R. v. Haq, 2023 BCPC 159

Citation: R. v. Haq 2023 BCPC 159 Date: 20230705 File Nos: 33598-1, 263902-1, 264176-1, 261864-2, 261864-3-A, 66275-1 Registries: Vancouver, Richmond IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA File Nos: 335981-1, 263902-1, 264176-1 261864-2, 261864-3-A Registry: Vancouver REX v. MUHAMMAD ZAIN HAQ File No: 66275-1 Registry: Richmond REX v. MUHAMMAD ZAIN HAQ REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R.P. HARRIS Counsel for the Crown: E. Leno Counsel for the Defendant: J. Phillips, K.C., B. Isitt, F. Yu Place of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. Date of Hearing: March 9, 2023 Date of Judgment: July 5, 2023

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Haq pled guilty to five counts of mischief and one count of breaching an Undertaking. These offences involve Mr. Haq’s actions in relation to environmental protests wherein he participated in blocking roadways. A sentencing hearing was held and the court has had the benefit of a pre-sentence report, related authorities, character letters, and submissions of counsel. This court is tasked with imposing a reasoned, fair, and proportional sentence. BACKGROUND [ 2 ] Extinction Rebellion is an environmental organization originating in Europe with branches throughout the world including Vancouver.

The Vancouver branch, Extinction Rebellion Vancouver, organized and conducted a number of environmental protests where they would block roadways and bridges. The protests were conducted with the objective of forcing immediate government action on matters negatively impacting the climate. MR. HAQ’S INVOLVEMENT Information 261864-2 [ 3 ] On Saturday, March 27, 2021, 100 – 150 persons gathered at City Hall to participate in a protest organized by Extinction Rebellion Vancouver. Police liaison officers attended and they spoke with Mr.

Haq who advised that the group planned to march to West Broadway where they would stage a “die in” for several minutes following which they would march onto the Cambie Street Bridge where they would protest. He also advised the police that a few people were prepared to be arrested. [ 4 ] At 1:00 p.m., the group marched from City Hall to the intersection of Cambie Street and West Broadway where they laid on the roadway for several minutes.

The group then marched north on Cambie Street and onto the Cambie Street Bridge. [ 5 ] Once on the bridge, the group stopped mid span where they displayed banners and hung Extinction Rebellion flags from the side of the bridge. Speeches were given, music was played and people danced in the roadway. [ 6 ] By 3:22 p.m., the police broadcasted a series of warnings to the protestors. They informed the protestors that they had to allow access for emergency vehicles or they would be arrested for mischief.

They also asked the group to leave and they told them that they were free to go. [ 7 ] At 3:28 p.m., the police gave a further warning. They advised the group that they had five minutes to clear the roadway or they would be arrested. Ultimately, a final warning was given and a number of protesters cleared from the roadway. Six persons, including Mr. Haq, remained on the roadway. [ 8 ] The police approached Mr. Haq and informed him that his actions were unlawful and that he could be charged. They asked him if he would leave and if there was anything that they could say or do to get him to leave. Mr.

Haq responded “no.” The police then informed him that he was under arrest. [ 9 ] Once informed that he was under arrest, Mr. Haq told the police that he would go limp and that they would have to lift him. Ultimately, Mr. Haq was placed on a stretcher and carried to a police wagon. He was then processed and released on an Undertaking prohibiting him from being on the Cambie Street Bridge. [ 10 ] The above protest stopped traffic for 3 hours. Approximately 14,000 vehicles were impacted. Importantly, the Cambie Street Bridge is critical to the efficient movement of traffic in and out of the downtown core.

Information 263902-1 [ 11 ] On May 2, 2021, the police learned of a planned protest involving the Granville Street Bridge. With this in mind, they spoke with Mr. Haq who advised them that the group would start marching at approximately 12:30 or 1:00 p.m. and that they would proceed along Granville Street and onto the bridge where they intended to occupy the roadway for a significant period of time. The police informed Mr.

Haq that they would stop the group from occupying the main portion of the bridge and that they could protest only at the north end. [ 12 ] Extinction Rebellion Vancouver members then gathered at the Vancouver Art Gallery and after a number of speeches approximately 50 protesters made their way to the way to the north side of the Granville Street Bridge where they were stopped by a police line. [ 13 ] The police made several announcements asking the protestors to leave. The police also issued warnings advising that the protestors were committing offences and that they would be arrested if they did not clear.

Eight protestors including Mr. Haq did not clear and they sat in single file on the roadway. [ 14 ] Eventually, Mr. Haq was arrested and walked to a police wagon. The protestors were on the bridge for 3.5 hours. It is noteworthy that the Granville Street Bridge is of significant importance to the efficient movement of traffic in and out of the downtown core. Information 264176-1 [ 15 ] Extinction Rebellion Vancouver advertised their intent to protest on the Burrard Street Bridge and on knowing this the police became concerned about the impact that this would have on those trying to access St. Paul’s Hospital.

Therefore, the police contacted

Mr. Haq and informed him that the group would not be allowed access to the bridge and they cautioned him that persons would be arrested if they blocked the bridge. [ 16 ] On July 24, 2021, protestors met at a park near the south end of the Burrard Street Bridge. Various speeches with given and at the conclusion, the group started marching north on Burrard Street toward the bridge.

The police blocked the group from entering the bridge and in response 70 – 80 protestors spread across the intersection of Cornwall Street and Burrard Street where they held signs and sang songs. [ 17 ] The police made several announcements advising the protestors that they had to clear the roadway and warned that those who did not leave would be arrested. All protestors cleared the roadway with the exception of Mr. Haq and 11 others. Mr.

Haq was eventually arrested and taken to the Vancouver jail where he was released on a condition prohibiting him from entering the area. [ 18 ] The protest interfered with emergency vehicles trying to access St. Paul’s Hospital, it impacted traffic for several hours and it consumed significant police resources. Information 33598-1 [ 19 ] As part of the 14 Day Fall Rebellion, Extinction Rebellion Vancouver hosted a protest on Saturday, October 16, 2021. In this regard, the group gathered in Nelson Park where they stated their plan was to conduct a “mass die in” and take over an intersection.

Aware of this plan, the police informed Mr. Haq and others that they would be given a little time to occupy the intersection after which the police would move in and clear it. [ 20 ] Approximately 50 protestors then marched to the intersection of West Georgia Street and Burrard Street. Once there, they began protesting, and in doing so they blocked traffic in all directions. This intersection is in the centre of the downtown core with Burrard Street providing direct access to St.

Paul’s Hospital. [ 21 ] After approximately 30 minutes, the police began to broadcast asking the group to leave and warning of possible arrests. The broadcasts were successful in getting the majority of the protestors to leave; however, 4 remained including Mr. Haq. [ 22 ] The police approached Mr. Haq and asked him to leave the roadway. Mr. Haq indicated that he was not leaving and the police arrested him at which point he went limp. The police then carried him to the police wagon where he was identified and released. [ 23 ] The intersection was blocked for approximately 45 minutes.

The protest required more than 18 police officers who monitored the event, directed traffic, made arrests and processed persons. Information 66275-1 [ 24 ] As part of the 14 Day Fall Rebellion, Extinction Rebellion Vancouver advertised a planned blockade on the roadway leading to Vancouver International Airport, and on October 25, 2021, protestors gathered at Miller Neighbourhood Park where Mr. Haq made a speech. During his speech he informed the group that thousands of people would be angry and that their protest would disrupt the Canadian public.

Thereafter, there were further addresses wherein the protestors were told about the arrest and release process. [ 25 ] After the speeches, approximately 60 protestors marched to the intersection of Grant McConachie Way and Templeton Road where they spread out. They were carrying signs and chanting and a group of individuals sat in the middle of the intersection. [ 26 ] Ultimately, the police issued warnings to the group wherein they were advised that their actions were illegal and they were cautioned that they could be arrested and charged. After a number of warnings, 18 protestors including Mr.

Haq remained in the intersection. [ 27 ] Mr. Haq and the 17 others were ultimately arrested and transported to the police station where they were released. Mr. Haq was released on an Undertaking prohibiting him from attending Sea Island in Richmond. [ 28 ] The above protest involved 29 police officers. The roadway was blocked for approximately 2 hours. Where the protest occurred is critical for responding to emergencies at the airport including; medical emergencies, calls for police assistance and emergency landings. [ 29 ] The impact of the protest was significant.

In this regard, the Vancouver International Airport is the second busiest airport in Canada. Many travellers were delayed and traffic was stopped for more than an hour on the Arthur Laing Bridge which is a bridge leading to the intersection where the protesters set up and it is critical to accessing the airport. Information 261864-3-A [ 30 ] By August 2022, a group called “Stop Fracking Around” emerged and within the group were persons from Save Old Growth and Extinction Rebellion. Mr.

Haq was also a member of this group and at times he was advertised as a spokesperson and co-founder. [ 31 ] On August 15, 2022, the group conducted a planned protest. In this regard, they met at City Hall where Mr. Haq addressed the group. He told them that the plan was to march onto the Cambie Street Bridge and continue on to the CBC building. He also reminded the group about a civil resistance training session and he informed them they had an obligation to engage in civil disobedience including being arrested. [ 32 ] Mr. Haq and the group then marched onto the bridge and they stopped traffic for 20 minutes.

Significantly, Mr. Haq entered onto the bridge in violation of his March 27, 2021 Undertaking prohibiting him from being on the bridge. His actions were also in violation of his immigration release whereby he was prohibited from engaging in activity that could lead to charges and convictions. [ 33 ] Of note, when the protestors were on the bridge an emergency vehicle with lights and siren activated was forced to slow while

the group moved so it could pass. [ 34 ] Lastly, and from the materials filed, it is clear that Mr. Haq’s role evolved to being more than a protestor. In this regard, he liaised with the police, he gave speeches and he encouraged others to participate in the blockades at the risk of being arrested. PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES [ 35 ] Mr. Haq is 22, he was born and raised in Pakistan where he enjoyed a stable positive upbringing. He came to Canada on a student visa in August 2019 and he quickly connected with persons who are part of the “environmental movement”. [ 36 ] As for his schooling, Mr.

Haq completed high school in Pakistan and he reports he was a good student. While in Canada, Mr. Haq studied at a local university with the objective of obtaining a history degree. These plans are on hold because his criminal charges have resulted in the revocation of his student visa, thereby preventing him from attending university. [ 37 ] When Mr. Haq’s visa was revoked, he was detained by the Canadian Border Services Agency. He ultimately secured his release and since June 2022, he has been reporting twice weekly.

Currently, there is a removal order and it will be acted on once his criminal matters are resolved. [ 38 ] In terms of his offences, Mr. Haq acknowledges his involvement and states the current climate crisis created a sense of desperation and motivated him to act. Specifically, he advises he became aware of the global environmental crisis when he learned of a heatwave in Pakistan resulting in the death of 20,000 people and of floods that displaced millions. [ 39 ] In terms of what Mr.

Haq has learned from his involvement with the justice system, Kim Kirby, writer of the pre-sentence report, observed: Zain relates that although he continues to be passionate about the “environmental movement” and “climate emergency” he now recognizes that it is “not wise to be engaged in civil disobedience”. He conveys that he lost sight of his academic pursuits and prioritized climate issues. Zain states that his passion has not waned but the methods are changing.

He acknowledges that there are many ways to express one’s views without breaking the law and that the primary catalyst for this attitude change was his detention. Additionally he is now cognizant that such actions put himself at risk as a non citizen. [ 40 ] Although, Mr. Haq does not have a criminal record, his actions related to climate change have resulted in him spending time in custody.

In this regard, and as a result of his breach, he spent a total of 9 days in custody and he is entitled to a credit of 14 days. [ 41 ] Other matters of note are; he was issued a ticket by CN Police Service for an anti-pipeline protest held on CN Rail property. Additionally, he was found to be in criminal contempt of court for breaching a British Columbia Supreme Court injunction and he was sentenced for his contempt on September 19, 2021. Then on September 24, 2021, Mr. Haq was arrested again for violating another Supreme Court injunction. He ultimately received a 14 day jail sentence for his contempt. [ 42 ] Mr.

Haq recently married and he lives on Vancouver Island. Several letters were filed on his behalf and a review of them satisfies me that Mr. Haq is an intelligent, motivated young person who is a staunch protector of the environment. The letters also satisfy me that Mr. Haq can, provided he does so through legitimate means, be a catalyst for positive change.

SENTENCING POSITIONS [ 43 ] The Crown urges the court to impose the following sentences: a) 30 days jail for breaching an Undertaking on 261864-3-A b) 60 days jail for the 5 mischief files; 264176-1, 33598-1, 66275-1, 261864-2, 263902-1 c) 18 months probation with various terms and conditions [ 44 ] The Crown supports their position by arguing the number of offences and Mr. Haq’s degree of involvement supports a heightened need for denunciation and deterrence. [ 45 ] Counsel for Mr.

Haq, urges the court to impose a conditional discharge with 12 months probation with restrictive conditions including a curfew, community work service and a prohibition against blocking or impeding roadways. [ 46 ] In the alternative, counsel argues that a 30 day jail sentence served conditionally in the community would be appropriate. [ 47 ] In support, counsel for Mr. Haq points to his positive attributes, the support he has in the community and his recognition that his climate goals must be achieved through lawful measures. Finally, counsel points to potential immigration consequences for Mr.

Haq as a reason for exercising restraint. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES Purpose and principles of sentencing [ 48 ] Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , provide guidance with respect to purposes and principles of sentencing. [ 49 ] As per s. 718 of the Criminal Code : 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and 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 followingobjectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by 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 or to the community. Fundamental principle of sentencing [50] As per s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, proportionality is a fundamental principle of sentencing and it demands that the sentenceimposed be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of offender responsibility. In R. v.

Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, JusticeWagner, now Chief Justice, commented on the importance of proportional sentences at paras. 128-129: [128] The principle of proportionality has a long history as a guiding principle in sentencing, and it has a constitutional dimension: R. v.Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at para. 41; R. v. M. (C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 41. Aperson cannot be made to suffer a disproportionate punishment simply to send a message to discourage others from offending: Nur, atpara. 45. As Rosenberg J.A. wrote in R. v.

Priest (1996), (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at pp. 546-47: The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particularoffender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harmoccasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case.

Careful adherenceto the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good. [Footnote omitted.] Although a court can, in pursuit of the objective of general deterrence, impose a harsher sentence in order to send a message with a viewto deterring others, the offender must still deserve that sentence: R. v. Paré, 2011 QCCA 2047; G. Renaud, The Sentencing Code ofCanada: Principles and Objectives (2009), at para. 3.13.

If a judge fails to individualize a sentence and to consider the relevantmitigating factors while placing undue emphasis on the circumstances of the offence and the objectives of denunciation and deterrence,all that is done is to punish the crime: R. v. R. (M.), 2010 QCCA 16, 73 C.R. (6th) 136. Proportionality requires that a sentence notexceed what is just and appropriate in light of the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence. From thisperspective, it serves as a limiting principle: Nasogaluak, at para. 42. Other sentencing principles [51]

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out other sentencing principles that a court shall take into consideration. Relevant to theinstant matter are: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offenceor the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, … (

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

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (

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 and consistent with the harm done tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. APPLICATION [52] Denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives for the offence of mischief when committed in the context ofcivil disobedience: R. v. Panganiban et al. (8 December 2021), Vancouver 32605-1/262312-1 (B.C.P.C.) at para 40. [53] As for rehabilitation, I am satisfied that Mr.

Haq’s experiences with the justice system has served to assist in his rehabilitationand I conclude that it is unlikely that he will commit similar offences. [54] In terms of proportionality, I observe at first blush, Mr. Haq’s offences are at the low end of the spectrum of seriousness,however, the impact of his offences serve to slightly elevate their seriousness. Specifically, traffic on major roadways was impacted,access to an international airport was denied, emergency traffic was impacted, and significant police resources were consumed. [55] As for Mr.

Haq’s moral culpability, the evidence is clear, he knowingly and deliberately broke the law and he did so fully awareof the consequences and the impact that his actions would have on innocent parties. Mr. Haq’s laudable protection of the environmentdoes not reduce his culpability. Simply the rule of law must be obeyed unless legal justification permits otherwise.

Aggravating and mitigating circumstances [56] The number of offences before the court is aggravating. Mr. Haq’s conduct in knowingly blocking traffic, annoying the publicand interfering with their lawful use and enjoyment of public roadways is aggravating. The significant number of police resourcesconsumed by Mr. Haq’s behavior is aggravating. The fact that he persisted in his behaviour while knowing the consequences isaggravating as is his willingness to involve and encourage others. Finally, I find it aggravating that Mr.

Haq’s breach of his release orderwas a flagrant disregard of terms designed to prevent further offences and that he did so in the face of the authorities. [57] Mr. Haq’s good character is mitigating, as is his community support. His guilty pleas are generally mitigating and I use the termgenerally because one occurred on the first day of trial while others occurred well before trial. Similar sentences [58] Counsel presented the court with numerous sentencing decisions. A review discloses a range of sentences from a conditionaldischarge to a custodial sentence.

I am not going to describe all of the various circumstances and sentences because they varydramatically. This variance reflects the unique circumstances of each offender and the many different ways in which the offence ofmischief can be committed. [59] I observe, typically those offenders involved in multiple files and without particularly attenuating circumstances have received asuspended sentence or a conditional sentence order. Factors that tip the scale include, the number of files, the specific conduct, and theoffender’s personal circumstances. Least restrictive sanction [60]

Section 718.2(

d) of the Criminal Code, directs that an offender should not be deprived of their liberty if less restrictive sanctionsmay be appropriate. Lastly, s. 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code directs that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that arereasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done, should be considered for all offenders. [61] The above sections are often referenced as codifying the “principle of restraint”. This principle requires that a jail sentence beimposed only as a measure of last resort and that the lightest jail term that is reasonable should be imposed. The Court of Appealin R. v. Bosco, 2016 BCCA 55, summarized the principle at para. 35: Sections 718.2(

d) and (

e) reflect the restraint principle. This principle encourages caution and moderation in the imposition of custodialsentences. Pursuant to the principle of restraint, the sentencing judge should treat imprisonment as a sanction of last resort and limit anycustodial period imposed to the lightest term reasonable in the circumstances. The purpose of such restraint is to reduce Canada'shistorically high incarceration rates and avoid sentences that are unduly harsh: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 SCR 61 atparas.16-17.

ANALYSIS Mischief offences [62] In considering an appropriate sentence for the mischief matters, I am of a view that the law and the circumstances justify asentence that denounces and deters. Simply, through the sentence imposed, this court must express societal condemnation for Mr. Haq’sconduct. This is because Mr. Haq has shown disdain for the rule of law and he has publicly encouraged others to break the law whilepublicly celebrating his arrest.

His conduct speaks to an arrogance of ideals at the expense of the democratic process and pro-socialdialogue. [63] With the above in mind, the sentence must also send a message to others who are inclined to engage in multiple criminal offencescommitted on the platform of change and that such conduct will result in criminal consequences. [64] As for proportionality, I find the conduct to be of a slightly elevated seriousness given the interference with public movementand the flow of emergency vehicles. In my view, there is no evidence justifying a conclusion that Mr.

Haq’s moral culpability wasreduced. [65] With the above in mind, I have considered a conditional discharge, and I acknowledge that a discharge would be in Mr. Haq’sbest interests, however, I am of the opinion that such a result would not be in the public’s interest. Specifically, I conclude that therequisite degree of general deterrence and denunciation required by the instant matter would not be achieved.

My conclusion is based onthe locations of the protests, the size of the protests, the deliberateness of the offences and the social media publication pre and postarrest. [66] After careful consideration, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence is justified. I now turn to consider if the sentence should beserved conditionally in the community. Appropriateness of a conditional sentence order [67] I begin by acknowledging that the length of the proposed sentence falls within the permissible range for a conditional sentenceorder. I am also satisfied that Mr.

Haq’s time on bail, his conduct since his last arrest, and his expressed commitment to lawful behaviorjustifies a conclusion that he is not a risk to the public. [68] The vexing issue is whether a conditional sentence order would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles ofsentencing. The Crown argues that a conditional sentence order would fail because it would not adequately meet the requisite degree ofdenunciation and deterrence. Defence counsel, argues Mr.

Haq’s conviction combined with terms and conditions that restrict his libertywill meet the requisite degree of denunciation and deterrence: Proulx, supra.

[ 69 ] When I consider Mr. Haq’s offences, and his personal circumstances, combined with the consequences he has suffered thus far, I am satisfied that restrictive terms will sufficiently meet the requisite degree of denunciation and deterrence. I therefore impose a conditional term of imprisonment for a period of 75 days; however, after considering Mr. Haq’s pre-sentence custodial credit of 14 days, he has 61 days to serve on the conditional sentence order.

Thereafter he will be bound by probation for 12 months. [ 70 ] In considering an appropriate sentence, I have considered potential immigration consequences and in my view, to reduce the sentence would result in a sentence that would be disproportionate. Additionally, and given the suggestion that Mr. Haq failed to disclose that he was denied a US visa, the sentence imposed may be of no moment to his immigration situation. Breach of release order [ 71 ] In my view, Mr. Haq’s conduct was serious and his degree of responsibility high. The breach was not technical nor minor. Rather, Mr.

Haq publicly, and in the face of the police, flagrantly disregarded conditions of his release that were intended to prevent further offences. As such, I am of the view that the need for denunciation and deterrence is high. Persons need to know that conditions of release must be obeyed and that the flagrant breach of protective conditions will result in consequences.

This approach not only protects the public, it also serves to maintain the public confidence in the administration of justice. [ 72 ] Recognizing the importance of restraint, I have considered the applicability of a conditional sentence order and I conclude that such a result would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. As such, I impose a custodial sentence of seven days. CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER TERMS [ 73 ] Mr. Haq is to be bound by a conditional sentence order for 61 days.

The terms and conditions are as follows: • You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. • You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. • You must notify the court or your conditional sentence supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or supervisor of any change in employment or occupation. • You must remain in British Columbia unless you have prior written permission from the court or your conditional sentence supervisor to leave the province. • Within 48 hours of your release from custody you must report in person to a conditional sentence supervisor at 836 Courtney St.

Victoria, BC, and thereafter, you must report as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor. • When first reporting to your conditional sentence supervisor you must provide them with your residential address and not change that address without the prior written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor. • For the first 30 days of this order you must not be off the property of your residence 24 hours per day except for: Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. • For the remainder of this order you must not be off your property between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. seven days per week. • You must present yourself at the doorway of your residence to any police officer, correctional officer or conditional sentence supervisor who attends to ensure your compliance with your curfew. • You must not block or impede any traffic or pedestrians on any road, highway or public space in British Columbia.

PROBATION TERMS AND CONDITIONS [ 74 ] The probation period of 12 months.

The terms and conditions of his probation order are as follows: • You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. • You must appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court. • You must notify the Court or the Probation Officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or the Probation Officer of any change of employment or occupation. • Within 48 hours of having completed your conditional sentence order, you must report to a probation officer in Victoria, BC, and thereafter as and when directed by the probation officer. • At the direction of and to the satisfaction of your probation officer you must complete 75 hours of community work service such community work service must be completed on or before May 25, 2024. • You must not block or impede any traffic or pedestrians on any road, highway or public space in British Columbia.

VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE [ 75 ] Mr. Haq must pay the applicable victim fine surcharges on or before February 14, 2024.

_____________________________ The Honourable Judge R.P. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia