R. v. Wallace, 2018 BCPC 130

Citation: R. v. Wallace 2018 BCPC 130 Date: 20180213 File Nos: 169712-2-C; 169712-3-A; 169778-1; 169783-1; 169801-1; 169802-1; 169892-1; 170678-1; 172313-1 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. MITCHELL ROBERT ANDREW WALLACE ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L. MROZINSKI Counsel for the Crown: J. Gillings Counsel for the Accused: M. Morrison Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 22, 2018 Date of Judgment: February 13, 2018

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Mr. Wallace, today you are being sentenced on the offences to which you pled guilty in this court on January 22, 2018. As you will recall, due to a sheriff shortage, it was necessary to shut my court down, so I was not able to sentence you directly after hearing submissions on sentence, and this matter went over by consent to today's list. I have, as a consequence, Mr. Wallace, adjusted your credit for time served to account for this delay. [ 2 ] I am sentencing you today then, Mr.

Wallace, on 11 offences, several of which are quite serious, including the offences of aggravated assault and robbery. [ 3 ] At issue in this sentencing is the length of your sentence. The question is whether I should impose a sentence that will exceed three years, even taking into account the credit to which you are entitled to for time served, or whether I should impose a somewhat shorter sentence that would allow you to serve the remainder of your sentence in provincial custody, and which would then enable this court to impose a significant period of probation upon your release.

The question really turns on how much weight I give to the sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation versus the objective of your rehabilitation. [ 4 ] The offences that you are being sentenced for today, Mr. Wallace, occurred for the most part during the months of August and September of 2016, either in aid of obtaining street drugs such as crystal methamphetamine, or while you were under the influence of drugs. As Ms. Morrison advised the court during her submissions on your behalf, for the most part you do not recall many of these events. You have though, Mr.

Wallace, now been in custody since October 5, 2017, and I do not doubt that you are in a much clearer frame of mind. I suspect and I hope you have had some time to reflect on these offences and the circumstances that brought you to this point. [ 5 ] To the extent you cannot remember what occurred, it is useful and necessary in sentencing in any event, to outline what occurred, however briefly. The hope is that you will understand or appreciate how these offences affected your victims, how your behaviour was so completely uncivil and often cruel and careless of the plight of your fellow citizens.

Drug addiction does cause such selfishness, so it is imperative, Mr. Wallace, that you understand what it was that you were doing and why you cannot continue to act that way. [ 6 ] In chronological order, I am going to start with Count 2 of Information 169778, which is the charge that on August 12, 2016, you stole a bottle of rum from the Harris Green liquor outlet on View Street. The Crown notes that in addition to taking the liquor, you pushed past the store clerk, Yvonne Adgira, in an attempt to get out of the store with the stolen goods.

There is, in this instance, as well as in some of the other thefts that I am dealing with today, a pattern, one which demonstrates that while in the throes of your addiction, you were prepared to do whatever was necessary and in your own interest to obtain what it was you most wanted, irrespective of persons like store clerks or loss prevention officers. [ 7 ] You pled guilty, as well, to Count 1 of Information 172313 involving theft of property over $5,000. The circumstances of this offence are slightly unusual.

They demonstrate, among other things, that in the moment, certainly while you were under the influence of your drug addiction, your immediate instinct is to seize any opportunity, no matter how fleeting, to fuel that addiction. [ 8 ] In this instance, on August 21, 2016, Ms. Aujla had the misfortune to forget to collect her purse which she had hung on the back of the door of the woman's washroom at the Magnolia Hotel. When she went to look for it mere minutes later it was, much to her dismay, I am sure, gone.

Somehow in that brief period of time in that venue, you came into possession of her purse and its contents. What is more unfortunate for Ms. Aujla is that even though family members were able to find you quickly, still in possession of her purse, her Rolex watch valued at $15,000, and her credit cards remain missing.

You easily escaped those family members, though your participation in this offence was also easily determined. [ 9 ] You plead guilty to Count 2 of Information 169783, which charges that on August 30, 2016, you threatened to harm Matthew Charlton, a clerk at the 7-Eleven convenience store, with a tire iron in a dispute over a mere stolen pepperoni. Again, your involvement in this offence was easily discovered as you were caught on videotape. [ 10 ] You have pled guilty to the assault of Steven Sayers, which charge forms Count 1 of Information 169802.

In that instance, you are videotaped on September 9, 2016, assaulting Mr. Sayers outside the Salvation Army on Johnson Street where he is a resident. You are seen, as I understand the submissions, punching Mr. Sayers repeatedly. His offence, as he surmised, was that he did not give you or your companion a cigarette when asked. [ 11 ] You plead guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of Information 169801, which charged that on September 14, 2016, you stole property from Walmart and assaulted one of the company's loss prevention officers, Ronald Sandico.

Again, the facts demonstrate your sheer determination and a lack of concern for your fellow man in the moment. First, you are said to have threatened to stab Mr. Sandico over some $60 or so worth of merchandise, and then you are said to have punched Mr. Sandico in the eye, after dropping the stolen merchandise, only to then pick it up and run off. [ 12 ] You admit, Mr.

Wallace, that on the following day, September 15, 2016, you obtained two packages of cigarettes from a clerk at the Petro-Canada store on Douglas Street, one by simply grabbing it, the other by demand, before running off as well with a tray of lighters. [ 13 ] This then brings us to the charges arising out of the events that occurred on September 18, 2016. Because of the seriousness of these offences outlined in Counts 1 and 2 of Information 169712-C-2, a presentence and a psychiatric report were ordered in preparation for sentencing.

I will discuss each of those momentarily. [ 14 ] Count 1 of Information 169712-C-2 is the most egregious, Mr. Wallace, as it involves the unprovoked and serious assault on a man who was a complete stranger to you. Count 2 involves the robbery of a man who was also a complete stranger, and although you

are not pleading guilty to his assault, the circumstances outlined in the sentencing are that you assaulted him as well, three times. [ 15 ] In the first instance laid out in Count 1, you are charged with and admit to assaulting Mr. Darren James Fraser, an employee with Footprint Security, as he was on his way home from work around 7:00 a.m. on September 18, 2016. Were it not for two persons working as security guards who happened to be nearby, Mr. Fraser's attacker might not have been brought to justice, but in this instance you were, Mr. Wallace, seen to cross the street quickly as Mr.

Fraser walked by, and to strike him in the head with such force he fell onto the street unconscious. [ 16 ] Mr. Fraser remembers only seeing what he thought was a homeless man he would not likely be able to identify, and then recalls waking up and being attended to by emergency medical personnel. Within moments of the assault on Mr. Fraser, you came upon Mr. Chew in the downtown area. Mr. Chew was going about his business, playing a game on his cellphone, when you suddenly and for no apparent reason confronted him, issued what I think can fairly be described as a race-based insult by telling Mr.

Chew, who is Canadian, that he ought to go back to his own country, before striking him in the face with your skateboard. This was witnessed not only by Mr. Chew, but also by the individual who was present and witnessed you strike Mr. Fraser. [ 17 ] True to your form at the time, you took Mr. Chew's cellphone, which he dropped when he was struck, as well as his backpack.

When he yelled at you to return them, you returned and struck him twice more with your skateboard. [ 18 ] The person who was watching this kept up with you as you ran off and watched you change clothes, which briefly confused police, and watched you until your arrest down the street in the alley behind the Strathcona Hotel. Crown characterized your subsequent behaviour with police, wherein you attempted to bite officers and remained uncooperative and highly agitated for hours after, as concerning. [ 19 ] You were not released, Mr.

Wallace, after your arrest on September 18, 2016, until April 13, 2017, when you were consent released on the condition that you would attend at the VisionQuest Treatment Centre. You were discharged from that facility in August of 2016 for consuming marihuana contrary to court order, and remained at large until your arrest on warrant last October 5, 2017. [ 20 ] You remain in custody today on these charges. The breach charges are the subjects of Count 1 and 3 of Information 169712-A-3. [ 21 ] That, Mr. Wallace, concludes my

summary of the offence on which you are being sentenced today. As for your own personal characteristics, Mr. Wallace, I noted that a presentence and a psychiatric report had been prepared for the sentencing hearing on the last two informations I have discussed. [ 22 ] As the report provides, you are now 30 years of age with parents living on the Island in the Shawnigan Lake area.

Though the reports suggest that you are somewhat estranged from your parents and your brother, who is close in age but lives obviously a much different lifestyle, your counsel advises, and I accept, that your parents continue to support you any way they can. [ 23 ] In terms of antecedents to the criminal behaviour we are addressing on this sentencing, you are atypical. Your childhood was remarkable more for your successes in school and in sport, particularly figure skating where it appears you had a special talent enabling you to travel and work overseas. You are not unskilled or unloved or unwanted.

Rather, it appears that you experimented with drugs as a youth and graduated to crystal methamphetamine and similar street drugs around 2012. [ 24 ] Ms. Morrison submits that your escalated and more dangerous drug use coincided exactly with your landing work at Fort McMurray that year. [ 25 ] Many of these facts are self-reported. It is notable, particularly in the psychiatric report, that in the writer's view, at least, you tended to minimize your drug addiction disorder, but the author highlights another disorder which is equally concerning. Dr.

Khan writes that you tend to minimize your aggressive tendencies, that you lack empathy, and feel, at least during those interviews, that you did not need any form of treatment. [ 26 ] Dr.

Khan provides a psychiatric diagnosis of adjustment disorder related largely to identifiable stressors in your life, including facing these charges, but find that your minimization of your responsibility for both your actions and their cause means you pose a significant risk of violence if you are not supervised in the community. [ 27 ] In a somewhat contrary tone, Danica Sogaard, the writer of the presentence report, writes that you appear to take responsibility for your actions in regard to the aggravated assault of Mr. Fraser.

She writes that you attribute this to being in a delusional state of mind, having been up for days while using crystal methamphetamine. She thought you also took responsibility for the assault and robbery of Mr. Chew, again attributing your offences to delusions brought on by days of drug taking. [ 28 ] In the end, what I can determine is that possibly through misadventure, but through no other discernible antecedents, you found yourself addicted to serious street drugs.

They have a hold on you, to the point where you prefer them to your family and friends, and when in the throes of that addiction, you have shown an ability and a determination and a perseverance to get those drugs by whatever means, regardless of the impact on your victims. Your unresolved drug abuse disorder makes you, as Dr. Khan writes, a danger to the community if left unresolved. [ 29 ] Before turning to the position of the parties, I will note that there are no victim impact statements before the court in this sentencing. However, Crown did provide a

summary of the injuries sustained by Mr. Fraser and Mr. Chew. As you would have heard, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Fraser was knocked unconscious to the street when you struck him. He suffered a fractured skull. [ 30 ] On admission to Royal Jubilee, bleeding in his brain was noted. He was referred to VGH for further neurological testing, though we know nothing of these results. He reported experiencing considerable pain and significant bruising was evident. [ 31 ] Mr. Chew was also treated at the hospital. He had injuries to the left side of his face, his sternum, and his right arm. He has, it

appears, recovered. [32] Mr. Wallace, I will say this about your victims. All were strangers, all were going about their own business, working, relaxing,walking home. None deserved to be victimized by you. Some were vulnerable, as you have heard, such as the store clerks at the7-Eleven, the Petro-Canada station, and the liquor store.

In regard to persons working alone at such venues, largely for the convenienceof us all, the law acknowledges that they are especially vulnerable, and when they are harmed or threatened, the offender and others whomight commit similar offences must know that they will be met with significant consequences.

General deterrence is of primaryimportance when addressing offences in regard to these very vulnerable victims. [33] The Crown seeks a global disposition in the range of three and a half to four years to reflect the seriousness of these cumulativeoffences, and to meet the sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation. On a count-by-count basis, the sentences the Crownseeks, in fact, add up to much more, something like 51 to 57 months.

Recognizing the principle of totality, as well as the mitigatingcircumstances in this case, the Crown submits that reduction to the range of three and a half to four years would be an appropriatedisposition. [34] Ms.

Morrison, on your behalf, does not disagree that the sentence in this case will be of some duration, but asks that this courtimpose a sentence at the lower end of the range, and perhaps as low as three years, to take into account certain mitigating factors, such asthe guilty pleas and the efforts you have made while in custody towards retaining and addressing your drug abuse disorder. [35] In addition, such a sentence would have the salutary effect that it would enable this court to impose upon you a lengthy periodof probation so that you could continue to be supervised in the community for some time after your release. [36] In this, as in all sentencings, the court is governed by the purposes and principles of sentencing, and those are set out in ss. 718and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. [37]

Section 718 provides that: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is . . . to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and themaintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: [firstly] to denounce unlawful conduct . . . [secondly] to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; [thirdly] to separate offenders from society, where necessary; [fourth] to assist in rehabilitating offenders; [fifth] to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and [finally] to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [38] Generally speaking, what objectives a court chooses does depend on the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

However, certain offences attract -- in the case law, at least, attract certain sentencing principles. [39] The principles of sentencing in s. 718.2 that are most relevant include: (a) [that] a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to theoffence or the offender . . . (

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

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh . . . [40] Ultimately, bearing these guidelines in mind, the role of any sentencing court is to impose a fit sentence that is proportional tothe seriousness of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender. [41] The Crown has submitted a number of cases, many of which are sentencing appeals, but all of which emphasize that insentencing for offences such as aggravated assault, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given weight, as well as in theappropriate case, as here, promoting the defendant's rehabilitation. [42] I have already noted that in sentencing for matters such as the offences of assault or threats on convenience store workers, thosealso call for a sentence that sends a message of both specific and general deterrence. [43] The range of sentencing in cases of aggravated assault is stated in a number of cases, but in this instance at paragraph 24 of R. v.Samuelson, cited at 2015 BCCA 29, it is quoted -- it is cited -- I should say the court states as follows: In Craig, the Court described the range of sentence for the commission of aggravated assault . . . [10] It is not disputed, and it appears clear on the cases, that a sentence of two years' imprisonment for the commission of aggravatedassault (which is the sentence that was effectively imposed by the judge) is at the low end of the range of sentences imposed on similaroffenders in similar circumstances . . .

The range of sentence for similar offences was described as being between 16 months and sixyears in R. v. Johnson (1998), (BC CA), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 274 (B.C.C.A.), two years less a day to six years in R. v.Biln, 1999 BCCA 369, and, most recently, between 18 months and six years in R. v. Willier, 2005 BCCA 404. In determining an

appropriate sentence within this broad range, an unprovoked attack with a weapon tends to result in the imposition of a sentence at the higher end while a consensual fight that has escalated with resulting injury tends to result in a sentence at the lower end. See in particular: R. v. Willier , at para. 22 , and R. v. Johnson , at para. 10 . [ 44 ] In this sentencing, the Crown seeks a significant period of incarceration, two to two and a half years, for the aggravated assault on James Fraser. [ 45 ] In regard to Mr. Fraser, it bears noting that there appears to have been no provocation for the assault. While Mr.

Fraser recalls some words being exchanged, he cannot recall what was said and there is no evidence to suggest the words themselves brought on the assault. Rather, Mr. Wallace, you are quoted as saying these assaults were committed while you were delusional, having spent the previous few days without sleep, all the while using crystal methamphetamine. [ 46 ] The Crown adds to this that even in the hours after your arrest, as you were brought into remand, you remained violent and confrontational with police.

It submits this cannot all be explained by reference to sort of a drug-induced mania, if I can put it that way. The Crown submits that you had significant and as yet unresolved anger management issues. [ 47 ] There was discussion in this sentencing hearing, Mr. Wallace, as to whether your level of drug-induced intoxication might constitute a mitigating factor in this sentencing. Pointing to paragraph 15 of R. v. Craig , 2005 BCCA 484 , the Crown submits it cannot.

The Crown submits that, at best, your level of intoxication is a neutral factor, being neither mitigating nor aggravating. [ 48 ] While Craig is not authority for the proposition that drug inducement could never be a mitigating factor, I am not prepared to accept in this sentencing that it should be. Your abuse of street drugs has brought you to this point. It is the condition under which you committed many of the offences that are the subject of this sentence hearing.

I am content to characterize what I find to be evidence on your part of a commitment to take drug abuse disorder treatment as a factor that supports your prospects for rehabilitation, and that such a factor could inform length of sentence. [ 49 ] Mitigating factors in this sentencing, Mr.

Wallace, include your age, the fact that you pled guilty to all of these offences, the fact that you are remorseful as reflected by these guilty pleas, the fact that you have accepted responsibility for these offences, and last, but certainly not least, that while in custody these last many months, you have taken positive steps towards your rehabilitation, including the completion of various course work, your recent graduation from high school while in custody, your efforts to find employment once you have served your sentence, and the support of your family. [ 50 ] All of these factors strongly suggest that your rehabilitation should be given weight as a factor in this sentence. [ 51 ] Aggravating factors include the multiple offences of violence, that all were unprovoked, that some of the offences involved vulnerable persons such as store clerks, that you did not hesitate to use extreme levels of violence when challenged even slightly, and that you uttered a racial slur at Mr.

Chew. [ 52 ] The circumstances of the aggravated assault of Mr. Fraser justify a sentence above the lower end of the range which, as the court in Craig notes, is anywhere from 16 months to six years. I refer in particular to the fact that the assault was unprovoked and took Mr. Fraser entirely by surprise. He had no chance to defend himself.

A sentence of two and a half years would be entirely reasonable for this offence. [ 53 ] There are, I find, some mitigating factors that would justify a decrease of this sentence, which factors I have already alluded to earlier in these reasons. [ 54 ] In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a sentence of two years or 24 months is appropriate for that offence.

Likewise, I accept the Crown's submission that a sentence of nine months would be appropriate for Count 2 of Information 169712-C-2. [ 55 ] There are a number of aggravating circumstances surrounding this offence, including that it was committed almost immediately after the vicious assault on Mr. Fraser, and that in committing this offence you did utter a racial slur towards Mr. Chew. That has to be addressed on this sentencing. [ 56 ] I propose to speak to sentencing on the remaining counts in a moment. I do, however, want to acknowledge, Mr.

Wallace, the efforts that you have made while in custody to try to deal with your drug addiction and to try to prepare yourself to re-engage in the community upon your release. [ 57 ] Ms. Morrison has provided the court with various certificates you have obtained while in custody, both before breaching your last bail order and after. You are said to be working towards a plumbing apprenticeship, and clearly employment, good steady employment, will be crucial to your success when you are released.

The fact that you are active in AA and NA, that you have a sponsor, that you are exploring ways to calm yourself through yoga and meditation, these things all strongly suggest that you are capable of rehabilitation, that you are minded to try to address your drug addiction, and you have taken quite a reasonable or have taken quite reasonable steps in that direction. [ 58 ] At the same time, there is concern that if you do relapse, you can be very dangerous in the community, Mr. Wallace.

I think for those reasons, your sentence must be of sufficient length to dissuade you from re-engaging in drug abuse or use, but it should also strongly support your rehabilitation in the community. I think this is best accomplished by a lengthy probation order. That order will enable you to continue with counselling. It should deter you from re-engaging in drug use, which will also aid your rehabilitation. It will ensure you are not left alone in the community with no supports or constraints.

I think both are necessary in your case. [ 59 ] As with every probation order, particularly lengthy ones, it is open to you to seek a relaxation of some terms when you demonstrate success, so there is no lack of incentive, Mr. Wallace, if you are minded to keep on top of your treatment and counselling and stay off drugs.

[ 60 ] For these reasons, I am going to accede, though not entirely, to the submissions of your counsel, Ms. Morrison, and impose a sentence of slightly shorter duration than proposed by the Crown. In so doing, I acknowledge that the Crown's position was not remotely unfair.

It is simply that I find it more fitting, in all the circumstances, to impose a sentence that will enable me to also impose a probation order and that means your sentence, when your credit for time served is taken into account, must be less than two years less a day. [ 61 ] I have already stated that a sentence of two years or 24 months is appropriate for the assault of Mr. Fraser. I accept, as well, that the robbery of Mr. Chew also merits a sentence of nine months. These will be factored into the sentence that I now intend to impose on all of the informations before me. [ 62 ] Mr.

Wallace, at this point, if you were present in court, I would ask you to stand, but as you are on the videotape, I think I am content to let you remain seated, but I am going to speak to my sentence on all of the informations. [ 63 ] Firstly, on Count 1 of Information 169778, that is the theft of the liquor at the Harris liquor store, my sentence is one month, which I will express as 30 days. [ 64 ] On Count 1 of Information 172313, that is the theft of Ms.

Aujla's purse, my sentence is two months, consecutive to the previous sentence. [ 65 ] On Count 2 of Information 169783, that is the threat to assault Matthew Charlton contrary to s. 267(

a) of the Code , my sentence is three months consecutive to the previous sentences. [ 66 ] On Count 1 of Information 169802, the assault on Mr. Sayers, the sentence is four months consecutive to the previous sentence. [ 67 ] On Count 1 of Information 169801, that is the theft of property at Walmart, my sentence is four months.

On Count 3 of that information, the assault of loss prevention officer Ronald Sandico, the sentence is four months to be served concurrently with Count 1, and the sentence on Count 1 will be served consecutively with the other sentences. [ 68 ] On Count 1 of Information 170678, that is the theft at Petro-Canada, the sentence is three months to be served concurrent with all of the offences being sentenced here today. [ 69 ] On Count 1 of Information 169712-C-2, the aggravated assault of Mr. Fraser, the sentence is 24 months, consecutive to the previous sentences. On Count 2 of that information, the robbery of Mr.

Chew, the sentence is nine months to be served concurrently with the sentences here today. [ 70 ] On Count 1 of Information 169712-A-3, that is the breach of bail by failing to reside at VisionQuest, the sentence is one month to be served consecutively with the previous sentences. On Count 3 of that information, being in possession of a drug contrary to court order, the sentence is one month to be served concurrently with Count 1 and the remainder of the sentences in this sentencing. [ 71 ] The total sentence today is 39 months. [ 72 ] You are entitled to credit for time served.

To this date, by my calculation, you have served 337 days in custody. When you are given credit for time served at the rate of one and a half days for each day, you are entitled to credit in the amount of 506 days or 16 months and 23 days. That time will be deducted from your sentence as follows: [ 73 ] From the sentence of 24 months on Information 169712-C-2, and that leaves you eight months still to serve on that sentence; a further 23 days will be deducted from your 30-day sentence on Count 1 of Information 169778, leaving you seven days yet to serve on that sentence.

In all, you must still serve 22 months and seven days. [ 74 ] Upon your release from custody, you will then be placed on probation for a period of two years. The conditions of probation are as follows: [ 75 ] Madam Clerk, it is the 2000 series.

Firstly, 2001: the mandatory conditions of the probation order are that you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour; attend at court if and when required to do so by the court; advise the court or a probation officer seven days in advance of any change of name or address, and immediately of any change of employment or occupation. [ 76 ] The mandatory conditions include a no-contact order, 2002: You will have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Yvonne Adgira, Gurinder Aujla, Ronald Sandico, Matthew Charlton, Steven Sayers, Darren James Fraser, and Gregory Chew. [ 77 ] There will be an order, 2005, Madam Clerk, that you not go to any school, residence, or workplace of any of those persons. [ 78 ] There will be an additional specific no-go order that will apply to the 7-Eleven store, the Harris Green liquor store, the Magnolia Hotel, the Petro-Canada, and the Walmart, and I will have the addresses for you and inserted into this order before I finish. [ 79 ] There will be 2014, Madam Clerk: You will report in person to a probation officer at 865 Courtney Street in Victoria within two business days after your release from custody, unless you have obtained the prior written permission of your probation officer to report elsewhere or within a different timeframe.

After that, you must report as directed. [ 80 ] 2201, Madam Clerk: You will advise your probation officer of your residential address and not change that without the written permission of your probation officer. [ 81 ] 2401: There will an order that you will not possess or consume drugs or I should say alcohol or drugs, as those are defined in s. 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except those that are prescribed for you by a medical physician. [ 82 ] 2404, Madam Clerk, you can just put it down as in the drop box. I am just going to paraphrase. You are not to go to any liquor

store, beer or wine store, etc., where the primary commodity for sale is alcohol. [ 83 ] Madam Clerk, there is a 2406, as well, you can put it in, as it is in the drop box. You are not to have in your possession any drug paraphernalia, including needles and so forth. [ 84 ] 2501, you will attend at, participate in, and successfully complete any intake, assessment, counselling, or program as directed by your probation officer. That should include drug and alcohol counselling, as well as anger management counselling. [ 85 ] Madam Clerk, there will be a 2610 no-weapons order, just as in the drop box.

This will be read out to you in greater detail, Mr. Wallace, but you will not possess any weapons as those are defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code . I will include the list of weapons that are set out in the drop box, Madam Clerk. I will not bother to read them out now. [ 86 ] Before I finish on the probation order, I am going to ask Crown if there are any other suggestions with respect to the terms of a probation order. [ 87 ] MS. GILLINGS: I just wonder, given the nature of all the offences, if Your Honour would consider a no-knives condition.

I appreciate there are no knives that were involved in these offences -- [ 88 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 89 ] MS. GILLINGS: -- specifically. [ 90 ] THE COURT: I had considered the no knives. Do you have any -- [ 91 ] MS. MORRISON: Well, the only thing I would say is except for purposes of -- [ 92 ] THE COURT: Sorry? [ 93 ] MS. MORRISON: The only thing I would say is except for -- [ 94 ] THE COURT: We can include that.

So 2616, Madam Clerk, there will be an order that you will not have any knife on your person outside of your residence, except for the immediate purpose of preparing and eating food, or as immediately necessary for the purposes of employment. [ 95 ] Anything else on the probation order? [ 96 ] MS. GILLINGS: No. [ 97 ] THE COURT: Victim impact surcharge? Yes, he is not going to pay it because he cannot pay it. [ 98 ] MS. MORRISON: That would be what I would submit. [ 99 ] THE COURT: All right. You have pled guilty then, Mr. Wallace, to 11 offences, two of which are by indictment.

The victim impact surcharge would be substantial in this case. I know that you are not going to pay the victim impact surcharges within 60 days of your release from custody, because you cannot pay those. I order them payable forthwith and I am going to impose a period of custody of one day to be served concurrently with the sentence that I have imposed, so that you are not serving extra time for not being able to pay the victim impact surcharge. [ 100 ] Anything else? [ 101 ] MS. GILLINGS: This would be a mandatory s. 109 order. [ 102 ] THE COURT: Oh, right. [ 103 ] MS.

GILLINGS: A firearms ban. [ 104 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 105 ] MS. GILLINGS: So it would be a lifetime ban, and it is also a mandatory DNA. [ 106 ] THE COURT: Sorry, mandatory? [ 107 ] MS. GILLINGS: DNA order. [ 108 ] THE COURT: Oh okay, right. All right. [ 109 ] MS. GILLINGS: And I do have the addresses. [ 110 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 111 ] MS. GILLINGS: It was just the Petro-Canada and Walmart, I think. [ 112 ] THE COURT: Can we do that, Madam Clerk? Can we go back and deal with the addresses on the no-go for those specific. Could you just run those through us -- with us. [ 113 ] MS.

GILLINGS: So the Petro-Can was 2670 Douglas Street, the Walmart was 3460 Saanich Road, and the 7-Eleven was 910

Government Street. I wasn't sure if I got them all. [ 114 ] THE COURT: Well, there was the Magnolia Hotel. [ 115 ] MS. GILLINGS: Oh, yes. 623 Courtney Street. [ 116 ] THE COURT: All right.

So, all right, that leaves the mandatory orders and they apply to information 169712-C-2, and so there is a mandatory DNA order, and that will provide that at the facility in which you are going to be serving your sentence, a sample of a bodily substance will be taken and from there a DNA sample will be taken and placed on the National DNA Data Bank. [ 117 ] Also, Madam Clerk, there is a mandatory 109 order and it is for life, because of the previous convictions. [ 118 ] It is a lengthy list of weapons, Mr.

Wallace, that you cannot have on your person for the remainder of your life, and those weapons include any firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted firearm, any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for life. [ 119 ] Anything else? [ 120 ] MS. GILLINGS: Crown directs a stay on the remaining outstanding counts. [ 121 ] THE COURT: All right. Okay. Good luck, Mr. Wallace, thank you. [ 122 ] MS. MORRISON: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 123 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)