R. v. Taylor Date:, 2011 BCPC 85

Citation: R. v. Taylor Date: 20110418 2011 BCPC 0085 File No: 55145-1-K Registry: Richmond IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. COURTNY DAWNE TAYLOR REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE JODIE WERIER Counsel for the Crown: Patti Tomasson Counsel for the Defendant: Chandra Corriveau Place of Hearing: Richmond , B.C.

Date of Hearing: March 25, 2011 Date of Judgment: April 18, 2011 INTRODUCTION AND ADMITTED FACTS: [ 1 ] In the early morning hours of January 31, 2010, Courtny Dawne Taylor, then age 20, gave birth to a full term baby boy in the bathroom of her boyfriend, Trevor Silverwood’s home. Mr. Silverwood was asleep at the time. Ms. Taylor would later tell the police that the baby had been born with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck, and that the baby was not breathing or moving. She did not seek medical attention for herself or the baby. [ 2 ] After delivering the baby, Ms.

Taylor wrapped him in a towel and put him in a garbage bag. She had a shower and cleaned up the blood in the bathroom. She then woke up Mr. Silverwood and told him that she had a miscarriage. She asked Mr. Silverwood for assistance in disposing of the garbage bag because she was concerned that the baby would decompose and smell. About 12 - 14 hours after the birth, they disposed of the bag containing the baby in a garbage dumpster behind a school near Mr. Silverwood’s residence. In the days immediately following the birth, Ms.

Taylor missed only one shift of work, and otherwise followed her usual routines, including going out socially and to the casino. She did not seek any medical assistance after the birth.

[ 3 ] Ms. Taylor was brought to the attention of the police by a co-worker who noticed her sudden weight loss after the birth. After a search by the police at the Burns Bog landfill, only the lower body of the baby, (his lower abdomen, pelvis, legs and feet) were recovered. A Forensic Pathologist conducted an autopsy of the baby but he was unable to determine whether the baby was stillborn or born alive due to the incomplete nature of the baby’s remains. [ 4 ] Ms. Taylor provided a lengthy statement to the police on February 5, 2010.

In this statement she told the police that she had taken two pregnancy tests, one in May, 2010 and one in August, 2010, and that both indicated that she was not pregnant. About two days before giving birth she acknowledges that she did begin to think that she might be pregnant. However, she states that the actual birth was a complete shock to her. [ 5 ] On November 2, 2009, Ms. Taylor saw a doctor at a walk in clinic complaining of cold symptoms and rib pain. He sent her for blood work, but she did not ask for a pregnancy test or tell the doctor that she was pregnant and the doctor did not query her pregnancy.

During Ms. Taylor’s pregnancy, members of her family, her boyfriend, and co-workers had all asked her if she was pregnant, but she consistently denied the pregnancy. During her pregnancy she did not see a doctor either to have a pregnancy test taken or to investigate the absence of her menstrual cycle. [ 6 ] When asked by the police whether she tried to hide her pregnancy and give birth in the bathroom she responded: “Yeah because I didn’t, I didn’t know what to do. Like once I realized what was happening I knew that I couldn’t really tell anyone. I didn’t think people would really believe me.

I was really worried about what people would think.” [ 7 ] Pursuant to

section 655 of the Criminal Code facts were admitted for the purpose of dispensing with the necessity to prove them at the sentencing. These admissions have been marked as Exhibit 1 in this sentencing and I have relied on all of these admissions in considering the appropriate sentence. THE CHARGES: [ 8 ] Ms. Taylor has pled guilty to disposing of the dead body of her son with the intent to conceal the fact that she had delivered him contrary to

Section 243 of the Criminal Code .

Section 243 of the Code provides that: “Every one who in any manner disposes of the dead body of a child, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother has been delivered of it, whether the child died before, during or after birth, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. POSITION ON SENTENCING: [ 9 ] The Crown is seeking an 18 month conditional sentence order, with the first year to be a virtual house arrest. This is to be followed by three years probation. Defence counsel is asking that I impose a 12 - 18 month conditional discharge.

She is not opposed to the probation order containing strict restrictions on the liberty of Ms. Taylor, including a period of house arrest. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS AND PRE SENTENCE REPORT: [ 10 ] Ms. Taylor does not have a criminal record. She has no prior history of mental health problems. There were three reports filed during this sentencing. There is a detailed psychological assessment dated October 14, 2010, conducted by Dr. Hugues Herv é who was hired by defence counsel. He is a registered psychologist who specializes in the area of forensic psychology.

He spent approximately 6 hours interviewing and testing Ms. Taylor. He is of the opinion that Ms. Taylor is at a low risk to re-offend. Dr. Herv é concluded that Ms. Taylor is amenable to treatment, which he recommends. He found that her intelligence, strong social support system and treatment motivation impressed as good prognostic signs. He found that given her risk level, treatment needs, treatment prognosis and recent community functioning, that she is a good candidate for community supervision.

He did not identify any significant mental disorder. [ 11 ] A forensic psychiatric assessment was also conducted by Dr. Nina Fusco, psychologist, and Dr. Ken LaTorre, who is clinical and forensic psychologist. Their report, which was court ordered, is dated March 10, 2011. They interviewed and assessed Ms. Taylor for about three hours. They also did not find any signs or symptoms of any major psychiatric disorder and indicate that she is at a low or moderate risk to re-offend. In their clinical formulation they found that Ms. Taylor was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for her actions.

They say the following at the bottom of page 5 of the report: “She asserted that she did not know that she was pregnant, despite repeated questioning from friends, being sexually active without the use of any contraception or birth control, and noticing physiological changes in her body such as weight gain. As noted, she indicated that she only began to suspect her pregnancy two days prior to giving birth. Furthermore, Ms.

Taylor’s description of the offence, observations by the police during questioning, as well as comments that she reportedly made to her colleagues before her arrest, suggest that she did not show any remorse or negative response. Ms. Taylor impressed as being concerned with others’ perceptions of her rather than the baby or her own health following the birth. Indeed, during the incident, Ms. Taylor seemed more worried about disturbing her boyfriend’s brother and soiling the carpets.

She seemed unconcerned with her actions or her own well-being as evidenced by her choosing to take a nap and smoke marijuana after giving birth to a stillborn baby. Thus, Ms. Taylor appeared to be emotionally disconnected from her own actions and relieved with the outcome of the situation until her arrest. It is unclear to what degree Ms. Taylor’s substance use further contributed to her complacency regarding the offence. It therefore appears that the criminogenic factors that contributed to the index offence include Ms.

Taylor’s egocentricity, remorselessness, negative attitudes, sexual naiveté’ and/or irresponsibility, and perhaps substance abuse to a lesser extent.”

[12] Dr. LaTorre and Dr. Fusco also recommend that Ms. Taylor participate in treatment to reduce the risk of recidivism, to includeindividual cognitive-behavioural psychological treatment focused on developing coping strategies and problem-solving skills, sexeducation, addressing her reliance on illicit substances as well as her negative attitudes. [13] The Pre Sentence Report dated March 25, 2011, provides detail of Ms. Taylor’s background and confirms that she has thesignificant support of her family in the community. The author confirms that Ms.

Taylor expressed her remorse for what transpired andthat she indicated to him that she has been dealing with the emotional trauma since that time. STATEMENT MADE BY MS. TAYLOR: [14] Ms. Taylor was given an opportunity to address the Court at the close of the sentencing argument and she did speak briefly. Thiswas followed up by a letter dated April 12, 2011, addressed to me that has been marked as an exhibit in the sentencing. In this letter Ms.Taylor confirms that she was in a state of shock at the time of the birth and made a poor choice in deciding to dispose of the body of herchild.

She apologizes to those whose lives she has affected, expresses remorse and feelings of guilt. CROWN ARGUMENT: [15] In seeking a conditional sentence order, the Crown has argued that it is important to reflect upon the purpose of

section 243. InDecember, 2010, in the case of Levkovic, the Ontario Court of Appeal examined the purpose of this

section due to a constitutionalchallenge. There, Watt J. A. stated at paragraph 108 that the purpose of s. 243 is to facilitate investigation of an infant death. Byenacting a criminal prohibition against concealment of a dead body of a child, this

section seeks to preserve crucial evidence. When adead body is concealed this impedes and in some cases prevents the timely forensic examination of a deceased child which might havehelped to determine how the death occurred and to assist in establishing whether the death would attract criminal liability. [16] Crown argues that this is precisely what happened in this case. Ms.

Taylor deliberately disposed of the body of her child whichtherefore prevented the timely forensic examination which might have assisted in the determination of when and how the death occurred. [17] Crown relied on 6 cases from various jurisdictions to assist me in my deliberations. The sentences in these cases range from ajail sentence to a conditional sentence order with community work service. A list of the cases relied on by Crown is attached asAppendix A to these reasons. [18] In arguing for an 18 month conditional sentence order, the Crown reminds me that by pleading guilty to this offence, Ms.

Taylorhas admitted that she disposed of the body of her son in order to conceal the fact that she had given birth. Despite several opportunitiesto do so, Ms. Taylor has provided no reasonable explanation for her actions to the professionals who have interviewed her. Herexplanation has simply been that she panicked. Despite being interviewed by two psychologists, they were unable to attribute her actionsto any medical diagnosis.

This makes any suggestion about the appropriate course of treatment to prevent a recurrence of this offencemore difficult and supports a lengthier sentence so that treatment will be successful. [19] The Crown says that the admitted facts support a finding that Ms. Taylor deliberately chose to conceal her pregnancy, as she hadmany opportunities to investigate the changes that were occurring in her body. Crown also points to Ms.

Taylor’s decision not to adviseher boyfriend that she was pregnant and her subsequent lie to him that she had a miscarriage instead of telling him that she had givenbirth to a stillborn child. Although her boyfriend was home during the birth, Ms. Taylor did not seek his assistance but instead asked forhelp only in disposing of the remains. The Crown therefore argues that given Ms. Taylor’s conduct, specific deterrence is an importantprinciple of sentencing in this case. [20] In mitigation the Crown acknowledges that Ms. Taylor has no record, has pled guilty and is 22 years of age.

As an aggravatingfactor she cites the failure on the part of Ms. Taylor to investigate the possibility of her pregnancy when confronted by her friends andfamily. [21] The Crown says that in sentencing Ms. Taylor I should consider the principles of denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Inrelying on the Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Proulx 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 SCR 61, she reminds me that denunciationis the communication of society’s condemnation of an offender’s conduct.

At paragraph 102 of the Proulx decision Lamer C.J.C. states: “…a sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’s conduct should be punished forencroaching on our society’s basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law ... society, through the courts, mustshow its abhorrence of particular types of crime and the only way in which the courts can show this is by the sentence they pass…aconditional sentence can still provide a significant amount of denunciation.

This is particularly so when onerous conditions are imposedand the duration of the conditional sentence is extended beyond the duration of the jail sentence that would ordinarily have been imposedin the circumstances.” [22] The Crown acknowledges that given the mitigating factors and the considerations outlined in

section 742.1 of the Criminal Code,that Ms. Taylor is a candidate for a conditional sentence. She argues that with a conditional sentence the Court can and should imposehouse arrest and mandate treatment. She suggests that Ms. Taylor should spend the first 12 of her 18 month conditional sentence orderunder house arrest. [23] In arguing for a three year probation order, she points out that Ms. Taylor has not voluntarily commenced counselling since theoffence and thus there needs to be a significant period of time for Ms. Taylor to engage in treatment and to be supervised in thecommunity.

She suggests that the conditional sentence order and the probation order contain a provision prevalent in the cases on whichshe relies, which would require Ms. Taylor to report any pregnancy to her Supervisors and medical practitioners and to submit topregnancy testing if appropriate. [24] Crown is opposed to a conditional discharge relying on the Morrow case, the British Columbia Jones case, and the Ontario Jones

case which provide that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest and is not an appropriate sentence due to theprinciples of denunciation and deterrence that need to be addressed. [25] Crown also seeks a discretionary DNA order pursuant to

section 487.051(3) as this is a secondary designated offence. Sheargues that DNA is an important tool that can be used by investigators to solve these types of offences. DEFENCE ARGUMENT: [26] Defence has argued that these types of offences attract a range of sentences from as lenient as an absolute discharge to as onerousas jail. She is seeking a conditional discharge for Ms. Taylor, but provided no legal authorities to assist me in my determination of whena conditional discharge or an absolute discharge has been deemed by the Courts to be an appropriate sentence for a

section 243 offence. In her argument she attempted to distinguish all of the cases that the Crown has relied on, arguing that they are all unique to their facts. She suggests that the probation order include a curfew for the first 6 - 12 months. [27] Defence argues that there are no aggravating circumstances in this case which involves a very young woman giving birth to achild that she did not expect. For Ms. Taylor, she submits, the most important principle of sentencing would be to ensure herrehabilitation. She argues that deterrence and denunciation are less applicable to Ms. Taylor.

In seeking a 12 - 18 month conditionaldischarge, Defence argues that a discharge with a restrictive probation order would be a sufficient meaningful consequence for Ms.Taylor who ought not to be subjected to a criminal record for the commission of this offence. (section 730 (1) of the Criminal Code) [28] Defence has relied on

section 718.2(

e) and has submitted that I should consider the following mitigating factors and othercircumstances to support a finding that it is not contrary to the public interest to impose a discharge for this offence. (R. v. Fallofield (BC CA), [1973] CarswellBC 184 (B.C.C.A.); (R. v. Kurkcuoglu [2010] BCSC 633) • the youth of Ms.

Taylor who is now 22 and was 20 at the time of the offence; • her lack of a criminal record and previous good character; • the fact that she did not suspect that she was pregnant until two days before the birth; • the fact that the doctor that she visited in November 2009 did not identify that she was pregnant; • Ms. Taylor voluntarily participated in the report prepared by Dr. Hervé in October, 2010, and would have attended counselling butcould not afford the cost of private treatment. • Ms. Taylor has been subjected to vilification in the community due to the extensive media reports in this case.

This experienceought to be sufficient to meet the sentencing principle of specific deterrence. • Dr. Hervé has concluded on page 13 of his report that “Ms. Taylor presents a positive attitude towards the possibility of personalchange, the value of therapy and the importance of personal responsibility.” • Ms. Taylor lives with her mother and has the support of her family. • Ms. Taylor is gainfully employed. • Ms. Taylor has done well in the community since the commission of this offence. [29] In response to the Crown’s submissions and the conclusion of the psychologists that Ms.

Taylor has failed to provide a reasonableexplanation for why she committed the offence, Defence counsel argues that panicking in the context of the circumstances of this case, isa reasonable explanation. She relies on the conclusions contained in Dr. Hervé’s report and has sought to discredit the conclusions of theCourt ordered assessment, pointing to the lack of an outline of author’s qualifications. I note, in passing, that Dr.

LaTorre did indicate hiscredentials in the signature portion of the report, is employed by the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, and I am sure, if counselhad requested his credentials that they would have been provided. Defence counsel also points out that while the court orderedpsychological assessment refers to Ms. Taylor’s remorselessness, the Pre Sentence Report confirms that Ms. Taylor has expressedremorse for what has happened and has been trying to deal with the emotional trauma ever since. [30] Defence submits that Ms.

Taylor is not opposed to attending treatment or counselling or being required to report pregnancy andsubmit to pregnancy testing. She is also not opposed to a DNA order being made in the circumstances of this case as Ms. Taylor wasalready required to provide her DNA during the course of the investigation. DECISION: [31] Ms. Taylor has pled guilty to the offence delineated in

section 243 of the Criminal Code. The actus reus of this offence is thedisposing of the body of a child. The mens rea is her intent to conceal the fact that she had delivered the child. As stated in Levkovic, theconcealment of the dead body of a child has been an indictable offence in Canada since July 1, 1893. The definition of the offence hasalways declared it to be immaterial whether the child died before, during or after birth. The circumstances are always tragic. [32] The six authorities relied on by the Crown as examples of the appropriate range of sentences, do not involve the sentencing of anaccused for a committing an offence under

section 243 alone. These cases also involve sentencing an accused under other relatedsections of the Code such as

section 182, indignity to a human body, or

section 242, failing to make provisions for the safe birth of achild. Sections 182 and 242 have maximum sentences of five years while

section 243 has a maximum sentence of two years. All are

indictable offences. In all of the cases relied on, a mother was involved in the death, indignity or concealment of the birth of her child. [ 33 ] I have read all of the cases provided and have found them of assistance in considering what the appropriate disposition should be. While they have provided some guidance, they are all distinguishable on the facts. In all of these cases the primary principles of sentencing employed were rehabilitation, denunciation and deterrence. None of the accused women had criminal records and yet all were sentenced to either jail or conditional sentence orders.

In some a requirement to perform community work service was included. Some of these women were diagnosed with psychiatric conditions and others were not. Some included a condition requiring medical examinations or testing for pregnancy to prevent a recurrence of the offence. Counselling has also been a feature of these orders. [ 34 ] I have also read and considered all of the reports filed as exhibits in this sentencing.

I have found all of them to be helpful and have relied on their contents in assisting me in my deliberations. [ 35 ] The mitigating factors that I have considered are the guilty plea, the lack of a criminal record and Ms. Taylor’s youth. I also accept that Ms. Taylor is willing to engage in a course of counselling and treatment in order to gain some better insight into her own actions and to assist her in coming to terms with her conduct and in ensuring that this type of offence is never repeated. [ 36 ] Pursuant to

section 655 I am bound to accept the admission made by Ms. Taylor that she began to think that she might be pregnant only two days before giving birth. While in all of the circumstances outlined by the Crown it seems that Ms. Taylor should have been aware of this pregnancy long before that, I am unable to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that she was aware of her pregnancy prior to two days before the birth. The offence itself confirms however that Ms. Taylor disposed of her son’s body in order to conceal the fact that she had given birth.

The only explanation offered for this conduct is that she panicked. By disposing of the body of this child in the trash, she has obstructed the ability for the forensic pathologist to determine the cause of death of the child. This is a social stigma that she will be burdened with for the remainder of her life. [ 37 ] In determining what the appropriate sentence should be I have relied on the principles contained in

section 718 , 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code . I have also considered the discharge provisions set out in

section 730 of the Code and the conditional sentence provisions set out in

section 742.1 of the Code. [ 38 ] I do not find that a conditional discharge is the appropriate disposition in this case. While I am satisfied that given Ms. Taylor’s youth and lack of criminal record that it would be in Ms. Taylor’s best interests for a conditional discharge to be imposed, I believe that the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and the need to promote a sense of responsibility in the offender and an acknowledgement of the harm done are all sentencing factors which are applicable in this case.

I do not find that these factors would be sufficiently addressed by a conditional discharge. The circumstances which led Ms. Taylor to dispose of the body of her son in order to conceal the fact that she had given birth are serious and significant. The granting of a conditional discharge in this case would be contrary to the public interest. I do accept that Ms. Taylor has experienced and may continue to experience a negative reaction from members of the public as a result of this offence, but I do not find that this entitles her to the benefit of a conditional discharge.

There are many cases in the criminal law where the public has denounced the conduct of an accused, but this does not lessen the importance of the Court applying the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code appropriately. [ 39 ] Based on my review of the case law, and in particular R. v. Proulx , I am satisfied that a conditional sentence order is the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case and that the preconditions set out in

section 742.1 have been met. I am not satisfied that a probation order would be the appropriate sentence as I do not believe that a probation order is a sufficient consequence for the distressing circumstances of this case. I am also satisfied that while a period of incarceration is necessary, that it is appropriate that Ms. Taylor be allowed to serve her sentence in the community, but that there must be significant conditions imposed to ensure that the principles of sentencing are achieved. I note that Ms. Taylor is living in her mother’s home and that she has the support of her extended family.

She is also gainfully employed. [ 40 ] I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence is a 12 month conditional sentence order to be followed by 2 years of probation. It is apt and necessary that there be a lengthy period of supervision in the community in order to ensure that Ms. Taylor receives requisite counselling to assist in her rehabilitation and in recovering fully from the past events, in an attempt to ensure that she can continue to lead a healthy, productive and law abiding life. [ 41 ] The conditions of the conditional sentence order are as follows: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2.

Report to court when required to do so. 3. Report no later than 4:00 p.m. today to your conditional sentence Supervisor at #210-7577 Elmbridge Way, Richmond, BC and thereafter as directed. 4. Remain in British Columbia unless written permission to be outside the jurisdiction is obtained from your sentence Supervisor or by Order of the Court. 5. Notify the Court or your Supervisor in advance of any change of your name or address, and promptly notify the Court or your Supervisor of any change in your employment or occupation. 6.

Provide your address and phone number to your Supervisor at your first meeting and do not change that address or phone number without the prior written consent of your Supervisor. 7. Abstain absolutely from the possession and consumption of any alcohol or controlled substances within the meaning of the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act , or drugs without a doctor’s prescription. 8. If you become pregnant, you must immediately report this to your Supervisor and medical practitioner(s).

9. If you become pregnant you are to attend and maintain all necessary medical and counselling appointments as directed by your Supervisor or your medical practitioners. 10. If directed by your Supervisor or medical practitioner(s), you are to attend for medical examinations and testing for pregnancy and then to provide verifiable results of such examinations to your Supervisor. This will not be more often than at four month intervals. 11.

You are to attend such assessment, counselling and treatment programs as may be directed by your Supervisor to include counselling for drug and alcohol abuse, psychiatric and or psychological counselling or cognitive behavioural counselling and this counselling and treatment is to be attended and completed under the supervision and to the satisfaction of your Supervisor. 12. You must maintain a land line telephone at your residence for the term of this sentence and provide the telephone number to your sentence Supervisor who may use it for the purpose of monitoring the curfew and house arrest conditions. 13.

You must present yourself at your front door or telephone if for any purpose a Peace Officer or your Supervisor announces a check on your whereabouts. 14. When you are away from your residence, you must carry this order on your person at all times, along with your Supervisor’s written permission and produce them to any Peace Officer who stops or questions you for any lawful purpose. 15.

You must complete 50 hours of community work service before the expiration of this conditional sentence order under the direction and supervision of your Supervisor. [ 42 ] For the first 6 months of the conditional sentence order you shall not be outside your place of residence except: (

a) To attend work or to travel to and from work, provided that these absences have been pre-arranged in writing with your Supervisor; or (

b) For medical or dental emergencies; or (

c) For attending Court or appointments with your Supervisor; or (

d) For any other purpose approved of in writing in advance by your Supervisor to include but not be limited to attending counselling, attending to personal business such as shopping up to a maximum of three hours per week, or to perform and complete community work service hours. [ 43 ] For the last 6 months of the conditional sentence order you must confine yourself to your place of residence between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily except for medical emergencies or with the written permission of your Supervisor. [ 44 ] The conditional sentence order will be prepared in writing and a copy will be provided to you.

Ms. Taylor, you must understand that this is a jail sentence to be served in the community. You are being afforded the privilege of serving this sentence in your own home. In the event that you breach any of the conditions which I have just read to you, the Crown may apply for a warrant for your arrest and in the event of a breach of the condition being proven, I have the option to terminate your conditional sentence order and to require that you serve the balance of your time in an institutional jail setting. [ 45 ] Following your 12 month conditional sentence order you will be subject to probation for 2 years.

During that time you will: (

a) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; (

b) Appear before the Court when required to do so; (

c) Notify the Court or your Probation Officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or your Probation Officer of any change in your employment or occupation; (

d) Report to your Probation Officer within one week of the expiration of your conditional sentence order and thereafter as directed; (

e) Provide your Probation Officer with your address and telephone number and you must not change that without the prior written consent of your Probation Officer; (

f) You are to attend such assessment, counselling and treatment programs as may be directed by your Probation Officer to include drug and alcohol counselling, psychiatric and or psychological counselling or cognitive behavioural therapy and this counselling and treatment is to be attended and completed under the supervision and to the satisfaction of your Probation Officer; (

g) You must abstain absolutely from the possession or consumption of controlled substances within the meaning of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , or drugs without a doctor’s prescription. (

h) If you become pregnant, you must immediately report this to your Probation Officer and medical practitioner(s). (

i) If you become pregnant you are to attend and maintain all necessary medical and counselling appointments as directed by your Probation Officer or your medical practitioner(s). (

j) If directed by your Probation Officer or medical practitioner(s), you are to attend for medical examinations and testing for pregnancy and then to provide verifiable results of such examinations to your Probation Officer. This will not be more often than at 4 month intervals. [ 46 ] I am also ordering that you provide a sample of your DNA as I am satisfied given the nature of the offence and the circumstances

surrounding its commission that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice that you do so. You shall attend at the Ric hmond RCMP detachment located at 6900 Minoru Blvd, Richmond, BC on or before April 29th, 2011 between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. in order to provide a sample of your DNA . __________________ J. Werier Provincial Court Judge

Schedule A R. v. Levkovic , [ 2010] ONT CA 830 R. v. Hagel, [2009] BCPC 426 R. v. Russell-Simpson , unreported , August 13, 2009, Alta Prov. Ct . R. v. Morrow [2008] NBPC 4; R. v. Morrow [2008] NBPC 7 R. v. Jones [2005] BCPC 245 R. v. Anderwald [2005] ABQB 888 R. v. Jones , unreported, October 1, 2002 , Ont. Court of Justice