R. v. Sinclair, 2014 MBPC 13

CITATION: R. v. Sinclair , 2014 MBPC 13 Date: 20140227 IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ) D. Buors, ) for the Crown ) and ) ) ) Donalda Sinclair ) L. Tailleur, Accused ) for the Accused ) ) ) Reasons for Decision delivered ) orally February 27, 2014 ) C. Devine P.J. [ 1 ] This is a sentencing decision for a serious home invasion by a 30 year old woman who is a first-time offender.

Donalda Sinclair pled guilty to housebreak enter aggravated assault and assault with weapon from July 3, 2011, and two counts of failure to comply with the abstain condition in her recognizance. [ 2 ] This sentencing pinpoints the difficult job of imposing sentence where the crime is vicious and terrifying and the offender is Aboriginal and a product of severe poverty, racism, sexism and the legacy of residential schooling and displacement discussed by the Supreme Court in Gladue and Ipeelee . [ 3 ] As Justice Steel stated in McCowan , 2010 MBCA 45 : Determining sentence is one of the hardest jobs that judges have.

Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code set out a list of sentencing objectives that the judge must take into account within the matrix of the individual facts of a case. This exercise is ..... a delicate balancing act........ (at para. 1) [ 4 ] This job is more difficult when the judge has before her an offender such as Ms Sinclair and where there is an absence of a release plan that would fulfil the objectives of restorative sentencing. [ 5 ] Ms Sinclair has been in custody almost one year, 346 days to be precise.

The Crown is seeking four years in the penitentiary, taking into account the Gladue factors and the guilty plea in the light of the exigencies in the Crown’s case. The defence is seeking six months in addition to her pre-sentence custody and a period of probation. Facts :

[ 6 ] The facts are simple. Ms Sinclair and Shianne Neepin had a beef at the Woodbine Hotel. They fought and Ms Sinclair got the worst of it. She went to the hospital. She spoke to police but was intoxicated and belligerent with police and medical staff. She left the hospital. At some point either at the hospital or after she left, four people joined her, two men and two women. The men had metal baseball bats.

They went to Shianne Neepin’s house at 10:30 in the morning, broke in, whacked her friend Tamara Oman across the arm with a bat, sent her flying to the ground and then beat Shianne Neepin with baseball bats and kicked and punched her, in front of her 10 year old daughter. Shianne Neepin could hear both her little girls screaming and crying. The child called police. One of the men held up the bat to the little girl in a threatening manner. Shianne Neepin was 10 weeks pregnant at the time.

Photographs of Shianne Neepin show a long stitched-up or stapled wound about three inches long to the back of her head, cuts and bruising to her face and arms, and huge reddish-purple bruises in the shape of the baseball bat on her upper back and side. [ 7 ] Ms Sinclair did not wield the bat. She pled guilty as a party to the offence. [ 8 ] As in any sentencing decision, the main purpose is to impose a sentence that reflects the gravity of the offence and the degree of moral culpability of the offender. There is no question about the gravity of the offence here.

Several people broke into Shianne Neepin’s home, with her two young children present, slugged Ms Oman with a bat and then beat Ms Neepin viciously with baseball bats. Her home. Her place of security. The place for privacy, security and family was violated by a gang of people intent in causing her harm. Not only are her injuries horrific; the home invasion aspect of this crime makes it more serious than other aggravated assaults. If Shianne Neepin cannot feel safe in her home, where can she feel safe?

And how will that 10 year old girl get past seeing a group of men and women beat her mother almost to death – and then threaten her with the bat? One of the most basic human needs is to have a safe and secure home. Ms Sinclair and the group she was with violated, in a most frightening manner, that most basic human need and right – to be secure in one’s own home. [ 9 ] This is an extremely serious offence. [ 10 ] As for Ms Sinclair’s degree of responsibility, this was a planned home invasion/assault.

Several people, learning of the fight that the offender had with Ms Neepin, armed themselves with bats and descended upon her home. [ 11 ] It is analogous to the home invasion assault cases of McCowan , 2010 MBCA 45 ; Pakoo , 2004 MBCA 157 ; and Abraham , 2012 MBPC 77 , which were cases of planned break-ins with the intention to assault the known victims. Like Abraham , “It was a pre- meditated, prolonged and aggressive attack.” (at para. 11) [ 12 ] However, Ms Sinclair did not wield the bat. I have no facts as to the role she played as a party.

But, she was a party to the offence, so in some manner helped or encouraged the ones who slammed the baseball bats into Ms Neepin and Ms Oman. As a party, however, particularly where I have no information as to the specifics of the role she played, the degree of responsibility is less than that of those who actually committed the assaults. [ 13 ] Her degree of responsibility is also affected by her background as a 30 year old First Nations woman. As the Supreme Court of Canada directed in Gladue at paragraph 37, I must consider the unique systemic and background factors that have played a

part in bringing Ms Sinclair before the courts. It is intrinsic to the proportionality analysis fundamental to the law of sentencing. ( Ipeelee at para. 87) [ 14 ] As Justice LeBel stated at paragraph 73 of Ipeelee , there is a two-part analysis that is required in s. 718.2 (e). The first part of that analysis determines how the Aboriginal person’s background impacts on the proportionality analysis: First, systemic and background factors may bear on the culpability of the offender, to the extent that they shed light on his or her level of moral blameworthiness. . . . .

Many Aboriginal offenders find themselves in situations of social and economic deprivation with a lack of opportunities and limited options for positive development. While this rarely - if ever - attains a level where one could properly say that their actions were not voluntary and therefore not deserving of criminal sanction, the reality is that their constrained circumstances may diminish their moral culpability . As Greckol J. of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated, at para. 60 of R. v. Skani , 2002 ABQB 1097 , 331 A.R. 50 , [page478] after describing the background factors that lead to Mr.

Skani coming before the court, "[f]ew mortals could withstand such a childhood and youth without becoming seriously troubled." Failing to take these circumstances into account would violate the fundamental principle of sentencing - that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender . [Emphasis added.] [ 15 ] A comprehensive pre-sentence report was filed in this case. [ 16 ] Ms Sinclair is of Cree background from the Grand Rapids area. Several of her maternal uncles and aunts were taken to residential school.

Her grandfather hid her mother, so she did not go. The community was flooded during the era of her mother’s childhood, and as a result the family lost everything and lived in poverty. Ms Sinclair’s family did not practise Aboriginal traditions, customs and spirituality as she was growing up. Although she was baptised Catholic, no Christian faith was practised in the home. [ 17 ] She grew up in Grand Rapids until she was 13. Her parents are both deceased. Her upbringing was tragic. Her parents were unable to provide a loving and nurturing home.

Her father was an unfaithful, abusive, unreliable alcoholic who fathered many children not only with Ms Sinclair’s mother, but also with several of her aunts. He physically abused her mother who finally committed suicide. She has 10 known siblings and at least two half-siblings whose names she does not know. She went to The Pas for elementary school, where she was picked on and bullied.

She was sexually abused by an adult male when she was six. [ 18 ] At the age of 13 she started drinking with her parents, was using marijuana regularly (having first used it at age six), became sexually active, and did whatever she wanted. She was assaulted by other teens. Her mother decided to move to Winnipeg with her and her brother. [ 19 ] She only went to school until Grade nine and then dropped out. [ 20 ] Her step-mother Pearl Thomas married her father when Ms Sinclair’s mother could not look after the children. Ms Sinclair left

home at 15, at the time heavily drinking and using drugs. Ms Thomas commented in the report that she believed Ms Sinclair was using them “to escape the reality and nightmare of her life.” [ 21 ] She has never had a job. She has been collecting EIA as a stay-at-home mother since 2008. She told the probation worker that she was receiving disability payments due to injuries sustained from a shooting in 2008 and a badly broken foot two years ago.

EIA advised the probation worker, however, that Ms Sinclair does not receive disability benefits – just benefits as a stay-at-home mother. [ 22 ] She started getting pregnant as a teenager. I do not know how many children she has had. She told the probation worker she had four children, two of whom are in care. Her step-mother said she is aware that Ms Sinclair has at least seven children under the age of 14. She also lost a twin shortly after birth, and had an abortion and an ectopic pregnancy as a teenager. She has had five miscarriages, the first at age 16.

One of the miscarriages was as a result of a severe assault by one of her many abusive, negative partners. The only man she ever loved passed away last year. [ 23 ] She recognizes that she has had an alcohol and drug problem since her teens. Prior to this period of custody, she had never been sober even for nine months. This is despite her several pregnancies. Prior to her arrest on these charges, she would spend most days looking for alcohol and visiting friends. She would spend the monthly EIA cheque on alcohol. She has no other interests. [ 24 ] Many of her friends and acquaintances are criminally involved.

Any positive people in her life, like her step-mother and her half-sister, wish to keep her at arm’s length to protect the integrity and sanity of their own homes and families. [ 25 ] Ms Sinclair was intoxicated at the time of the offence. She cannot remember it. She has a long-standing and severe addiction to alcohol. Her history and legacy reads like a Dickensian horror story set in modern-day Manitoba. She not surprisingly suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and anxiety. [ 26 ] The moral culpability of Donalda Sinclair is attenuated by this background.

Objectives [ 27 ] The relevant objectives of sentencing in this case are denunciation, general deterrence and rehabilitation. [ 28 ] In addition to the objectives of sentencing and the overarching principle of proportionality, there are other sentencing principles I have considered. [ 29 ] A sentence is to be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances of the offence or the offender. (s. 718.2(a)) [ 30 ] It is statutorily aggravating that the aggravated assault occurred as part of a home invasion.

As Justice Steel stated in McCowan , A person’s home is their refuge, and Parliament has emphasized by this

section that attacks inside a citizen’s supposed place of security requires special denunciation. (para. 8) [ 31 ] It is aggravating that the victim’s children were home and at least the 10 year old witnessed the assault on her mother. [ 32 ] It is aggravating that the child was threatened. [ 33 ] The severity of the injuries to Ms Neepin are aggravating. [ 34 ] It is mitigating that Ms Sinclair has plead guilty, especially given the exigencies in the Crown’s case. [ 35 ] It is mitigating that Ms Sinclair was a party, not a principal. [ 36 ] It is mitigating that she has expressed real remorse for the crime and wants to apologize to Ms Neepin. [ 37 ] I have also considered the principle of parity (s. 718.2(b)), which requires that similar offences and offenders should be similarly sentenced.

I take into consideration that the principle of parity alone does not govern, particularly where the offender is of Aboriginal background. Nonetheless, it is important to see how offenders committing similar offences have been sentenced by the Courts, if not similar offenders. [ 38 ] McCowan was, like this case, a retaliatory attack after a break and enter, as was Pakoo , sometimes referred to as setting the guideline for non-traditional home invasions at seven to ten years. In McCowan , the offender and his wife had been crack cocaine addicts. He cleaned up. She didn’t.

She started living with her dealer, leaving Mr. McCowan and their children. One day the offender climbed the apartment building and got onto the balcony of the apartment where his ex-wife and the crack dealer were living. The crack dealer warned him to go away or the police would be called. A few nights later, the offender scaled the wall again, broke in, caught the two in bed and savagely beat the victim. The victim suffered a fractured jaw, laceration of the scalp, extensive facial trauma and brain injury. He was permanently disabled by the attack.

The offender had spent 33 months in pre-sentence custody for which he was credited to five and a half years, which was followed by three years of probation. Mr. McCowan had a dated record, with an assault from 1993 and some unrelated convictions. He also had a very positive pre-sentence report and letters of support and recommendation, including a very positive letter from the chaplain at Headingley Correctional Centre. [ 39 ] Pakoo also involved a rage- and jealousy-fuelled break-in and attack by a man on his ex-wife’s new partner. He went to the home of his ex-wife and new partner, firing a rifle into the home.

Children inside the home were almost hit. He pointed the rifle at his ex-wife and new partner and tried to fire the gun again, but it jammed. His sentence was increased from four years to five years, eight and a half months. The Court of Appeal said that seven to ten years is the appropriate range for serious home invasions and on the facts of Pakoo , that range was similarly suitable.

[ 40 ] These cases can be distinguished because Ms Sinclair was a party, not a principal, and she is a person of Aboriginal background. [ 41 ] The Court of Appeal reiterated in LLDG , 2012 MBCA 106 , that it is an error to too quickly analogize all housebreak commit offences as serious home invasions or home invasion robberies. (at paras. 37–40) In that case, the young Aboriginal offender was sentenced to a 10-year term of imprisonment for a break and enter and commit sexual assault on a sleeping woman which her seven and ten year old children witnessed.

The Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of five years. [ 42 ] The case of Abraham filed by the Crown is most similar to this case. Ms Abraham was a 22 year old Aboriginal woman. She had been in an abusive, controlling relationship with a much older man who provided her drugs. She broke off the relationship, but he was not accepting it and continued to call her and convince her to come back. She and a friend, intoxicated, decided to teach the victim a lesson. They broke into his house and then bear-sprayed him and attacked him with an Exacto knife and punched and kicked him.

His son came to help his father and he too was sprayed and then kicked, hit with a shoe and pushed down the stairs. Ms Abraham did not wield the bear spray or the Exacto knife – her involvement was limited to kicking, punching and pushing. She was charged with break and enter commit assault, aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. She had no criminal record. Her early background has many similarities to that of Ms Sinclair, although she had managed to complete partial university and she did not have any children.

At the time of her pre-trial incarceration there was no programming at the Women’s Correctional Centre as it was just in the transitional period. It was recognized that her addictions and background of instability would require long-term rehabilitation through probation. She was sentenced to two years less a day in addition to the 15 months she had spent in pre-trial custody, to be followed by three years of supervised probation. [ 43 ] I have also considered s. 718.2(

e) which requires that I consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [ 44 ] In 1999 the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue instructed sentencing judges on how to apply s. 718.2 (

e) which was enacted to remedy the crisis of over-representation of Aboriginal people in Canada’s prisons. The purpose of s. 718.2 (

e) is to ameliorate the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in prisons and to encourage sentencing judges to take a restorative approach to sentencing Aboriginal offenders. Justice LeBel stated in paragraph 73 of Ipeelee that the existence of circumstances like Ms Sinclair’s: . . . may also indicate that a sanction that takes account of the underlying causes of the criminal conduct may be more appropriate than one only aimed at punishment per se .

As Cory and Iacobucci JJ. state in Gladue , at para. 69: In cases where such factors have played a significant role, it is incumbent upon the sentencing judge to consider these factors in evaluating whether imprisonment would actually serve to deter, or to denounce crime in a sense that would be meaningful to the community of which the offender is a member.

In many instances, more restorative sentencing principles will gain primary relevance precisely because the prevention of crime as well as individual and social healing cannot occur through other means. [Emphasis added.] [ 45 ] Justice LeBel went on to say that the type of sanctions that might be appropriate for an offender like Ms Sinclair bears on the effectiveness of the sentence. (at para. 74) To that end, the Supreme Court of Canada has directed that judges take judicial notice of the broad systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people, and of the priority given in Aboriginal cultures to a restorative approach to sentencing. [ 46 ] I take judicial notice of the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, higher teenage birth rates and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples. [ 47 ] As well, in the specific case of Ms Sinclair, I take into consideration the history of residential schools and flooding in her community, the quashing of her people’s religion and cultural practises and the sequelae of poverty, abuse, alcoholism and unemployment, low educational achievement and multiple pregnancies. [ 48 ] With respect to the second stage of analysis Justice LeBel directed in Ipeelee , I will now consider the type of sanctions that may be appropriate bearing not only on Ms Sinclair’s degree of culpability, but also on the effectiveness of the sentence.

A Restorative Approach to Sentencing [ 49 ] It is recognized that the sentencing process in the criminal context is not a panacea. Sentencing alone will not get to the roots of the problem of over-incarceration of Aboriginal people. In Gladue , Justices Cory and Iacobucci were mindful of that, recognizing that poverty, substance abuse, lack of education and lack of employment opportunities lead to incarceration.

However, they also stated there is something that sentencing judges can do, at paragraph 65: Sentencing judges are among those decision-makers who have the power to influence the treatment of aboriginal offenders in the justice system.

They determine most directly whether an aboriginal offender will go to jail, or whether other sentencing options may be employed which will play perhaps a stronger role in restoring a sense of balance to the offender, victim, and community, and in preventing future crime. [ 50 ] In Ipeelee , Justice LaBel quoted with favour Professors Rudin and Roach who posed the question: . . . [if an innovative] sentence can serve to actually assist a person in taking responsibility for his or her actions and lead to a reduction in the probability of subsequent re-offending, why should such a sentence be precluded just because other people who commit the same offence go to jail? (J.

Rudin and K. Roach, "Broken Promises: A Response to Stenning and Roberts' 'Empty Promises'" (2002), 65 Sask. L. Rev. 3, at p. 20). Ipeelee at para. 67

[ 51 ] In determining whether restorative justice objectives can be satisfied in a particular case, the judge should consider the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation, including whether the offender has proposed a particular plan of rehabilitation, the availability of the appropriate community service and treatment programs, and whether the offender has acknowledged his wrongdoing and expresses remorse. [ 52 ] It is necessary that the offender present a comprehensive plan to the Court.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal has stated that a restorative plan must be presented to the sentencing judge in order to give effect to s. 718.2 (e). (See para. 22 of Gabriel , 2013 MBCA 45 .) [ 53 ] The defence did not present a plan in this case.

Plans are formulated, even while offenders remain in custody prior to sentencing. [ 54 ] Nonetheless Ms Sinclair’s expression of remorse, although not fully matured, and the work she has done at the Women’s Correctional Centre give me confidence that a restorative sentence is appropriate in this case. [ 55 ] The pre-sentence report provides comprehensive information about Ms Sinclair’s strides towards rehabilitation and reconstruction while she has been in jail. Both her half-sister and her step-mother noted that she is doing very well. But both also noted that there is a long period of reconstruction ahead.

This was echoed by the probation officers who prepared the pre-sentence report and it is recognized by Ms Sinclair herself, who sometimes feels overwhelmed by the enormity of her needs. [ 56 ] Ms Sinclair’s prospects for rehabilitation look good, while she is in the highly-structured, protective environment of the women’s jail. She has completed program booklets and participated in several self-management programs. She seeks spiritual guidance through the Bible and meets regularly with spiritual caregivers. She is a valued employee in the kitchen.

The programs and workbooks she has completed are as follows: • Math; • Learning to Talk and Listen Better; • Getting Along; • Stress; • Child and parent workbooks; • Elizabeth Fry recording stories; • Staying off Cocaine; • Overcoming Addictions; • Relapse Prevention; • Gangs – Learning to Live Without Them; • Anger Management. [ 57 ] She also worked through a 10-session Triple P Parenting program. She worked hard at the program, openly sharing her insight and experiences.

Most importantly, she planned goals for interaction with her children, listed ideas of her own and demonstrated a good understanding of the program. [ 58 ] She has been able to abstain from alcohol and drugs in the confines of the jail for the longest time in her life. Her knowledge of community resources was not enough for her to quit in the past. She recognized that she was not ready to quit before now and nothing helped before now. [ 59 ] She is able to continue to receive treatment from her psychiatrist, psychologist and psych health nurse while in custody, as she would out of custody.

She has several counselling sessions per month with one of these doctors or the nurse. [ 60 ] She has to some extent got over her fear of crowds and groups through the group work she has done at the Women’s Correctional Centre. [ 61 ] Facilitators from Triple P Parenting identified a need for her to continue to work on: • Insecurities; • Failure issues; • Self esteem. [ 62 ] She recognizes she still has a lot to learn about: • Relationships; • Role of family members;

• Abuse and victimization; • How to recognize triggers and prevent violence. [ 63 ] And Probation Services has recommended a plan that would see her get ongoing counselling on these issues, as well as: • Parenting; • Grief; • Loss; • Anger; • Abandonment; • Trust; • Sexual abuse. [ 64 ] I note at pages 16 and 17 of the pre-sentence report: The subject noted she really wants to continue with her own personal healing as she feels she is just beginning to learn the basics of self- management, anger management and parenting skills.

The subject indicated it is wonderful that she is learning all of these skills but she has yet to put it into practise for reality and it sometimes makes her question her abilities. She indicated she is working on her personal issues for depression, self esteem and anxiety, and is opening up about [her childhood traumas]......

She expressed gratitude for the opportunities she has had at WCC and understands she must continue on this path of healing and changing her life . [Emphasis added] [ 65 ] Everyone, including the offender, recognizes that a residential treatment program is the best next step in her healing journey. Her step-mother has recommended Poundmakers Lodge in Alberta – an expensive program, but if she applies for funding through her band, it might be covered. The other place is Nelson House Medicine Lodge.

Probation Services has recommended long-term residential treatment such as that offered at Behavioural Health Foundation or through the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba. [ 66 ] Ms Sinclair’s step-mother Pearl Thomas is supportive of her, recognizing that much needs to be done before she can move back into the community. She told Probation Services that Ms Sinclair: Needs to be completely away from all the negative peers and influences for a long time before transitioning into mainstream society.

She indicated the subject would be better in long term residential treatment where she can come to grips at her own pace and not fall back in with former peers and relationships with people who do not truly care for her. (pp. 8-9) [ 67 ] I agree with the pre-sentence report that Ms Sinclair (and the community) will be better served by her committing to one program instead of involving herself in several programs (p. 20): By focussing and committing to a single residential resource she can slowly prepare for transition back into mainstream society, complete an education upgrade, job training, seek employment, secure a stable environment of positive peers from which to associate with and establish herself more permanently. [ 68 ] Probation Services is very clear.

Without a restorative plan in place, Ms Sinclair is setting herself up for relapse. (p. 19) Although she has mentioned living with her step-mother or step-sister, these options are not open to her. These women cannot risk having Ms Sinclair in their homes at this early point in her healing. [ 69 ] Ms Sinclair was unrealistic in her expressions of planning in court on the date of the sentencing hearing, talking about the support of her 12 sisters, when in fact she has cut contact with most of them, and her half-sister, who loves her very much, must provide support that is not live-in.

Her mention of accessing community resources at Thunderbird House and the Native Women’s Transition is a repetition of her jumping from community resource to community resource prior to this offence. [ 70 ] There is a restorative plan in progress, but it is not community-ready. All of the restorative goals and progress that Ms Sinclair has made have been achieved in the Women’s Correctional Centre. She, her case manager, her step-mother and Probation Services all recommend she continue to get the type of support that she has been receiving at the Women’s Correctional Centre.

For now, she is not ready for the community. She does well in a closely-monitored, structured environment. For now, that is the Women’s Correctional Centre. She will not be ready for some time to be released into the community. [ 71 ] I believe that in Ms Sinclair’s case, a restorative sentence will include a further period of time in custody at the Women’s Correctional Centre, to be followed by a period of probation with time in a residential treatment centre and then a transition into the community.

Sentence [ 72 ] On the aggravated assault and assault with weapon the sentence will be a concurrent one of two years less a day minus the time she has been in custody. That is to be followed by three years of supervised probation.

[ 73 ] The sentence for the breach of recognizance charges will be 14 days concurrent to each other and concurrent to the assault sentences. [ 74 ] This further year in custody will allow for further planning and transition into the community. She has done very well at the Women’s Correctional Centre and will continue to do so. [ 75 ] Three years probation to ensure that there is a safety net, guidance and support for her to continue on this path. [ 76 ] You are still a young woman.

You have made a lot of strides in less than a year, since you have been in Women’s Correctional Centre. [ 77 ] The conditions of your probation order will be as follows: • You will report to Probation Services within two working days of your release from the Women’s Correctional Centre and thereafter as indicated by Probation Services; • You will attend programming and/or activities as deemed appropriate in conjunction with Probation Services to build healthy supports and better occupy your leisure time; • You will seek and maintain employment, and/or attend education upgrading, and/or participate in a job training program as directed by Probation Services such as the Adult Education Centre or Aboriginal Centre; • You will attend the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba for the purpose of a substance abuse assessment and follow any recommendations resulting from that assessment, including a residential treatment program; • You will abstain absolutely from the consumption and/or possession of alcohol, drugs, non-prescription medication, and medication not prescribed for you by a physician; • You will attend, participate and complete any counselling or treatment as directed by Probation Services, including but not limited to anger management, unless you have already completed that while in jail; • You will reside as directed and approved by Probation Services and not move without prior written permission of your Probation Supervisor; • You will write a letter of apology to Shianne Neepin under the supervision of your Probation Officer and provide the original letter to your Probation Officer; • You will observe a curfew as directed and supervised by Probation Services; • You are to have no contact with Shianne Neepin, Kevin Neepin or Tamara Oman nor go within two blocks of their home, workplace, place of worship and so on. [ 78 ]

Section 109 mandatory weapons prohibition for 10 years. [ 79 ] DNA primary designated offence. Waive costs and surcharge. Original signed by Judge C. A. Devine P.J.