Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2011 SKPC 37

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 037 Date: February 23, 2011 Information: 24418355 Location: Carlyle _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Nancy Williamson Appearing: Scott Moffat For the Crown Merv Nidesh, Q.C. For the Accused JUDGMENT J. KALMAKOFF , J [ 1 ] Nancy Williamson has pled guilty to possession of marijuana in an amount exceeding 30 grams, and possession of cocaine, contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ( CDSA ).

She has also pled guilty to possession of marijuana, in an amount not exceeding 3 kilograms, for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA . [ 2 ] Both possession of marijuana in an amount exceeding 30 grams, and possession for the purpose of trafficking in an amount less than three kilograms, carry a maximum penalty of 5 years less 1 day imprisonment. Possession

of cocaine carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, while possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking is punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. [ 3 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, and opposes the imposition of a conditional sentence. It also seeks the associated firearms prohibition order, forfeiture of offence-related property, and a DNA sample order. The defence argues that Ms. Williamson should be allowed to serve the sentence in the community as a conditional sentence, pursuant to

section 742.1 of the Criminal Code . FACTS [ 4 ] On March 12, 2010, the RCMP executed a search warrant at the residence Ms. Williamson shared with her partner, Ferlin Beamish, in Arcola, Saskatchewan. When police executed the warrant, there were six people in the residence, including Ms. Williamson. Three of those people had various quantities of marijuana or cocaine in their possession. [ 5 ] Police also located items suggestive of drug trafficking, such as baggies, score sheets, electronic scales and cutting agents for cocaine. Ms.

Williamson’s cellular phone contained text messages consistent with drug trafficking activity. Police found marijuana and cocaine packaged in what appeared to be individual sale quantities, namely seven 1- gram bags of cocaine and fourteen 1/4 ounce (or 7-gram) bags of marijuana. In total, 120.2 grams of marijuana were located. In addition to the cocaine which appeared to be packaged for sale, police located 7.5 grams of rock cocaine and one gram of loose powdered cocaine. Street value of the drugs was estimated to be somewhere between $1200 and $2400. [ 6 ] In addition to the drugs and paraphernalia, Ms.

Williamson also had significant amounts of cash in the house, in three different locations. Police found one bundle of $700, one of $1040, and one of $500. The score sheets suggest that Ms. Williamson was selling drugs, in part, to produce cash flow. [ 7 ] Ms. Williamson has no previous criminal record in Canada. During sentencing submissions, it was mentioned that she has a previous conviction from the United States for drug possession, but no further details of that conviction were provided to the Court.

ANALYSIS [ 8 ] I have carefully reviewed all case authorities provided by counsel, but I will not refer to all of them in this decision. In particular, I consider the cases involving trafficking only in marijuana to be of little assistance, as it is clear that the involvement of a hard drug such as cocaine significantly changes the sentencing picture. [ 9 ] For cases involving possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has been quite clear that jail sentences are the norm, especially where the substance is a hard drug like cocaine.

In fact, the Court of Appeal has endorsed a general sentencing range of 18 months to four years imprisonment for trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking, in cocaine (See R. v. Patryluk, 2002 SKCA 33 ; R. v. Pankewich , 2002 SKCA 7 ; and R. v. Aube , 2009 SKCA 53 ). [ 10 ] Conditional sentences, although unusual, are available to offenders convicted of trafficking-related offences, even those involving cocaine or other hard drugs (See, for instance, R. v. Laliberte, 2000 SKCA 27 ; R. v. Keepness, 2000 SKCA 28 ; R. v. Von Hagen , 2008 SKCA 123 ; R. v. P.(S.A.), 2005 SKPC 25 ; R. v.

Klyne , 2003 SKPC 95 ; R. v. Chaves, 2002 SKQB 4 ; and R. v. Balon, 2009 SKQB 233 ).

[ 11 ] In Pankewich , supra , the Court of Appeal overturned a conditional sentence as being unfit in the circumstances of that case. However, Jackson J.A., writing for the Court, said, at paragraph 49: “...conditional sentences are available for those who traffic in hard drugs.

Fitness of sentence in such cases will depend on a wide variety of factors including: 1. the sophistication and significance of the offence and the accused's place in it; 2. the type and quantity of drug; 3. the motivation for the offence: those who traffic to support their own habit may be more likely to receive a restorative disposition than those who traffic for other reasons; 4. the need for and the utility of the deterrence which will be provided by the sentence imposed; 5. the factors relating to the community like the significance of the problem; and, 6. the age, lack of record and other personal circumstances of the accused.” [ 12 ] Also, in Panekwich , Jackson J.A. cited the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v.

Rahime , 2001 ABCA 203 , which upheld conditional sentences in six different cases of individuals convicted of trafficking in cocaine on “more than a minimal scale”. Ultimately, the Court in Pankewich concluded that Rahime was distinguishable on its facts, but acknowledged the case as support for the proposition that conditional sentences are available for trafficking in cocaine, in appropriate circumstances. [ 13 ] The offences, to which Ms.

Williamson has pled guilty, do not have a legislated minimum period of imprisonment, but I conclude from the circumstances of the offences and review of the relevant authorities that a period of imprisonment is warranted. Ms. Williamson has a minimal record. The offences resulted from a venture undertaken in large part to feed her own addiction to cocaine. The trafficking was only commercial on a small scale, and was not part of an organized crime initiative.

Those factors, along with the sentencing position taken by the Crown leave me satisfied that the appropriate period of imprisonment in this case is less than two years. Therefore, I am required to consider whether it would be appropriate to allow Ms. Williamson to serve her sentence in the community as a conditional sentence. [ 14 ] According to

section 742.1 of the Criminal Code , I may allow her to serve a sentence of imprisonment in the community if I am satisfied that: - doing so would not endanger the community; and - doing so would be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing. [ 15 ] The first consideration is whether the community would be endangered if Ms. Williamson were allowed to serve a term of imprisonment in the community. This requires me to consider not only the possibility of her re-offending, but how serious any potential re-offence might be. [ 16 ] The pre-sentence report identifies Ms.

Williamson as a medium risk to re-offend. She has only a minimal previous record, having no criminal history apart from a drug possession conviction in the United States. She was released on bail with relatively restrictive conditions more than 11 months ago. There have been no reported breaches of those conditions, which suggests she is able and willing to comply with orders of the Court. [ 17 ] The key concerns for public safety are raised by Ms. Williamson’s mental health issues and problems with drug addiction. I am also concerned that the Pre-Sentence Report identifies her key form of recreation as gambling.

This has the potential to pose a significant problem, not only in the sense of replacing one addiction with another, but also, since most VLT’s are located in bars or drinking establishments, gambling will put her in the company of other individuals who may increase her

risk to re-offend. However, I note that Ms. Williamson strikes me as motivated to address her addiction and mental health issues. [ 18 ] It has also been suggested that Ms. Williamson’s partner, Mr. Beamish, will be of great assistance to her in addressing her areas of risk. There is merit to that suggestion, as he has clearly been an important part of her ongoing recovery from addiction. However, on the other side of the coin, it causes me concern that the offences occurred in his home, while the two were a couple. He would have known full well the extent of her involvement in drug trafficking.

In addition, he has also continued to support her gambling. His involvement, in my view, cuts both ways. [ 19 ] All things considered, however, I am satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that Ms. Williamson would comply with the conditions of a conditional sentence order.

The areas of risk I have mentioned can be addressed through appropriate conditions, and I am therefore satisfied that allowing her to serve the sentence in the community would not endanger the community. [ 20 ] The more difficult determination, in my view, is whether a conditional sentence would, in the circumstances of this case, be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 21 ] Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code , set out the purpose and principles of sentencing.

The principles applicable to sentencing under the CDSA are much the same. [ 22 ]

Section 718 says that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, by imposing sanctions which have one or more of the following objectives: - denouncing unlawful conduct; - deterring both the offender being sentenced and other persons from committing offences; - separating offenders from society where necessary; - rehabilitating offenders; - providing reparation for harm done to victims or the community; and - promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and an acknowledgment of harm done to the community [ 23 ] The relative emphasis placed on each of those factors varies according to the circumstances of the offence and the offender in each particular case. [ 24 ] Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking is considered a particularly grave offence.

It is punishable by life imprisonment. When sentencing an offender for crimes like trafficking, or possession for the purpose, it is important to focus on the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. The personal circumstances of the offender cannot be ignored, but as the Court of Appeal noted in Aube , supra, they are secondary considerations to the issues of deterrence and denunciation. [ 25 ] In R v.

Dubai , 2008 SKCA 49 , the Court of Appeal said that in cases involving trafficking in hard drugs such as cocaine, prison sentences will typically be imposed, as they are necessary in order to comply with the fundamental principle of sentencing that all sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the

offender. They are also necessary to meet the requirements of the law that all sentences be sufficient to denounce the crime and to deter not just the offender, but others who might be tempted to commit such offences as well. However, as was noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 , and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Laliberte , supra , and Keepness, supra , actual imprisonment is not the only means by which denunciation and deterrence can be achieved. [ 26 ]

Section 718.1 identifies proportionality as the fundamental principle of sentencing. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Since this case involved possession of both cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and was not entirely without a commercial element, I consider the gravity of the offence to be significant. I also consider Ms.

Williamson’s degree of responsibility to be significant, as it appears as though she was in charge of whatever enterprise she was operating, and there is nothing to indicate that she was acting under the direction of anyone else, or due to any duress. However, I would consider both the gravity of the offence and the degree of Ms. Williamson’s responsibility to be much greater if this had been a purely commercial venture committed by a non-addicted person. [ 27 ]

Section 718.2 requires the Court to increase or decrease the sentence in response to relevant aggravating or mitigating factors. It also embodies the principles of parity, meaning similar individuals who commit similar offences should receive similar sentences, and restraint, meaning the Court should only imprison offenders in cases where no less restrictive sanctions are appropriate. [ 28 ] In this case, I consider the following to be aggravating factors: - Ms.

Williamson possessed both cocaine and marijuana for trafficking; - there was some evidence of a commercial element, with organization and record keeping, albeit not on a large scale; - it appears as though Ms. Williamson was known and relied upon as a supplier by at least some drug users in the community; and - the quantity of cash seized by the police indicates that Ms. Williamson was making a profit. [ 29 ] I consider the following to be mitigating factors: - Ms.

Williamson pled guilty and accepted full responsibility for her actions; - she has a minimal criminal record; - she has been very forthright about her addiction issues, and is genuinely motivated to deal with them; she already has attended and completed the Calder Centre program; and - she has complied with restrictive bail conditions with no reported breaches. [ 30 ] In considering the principle of parity, I consider the following to be the most relevant of the cases I have reviewed: R. v. Kraft , 2008 SKCA (SentDig) 36.

This case involved a 20 year old offender, who began dating a man involved in the drug trade. Her motivation for selling drugs was to support her own habit and pay her bills. She had no previous criminal record. Police observed a known drug user leaving her house, and located cocaine on that person. This led to a search warrant, and the police located 15 grams of cocaine in her house, along with $1200 in cash, scales, baggies and other paraphernalia. The trial judge imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. R. v. Lariviere, 2006 SKCA (SentDig) 40.

In this case, the 25 year old accused, who had no criminal record, sold 3.2 grams of cocaine to an undercover officer for $400. The Court of Appeal imposed 14 months incarceration. R. v. Patryluk , supra. This case involved a 21 year old offender, with only a minor record. The Court of Appeal overturned the 18 month conditional sentence imposed by the trial judge, and imposed real jail. This case, notably, involved more significant quantities of marijuana and cocaine, and an offender who hatched a plan to sell drugs to dig himself out of debt. However, like Ms.

Williamson, the offender was seen as a medium risk to re-offend and had significant addiction issues. R. v. P.(S.A.), supra , involved an offender with a minor record, who was sexually and physically abused as a child. She was a drug addict, who the Court accepted was dealing only to support her habit. Judge Whelan imposed an 18 month conditional sentence for

charges of trafficking in cocaine, noting that even in such cases, deterrence and denunciation can be met through the imposition of a conditional sentence. R. v. Klyne , supra, involved an offender convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in cocaine. The accused sold cocaine to an undercover officer on eight occasions. The total value of the cocaine sales was just over $10,000. The offender was an addict who used most of his share of the proceeds to fund his habit.

Judge Snell, as she was then, imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years probation. She noted that most cases involving trafficking in hard drugs, such as cocaine, will require a jail term. However, in cases where the offender accused is not one of the major players in the drug trafficking scheme, and committed the offence not to obtain a financial profit but to acquire drugs due to his or her own addiction, a conditional sentence may be appropriate, depending on the offender’s previous criminal record or lack thereof, and other personal circumstances.

She went on to say that while denunciation was a factor which must be reflected in the sentence, rehabilitation could be emphasized more than in a case where the motivation for the commission of the offence by a non- addicted person is purely economic. In R. v. Chaves , supra , the offender was the middleman in a significant commercial cocaine transaction, and received $1000 for his role. His two co-accused received jail sentences of 3 years and 23 months, respectively. Mr.

Chaves had no previous record, and between the time of the offence and the time of sentencing, had made significant positive changes in his life. Justice McLellan, citing R. v. Rahime , supra , imposed a two year less a day conditional sentence. In Chaves , Justice McLellan noted that, of the five sentencing principles set out in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code , two (namely sections 781.2(

d) and (e))require the Court to consider sanctions other than imprisonment, and noted that he was satisfied in that case that a lengthy conditional sentence coupled with significant house arrest, a strict curfew, and community service could provide the necessary denunciation and deterrence, and would also afford the accused the opportunity to continue with his rehabilitation and to care for and provide support for his child. R. v. Aube , supra, R. v. Dubai , supra , while not without similarities to the case before me, are nonetheless cases which I consider distinguishable.

In Aube , the three individuals being sentenced were selling drugs for the benefit of a criminal organization, and Dubai involved a non-addicted person with a much more significant quantity of cocaine than Ms. Williamson had in her possession. APPLICATION TO THIS CASE [ 31 ] Although it is apparent that Ms. Williamson had a small-scale commercial aspect to her trafficking, I accept from the evidence that most of the money she earned went toward feeding her addiction. While she kept documentation of her inventory and sales, this was not a highly sophisticated operation.

Although it is significant that she was trafficking in both marijuana and cocaine, there is no indication that she was trafficking in large quantities; the amount in her possession at the time of the arrest was relatively small. These factors, in my view, bring the circumstances of this case closely in line with the circumstances in Klyne , P.(S.A.) , and Chaves, supra . The circumstances of the offence and Ms. Williamson’s personal circumstances also lead me to the conclusion that rehabilitation should be given significant consideration in this case. [ 32 ] Ms. Williamson has no criminal record of significance.

She demonstrates insight regarding her addiction and mental health issues, and motivation to deal with those issues. Because of that, I conclude that she needs little in the way of specific deterrence. Although I am mindful of the fact that trafficking in hard drugs is a burgeoning problem in this area, I am satisfied that the necessary general deterrence can be achieved in this case through a conditional sentence, provided the conditions are sufficiently punitive. Likewise for denunciation. [ 33 ] A conditional sentence would also pay heed to the need for restraint mentioned in sections 718.2 (

d) and (

e) of the Criminal Code . Given Ms. Williamson’s relative lack of previous criminal record, and her personal circumstances, a conditional sentence with appropriate conditions would, in my view, be a proportionate response to the gravity of the offence and her degree of responsibility. CONCLUSION [ 34 ] Accordingly, I sentence her to a period of 18 months of imprisonment, concurrent, on each of the four counts, to be served in the community as a conditional sentence, pursuant to the conditions outlined in Appendix “A” to

this Judgment. [ 35 ] Following the completion of the conditional sentence, Ms. Williamson will be on probation for 18 months, as I am satisfied that a period of probation will assist in her continuing rehabilitation. The conditions of her probation are outlined in Appendix “B” to this Judgment. [ 36 ] In addition, with respect to counts 3 and 4 (possession for the purpose of trafficking), I make the following order pursuant to

section 109 of the Criminal Code : Ms. Williamson is prohibited from having in her possession any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance for a period of 10 years. [ 37 ] With respect to counts 3 and 4 (possession for the purpose of trafficking), there will also be an order, pursuant to

section 487.051 of the Criminal Code , authorizing the taking of a DNA sample from Ms. Williamson. In doing so, I have considered the serious nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission as the primary factors. The seriousness of the offence and the important role of DNA analysis in law enforcement, in my view, outweigh the minimal impact that such an order presents to Ms. Williamson’s privacy and security of the person in this case. For that reason, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of justice to make such an order. [ 38 ] Finally, pursuant to

section 16 of the CDSA , I order that the drugs, drug paraphernalia, and cash seized from Ms. Williamson’s residence pursuant to the warrant, executed on March 12, 2010, be forfeited to the Crown for disposal at the end of the applicable appeal period, as I am satisfied that these things are offence-related property within the meaning of that section. __________________________ J. KALMAKOFF, J APPENDIX “A” - CONDITIONAL SENTENCE CONDITIONS Conditional Sentencing Conditions Mandatory Conditions 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2. Appear before the court when required to do so by the court. 3.

Report to the Supervisor or his/her delegate within two working days after the making of this order; and thereafter when required and in the manner directed by the Supervisor or his/her delegate. 4. Remain within the jurisdiction of this Court unless written permission to go outside the jurisdiction is obtained from the court or supervisor. 5. Notify the court or your supervisor in advance of any change of name or address. Optional Conditions 6. Residence/Education/Employment 6.1 You must reside at 706 Hazel Avenue, Arcola, Saskatchewan.

You may not reside at any other place without the prior written approval of your supervisor. For the purposes of this conditional sentence order, your current residence noted above or such other residence as may be approved by your supervisor is your “approved residence”. 6.2 You must notify your supervisor of your telephone number and not change that telephone number without prior notice to the

supervisor. 6.3 Notify your supervisor of the address and telephone number of your employer. 6.4 Provide proof of employment, including a work schedule, to the supervisor in a form as and when required by the supervisor. 6.5 Make reasonable efforts to find and maintain employment approved by your supervisor and, when required by your supervisor, provide him or her with a report concerning efforts made to find employment, which report shall contain: (

a) who was seen; (

b) what work was sought; and (

c) what response was given. 6.6 Provide your supervisor with a work

schedule upon request . 7. Programming 7.1 You shall participate actively in detoxification, assessments, education and/or treatment in an approved program for substance abuse as may be directed by and to the satisfaction of your supervisor, and if so directed, you shall not give just cause for dismissal from such program. 7.2 You shall attend and participate in any mental health counselling, assessment, or treatment programs as directed by your supervisor. 8.

House Arrest and Curfews 8.1 Except where provided otherwise in this order, for the first 9 months of this order, you shall remain continuously in your approved residence.

This condition shall be electronically monitored in accordance with the terms set out in paragraph 9. 8.2 For the last 9 months of this order, obey a curfew of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, and not be outside of your approved residence during those times except with the prior written permission of your supervisor. 8.3 During the period where house arrest and/or curfew is in force, you shall answer all phone calls during the times you are required to be in your approved residence, in order to allow your supervisor or police to verify that you are inside your approved residence.

You must keep your present phone number, to wit: 306-455-2184; this phone must not be either a cell phone, nor a cordless phone; this phone number must not be attached to a call transfer service nor use such a service in any way. If you use dial up access to the internet, you must either have a second phone line to access the internet or get an answering machine allowing you to determine whether your supervisor is trying to reach you and return the phone call within 20 minutes.

Furthermore, you must not be on the phone more than 15 minutes at a time. 8.4 During the period where house arrest and/or curfew is in order, you shall answer all phone calls during the prescribed times, in order to allow your supervisor or police to verify that you are inside your domicile. 8.5 During the house arrest/curfew hours, you are not to have more than two persons who are not residents present in the approved residence. 8.6 When required to be in your approved residence pursuant to house arrest or in compliance with a curfew, you may only be out of your approved residence during the following prescribed times: (

a) while at your place of employment or going directly to or directly from your place of employment; (

b) while doing community service work or going directly to or directly from your place of community service work; (

c) while attending at court, as required by the court, or going directly to or directly from your place of residence or employment to court; (

d) while reporting to your supervisor or going directly to or directly from meeting with your supervisor; (

e) where approval has been given by your supervisor, provided you have the prior written approval of your supervisor, and when outside of your approved residence, you must carry a copy of the written permission with you at all times and present it to a police officer or other person responsible for the enforcement of this order, upon request. 8.7 If you are required to leave your home outside of the hours permitted by the conditional sentence order for the purpose of attending work on an emergency basis or to seek medical assistance, you must provide your supervisor with written confirmation from the employer or medical personnel of the reason for the absence from the approved residence.

This must be provided within 24 hours of the next business day.

9. Electronic Monitoring 9.1 You shall forthwith report to the IPSEM coordinator and shall participate in the electronic monitoring program for 9 months as soon as an electronic monitoring unit shall become available for the Estevan Region. While participating in the electronic monitoring program you shall abide by the rules and regulations of that program. 9.2 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you must abide by the following terms and conditions while you are required to be subject to electronic monitoring: (

a) you must reside at 706 Hazel Avenue, Arcola, Saskatchewan unless granted prior approval in writing by the IPSEM Coordinator to reside elsewhere; (

b) you must at all times wear such monitoring equipment as may be supplied to you; (

c) you are required to allow a field monitoring device to be connected to the telephone at your designated residence; (

d) you are to permit the IPSEM Coordinator or any police officer to enter your designated residence at any time to verify equipment operation and to confirm compliance with the electronic monitoring conditions of the IPSEM and of this order; (

e) neither you nor any other person will remove, disconnect, modify or otherwise interfere with the operation of any item of monitoring equipment; (

f) you will be responsible for the monitoring equipment installed in your residence and in particular for the repair or replacement costs in the event of breakage to or loss of that monitoring equipment; (

g) you are responsible for the return of the monitoring equipment to the IPSEM Coordinator on the last working day prior to the end of the completion of the electronic monitoring period; (

h) you are to contact the IPSEM Coordinator immediately in the event of any apparent technical difficulties with the monitoring equipment; (

i) you are to contact the IPSEM Coordinator immediately if any circumstances arise which affect your ability to be in your residence when you are required to be confined there; (

j) you shall personally present yourself to any peace officer or to the IPSEM Coordinator monitoring the provisions of this order; (

k) you shall report to the IPSEM Coordinator or his/her designate once per week or as otherwise directed by the Coordinator or his/her designate; (

l) you shall submit to alcohol/drug testing as may be arranged by the IPSEM Coordinator while on electronic monitoring; (

m) you must permit your telephone service provider security department to monitor the status of your telephone, including but not limited to, the amount payable on your telephone account and forward such information to your supervisor; (

n) you will not engage in any activity which could cause the telephone service to your approved residence to be disconnected by your telephone service provider. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you will ensure that your telephone bill is paid when due; (

o) you will ensure your electrical utility bill is paid to prevent service disruption to the electronic monitoring equipment. 10. Controlled Substances and Alcohol 10.1 You shall not consume or possess any controlled substance within the meaning of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except as authorized by law.

You shall submit to blood/urinalysis on demand of a police officer or your supervisor, if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe you have breached this term. 10.2 You shall not consume or possess any alcohol or intoxicating substances and must submit to a breathalyzer, blood test or urinalysis on demand of a peace officer or your supervisor if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe you have breached this term. 10.3 You shall not to enter any licensed premises, retail stores or other commercial establishments that are engaging primarily in the sale of alcoholic beverages, with the exception of dining rooms and restaurants for the purposes of eating. 10.4 Submit to alcohol and/or drug testing as may be arranged by your supervisor. 11.

Inspections and Searches 11.1 Present yourself at the door of your approved residence for any supervisor or police officer who attends for the purposes of confirming your curfew compliance or for the purposes of entering your home to determine if other conditions of the conditional sentence order are being complied with. 11.2 You must, upon demand, permit police to enter upon and search (without reasonable grounds or a search warrant and without your

consent), your person, residence, any vehicle you own, have registered in your name, possess, are found operating or in control of, as well as any other property you own or possess, for the purpose of searching for controlled drugs and offence related property or drug related contraband. 12. Possession of Items 12.1 You shall not possess any cellular telephone, radio scanner, paging device, two way radio, blackberry, i-phone, smart phone or other portable telecommunication device except for the purposes of employment and where under the control of your employer.

You shall advise the supervisor of any cellular telephones possessed for employment purposes, including the phone number, and provide copies of the telephone bills to the supervisor upon request. You shall not use any “pay as you go” or “prepaid” cellular telephone service. 13. Area Restrictions 13.1 Not to travel beyond a 100 kilometer radius from the place of your approved residence without prior written permission of the supervisor. 14. Community Service Work 14.1 You shall perform 100 hours of community service work at the direction of and to the satisfaction of your supervisor.

Such community service work shall be completed no later than 3 months prior to the expiration of the conditional sentence order. 15. General Conditions 15.1 You must carry a copy of this order with you at all times while you are outside your approved residence.

In any dealings you have with any police officer or any probation officer, you shall immediately advise that officer of the fact that you are subject to a conditional sentence order and shall forthwith produce your copy of this order for inspection by that officer. 15.2 Where appropriate, your supervisor may grant a temporary exemption from any of the terms of this order, provided that the exemption is given in writing. 15.3 Where your supervisor grants you an exemption from any term of this order, you must carry the approval with you and produce it upon demand to any policy officer or person responsible for the enforcement of this order. 15.4 You must not at any time own, possess or carry any firearm, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, or prohibited ammunition, as those terms are defined by the Criminal Code .

Furthermore, while you are outside of your residence you may not possess or carry any item that is a weapon as that term is defined in the Criminal Code . APPENDIX “B” - PROBATION CONDITIONS 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour 2. Appear before the court when required to do so by the court; 3. Notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or probation officer of any change in employment or occupation; 4.

Report within 3 days to the Chief Probation Officer, 1302 3 rd Street in Estevan or his/her delegate and thereafter as required and in the manner directed by the Probation Officer so delegated; 5. Maintain a residence approved by your Probation Officer and not change that residence without the prior approval of the Probation Officer; 6.

Abide by the lawful instructions of the Probation Officer or his/her designate especially in regard to specific programming which may include participating actively in detoxification, assessments, education, counseling and/or treatment in an approved program for substance abuse, and not give just cause for dismissal;