R. v. G.S.S., 2018 BCPC 359

Citation: R. v. G.S.S. 2018 BCPC 359 Date: 20180327 File Nos: 82978-3A; 82978-8C Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. G.S.S. ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. S. GILL Counsel for the Crown: B. Wun Counsel for the Defendant: A. Sidhu and P. Gill Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C. Dates of Hearing: January 4, March 14, 2018 Date of Judgment: March 27, 2018 [ 1 ] THE COURT: G.S.S. has pled guilty to the July 8, 2015, unlawful confinement of N.D. and further, to breaching the terms of his curfew on September the 5th of 2015, imposed pursuant to his recognizance of bail on the substantive charge. He has entered this

plea following his committal to stand trial at his preliminary inquiry, following which he re-elected his mode of trial before this court and the Crown elected to then proceed summarily. The maximum sentence he, therefore, faces would be one of 18 months incarceration. There is no minimum sentence. [ 2 ] Mr. G.S.S.is today before the court to receive his sentence. The sentencing is based on information placed before the court, comprised of the following materials.

First, an Agreed Statement of Facts on sentence; secondly, a victim impact statement from the complainant; a book of photographs depicting injuries sustained by the complainant; a letter from Dr. S. Uppal, psychiatrist with Fraser Health Authority dated March 12th, 2018, relating to Mr. G.S.S.; the Psychological Report from Dr. S. Thinda, registered psychologist, dated March 12th, 2018; a drug and alcohol treatment program Certificate of Completion issued by Path to Freedom Alcohol and Drug Treatment Centre, dated March 20, 2017; paystubs pertaining to Mr.

G.S.S. covering the pay period April 2017 to January 2018; a Grade 12 Certificate of Completion issued by the Ministry of Education, dated November of 2015 with accompanying letter; and finally, photos showing Mr. G.S.S. with family as well as a local newspaper photo showing him engaged in competitive wrestling. [ 3 ] I should note at the outset that Mr. G.S.S. is one of three accused on the substantive Information.

The other two offenders, P.P. and D.P.S., are before the court also having pled guilty and are awaiting their sentencing before another judge of the court. [ 4 ] I will commence with an outline of the circumstances from the Agreed Statement of Facts and as amplified during submissions by counsel. [ 5 ] On the date of the substantive offence, Mr. G.S.S. and his two co-accused attended at the home of the victim, Mr. N.D.

The purpose of this visit was to have him accompany them in his car and compel his assistance to lure another individual to some location where the three accused could accost that person over his apparent relationship with the girlfriend of one of the accused, P. [ 6 ] At the time of this offence the accused P. was 18 years old, S. 19 years old and the offender before me, G.S.S., was also 19 years of age.

The victim N.D. was only 16 years old. [ 7 ] The role of the accused before me, G.S.S., was important by virtue of his special relationship with the victim, which had been developed over the years through their common participation in the high school wrestling program. That relationship had, however, waned in more recent times to the point where the two were no longer friends and, indeed, on the date in question Mr. N.D. was so fearful and resistant to accompanying these young men that after Mr.

G.S.S. had been let into the home by another family member recognizing him, G.S.S. located the victim hiding in the home's pantry. Mr. G.S.S. assured the victim he would not be hurt. Whether he actually knew that or not at the time is debatable. One of the other accused, S., then accompanied the victim out to the waiting car while Mr. G.S.S. stayed behind for a time while engaging in greetings with some of the adult family members in the home whom he knew. [ 8 ] At the car, the victim was directed to the rear seat next to the accused P. who was waiting in the car. S. seated himself in the driver's seat.

The victim was immediately confronted by P. who wanted to know what he knew about this other man who was seeing P.'s girlfriend. When the victim denied any such involvement, P. brandished a five to six inch bladed knife and used his fist to strike first the headrest in the car and then eventually to strike the victim on the side of his head, accusing him of lying. It is at this point that Mr. G.S.S. returned to the car, taking his place in the right front passenger seat. [ 9 ] As the car drove away, P. compelled the victim to phone this individual suspected of having the relationship with his girlfriend.

When the victim refused to make the phone all, P. made good on his threat, punching Mr. N.D. [ 10 ] As a result of the beating he received, Mr. N.D. decided he would comply after all and he phoned the individual. However, he, by this time, sounded so nervous that the person at the other end of the line declined to cooperate or to meet him anywhere. After some further effort, including Mr. G.S.S. encouraging the victim to cooperate, it became apparent that Mr.

N.D. was no longer cooperating and the vehicle was pulled over. [ 11 ] The victim was told to switch seating positions with the accused G.S.S., which he did, and as a result of which G.S.S. came to the backseat and the victim now sat in the right front passenger seat with the co-accused P. seated immediately behind him. The victim was told the doors were locked so he could not escape. [ 12 ] At this point, P. held the knife to the side of the victim's head and also struck him.

A discussion then ensued amongst the three accused about taking the victim to a remote area, which they did, proceeding to a rural park containing a number of walking trails. At the park, Mr. N.D. was ordered out of the vehicle and escorted by the three accused down a trail into some bushes. The accused S. led the way while holding a metal baseball bat, with the accused P. walking next to the victim while still holding the knife and Mr.

G.S.S., the offender before me, taking up the rear. [ 13 ] At some point they stopped with the victim backed up against a tree and surrounded by the three accused, S. on his left, G.S.S. on his right and P. facing him. The victim, understandably at this point, feared for his safety so when he was asked by the accused S. whose fault all of this was, Mr. N.D. replied it was his own fault which, of course, I infer he said as a form of appeasement in the hope that he would, thereby, not be further assaulted. [ 14 ] The attempted appeasement was unsuccessful and S. swung the bat at Mr.

N.D. striking him in the left thigh causing him to collapse to the ground in a fetal position. The bat was then passed to the accused P. While on the ground, the victim was punched and kicked multiple times and was struck a total of four times with the bat. While he definitely saw the accused P. punching and kicking him, he did not see G.S.S. hit him during the approximately one minute that he was on the ground receiving these blows. [ 15 ] The assault on Mr. N.D. was abruptly terminated at the sound of horses hooves, when all three accused ran back to their car and departed the scene.

The victim was, shortly afterwards, discovered by a woman on horseback riding through the trails. He was clearly injured, clutching his leg and hyperventilating. The woman called the police who attended the scene, gathered the relevant information and arrested the three accused within about 15 or 20 minutes, by which time they were seen departing P.'s residence in a different motor vehicle.

[16] The victim N.D. suffered significant physical and psychological injuries as a result of his confinement and beating. While hewas fortunately spared any fractures or serious internal injuries, photographs do reveal red marks and welts on his back and his head. [17] A victim impact statement filed by Mr. N.D. discloses feelings of depression, paranoia and introversion. He has found itdifficult to focus during his studies and employment and is taking anti-anxiety medication.

While he is a university student and remainsinvolved in wrestling, he experiences emotional upset and is easily angered and has nightmares. Now, more than two-and-a-half yearslater, he still suffers from chronic back pain and, on occasion, severe headaches requiring physiotherapy and painkillers. He eventuallymoved away from Abbotsford to Calgary which had significant impact on him and his family's financial situation. He is afraid in publicplaces, has trouble going out alone, and has recurring thoughts and fears about what happened to him and that it could happen again. Hehas, at times, contemplated suicide.

He has been required to engage in counselling sessions to deal with all of these issues. [18] The foregoing addresses the circumstances of the substantive offence disclosing Mr. G.S.S.'s role in drawing the victim out ofhis home and, at the very least, to participating in the victim's ensuing confinement and beating conducted in his presence and therebywith his tacit support. At no time is it alleged or otherwise established that he ever physically harmed Mr. N.D. at any time. [19] Following his arrest on this offence on July the 8th, 2015, Mr.

G.S.S. was eventually released on a Recognizance of Bailrequiring a $500 cash deposit with a condition he not go outside his place of residence between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Hehas pled guilty to breaching that recognizance when police located him on September the 5th, 2015, as a front-seat passenger in a motorvehicle at 2:15 a.m., well past his curfew. Despite this breach, he was eventually re-released, this time on a surety bail in the amount of$1,500 which he has been on up until today. [20] This is not a joint submission on sentence.

The Crown seeks a term of institutional incarceration in the range of six to ninemonths, followed by a 12 month probation order, along with certain ancillary orders for the substantive offence and a 14 day consecutivejail term for the breach charge. By contrast, the defence submission is for a global suspended sentence and a 24 month probation order. Counsel for both the Crown and the defence are in agreement that, regardless of the sentence imposed, Mr.

G.S.S. is entitled to havinghis 58 days of actual time spent in custody credited by a factor of 1.5, for a total credit of 87 days time served. [21] The Crown submits that Mr.

G.S.S.'s conduct is deserving of a significant term of institutional incarceration regardless of hislack of prior criminal record, given the serious deprivation of the young victim's liberty and the injuries inflicted on him in this groupsetting. [22] The fundamental principles and purpose sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code require the imposition of justsanctions having one or more of the objectives of denunciation, specific and general deterrence, separation of offenders from societywhere necessary, rehabilitation of offenders, the provision of reparations for harm done and finally, to promote a sense of responsibilityin offenders acknowledging the harm done to victims or to the community. [23] Pursuant to s. 718.01, denunciation and deterrence are of particular importance in cases involving the abuse of a person underthe age of 18 years.

This is an important feature of this case. [24]

Section 718.1, which can be regarded as a central feature of Canadian sentencing law provides that a sentence must beproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [25]

Section 718.2 sets out a number of factors the court shall take into consideration when imposing sentence including aggravatingor mitigating circumstances, questions of motive, evidence of special relationships, abuse of persons under the age of 18 years, or abuseof positions of trust or authority in relation to a victim. [26] The court is also mandated to consider questions of impact on victims. [27]

Section 718.2(

b) addresses the need for parity in sentence and subsection (

c) refers to what is often referred to as the totalityprinciple when considering consecutive sentences. Subsections (

d) and (

e) require the court to not deprive offenders of their liberty ifless restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances and to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that arereasonable and consistent with the harm done, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [28] Both Crown and defence presented a number of cases setting out the applicable sentencing principles and supporting theirrespective sentencing position. There is little controversy that in this case the key principles are those relating to deterrence,denunciation and rehabilitation.

While I have read all the cases provided by counsel and will refer to some of them in these reasons, itmust always be remembered that no two cases are entirely alike and that ultimately, sentencing is an individually tailored process. See,for example, paragraph 58 in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 , [2015] 3 SCR 1089. [29] Lacasse was quoted in the decision of our Court of Appeal in R. v. Slizak, 2017 BCCA 279.

Slizak discusses the importanceand the limits of sentencing ranges in crafting of sentences that are proportionate and reflecting the gravity of the offence, the moralblameworthiness of the offender and that are not demonstrably unfit. [30] The Crown relies on R. v.

Umpherville, a decision of the Alberta Provincial Court reported at 2016 ABPC 96 where threefemale Aboriginal offenders aged 19, 22 and 24 lured their female victim to a rural location where they assaulted her by tying her wrists,blindfolding her, covering her head with a cloth and then punched, kicked and threatened her in a sustained and vicious manner resultingin severe bruising and abrasions to most of her body.

On charges that included threatening, kidnapping, unlawful confinement andassault causing bodily harm, they each received sentences of 12 months incarceration on the assault with smaller concurrent sentences onthe related charges and 24 months of probation. The court found the normal range to have been between 18 to 24 months for all of thoseoffences but reduced the sentence to reflect the guilty pleas, the remorse, the youthfulness and previous good character of the offendersand the applicable Gladue principles.

Specifically, the court found that even though a conditional sentence order was a statutorilyprecluded option for at least some of the charges, that it would not have imposed it in any event because it was not, in that case,consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, in particular, that it would not adequately express the level ofdenunciation and deterrence required in the case.

[31] Crown also referred the court to the Ontario Court of Justice decision in R. v. Samani, 2013 ONCJ 161.

In Samani, three femaleoffenders in their early and mid-twenties were sentenced for the forcible confinement and assault on a female victim who was lured intoa car where she was blindfolded and punched repeatedly for 10 or 15 minutes and then dragged out of the car and abandoned, leaving hernot only bruised and bloodied but also psychologically scarred. [32] The court noted significant mitigating factors of a guilty plea and an expression of remorse, as well as the offender's relativeyouthfulness and lack of a prior criminal record. [33] However, the court weighed these mitigating factors against the numerous aggravating factors that include the high degree ofplanning and persistence; the numerical advantage the offenders had over the victim; the manner of the confinement and assault; her totalabandonment without any concern for her wellbeing; and the profound impact on her. [34] Balancing these considerations and despite the court regarding these offenders as already having been largely rehabilitated atthe time of sentencing, the court concluded that a conditional sentence order, while technically available as a sentencing option, wouldneither address the safety of the community nor be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Each of theoffenders was sentenced to an equivalent of just over six months of institutional incarceration followed by two years of probation. [35] R. v. Carrillo is a case from our Court of Appeal and reported at 2015 BCCA 192. Carrillo demonstrates the importance ofrecognizing exceptional circumstances that may merit the imposition of a sentence outside of the normal range.

In that case the accused,a mid-level trafficker in narcotics was, by reason of his subsequently acquired Bell's palsy and resulting partial paralysis and othermedical complications, determined by the sentencing judge to justify a suspended sentence instead of the 18 to 24 month jail term soughtby the Crown.

The sentence was upheld with the Court of Appeal noting at paragraph 35 of the decision that while suspended sentencesare primarily rehabilitative in nature, they can also address deterrence; and further at paragraph 36, that a substantial deprivation ofliberty can still be imposed by way of curfew condition. [36] In R. v. D.E.S.M. (BC CA), [1993] BCJ 702, a five judge panel of the Court of Appeal added a strict curfewas a term of the probation order originally imposed by the sentencing judge following a 45-day intermittent sentence for two sexualoffences.

At paragraph 27 of the decision the court noted that the existence of special circumstances such as demonstrated self-rehabilitation, or where there is the risk of what was described as "dehabilitation" and real harm to an established family unit,conventional general deterrence need not always be given priority over all other considerations. [37] R. v. Bone, a 2015 decision reported at 2015 BCSC 1484, Mr.

Justice Leask imposed a conditional sentence order of two yearsless a day on a 22-year old offender having no prior criminal record who had pled guilty to the unlawful confinement, assault andthreatening of a young man. The court in that case accepted the facts as being unusual by virtue of compliance by the accused with thevery strict bail conditions that were akin to a conditional sentence order and the remorse demonstrated by the accused.

The court alsonoted the matter had proceeded by way of guilty plea and the facts surrounding the victim's confinement were generally regarded asbeing at the low end of the range. [38] Finally, in R. v. Hockley and Thomas, 2013 BCSC 113, the two accused in that case invaded the victim's home after he hadtaken some money for a subcontracting job but failed to do the work. The victim suffered several bruises and cuts to his head as a resultof being assaulted with sticks wielded by the accused. However, his injuries were not regarded as serious. The court at paragraph 34cited the Supreme Court decision in R. v.

Nakamura, 2012 BCSC 327, adopting the proposition that a noncustodial sentence withsufficient conditions could satisfy the principles of deterrence and denunciation in connection with the commission of serious offences insome instances. [39] I believe the foregoing decisions set out the range of sentencing most commonly imposed, as well as the principles applied tothe facts of each particular case. [40] As I noted previously, sentencing is, indeed, an individualized process requiring the application of established legal principlesto the unique circumstances of each offence and each offender. [41] I have already recounted the circumstances of the offence and will now address the circumstances of the offender. [42] Mr.

G.S.S. was 19 years old at the time of this offence and is now 22 years of age. He resides with his parents in Abbotsford. His father operates a trucking business. During his high school years he was involved in competitive wrestling but he appears to havetaken a turn in the wrong direction when, around Grade 11, he began to associate with a negative peer group. During this time he wasintroduced to the use of steroids, alcohol and prescription drugs that included Xanax, Adderall and Percocet. [43] The report prepared by Dr. Thinda notes that this polysubstance abuse played a significant influence on Mr.

G.S.S.'s lifestylechoices generally and on his poor decision making around the commission of these offences, during which time he was reportedly underthe influence of a significant amount of the drug Xanax. It would appear that Mr. G.S.S. continued to abuse these drugs even for manymonths following the commission of these offences until he was eventually enrolled in a 90 day residential treatment program which hesuccessfully completed in March of 2017, describing it to Dr. Thinda as a life-changing experience. [44] It was following the completion of this program that Mr. G.S.S. began to see Dr.

Thinda for follow-up psychological treatment. During these appointments, Dr. Thinda reports that Mr. G.S.S. expressed remorse for his actions. In the roughly 10 months post-offence,he had made a number of positive lifestyle changes and was helping with his father's trucking business but during these sessions with Dr.Thinda he eventually appeared, despite the positive steps he had taken, to also be now grappling with the onset of mental healthsymptoms that would later be identified as a specific form of mental illness. By January of 2018, Mr.

G.S.S. began to experiencehallucinations, hearing voices and expressing uncontrolled anger. Dr. Thinda concluded these symptoms to be indicative of an earlypsychosis and he recommended psychiatric intervention. [45] In February 2018, Mr. G.S.S.'s condition deteriorated to the point that he was hospitalized for five days in the psychiatric wardof the Abbotsford Regional Hospital. Following his release, he suffered a relapse and was located essentially wandering alone on the

Abbotsford/Mission highway. He was then readmitted to hospital and at that time formally diagnosed with bipolar disorder, a manic depressive illness. He was prescribed a variety of medications and at the time of his discharge, according to the letter provided by his treating psychiatrist Dr. Uppal, was noted to be free of psychosis, alert, oriented and not suicidal. He has been provided a treatment plan that includes follow up with an early psychosis intervention team and he is observed to have demonstrated insight into his illness and a willingness to engage in the treatment plan. [ 46 ] In

summary, this offender had no prior criminal history when, at the age of 19, he became involved with a negative peer group and began abusing prescription drugs in a way that likely contributed to his poor decision making and participation in the index offence.

Thereafter, and despite a variety of positive steps taken by him to successfully complete a residential treatment program, attain his Grade 12 equivalency certificate and work in his father's trucking business, he suffered a serious deterioration of his mental health that eventually led to a diagnosis of bipolar disorder which he only recently appears to have brought under control aided by significant medical intervention. [ 47 ] I think it is a matter of some speculation as to what extent Mr. G.S.S.'s current mental illness factored into his participation in the index offence. Dr.

Thinda wonders, in his report, whether he may possibly have had this condition all along but that it may have been masked by the prior substance abuse. [ 48 ] On the basis of the evidence before me, while I am able to conclude that Mr. G.S.S.'s negative peer group associations and drug use likely had a significant influence on his participation of the index offence, I am unable to conclude that his currently diagnosed mental illness played any such role at the time. The evidence establishing that connection is simply not there.

While his current mental illness is nonetheless a factor to consider on sentencing, it is not a relevant factor for his contribution or commission of the offence. [ 49 ] As a result of this finding, I conclude that his moral blameworthiness for this offence, to the extent he participated in it, is high. [ 50 ] As noted, the particularly aggravating circumstances of this case are that these three accused essentially ganged up on and extracted an unwilling 16-year-old boy from within his own home, where he was hiding in a closet, confined him in a motor vehicle where he was beaten and threatened and then walked him to a rural area where he was further assaulted, including with a baseball bat, and then abandoned.

While his physical injuries appear to be in the course of resolving, the psychological impact on this young man continues to this day. [ 51 ] On the facts of this case, the principles of general deterrence and denunciation factor heavily in favour of a term of incarceration. That said, it would appear on the Agreed Statement of Facts that the participation of the other two accused in this offence was considerably more serious than that of this accused who served mainly to draw the victim out of his home. He did not himself inflict any physical harm on Mr. N.D.

He has no prior criminal record and his actions were, as previously noted, heavily influenced by the negative peer group he was associating with and his heavy consumption of prescription drugs. [ 52 ] I do accept that he is genuinely remorseful and not likely to engage in this type of offence ever again.

So, in that respect, his rehabilitation is well underway. [ 53 ] Even with all of these mitigating factors, an institutional jail sentence could, nonetheless, still be justified under ordinary circumstances in order to adequately express the principles of denunciation and deterrence. [ 54 ] For the reasons that I have earlier recounted, I do not agree that a suspended sentence, even with strict conditions, will adequately address those principles. [ 55 ] There is, however, one additional factor earlier discussed in these reasons that I believe merits special consideration and that is the question of Mr.

G.S.S.'s current mental health. [ 56 ] The prevailing medical opinion is that Mr. G.S.S. is only in the very early stages of a stable recovery that has been assisted by police, paramedics and doctors and that he needs a comprehensive treatment plan. Dr. Thinda notes in his report that this is a critical stage of Mr. G.S.S.'s medical recovery that could be imperilled in the event of his further incarceration institutionally, which would place him at a high risk of emotional decompensation if exposed to an institutional jail sentence. Dr. Thinda opines in his report that if Mr.

G.S.S.'s mental health needs are met and monitored, he will not be at risk of reoffending and he will have a much better chance at achieving a healthy adulthood. In short, the prevailing medical opinion is that institutional incarceration will not only fail to support Mr. G.S.S.'s rehabilitation, it will be contrary to it. [ 57 ] Under these circumstances, I must consider if Mr. G.S.S. would be capable of being incarcerated under the conditional sentence provisions of the Criminal Code .

The prerequisites for such a sentence is that it must be of a duration less than two years, it must not endanger the safety of the community, and it must be otherwise consistent with the fundamental principles of sentence set out in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 58 ] No one is suggesting Mr. G.S.S. receive a sentence anywhere close to a two year term and so that condition is not an obstacle, and as long as Mr. G.S.S. continues with the mental health treatment plan the doctors have prescribed for him, he is not an individual that I believe will reoffend or imperil the safety of the community.

The real question is whether the service of any term of incarceration in the community, on the serious facts of this case, will adequately address the fundamental purpose and principles of sentence which, in this case and other cases like it, relate primarily to denunciation and deterrence.

It is here that the question of his fragile mental state and the risk of losing the progress he has made becomes, in my view, a driving consideration. [ 59 ] On the unique circumstances of this particular offender, I conclude that incarcerating him in the community will both preserve the gains he has made and, under properly crafted conditions, will meet the principles of denunciation and general deterrence. It is a jail sentence. As noted earlier, those principles having particular regard to the age of the victim and the severe impact on him simply cannot be met by a suspended sentence. Mr.

G.S.S., would you please stand. [ 60 ] Before considering any time that you have spent in custody, the sentence I would impose for your commission of this offence

would be a term of nine months incarceration.

You have served the equivalent of three months in custody and, therefore, the sentence I impose, effective today, is one of three months time served plus six months jail to be served in the community. [ 61 ] That sentence will be followed by a term of 18 months probation. [ 62 ] The sentence will be concurrent on both Informations. [ 63 ] The terms and conditions of your conditional sentence order will be as follows, and this will be subject to any further submissions either counsel may wish to make but they will be as follows. [ 64 ] You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 65 ] You must report forthwith to a supervisor, in person, thereafter as and when directed. [ 66 ] You must reside with your parents and not change that place of residence without the prior written approval of your supervisor. [ 67 ] You must obey all rules of your place of residence made known to you. [ 68 ] You are to be confined to your place of residence during the conditional sentence order unless you have the prior written approval of your supervisor to be outside of your home for purposes of employment or to tend to any personal errands or appointments, not exceeding in the aggregate more than four hours per week. [ 69 ] You are to present yourself at the front door of your place of residence as and when required by a peace officer to ensure compliance with the house arrest. [ 70 ] You are to take and successfully complete such counselling as directed by your supervisor. [ 71 ] You must not contact or communicate directly or indirectly with N.D., J.D., S. or P. [ 72 ] You must not attend within 300 metres of any place of residence, school, or employment of N.D. and J.D., including but not limited to [omitted for publication], Abbotsford. [ 73 ] You must not possess any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon and other items, that will be itemized, as set forth in s. 515(4.11) of the Criminal Code . [ 74 ] You are not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code . [ 75 ] You are not to possess any knives outside your place of residence, save and except for the immediate preparation or consumption of food. [ 76 ] Unless there are any other terms and conditions, I will move on to the probation order. (DISCUSSION) [ 77 ] THE COURT: Take such counselling and attend at such medical appointments as directed by your supervisor.

So that would not apply to the curfew. That would be outside any curfew hours. [ 78 ] So I am back to this question of grappling with whether I ought to actually allow any exception, other than for employment and if so, how to reasonably craft that. [ 79 ] I am just going to say for a total period not exceeding four hours per week, with prior written notice to your supervisor. So the supervisor will keep track of the hours that way. It will be up to a total of four hours and he has to get prior approval for each such departure from the residence. [ 80 ] MR.

GILL: Prior approval from? [ 81 ] THE COURT: His supervisor. He can use those four hours for any reasonable thing like personal errands and things like that. He can be outside of his place of residence for up to four hours a week as long as he -- with prior written notice to your supervisor. So he does not need the approval of his supervisor, just prior notice to him. [ 82 ] MR. GILL: Prior notice to the supervisor. [ 83 ] THE COURT: To the supervisor. [ 84 ] MR. GILL: To a maximum of four hours? [ 85 ] THE COURT: Correct. [ 86 ] MR.

GILL: Thank you. [ 87 ] THE COURT: The probation order following with be for a duration of 18 months, substituting the words probation officer where the word supervisor appears, taking out the house arrest. So there will be reporting to a probation officer forthwith upon release from custody, in other words, after serving your CSO. He will still reside with his parents, that will be a condition, and not change it without prior notice to his parents. He will still follow the rules of his place of residence as made known to him. The “no contacts” and the “no goes” will remain.

The only thing taken out then will be the house arrest.

[ 88 ] Are there any other terms of conditions that anyone thinks might be of benefit to this man? (DISCUSSION) [ 89 ] THE COURT: I am going to delete the present yourself at the front door and I am going to add to the house arrest the following. This house arrest shall be electronically monitored. [ 90 ] MR. GILL: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 91 ] THE COURT: Thank you for that. The ancillary orders are then that pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , I prohibit you from possessing any of the items set forth in that

section for a period of 10 years from today's date. [ 92 ] I also, I think this being a secondary designated offence, order that you provide such samples of your DNA that are suitable for analysis. That can be done in an out-of-custody setting. I think ordinarily, and I am not sure how it is done here, is it at the Abbotsford police detachment? [ 93 ] THE CLERK: Your Honour, I believe there's set times for DNA and it's Wednesdays between 9:00 and 10:00. [ 94 ] THE COURT: Okay.

That you attend at the Abbotsford police department this Wednesday between the hours of 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. [ 95 ] Victim fine surcharge? [ 96 ] MR. WUN: Yes. One hundred dollars. [ 97 ] THE COURT: Time to pay that, Mr. Gill? [ 98 ] MR. GILL: If he may have a reasonable period of time. [ 99 ] THE COURT: I think I can do up to 60 days. [ 100 ] MR. GILL: That would be acceptable. Thank you, Your Honour. [ 101 ] THE COURT: All right. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)