings.

[ 49 ] 2303, you must not go to any public park, public swimming area, or community centre where persons under the age of 14 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground, playground. The exceptions are as follows: (

a) with the written permission of your probation officer and you must carry the written permission when you are in the prohibited area. [ 50 ] 2304, you must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly, nor be alone in the presence of, anyone you know or who reasonably appears to be under the age of 14 years. The exceptions are as follows: (

b) if you have the written permission of your probation officer, in which case, you must carry the permission with you; (

c) in the immediate presence of the child's guardian, but only after the child's guardian has been informed by your probation officer of this order and your history as described in your criminal record, presentence report, and these reasons for judgment. [ 51 ] 2305, you must not engage in any activities, volunteer work, or employment that could bring you into contact with persons under the age of 14 without the written permission of your probation officer and, when so engaged, you must carry the permission with you. [ 52 ] 2307, you must not date or enter into a marriage or common-law relationship with any person until you have identified to your probation officer the person with whom you propose to live -- oh, sorry, I am going to do a different one than that. [ 53 ] THE ACCUSED: [Indiscernible]. [ 54 ] THE COURT: 2306, Madam Clerk.

You must not date or enter into a marriage or common-law relationship that has the care or access to children under the age of 14 unless you have identified to your probation officer the person with whom you propose to enter into such a relationship and your probation officer has informed the persons of your history as described in your criminal record, presentence report, if any, and these reasons for judgment. [ 55 ] 2309, you must provide the probation officer with the carrier information and phone number of any mobile device or tablet that you possess and the make, model, colour, and licence plate number of any vehicle that you drive.

Sorry, we do not need the first part with the phone number and mobile device or tablet, Madam Clerk, it is just the make, model, colour, and licence plate numbers of any vehicles that she drives. [ 56 ] 2401, you must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicating substance except in accordance with a medical prescription. [ 57 ] 2502, having consented, you must attend, participate in, and successfully complete any intake, assessment, counselling, program, treatment, or residential treatment program as directed by your probation officer. [ 58 ] 2503, having consented, you must attend at the direction of your probation officer for a psychiatric intake, assessment, counselling, or treatment program through Forensic Psychiatric Services. [ 59 ] 2507, having consented, you must do the following: 1.

At the direction of your probation officer, report to the Forensic Psychiatric Services or elsewhere for any intake, assessment, counselling, or treatment. 2. Attend all scheduled appointments with your doctor, psychiatrist, and counsellor. 3. Take all medications prescribed to you. 4. Give your doctor, psychiatrist, and counsellor a copy of this order. 5. You must provide your probation officer with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of your doctor, psychiatrist, and counsellor. 6.

Tell your doctor, psychiatrist, and counsellor that, if you do not follow any of the terms of this order, he or she is to inform your probation officer.

If you decide not to follow these directions, you must immediately report to your probation officer when his or her office is open and tell your probation officer. [ 60 ] 2610, you must not possess, either personally or through another person, any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, or explosive substance, anything that resembles a weapon or firearm, any weapon as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code , or any related authorizations, licences, or registration certificates. [ 61 ] 2405, you must not reside at any place where any other resident has illegal drugs or alcohol in his or her possession or permit any of these items to be brought inside your residence. [ 62 ] Do you possess any firearms or weapons, ma'am? [ 63 ] THE ACCUSED: No, I do not, Your Honour. [ 64 ] THE COURT: Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , you are prohibited from possessing any firearm other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, any crossbows, restricted weapons, ammunition, explosive substance for a period of 10 years; and any prohibited firearms, restricted firearms, prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, and prohibited ammunition for life. [ 65 ] It is a primary designated offence and I am ordering that you provide a sample of your DNA. [ 66 ] I am just going to go back to the probation order for one moment, Madam Clerk, my apologies.

[ 67 ] 2628, you must not use or possess anything intended to allow you to mask or disguise your face, including a facemask or balaclava. [ 68 ] 2616, you must not possess any knife, except for the immediate preparation or eating of food or for purposes directly and immediately related to your employment. Anything else, Mr. Swanson? [ 69 ] MR. SWANSON: Nothing further, Your Honour. [ 70 ] THE COURT: Ms. Zanatta? [ 71 ] MS. ZANATTA: Nothing, Your Honour. [ 72 ] THE COURT: Okay, that is all, ma'am. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)