R. v. Grenfal Date:, 2011 BCPC 357

Citation: R. v. Grenfal Date: 20111122 2011 BCPC 0357 File No: 59104-2C; 59315-1 Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. STEFFAN GREGARY GRENFAL ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE MACKAY Counsel for the Crown: A. Tosso Counsel for the Defendant: J. Ray Place of Hearing: Chilliwack, B.C. Date of Hearing: November 22, 2011 Date of Judgment: November 22, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Mr. Steffan Gregary Grenfal appeared before me November 15, 2011 and entered guilty pleas on two separate Informations : first, on Information No. 59104-2C, count 1, the theft of a boat belonging to Darren Chambers of a value not in excess of $5,000 contrary to s. 334 (

b) of the Criminal Code ; and count 3, failure to stop a motor vehicle being pursued by a police officer, contrary to s. 249.1(1) . [ 2 ] Second, on Information No. 59315-1, he entered guilty pleas to the following: Count 1: Breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit, and commission of an indictable offence, specifically theft, contrary to s. 348(1 )(

d) of the Criminal Code . Count 4: Dangerous driving, contrary to s. 249(1 )( a). Count 7: Assault of a peace officer, specifically Constable Maisonneuve , contrary to s. 270(1). Count 9: Mischief with respect to a motor vehicle belonging to Steve Trelenberg of a value under $5,000, contrary to s. 430(4) of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] All of the offences set out in these Informations took place in Chilliwack. The first set of offences took place on June 3, 2011.

The second set of offences in the latter Information took place in Chilliwack on August 16, 2011. [ 4 ] This case concerns the interplay between several sentencing principles. Here, those principles are denunciation, deterrence, promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, and rehabilitation. These are given statutory expression in s. 718 and elsewhere in the Criminal Code . [ 5 ] There is no question in this case that the circumstances require that Mr. Grenfal be separated from society for a substantial period of time.

The main point of dispute between the Crown and the defence is the length of jail sentence that ought to be imposed. [ 6 ] I should say as well that counsel are agreed that a federal penitentiary term is called for here. This obviously precludes anything but a “traditional” jail sentence. [ 7 ] In the vast majority of sentencing cases, a "federal" or penitentiary sentence precludes the imposition of a subsequent term of probation such that can be attached to a provincial jail term. There is only one exception to this.

A court may attach a term of probation where the federal term of imprisonment is one of two years. This is because of the wording of s. 731 (

b) of the Criminal Code . Position of the Parties [ 8 ] I have specifically made reference to this feature of our law because it is Mr. Ray's submission on behalf of his client that this case warrants a two-year federal sentence, coupled with a three-year term of probation. [ 9 ] The Crown, represented at this hearing by Ms. Tosso , disagrees and urges me to pronounce a global sentence of between five and six years.

Obviously, there would be no probation attached to this sentence. [ 10 ] The difference in positions that I have outlined flows from a different emphasis on appropriate sentencing principles. [ 11 ] Mr. Ray, although acknowledging the serious nature of these offences, Mr. Grenfal's past record, and the need to address denunciation and deterrence, essentially maintains that the rehabilitation of Mr. Grenfal is viable and should therefore inform the sentence that I pass. [ 12 ] Ms. Tosso's position is that Mr. Grenfal has demonstrated he has not learned from past sentences.

She says that the safety of the community together with denunciation and deterrence require a penitentiary sentence of some length. [ 13 ] I will return to an analysis of these positions in due course. The Circumstances of the Offences [ 14 ] On June 3rd, 2011, a citizen called the Chilliwack RCMP to report that an aluminium boat belonging to a neighbour, who turned out to be Mr. Chambers, had been taken in broad daylight by someone in a pickup truck. The licence plate of the pickup truck was provided which allowed an investigating officer to spot the pickup with the boat and trailer attached. Mr.

Grenfal was driving. [ 15 ] The vehicle and boat swerved past the police vehicle which had been positioned across the roadway to encourage Mr. Grenfal to stop and/or at least impede him from passing. Mr. Grenfal , rather than stopping, continued past the police car. He was soon found a short distance away having crashed into a tree. He then surrendered to police and provided an inculpatory statement at the time of the arrest. [ 16 ] Mr. Grenfal was noticeably sweating and had a flushed face. There were substances, believed to be methamphetamine and cocaine, found on his person.

Indeed, he told the arresting officer that he had been using meth for approximately one month. [ 17 ] Mr. Grenfal was taken into custody but subsequently released on an undertaking to appear. [ 18 ] Mr. Ray has submitted, and I accept, that the act of Mr. Grenfal in taking the boat was impulsive. He had been originally going to work.

He was at that time self-employed. [ 19 ] As for failing to stop, I accept that it might well have been difficult to do so prior to his passing the police car because of the added weight and dimensions of the boat trailer which may have made stopping in a short distance problematic. [ 20 ] As for the events of August 16th, 2011, it appears the police had Mr. Grenfal's vehicle under surveillance as a result of some information received approximately one week earlier. His vehicle was spotted on August 16th and two police officers saw him and his co-accused attend a residence on Reece Avenue in Chilliwack.

It was early in the afternoon. [ 21 ] The two were seen to back the truck that Mr. Grenfal drove onto a residential property. Items were seen being placed into the truck which, shortly afterwards, left. Police then confirmed that a B&E had occurred at this property; a smashed window in particular was noted. [ 22 ] The accused drove the vehicle away. The police followed. At one point, one of the officers encountered the vehicle coming towards him. The officer, that is, Constable Maisonneuve , had to take steps to keep from being struck by the vehicle driven by Mr. Grenfal . The police vehicle was sideswiped.

Nevertheless, the accused continued driving away quite quickly. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Grenfal collided with a parked vehicle in a residential neighbourhood. [ 23 ] When Mr. Grenfal's truck came to a stop upon colliding with the Hyundai vehicle, he and his co-accused fled. With the assistance of a bystander and a police dog, Mr. Grenfal was arrested at the time he was entering a taxicab. [ 24 ] Further investigation determined that he had entered a private residence and confronted an 11-year-old girl, fortunately only asking her for some water.

Various items were stolen from this residence belonging to the complainant Sutherland. The items included jewellery, computer equipment, golf clubs, a cell phone, and cash.

[25] The co-accused was also apprehended. He blamed Mr. Grenfal for initiating the breaking and entering. [26] Upon arrest, Mr. Grenfal denied participating in the offence but provided the police with some story about "jogging" in theneighbourhood. [27] I understand that the damage to the police Chevrolet Impala and the Hyundai vehicles were assessed at $3,500 and $5,517.83respectively. [28] Mr. Grenfal, who was on bail conditions at the time, was taken into custody where he has remained. The Offender [29] Mr. Grenfal is now 40 years of age.

He was born in Campbell River, but was adopted at a very early age and raised inTsawwassen. His adoptive parents split up; Mr. Grenfal remained with his adopted mother. [30] There is, unfortunately, a significant criminal history attached to Mr. Grenfal. The record has several entries for property typeoffences and drug convictions. [31] Mr. Grenfal's last sentence was in Surrey Provincial Court on September 15th, 2003. He received what appears to have been afive-year global sentence for three robberies, two thefts, two break and enters and a count of unlawful confinement.

I understand Mr.Grenfal was paroled from this sentence in 2007. [32] By the time of his parole, he had taken some important steps towards rehabilitating himself. These included relocating away fromformer negative influences, enrolling in the University of the Fraser Valley, and securing employment. He severed his connectionsmoreover to the criminal lifestyle he had been leading and eventually developed his own business as an arborist. [33] Mr. Grenfal married in 2009, although he now looks back on this as a mistake.

The pressure of married life, he believes,contributed into his once again returning to the use of alcohol and subsequently drugs, including cocaine. By the time the presentoffences were committed his use had escalated back to essentially full-blown addiction. [34] A complication for Mr. Grenfal is that he was, at a young age, the victim of a somewhat notorious sexual predator namedMcDougall. This individual was employed in the provincial prison system and forced himself on many young male inmates. Mr. Grenfalwas one of these. It has caused him shame, disgust, and depression.

It may well be one of the factors that led him towards furtherpathological drug use. His feelings with respect to this past sexual abuse resurfaced with a vengeance when he returned to using cocainein 2010 and 2011. [35] Despite his ongoing personal struggles, Mr. Grenfal has managed to keep his employment going. He did take some time away todeal with the disintegration of his marriage.

When he felt ready to return to work, he began his own business which initially seemed to gowell until his descent back into drugs and crimes in 2010 and 2011. [36] He now has a supportive relationship with a woman by the name of Sandra Holliday who was in attendance for at least part oflast day's proceedings. She has a young son, Jack, who Mr. Grenfal considers to be his own. He hopes to be able in future to be a rolemodel and support for this young boy once he himself has dealt with his legal problems.

He acknowledges that this will not be feasible inthe short term. [37] It bears mentioning that this offender has entered guilty pleas to these offences. This is traditionally seen as an expression ofremorse. I am told and accept that he never intended to contest these matters.

As such, he has relieved the Crown of devoting time andeffort to the proof of these charges, and, importantly, has spared the witnesses the stress and anxiety that often accompany givingtestimony in court. [38] There is ample authority to support the propositions that an offender pleading guilty at an early stage is entitled to a considerationand in particular that an early guilty plea is an indication of genuine remorse (see, for example, R. v. Saulnier (1987), (BC CA), 21 B.C.L.R. (2d) 232 and MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v.

Brown (1994), (BC CA), 88 C.C.C. (3d) 148,(B.C.C.A.)). [39] I am reinforced in my view that Mr. Grenfal is genuinely remorseful by his comments made to me at the conclusion ofsubmissions last day. It is clear to me that he feels horror and revulsion for what he has done; empathy for the victims of his acts, anddetermination to get to a point where there would be no further such relapses. [40] Beyond the remorse that Mr. Grenfal exhibits, I take into account that Mr. Grenfal has a genuine willingness to rehabilitate.

Hehas been somewhat limited with respect to opportunities available to him since he was taken into custody in August. [41] Nevertheless, he has managed to successfully complete the Violence Prevention Program while in remand. There is a letter andcertificate which had been filed in this proceeding attesting to his effort and success on his part. In fact, the facilitator of the programdescribes Mr.

Grenfal as "respectful", “a very good listener" and a "pleasure to have in class". [42] This is an indication that he is not only -- to borrow a colloquial phrase -- talking the talk, but also walking the walk. [43] As for aggravating circumstances, the commission of the August offences whilst he was on bail for the June matters might beseen as an indication that he does not respect Court orders or is incapable of following them.

As well, his criminal record is an indicationof his past attitude towards rehabilitation and tempers somewhat the optimism that might otherwise accrue about his prospects for futurerehabilitation. [44] As to the record, I accept the numerous offences committed by Mr. Grenfal up to 2003 reflect the degree to which he had been

submerged in his addiction and criminal lifestyle. The turnaround he managed after his release in 2007 suggests that he is indeed ready and able to change. [ 45 ] The commission of the August offences in my view is rather a graphic demonstration of the grip that drug addiction can take on a person. In other words, I do accept that he had a willingness to change but appeared not to take the necessary steps to put his intention into action. [ 46 ] I also note that the type of offences that Mr. Grenfal committed appear to be somewhat characteristic of the lifestyle of a drug addict.

The cost of continuing usage mandates the commission of property offences. This is obviously taxing on the community and completely unacceptable. While addiction is a medically recognized disease, the self-centred, destructive, and dangerous behaviour of addicts who are engaged in crime to support their habits is reprehensible. Citizens of this country have a right to security which includes freedom from parasitic behaviour. [ 47 ] While as noted there are some strong aggravating circumstances, this is not a case where the offender is seeking release into the community.

He acknowledges the pressing need for a punitive sentence. He recognizes that he needs to accept responsibility for his actions. He is cognizant of the harm he has caused others. He knows in short that he is going to jail, but is nevertheless determined to make the best of a bad situation. Effects on the Complainants [ 48 ] Mr. Grenfal , unlike many people who appear before this Court, appreciates the damage that his actions have caused. The damage here includes causing Mr. Chambers, who is the owner of the boat and trailer from the June incident, anxiety, insomnia, and great inconvenience.

I have had the benefit in that regard of a victim impact statement from Mr. Chambers that articulates this. [ 49 ] While the other victims did not file statements, I have no doubt that these experiences have had a negative impact on them as well. A homeowner subjected to having his or her home broken into and being deprived of his or her belongings is likely to experience emotional upset at the very least. I would expect that Mr. Trelenberg experienced such upset, perhaps to a lesser degree, as it was "only his motor vehicle" and not his home that Mr.

Grenfal damaged. [ 50 ] Constable Maisonneuve could very well have been injured by Mr. Grenfal's assault. A motor vehicle is, when operated recklessly, a potential lethal weapon. Despite the fact that the police are often in harm's way as a result of their jobs, it is not the case that the trauma that they experience in the course of performing their duties is any less. Incidents such as this exact a heavy toll. [ 51 ] The Crown relies on three cases in support of its submission that the appropriate sentence is globally between five and six years. These are: R. v. McCrea , 2008 BCCA 227 ; R. v.

Alexander , 2008 BCCA 181 ; and R. v. Crittenden , 2010 BCPC 348 . [ 52 ] McCrea , supra , involved two robberies and assaults, having his face masked, dangerous driving, theft of a motor vehicle, and both resisting and failing to stop for a peace officer. Like the case at bar, the accused's actions appeared to have been motivated by addiction and he was someone with a lengthy criminal record. He expressed a desire to rehabilitate himself. [ 53 ] The Court in McCrea , supra , denied the accused's appeal from sentence, holding that the egregious circumstances mandated an emphasis on protection of the public.

The consecutive sentences which totalled eight years were therefore upheld. [ 54 ] While McCrea , supra, has certain similarities to the present case, there are significant differences. Some of these are: 1. Mr. McCrea's offences involved the direct application of violence; 2. There does not appear to have been any gap in his criminal record; 3. He did not appear to have actually done anything to rehabilitate himself beyond expressing a desire to do so; 4. There was no indication that Mr.

McCrea expressed remorse for his actions and he clearly did not deal with the charges by way of guilty pleas. [ 55 ] In Alexander , supra , the appellant had been sentenced to a term of eight years which was acknowledged to be somewhat higher than the normal six year upper end of the break and enter sentence range. He had a lengthy record without any significant gaps. He, too, was found guilty after trial. The Court of Appeal noted that the prospect of very serious penalties had not deterred him in the past.

In addressing the length of sentence, the Court said this at para . 10: [10] This sentence is somewhat higher than we often see in these cases. The range is sometime said to be not much higher than six years at the upper end. However, this offender as I see it is an individual who has shown himself to be about the worst type of offender from a perspective of his record and his history of being recommitted while on parole. In other words, he does not seem to respond at all to sentences or to be able to perform on parole. [ 56 ] The situation in Alexander , supra , is quite different from the case at bar.

Here, the accused has demonstrated in my view that he can succeed. He has responded well in the past. The problem is that as he put it he got complacent and fell into a trap in thinking that a little bit of alcohol would not harm him. This is a common misconception which is often the prime cause of relapse as I understand that phenomenon. [ 57 ] The accused is not the worst offender, and the circumstances are clearly less sinister than confronted the Court in the Alexander , supra , case. [ 58 ] In R. v.

Crittenden , supra , my brother Judge Caryer dealt with an accused who had a longer criminal record for the same type of offences. In fact, there were 77 convictions on Mr. Crittenden's record. He was found guilty after trial and was sentenced to six years --

quite properly in my view. Judge Caryer stressed denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public. [ 59 ] Mr. Crittenden, like Mr. Alexander and Mr. McCrea, did not have any gaps in his record and had not displayed any signs of efforts to rehabilitate himself. Although his unfortunate childhood and long record bears some parallels with Mr. Grenfal's circumstances, I do not find the case to be persuasive, given the facts before me. [ 60 ] Mr. Ray filed several letters on behalf of Mr. Grenfal . These, to summarize them, confirm that he has had some success in living a positive productive existence.

He is described as a hard worker, ambitious, considerate, and loving towards his partner and stepson. Some authors paint a marked contrast between his sober behaviour, if I may call it that, and how he acts when he is in the grip of addiction. Amongst the letters filed there is one from a nurse affiliated with Chilliwack Mental Health. This substantiates Mr. Grenfal's claim that he was attempting to access some help between the June offence and the August offences. [ 61 ] As I have briefly outlined, there are some particular considerations that I must take into account in passing sentence.

In addition to the principles I have referred to, I am mindful of the following: 1. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. That is from s. 718 of the Criminal Code ; 2. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. That is from s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code . Here, the offences are grave and Mr.

Grenfal must be held responsible for his actions albeit they were somewhat the product of his illness; 3. A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed for similar offenders in similar circumstances. As noted, although there are some surface similarities to the cases relied on by the Crown, the circumstances and characteristics of Mr. Grenfal are quite distinct; 4. Consecutive sentences ought not to result in unduly long or harsh prison terms. The principle of totality is referenced here; 5. All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered.

If less restrictive sanctions are appropriate, the offender ought not to be deprived of liberty. Here, there is no question that deprivation of liberty is necessary. The issue is quantum and whether part of the sentence should be less restrictive in order to facilitate and foster rehabilitation. [ 62 ] I am satisfied that Mr. Grenfal demonstrates that he can overcome his difficulties, particularly his addiction, and ultimately returning to making a useful contribution to this planet. He accepts that he is an addict. He feels remorse for what he has done and has empathy for his victims.

He appreciates that his victims are not merely those people referred to in the Information but others in his life who have trusted and relied on him. He is aware that he has broken that trust. [ 63 ] Ultimately, this case is one where the accused has demonstrated he is not merely mouthing words that he thinks the Court might like to hear, but is committed to refashioning himself to be of maximum service to others.

This will be a long process and I accept and require perseverance and hard work on his part. [ 64 ] While I acknowledge that some cases involving similar crimes have attracted sentences in the range set out by the Crown, I do not, with respect, find that there is sufficient basis in those cases to address rehabilitation. [ 65 ] A penitentiary sentence here will adequately reflect denunciation and serve as a deterrent to others who are inclined to commit such parasitic acts. [ 66 ] A penitentiary sentence above two years, however, in my view would not serve the rehabilitative aim as well as long period of probation.

It is crucial that Mr. Grenfal be held accountable and that he follows through on what he says he will do. Strict probation terms would better serve this purpose than a lengthier period of incarceration. [ 67 ] As well, holding Mr. Grenfal accountable whilst on probation provides the best protection to the public in the long term.

If he becomes complacent once again, he can be brought back before the Court and reminded of what he has at stake and the catastrophic consequences that would befall him should he not perform to the letter of the order. [ 68 ] In consideration of the circumstances of these offences therefore, Mr. Grenfal's background and genuine remorseful attitude, of his apparent teachability , and of the applicable authorities, I conclude that a fit and proper sentence is as follows: 1.

With respect to Information No. 59104-2C where Crown proceeded summarily on the charge of theft of the boat which is count 1, I sentence you to four months in prison. On the charge of failing to stop which is the other count on that Information to which you entered a guilty plea, there will be a sentence of two months. Because the gravamen of these offences is distinct, the sentences will be consecutive. Therefore, there will be a total period on the first Information of six months. 2.

Regarding Information No. 59315-1, on count 1 the breaking and entering of a dwelling house at 46053 Reece Avenue, there will be a sentence of two years. On count 4, dangerous driving, the sentence will be 18 months concurrent to count 1. On count 7, the assault of Constable Maisonneuve , the sentence will be 18 months concurrent to counts 1 and 4. On count 9, mischief relating to the damage to Mr. Trelenberg's vehicle, the sentence will be 12 months concurrent to counts 1, 4, and 7. I am of the view that the counts in this Information all relate to an extended series of transactions.

Although the legally protected interests are different, this is, in fact, a single criminal misadventure with count 1 being the original offence, counts 4 and 7 being the attempt to flee from the break and enter, and count 9 being the termination of the attempt to flee. All these offences took place within a condensed period of time without any intervening events. [ 69 ] As regards to the two different Informations , I am directing that the sentences again run concurrently. The rationale here is that two years in total is fit for all of these misadventures.

Under the circumstances before me it would be counterproductive to attempt to

impose lighter sentences with respect to some of these crimes simply to make the consecutive total two years. [ 70 ] Adding all the sentences together, however, would result in a disproportionately long sentence in my view hence the sentences on these two Informations will run concurrently. Thus, the total period of imprisonment will be two years. [ 71 ] Although it is generally proper to credit the accused with time served prior to sentencing, this is a matter of discretion.

In the unique circumstances of this case while I take this into account, I decline to give the accused credit for the time in custody prior to sentencing. [ 72 ] There will be a three-year period of probation to follow the imprisonment of Mr. Grenfal . This is intended to provide him with assistance in achieving rehabilitation and remaining rehabilitated. The terms will be as follows and I will invite counsel to comment on these after I pronounce them: 1. You will keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2. You will appear before the court when required to do so by the court; 3.

You shall notify the Court or your Probation Officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or the Probation Officer of any change of employment or occupation; 4. You will report within 72 hours from release from custody to a Probation Officer at the office of Chilliwack Community Corrections, 45960 Wellington Avenue, in Chilliwack, B.C. and thereafter as and when directed by your Probation Officer and in the manner directed by your Probation Officer; 5.

You shall inform your Probation Officer of your residential address and phone number and not change that address or phone number without the prior written notice to your Probation Officer; 6. You shall have no contact, directly or indirectly, with Darren Chambers, John McGillvery and Steve Tremblay. I pause here to note that Darren Chambers is one of the complainants on the first Information technically I suppose properly not a part of a probation order that I am attaching only to the second Information, nevertheless I am making that direction for obvious reasons; 7.

You shall not possess any weapon as that term is defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code ; 8. You shall not possess any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance; 9. You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or controlled substance within the meaning of s. 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act except as prescribed by a licensed physician; 10.

You shall provide your Probation Officer with proof of your attendance at no fewer than three meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous each week during the duration of the probation order. I pause there to say to you that this is intended to address your ongoing rehabilitation and relapse prevention.

If you, in conjunction with any of the people you are seeing including your Probation Officer or any counsellors come up with some better relapse prevention program, then you can apply to the Court and we will consider it at that point, but the 12-step programs in my view have been the most successful long-term in keeping people like you on the right track; 11. You shall attend for, participate in and complete, to the satisfaction of your Probation Officer, any counselling or program as directed by your Probation Officer.

Without limiting the generality of this condition, such counselling or program may, in the discretion of your Probation Officer, include counselling for alcohol or drug abuse and/or residential treatment for alcohol or drug abuse, counselling for spousal abuse prevention; 12. You shall perform and complete, at the direction of and to the satisfaction of your Probation Officer, 25 hours of community work service which shall be completed by the end of the 24th month of your probation term.

I will not make a specific direction there, but I will say for the record what I have in mind is that you may find some opportunity to address other people who are in the grip of addiction and by showing the benefit of your story and hopefully your positive experience since being sentenced, you might be able to influence them, affect them, or in some way cause them to have some hope that they can turn their own lives around; 13. You shall apologize to the citizens of Chilliwack by means of writing a letter published in the Chilliwack Times and Chilliwack Progress .

Such letter shall be under the direction of your Probation Officer and delivered by the end of the sixth month of your probationary period; 14. You will take all reasonable steps to maintain yourself in such condition that your condition of chemical dependency will not likely cause you to conduct yourself in a manner dangerous to yourself or others, and it is not likely that you will commit further offences. Now I pause to say there counsel that I am imposing essentially Rogers-like conditions. I am doing so on the understanding that he consents to those conditions, Mr. Ray. I hope I am correct; 15.

At the direction of your Probation Officer, you will attend from time to time upon a licensed physician for the purpose of receiving such medical counselling and treatment as may be recommended, except that you shall not be required to submit to any treatment or medication to which you do not consent; 16. If you do not consent to the form of medical treatment or medication prescribed or recommended, you shall so notify your Probation Officer; 17. You shall provide your treating physician or physicians with a copy of this order and the name, address and telephone number of

your Probation Officer. You shall instruct your treating physician or physicians that if you fail to take medication as prescribed, or fail to keep appointments with your physician or physicians, he/she or they are to so advise your Probation Officer immediately. [ 73 ] There will be a DNA order. I am mindful of counsel's submissions on that point so I will modify it somewhat. You will submit to the taking of a sample of your DNA should you be so required by a peace officer. Such sample shall be provided, if required, within the next 60 days in accordance with

Part 15 of the Criminal Code . [ 74 ] I prohibit you from operating a motor vehicle anywhere in Canada for a period of three years. This is pursuant to s. 259 of the Criminal Code . Mr. Ray will no doubt acquaint you with the severe penalties that will attend if you act contrary to that prohibition or are found driving a motor vehicle.

This relates to count 4 of Information 59315-1. [ 75 ] Further, and finally, I direct that a post-sentence report be prepared by the end of the 12th month of your probationary period and that, subsequently, a date be set to have you appear back before me to review your progress in rehabilitating yourself and otherwise your progress in abiding by the terms of this order. [ 76 ] Counsel, again I invite any comments and if there are problems with that language. [ 77 ] MR. RAY: None. [ 78 ] MS. TOSSO: No, Your Honour. [ 79 ] THE COURT : So you will be back in front of me and I will be watching you.

I expect you to follow not only my probation order to the letter, but follow every direction and suggestion you are given by the people who are going to be involved in your life to help you. I do not want to hear from you or hear second hand that it is all too tiring or too tough or too hard or you have better things to do because you do not; this is the most important thing in your life and if you do not succeed at it you are going to spend lots more time where you are going right now. You understand that, I trust. [ 80 ] Anything else, counsel? [ 81 ] MS.

TOSSO: The only comments otherwise would be the restitution order. I am not sure if Your Honour considered that. [ 82 ] THE COURT: That was for the vehicles. [ 83 ] MS. TOSSO : The vehicles. And I'm not sure -- I'm just going to double-check this -- a firearms prohibition under s. 109, I think it is one that is automatic for a break and enter. It may be mandatory, I'm not sure, Mr. Ray. I don't know if I made submissions. [ 84 ] THE COURT : I do not think you made submissions about that point. [ 85 ] MR .

RAY: I wasn't opposed to a firearms prohibition and I think because he is already under a firearms prohibition, it is a lifetime one is it not? [ 86 ] MS . TOSSO: I was just going to check. [ 87 ] THE COURT : All right. I will just give you an opportunity to check that. As to restitution, it is proper under these circumstances to make a restitution order. I will hear from you Mr. Ray, if you -- [ 88 ] MR . RAY: Well, I had understood Ms. Tosso's submission to be as part of the probation order.

For the foreseeable future he is in custody and then when he is released, he has three years on a probation order to do his best to pay it back. My concern would be that you may want to make a compensation order as opposed to a restitution order. [ 89 ] THE COURT : I think that is the better way to go about it. I have put a number of conditions in his path and I think under the circumstances I do not want to load him up with so many conditions that it is going to be virtually impossible for him to function. Ms.

Tosso , if I make a compensation order is your view strongly that I should not do such a thing, or --? [ 90 ] MS . TOSSO: Sorry, I missed the question. [ 91 ] THE COURT : I know you are involved in looking at the other question of the firearms, but Mr. Ray suggested a compensation order might be more appropriate here than a restitution order as part of the probation terms. [ 92 ] MS . TOSSO: That would be fair to suggest. I know that Mr.

Trelenberg in terms of his vehicle -- it looks like ICBC actually covered the costs, so -- [ 93 ] THE COURT : If I make a compensation order, need I specify the amount? [ 94 ] MR . RAY: You do and I think it is payable to ICBC and -- [ 95 ] THE COURT : He shall pay therefore such sums under the compensation order as found to be due from the commission of the two offences. How is that? We will leave it to ICBC to do the calculations. [ 96 ] MR.

RAY : And I note in that regard ICBC has another hammer to use in a compensation order to obtain satisfaction of the debt and that often is to get back your licence you have to pay off the debts to ICBC. [ 97 ] MS. TOSSO: Sorry to interrupt, I just found that Trelenberg's vehicle is one that was with ICBC; the other one of course was the RCMP vehicle that was covered by the RCMP themselves.

[ 98 ] MR. RAY: And that would be the Government of Canada. [ 99 ] THE COURT: Okay, well I will leave it at that and as I said the nuts and bolts of the calculations can be addressed by somebody else down the road. Are there other items that should be addressed that have not been? [ 100 ] MR. RAY: Two items were seized from Mr. Grenfal that he would like Your Honour to order returned to him. They are his computer which is a laptop and two cell phones. They are in the possession of the RCMP. The purpose of that they contain his work company information. [ 101 ] THE COURT: Ms.

Tosso , any submission on that? [ 102 ] MS. TOSSO: In terms of those items, those would be with the RCMP so that request would be through the RCMP. I am mindful that I understand for (indiscernible) after the sentencing pending an appeal. I will make a note and call them. [ 103 ] THE COURT: Well, I will make a direction if it speeds things up that those items be returned. I cannot see any basis that they would -- [ 104 ] MR.

RAY: If there is an issue, it is my practice to suggest to the Crown that they bring the matter back before Your Honour and you can revisit it at that time. [ 105 ] THE COURT: I would certainly be prepared to do that if there are problems. [ 106 ] MS. TOSSO: Yes, Your Honour. In terms of s. 109 it is something that Crown is asking for and I am not sure if we addressed it at the last date or not but that would be given the fact that it is a mandatory prohibition order for life. [ 107 ] THE COURT: For life. [ 108 ] MR. RAY: I have no submissions, Your Honour. [ 109 ] THE COURT: Thank you for the clarification.

That will be, then, for life, the prohibition. That concludes things as far as I can see. [ 110 ] MR. RAY : With regard to the other matters on the Information, I gather that Crown is entering a stay of proceedings? [ 111 ] MS . TOSSO: That is correct. On all the outstanding matters, Crown enters a stay of proceedings. So just for the record to make it clear, 59104-C2 would be count 2 and count 4. As for the other Information, Crown enters stays of proceedings on count 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. [ 112 ] THE COURT : All right. I will just conclude things by saying first of all I am grateful for the assistance from counsel.

You both gave me something to think about and, second, for your benefit, Mr. Grenfal , I will remind you that we will meet again. You will be back in front of me. I will not be impressed if you come before me with a bunch of excuses as to why these things have not been done or you have not been able to adhere to conditions. I will be impressed if you continue to display some motivation and some dedication to what you say you want to do. All right? Thank you. [ 113 ] I will waive the victim fine surcharge. _____________________ R.C. MacKay Provincial Court Judge