2011 QCCQ 5261, 2011 QCCQ 5261

JL-3603 R. c.

Posidio Patricio 2011 QCCQ 5261 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL LOCALITY OF MONTRÉAL "Criminal and Penal Division" N°: 500-01-009040-079 DATE: May 25, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE LEBLOND, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ The Queen Prosecutor Vs Rodney Posidio Patricio Roderick Fuente Carreon Chuck Posidio Patricio Ronald Howell Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The four accused have pleaded guilty to a charge of telemarketing fraud. [ 2 ] Following the pre-trial conference, the crown prosecutor has filed, at the Court's request, a

summary of the evidence. It says this: The investigation revealed that in order to function effectively, the network had to compensate for two problems: (1) contact a large number of individuals previously targeted and (2) to quickly and inexpensively cash-in the victims’ money. Pinsky and Clark’s organization had invested in a computer system enabling them to communicate in a short period of time with a very large number of individuals and maintain computer records containing the victims' consent and data to perform electronic debits.

Prior to the introduction of the computer system, lists (leads) of potential victims were acquired from companies based in Florida and Pennsylvania, which specialized in profiling victims. The investigation revealed that the solicitations were sent to a profile of people

whom in the past had been refused a credit card at least once. These lists were then stored in a server connected to a network of computers with IP (Internet Protocol) phone lines, a dialer and software (XSellerator) to place calls automatically to programmed numbers. If an individual answered the call, the computer then dispatched the communication to a telemarketer inside a call center. When a call was directed to a telemarketer, customer information appeared on the screen next to the pitch to recite.

When the victim is interested, the call is transferred to a second individual: the closer, whose role is to obtain a clear consent from the victim for direct withdrawal, and all information necessary to transfer funds. Between August 6th, 2004 and February 2nd, 2005, just over two million three hundred twenty thousand calls were made from 5250 Decarie, # 150, Montreal, to different numbers in the United States. Analysis of the computer server and client files seized demonstrate a potential of 24 000 victims for a total of more than seven million dollars.

The rapid collection of the victim's money is done through direct withdrawals pre-authorized by the victim (ACH). This type of transaction is controlled by the National Automated Clearing House (NACHA), an organization of financial institutions that adopts rules to facilitate electronic financial transactions. According to the NACHA rules, for a bank to allow a pre-authorized direct withdrawal, it must have a clear and unambiguous voice recording from the account holder.

Legitimate organizations that are called "processors" are involved in bridging the gap between banks and companies that use this type of transaction, subject to financial compensation. Once the money collected in the company’s account in Montreal, it could pass through several accounts, all under the control of Pinsky and Clark, or simply be removed under the pretext of purchase of lists (leads). A false billing allowed balancing of the books.

Indeed, analysis of the accounts showed a significant number of transfers of funds between Stephen Clark, Leslie Pinsky, their companies and their accomplices. (Translation) [ 3 ] Carreon and the Patricio brothers were closers while Howell was the manager of the "boiler room". [ 4 ] None of them would have received money from the scam. Nevertheless, they received salary for their work with the telemarketing company. Howell was paid $500 per week while the three others were paid $10 per hour. [ 5 ] The two who started this telemarketing scheme have been extradited to the USA and sentenced to 6 and 8 years.

Jurisprudence [ 6 ] The factors to take into consideration in a case of fraud have been formulated by the Quebec Court of Appeal in Lévesque [1] : « - La nature et l'étendue de la fraude se traduisant, notamment, par l'ampleur de la spoliation ainsi que la perte pécuniaire réelle subie par la victime. - Le degré de préméditation se retrouvant, notamment, dans la planification et la mise en oeuvre d'un système frauduleux. - Le comportement du contrevenant après la commission de l'infraction dont les facteurs de bonification pourraient résider dans le remboursement des sommes appropriées par la commission d'une fraude, la collaboration à l'enquête ainsi que l'aveu. - Les condamnations antérieures du contrevenant : proximité temporelle avec l'infraction reprochée et gravité des infractions antérieures. - Les bénéfices personnels retirés par le contrevenant. - Le caractère d'autorité et le lien de confiance présidant aux relations du contrevenant avec la victime. - La motivation sous-jacente à la commission de l'infraction : cupidité, désordre physique ou psychologique, détresse financière, etc. - La fraude résultant de l'appropriation des deniers publics réservés à l'assistance des personnes en difficulté. »

Application of these factors to present case [ 7 ] The extent of this fraud is important. This is what we could call a consumer fraud. The amount involved is 7 millions of dollars. The average loss is $199. There are 24 000 potential victims. They are all American. They were chosen because of their financial difficulties and their problem in having credit. The products they were buying were without value as for example a pre guaranteed credit card of $2,000 and a pre approved federal loan of $5,000.

All they received were forms to apply for a credit card and for such a loan. [ 8 ] It has not been contradicted that Montréal is a nerve center for this kind of fraud. [ 9 ] While this fraud has been highly premeditated by the instigators, Messrs. Carreon, Rodney and Chuck Patricio were, as closers, at the bottom line of the scheme. To them, the company appeared legitimate at the outset. [ 10 ] As a manager, Mr. Howell would have known more about the scheme from the outset. [ 11 ] While at the beginning of the trial, they pleaded guilty.

The trial would have lasted between 12 and 14 weeks. [ 12 ] While none of the four took a share of the 7 millions of dollars, they earned a living out of the scheme. Nothing in the evidence contradicts the fact that it was the sole motivation for their involvement. [ 13 ] The reimbursement of the victims is totally illusory. [ 14 ] The scheme being a consumer fraud, the accused were not in a position of thrust. Nevertheless, they were playing on

victims’ gullibility and financial difficulties. Cases submitted [ 15 ] The prosecutor submitted some cases as to sentences for fraud by telemarketing. [ 16 ] In Nichols [2] , a sentence of four years was imposed by the Ontario Court of Appeal . In that case, the accused was employed as telemarketing salesperson and telephoned elderly American woman to sell her packages of lottery tickets. The accused befriended the woman and she liquidated her assets and transferred over $1 million U.S. to accused.

Accused had told her she had won $13 million in lottery but had to send him $1 million in tax and insurance costs to receive winnings. The accused had returned bulk of money. That case is highly distinguishable since it should have taken a lot of power of persuasion to convince victim to send such an amount of money. The breach of thrust is evident. The case is nevertheless interesting in that it states the need to deter and denounce those who prey on the elderly and vulnerable.

It also states the need to deter cross-border frauds, which are both difficult to uncover and to prosecute. [ 17 ] The cases of Gordon [3] and Lobel [4] deal with the same telemarketing fraud. The organisation was targeting elderly people in Canada. The scheme was similar to the one in Nichols in that victims had to send money in order to receive lottery winnings. The accused were having a 30% commission on the money received.

Each victim could be called up to 20 times and in some cases amounts of nearly $30,000 were sent. [ 18 ] In Gordon , the two accused were without prior criminal record, were remorseful and had turned their life around. They did not fully realise the illegality of the enterprise at the outset and in some way were manipulated. Two years less one-day conditional sentences were imposed on both.

The case of Gordon is distinguishable in that the accused were sharing the profit and the money involved for some of the victims was strikingly higher than in the present case. [ 19 ] In Lobel , the accused was a salesperson of prime importance in the scheme. The pre-sentence report was mentioning that he was minimizing the gravity of the crime and was showing poor empathy towards the victims while his AA sponsor testified to the contrary. He had no criminal record. He had a gambling problem. He received a sentence of nine months in jail. Purpose and Principles of Sentencing Purpose 718.

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. Fundamental principle 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Other sentencing principles 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, (iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders. Position of parties

[ 20 ] The crown is requesting a 15 to 18 months conditional sentence for Carreon and the two Patricio and a 2- year-jail term for Howell. [ 21 ] The lawyers for Carreon and Rodney Posidio Patricio are requesting a conditional discharge with community service for their clients. The lawyer for Howell is requesting a conditional sentence with community service for his client. The lawyer for Chuck Posedio Patricio is requesting a 2-year-suspended sentence with community service for his client. Is a discharge possible? [ 22 ] The time frame of the offence covers a period between August 1, 2004 and February 1, 2005. It straddles an amendment to

section 380 1)

a) Cr.C., dated September 15, 2004, that modified the maximum penalty for this offence with a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. According to

section 730 Cr.C. a discharge cannot be granted for such an offence but is possible if the Court considers that the prior maximum of 10 years applies. [ 23 ]

Section 11

i) of the Charter reads as follows: Any person charged with an offence has the right (

i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. [ 24 ] According to the jurisprudence provided by the prosecutor, the expression "between the time of commission" refers to the full completion of the offence. The cases of Thow [5] and C. (V.I) [6] are clearly to that effect. Other cases take this for granted without raising the issue [7] . [ 25 ] The defence did not provide any jurisprudence to the contrary. [ 26 ] The court considers that the fact the time frame of the offence straddles the amendment doesn't bring into play

section 11

i) of the Charter since the modification came into effect before the full completion of the offence. The nature of a conditional sentence [ 27 ] In Proulx , at par. 113 to 115 In sum, in determining whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, sentencing judges should consider which sentencing objectives figure most prominently in the factual circumstances of the particular case before them. Where a combination of both punitive and restorative objectives may be achieved, a conditional sentence will likely be more appropriate than incarceration.

In determining whether restorative objectives can be satisfied in a particular case, the judge should consider the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation, including whether the offender has proposed a particular plan of rehabilitation; the availability of appropriate community service and treatment programs; whether the offender has acknowledged his or her wrongdoing and expresses remorse; as well as the victim’s wishes as revealed by the victim impact statement (consideration of which is now mandatory pursuant to s. 722 of the Code). This list is not exhaustive.

Where punitive objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, such as cases in which there are aggravating circumstances, incarceration will generally be the preferable sanction. This may be so notwithstanding the fact that restorative goals might be achieved by a conditional sentence.

Conversely, a conditional sentence may provide sufficient denunciation and deterrence, even in cases in which restorative objectives are of diminished importance, depending on the nature of the conditions imposed, the duration of the conditional sentence, and the circumstances of the offender and the community in which the conditional sentence is to be served. Finally, it bears pointing out that a conditional sentence may be imposed even in circumstances where there are aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

Aggravating circumstances will obviously increase the need for denunciation and deterrence. However, it would be a mistake to rule out the possibility of a conditional sentence ab initio simply because aggravating factors are present. I repeat that each case must be considered individually. [ 28 ] At par. 37 and 38: Accordingly, conditional sentences should generally include punitive conditions that are restrictive of the offender’s liberty. Conditions such as house arrest or strict curfews should be the norm, not the exception.

As the Minister of Justice said during the second reading of Bill C-41 ( House of Commons Debates , supra , at p. 5873), “[t]his sanction is obviously aimed at offenders who would otherwise be in jail but who could be in the community under tight controls” (emphasis added). There must be a reason for failing to impose punitive conditions when a conditional sentence order is made. Sentencing judges should always be mindful of the fact that conditional sentences are only to be imposed on offenders who would otherwise have been sent to jail.

If the judge is of the opinion that punitive conditions are unnecessary, then probation, rather than a conditional sentence, is most likely the appropriate disposition. The personal situation of each accused and the sentence to impose on each one Rodney Posidio Patricio [ 29 ] He was 20 years old when hired in this telemarketing company.

[ 30 ] He only realized the fraudulent character of the company some months before the arrest. It is not contested that the telemarketing enterprise could well look like a legitimate one at least at the outset. [ 31 ] The pre sentence report states at p. 4: Mr. Posidio Patricio has been employed by Aerospace Metal Finishing for 2 years as a bench worker, an assistant production supervisor. The details of his employment were confirmed by Mr. Ken Guest, who has served as his direct supervisor during his period of employment.

Mr Guest reported that the subject is punctual, that he responds well to direction and authority, and that he is positive and respectful with clients, co-workers, and management. Mr. Guest reported being aware of the subject's charges, and commented that, "the kid he was then [at the time of the charges] and the kid he is today aren't the same person." Mr. Guest reported having complete trust in the subject, and that Mr. Posidio Patricio often acts as supervisor when Mr. Guest is absent. [ 32 ] At p. 5 the report states: Mr. Posidio Patricio presented as cooperative and forthright for the purposes of this report.

As noted above, both Ms. Cendana (the accused partner) and Mr. Guest endorse the subject as a responsible relationship with authority figures (historically, in school, and currently, at work), and accepted responsibility for the current charges. [ 33 ] Further down the report states: Mr. Posidio Patricio endorses prosocial attitudes including: being a good father and partner, supporting his family via gainful employment, maintaining a healthy lifestyle, abstaining from substance use, and upgrading his education to seek a career about which he is passionate.

The subject appears to have the potential to succeed in life, and appears to be committed to doing so. It appears that the subject is taking an active role in planning his future and taking the necessary steps to achieve his well-defined goals. [ 34 ] Mr. Guest testified and confirmed what he said to the probation officer. He added that since 90% of the company undertakings are with the military the accused would be fired if he had a criminal record for this fraud. [ 35 ] The accused has an entry in his record for drinking and driving that occurred three years ago. This record doesn't seem to put his job at risk.

When possible he will apply for a pardon. [ 36 ] As mentioned in the report, he is upgrading his education in order to obtain a certificate as electrician. He is seeking a specialization in solar energy and would like to work with hydro-Ontario. A criminal record would prevent him to do so. [ 37 ] The accused offers to do the maximum of community work, that is 240, within a conditional discharge. [ 38 ] From age 16 to 25 the accused was a member of the Filipino Canadian Youth Alliance, a national cultural organization providing outreach, education, and migration support to newcomers to Canada.

For two years, he held the position of National Vice- Chairperson of that organisation and was part of an anti-gang initiative in the city of Montréal. [ 39 ] The accused common law partner is a public servant with the federal government. She is a program officer at a lower level. When she applies for a higher level a security check is made.

A record for fraud in the name of the accused would seemingly jeopardize a promotion for her. [ 40 ] The fact that the accused did not inform legal aid authorities that his financial situation has changed cannot work against him for the sentencing purpose since it seems manifest that he did not know he had to.

Aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case of Rodney Posidio Patricio Aggravating circumstances [ 41 ] The nature and scope of the fraud is an aggravating circumstance Mitigating circumstances • The young age of the accused at the time of the offence; • The limited level of involvement in the fraud; • But for earning a living for some months, the accused didn't have a share of the fraud profit; • He changed his life in the last years; • The absence of criminal record at the time of the offence; • His acknowledgment of the harm done; • The risk of recidivism is very low; • The commitment to his work and family. [ 42 ] Not it had been for the fact that the law changed during the commission of the offence, a discharge would have been seriously considered by the Court. [ 43 ] Taking into account all the mitigating factors and the time elapsed since the commission of the offence (6 years), it won't be

necessary to put emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. To impose house arrest and curfew within a conditional sentence would serve no purpose other than punitive that is not necessary here. [ 44 ] In addition to this, the fact that the accused will suffer serious hardship due to a criminal record for fraud, a conditional sentence, as suggested by the Crown, is not necessary. [ 45 ] The Court thinks that a suspended sentence for two years with the obligation to perform 100 hours of community work will be sufficient.

Roderick Fuente Carreon [ 46 ] The accused was 29 years old when he joined the telemarketing company. [ 47 ] As he was looking for a job, his sister-in-law, who was working at that company, referred him to her employer. He started as a salesperson but was fired two weeks later because of his poor results. [ 48 ] Soon after, he was re-employed as a closer. He then had to read a text to the client to obtain consent. [ 49 ] To the probation officer, he said that he did not realize the illegality of the enterprise.

Confronted with this, he said to the Court that in fact he was wilfully blind to the situation. [ 50 ] The pre sentence report states at p. 4: Nous notons cependant qu'il s'agit d'une criminalité tardive, qui remonte à plus de cinq ans, et que monsieur ne paraît habituellement pas privilégier le recours à des moyens illicites pour résoudre ses problèmes. Il appert également que le processus judiciaire en cours suscite chez le contrevenant l'effet dissuasif escompté. Considérant ce qui précède, nous sommes d'avis que le risque de récidive est peu élevé.

Depuis son arrestation, en 2005, monsieur Carreon occupe un emploi à temps plein qui lui permet de subvenir aux besoins de sa famille de façon adéquate et il maintient ses acquis aux plans relationnel et social. [ 51 ] The accused is married and has three children and is the sole provider for the family. [ 52 ] He works at the Jewish General Hospital since 2005 in the shipping department. [ 53 ] He is the current chairperson of SIKLAB, a Filipino organisation for the advancement of the rights and welfare of migrant Filipinos in Canada.

In this capacity, he may have from time to time to travel overseas to give a lecture to the organisation workers. Cecilia Diocson testified to the importance of his involvement in this group. She cannot tell exactly about the impact a criminal record may have on his involvement. [ 54 ] The crown is requesting a conditional sentence of 15 to 18 months. The accused is requesting a conditional discharge. [ 55 ] What has been said as to the applicability of a discharge in the case of Mr. Rodney Posidio Patricio applies to this accused.

Aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case of Roderick Carreon Aggravating circumstances • The nature and scope of the fraud is an aggravating circumstance.

Mitigating circumstances • The limited level of involvement in the fraud; • But for earning a living for some months, the accused didn't have a share of the fraud profit; • His good behaviour since his arrest; • The absence of criminal record; • His acknowledgment of the harm done; • The risk of recidivism is low; • His work and family are at the center of his life. [ 56 ] Unlike Rodney Posidio Patricio, Mr Carreon cannot benefit from his age as a mitigating factor.

Also, a criminal record would not be as harmful on the latter as on the former. [ 57 ] A telemarketing scheme would not be possible without people accepting to work as salesperson and closers. [ 58 ] In the light of all the circumstances and taking into consideration the time elapsed since the commission of the offence (6 years), it won't be necessary to put emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. To impose house arrest and curfew within a conditional sentence would serve no purpose other than punitive that is not necessary here.

[ 59 ] Putting emphasis on rehabilitation will best serve the interest of society. Therefore, a suspended sentence for three years with the obligation to perform 240 hours of community service will be sufficient. Chuck Posidio Patricio [ 60 ] The accused was 21 years old when he joined the telemarketing company. [ 61 ] He started as a salesperson but was fired one month later because of his poor results. [ 62 ] He was re-employed as a closer. He then had to read a text to the client to obtain consent. A recording had to be made of those conversations in order for the company to be paid.

If there were any objections or reservations from the potential client the recording was stopped. [ 63 ] He was wilfully blind to the situation. This is why he pleaded guilty. [ 64 ] The pre-sentence report states that, since the offence, the accused has turned his life around. During five years, he did voluntary work with the same Filipino organisation as his brother. He is now taking courses at James Lyng Adult Center to finish his high school. At the same time he is working in a restaurant as a waiter and bus boy. [ 65 ] The accused is in a significant relationship with his common law partner.

They are foreseeing a marriage and having children. [ 66 ] According to the probation officer the risk of recidivism is low. [ 67 ] As a closer he was involved in 517 transactions with a potential loss of $128,000. The actual loss in his case is $8,490 as he closed 35 transactions. The aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case of Chuck Posidio Patricio Aggravating circumstances • The nature and scope of the fraud is an aggravating circumstance.

Mitigating circumstances • His relative young age when he started to work in the scheme; • The limited level of involvement in the fraud; • But for earning a living for some months, the accused didn't have a share of the fraud profit; • His good behaviour since his arrest; • The absence of criminal record; • His acknowledgment of the harm done; • The low risk of committing another offence; • His commitment to studies and his intention to put family at the centre of his life. [ 68 ] As mentioned in the case of Mr.

Carreon a telemarketing scheme would not be possible without people accepting to work as salespersons or closers. [ 69 ] In the light of all the circumstances and taking into consideration the time elapsed since the commission of the offence (6 years), it won't be necessary to put emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. To impose house arrest and curfew within a conditional sentence would serve no purpose other than punitive that is not necessary here. [ 70 ] Putting emphasis on rehabilitation will best serve the interest of society.

Therefore, a suspended sentence for three years with the obligation to perform 240 hours of community service will be sufficient. Ronald Howell [ 71 ] The accused was 33 when he joined the telemarketing company. [ 72 ] He is married and has a 14 year-old son. [ 73 ] He works at the Jewish General Hospital since 6 years. At the beginning he was in the cleaning department and is now in the shipping one. [ 74 ] His job is his anchor. It brings him stability.

He knows little of French and if he lost his job it would be difficult for him to find another one. [ 75 ] His wife testified about the fact that since his arrest in the present file he changed his way of life. Work and family are

important to him. [ 76 ] He testified that at the time the only important thing for him was money. Now he knows the value of each dollar he earns. He would not want to put his family at risk anymore. [ 77 ] He was already sentenced for a telemarketing offence under the Competition Act , in 2000, for which he received a conditional sentence and a probation. He was still on probation when he joined the telemarketing company in this file. He says that having problems in finding a job he asked his probation officer about the appropriateness of working again in that field.

The officer agreed since the company seemed legitimate. He is not sure if he told the officer that Clark, an instigator in the 2000, file was already involved in the 2002 one. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case of Ronald Howell Aggravating circumstances • The nature and scope of the fraud is an aggravating circumstance; • The higher level of involvement in the fraud; • The time period of his involvement in the fraud; • His past record for quite a similar offence.

Mitigating circumstances • But for earning a living during the time frame of the offence, the accused didn't have a share of the fraud profit; • His good behaviour since his arrest; • His acknowledgment of the harm done; • He is remorseful; • His commitment to his work and family; • Because he appears to have mended his way of life there is a low risk that he commits another offence. [ 78 ] The Court agrees with the Crown that a jail term is necessary for this accused.

Because his rehabilitation is in progress, that he acknowledges the harm done and that he is remorseful, a sentence of less than two years applies. [ 79 ] Had it not been for the accused turning his life around in a convincing way, a firm jail term would have been appropriate. The offence has been committed six years ago.

To send this man in jail while he made sufficient efforts to mend his way would be counterproductive. [ 80 ] Considering all the circumstances in the case of this accused, the Court comes to the conclusion that denunciation and deterrence are not so pressing here to refuse that this sentence be served in the community. [ 81 ] The sentence will be an imprisonment of two years less a day in the community.

CONCLUSION [ 82 ] In the case of Rodney Posidio Patricio the sentence will be suspended for two years during which he will be bound by probation with the conditions to keep the peace, be of good behaviour and notify the Court of any change of address and employment. He will have further to perform 100 hours of community service over a period of six months from the coming into force of this order.

He will have to report to a probation officer within 48 hours following the issue of this order. [ 83 ] In the case of Roderick Carreon and Chuck Posidio Patricio the sentence will be suspended for three years during which they will be bound by probation with the conditions to keep the peace, be of good behaviour and notify the Court of any change of address and employment. They will have further to perform 240 hours of community service over a period of nine months from the coming into force of this order.

They will have to report to a probation officer within 48 hours following the issue of this order. [ 84 ] In the case of Ronald Howell the Court issue a conditional sentence order for the period of two years less a day under the following conditions: - You will keep the peace and be of good behavior; - You will appear before the Court whenever required;

- You will report to a supervisor within two working days and, thereafter, in the manner directed by the supervisor; - You will follow the supervisor's requirements necessary to supervise the respect of the conditions; - You will remain in the Province of Quebec, except with the authorization of the Court or of the supervisor; - You will notify the Court and the supervisor of your change of address or occupation; - You will perform 240 hours of community work within a delay of 9 months from the coming into force of this order; - You will have to be at your residence, for the first 8 months of your sentence at all time except for legitimate and remunerated work, community work, and with the prior written authorization of your supervisor; - You will have to be at your residence, for the following months, between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. with the same exception. [ 85 ] You will sign a probation order for a period of three years, which will begin, after the end of your conditional sentence.

The conditions will be the following: - You will keep the peace and be of good behavior; - You will appear before the Court whenever required; _______________________________ CLAUDE LEBLOND, J.C.Q. FOR THE CROWN Me Catherine Perreault Me Maude Payette FOR THE ACCUSED Me Véronique Courtecuisse For Ronald Howell Me Kimon Kling, For Roderick Fuente Carreon and Rodney Posidio Patricio Me Gaétan Bourassa, For Chuck Posidio Patricio