R. v. Manhas Date:, 2014 BCPC 192

Citation: R. v. Manhas Date: 20140606 2014 BCPC 0192 File No: 74330-1 Registry: Nanaimo IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SANDEEP SINGH MANHAS NATASHA LYNNE MOWAT ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE (RE: ACCUSED MANHAS) OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.P. MacCARTHY Counsel for the Crown: J.E. Farenholtz Counsel for the Defendant: A.E. King, Q.C. Place of Hearing: Nanaimo , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: May 14, 20 and June 4, 2014 Date of Judgment: June 6, 2014 [ 1 ] THE COURT: (orally) Overview [ 2 ] Sandeep Singh Manhas (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Mr. Manhas" or the "Offender") has entered a plea of guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a

Schedule I controlled substance, for the purposes of trafficking, being contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19. [ 3 ] Mr. Manhas has also entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 on the same indictment, which is of straight unlawful possession of cocaine, another

Schedule I controlled substance. [ 4 ] Both offences occurred on February 29, 2012. Mr. Manhas changed his initial not guilty pleas on August 30, 2013, and re- elected to have this matter dealt with by this court. Other pending charges [ 5 ] It is not disputed that Mr. Manhas faces several other charges before the courts by way of indictments. These include three other charges from September 19, 2013, for possession of cocaine, possession of heroin, and possession of methamphetamine, all for the purposes of trafficking. It is not disputed that Mr.

Manhas's bail was revoked on the present charges before this court as a result of those September 19, 2013, charges. [ 6 ] On January 8, 2014, nine more charges were laid against Mr. Manhas in a nine-count indictment arising out of a search of his residence on September 20, 2013. They include three charges of possession for the purposes of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act involving three

Schedule I drugs, namely, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine; possession of more than 30 grams of cannabis marihuana, contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ; possession of an unloaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition without being the holder of an authorization or licence and registration certificate; a firearms storage charge; and three separate charges contrary to s. 355 (

b) of the Criminal Code for possession of property of a value not in excess of $5,000, knowing that the property was obtained by an offence punishable by indictment. [ 7 ] The bail hearings on those charges apparently resulted in the making of an order for his release with a significant number of conditions, including a surety and a large bail amount. Because of the revocation of bail in the present matter, Mr. Manhas is ineligible to be released pursuant to that order. [ 8 ] At this time, all these above-noted charges remain only allegations and have not been dealt with by the court.

No pleas have been entered on any of these charges. They are not relevant to the sentencing charges before me. [ 9 ] It is also not disputed that the present sentencing charges before me occurred while Mr. Manhas was bound by bail conditions on the offences that were dealt with by way of two conditional sentence orders that were made on April 24, 2012, and which I refer to below. Prior criminal record [ 10 ] Mr. Manhas has a significant criminal record dating back to 1995 that is not denied by him.

In defence's submissions, it is said that this criminal record is indicative of the drug addiction issues that are said to have plagued Mr. Manhas. Crown submits that the criminal record demonstrates a criminal lifestyle, including repeated involvement with drug trafficking and a refusal to comply with court orders. [ 11 ] In June 1995, Mr.

Manhas was convicted of possession of property of a value over $5,000 obtained by crime, for which he apparently received a six-month sentence and a one-year probation order. [ 12 ] In July 1995, he was convicted of two charges of possession of a controlled narcotic under the Narcotic Control Act and received a day sentence on each charge. [ 13 ] In April of 1997, he was convicted and fined for possession of a narcotic under the same Act. [ 14 ] In August of 1997, he was convicted for possession of a scheduled substance for the purposes of trafficking under s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and for simple possession of a scheduled substance.

He received a nine-month conditional sentence order. [ 15 ] In May of 1998, he was convicted on three charges of possession of a scheduled substance and received two months in custody and nine months' probation running concurrently on each offence. [ 16 ] In January 2003, he was convicted of two charges of possession of a controlled substance with an offence date in June of 2001 and also with an offence date in March of 2002. He received a six-month conditional sentence on each.

Both conditional sentences were collapsed for a breach in July of 2003 resulting in incarceration for the balance of the conditional sentence order. [ 17 ] There is then a gap in his criminal record of approximately seven years. The defence suggestion is that this occurred when Mr. Manhas had his drug addiction under control, was attending college, and then subsequently working as a successful realtor.

[18] Mr. Manhas was then convicted of three offences of possession of a controlled substance for matters arising in May of 2010,which charges were subsequently disposed of in February 2011 and for which he received relatively nominal fines. [19] On April 24, 2012, he was sentenced to two conditional sentence orders on two separate offences, one of break and enter andcommitting an indictable offence in November of 2010, and break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence on March 31,2011.

Both conditional sentence orders were breached around August 7, 2012, resulting in an effective 30-day sentence and a suspensionof both of the conditional sentence orders. Circumstance of the present charges before the court Undisputed facts of the offence [20] Crown counsel outlined the following circumstances as the facts in this case. By way of his guilty plea, Mr. Manhas hasadmitted the essential elements of both offences in accordance with s. 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code. [21] On February 29, 2012, Mr. Manhas was arrested by the RCMP based on an informant's tip.

The arrest occurred at theDeparture Bay ferry terminal in Nanaimo, British Columbia, while Mr. Manhas was returning from the Lower Mainland in a Cadillacmotor vehicle owned by his mother's corporation. He was in the presence of a female companion who was at that time his girlfriend.

These same charges were ultimately stayed by Crown against the female companion. [22] As a result of the ensuing police search of the vehicle, the RCMP located a satchel containing 184 grams (or about six ounces)of methamphetamine and six grams of crack cocaine. [23] The RCMP drug expert, Corporal Donald Helgeson, valued the methamphetamine at $80 per gram, which therefore had anestimated value of $14,720. However, according to the police expert, the most common way of trafficking methamphetamine is on a"point-of-a-gram basis" and the price of such a quantity is between $10 and $20.

Therefore, using the lower value figure on a point-of-a-gram basis would place the estimated value of the methamphetamine at $18,400. [24] The value of the crack cocaine was placed at between $100 and $150. [25] In addition to the drugs, Mr. Manhas was found to be in possession of injection needles which could be used for drug use. Furthermore, the police also seized a cell phone from the person of Mr. Manhas which contained a number of text messages dating backto November of 2011 and including some text messages exchanged about five days prior to Mr.

Manhas's arrest on February 29, 2012. [26] No issue is taken by defence with any of these foregoing circumstances being accepted as facts on the sentencing, andaccordingly, I am accepting them as such. Disputed circumstances of the offence [27] The Crown asserts that the amount of methamphetamine seized at the time of Mr. Manhas's arrest (admitted to be for thepurposes of trafficking by the guilty plea) and the cell text messages are indicative of Mr.

Manhas's active engagement in drug traffickingat such a sophisticated level that the court should conclude he was involved in what is commonly characterized as a "dial-a-dope scheme"or provides an indication that the cell phone was being used by the Offender to facilitate and organize drug transactions as a midleveltrafficker. [28] A description of the classic dial-a-dope operation and its deleterious effect on the community has been canvassed in a number ofdecisions of our British Columbia Supreme Court (see, for example, R. v. Franklin, 2001 BCSC 706 at paragraphs 17 to 21, cited withapproval in R. v.

Van Der Hoek, infra, at paragraph 12). Therefore, this type of active engagement at a sophisticated level of drugtrafficking is raised by Crown as an existing aggravating fact in sentencing, going to the degree of blameworthiness of the Offender. [29] This type of characterization of the Offender's drug trafficking is being denied by Mr. Manhas. It is therefore a fact in dispute. Under s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code, Crown bears the onus of proving this aggravating factor going to the gravity of the offence, andthat burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt (see R. v.

Gardiner, (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368). [30] No formal transcripts of the text messages were entered as exhibits at the sentencing hearing. However, Crown counselprepared his own informal transcriptions of the November 2011 to February 2012 text messages as an aid in the sentencing hearing. Hehad previously consulted with an RCMP drug investigator about the text messages.

Based on that consultation, Crown offered anexplanation of the use of street drug slang and code words used in a drug-trafficking business that purportedly appear in these textmessages. [31] While not denying the existence of the text messages located on the cell phone that was owned by and seized from Mr. Manhas,nor denying that the text messages contained suspicious messages characterized by the Crown as relating to drug trafficking, defencerejects the notion that there is anything to tie these text messages to this Offender. [32] Mr.

Manhas testifies that other individuals had the use of his phone, including the female companion who was with him at thetime of his arrest in February of 2012. In his evidence, Mr. Manhas denies knowledge of the text messages but confirms he understoodsome of the code language and drug slang contained in them. [33] Defence notes that this is not a situation where, during the arrest of Mr.

Manhas, a series of calls or texts were received on thecell phone seized from the Offender and that such calls were for the purposes of arranging drug deals. [34] Accordingly, on this basis, defence denies the suggestion that the court should infer participation by Mr. Manhas in a dial-a-dope scheme or some other more sophisticated or less sophisticated drug trafficking scheme, based simply on that texted information.

[ 35 ] In his testimony at the sentencing hearing, Mr. Manhas suggests that the crack cocaine found at the time of his arrest was for his personal use and that the methamphetamine represented what can be characterized as a bulk buy to get a better deal for himself and a group of his drug-using acquaintances. [ 36 ] The purchase was made by the Offender from a Vancouver-based dealer known to his female companion. The Offender says it cost him $6,000 and it was mostly for consumption by himself and his group of drug-using acquaintances.

He stated on cross- examination that he had borrowed $3,000 "probably from a friend" in order to make the drug buy, with the balance of the purchase price to be paid by him to the drug dealer at a later date. He testified that he still owed the Vancouver drug dealer almost all the remaining $3,000. His intention was to sell part of the drugs to his friends to recover that amount that he owed to the dealer and, failing that, to get the money from his mother.

He denied that he was helping with the distribution to other dealers and denies knowledge of whether his group of drug-using acquaintances were dealing in the drugs but admits that they were giving him money for the drugs. [ 37 ] He claims not to have heard about a dial-a-dope operation since the early part of the decade starting in the year 2000. [ 38 ] In cross-examination, the Offender had difficulty reconciling the deficit between the cost of his personal drug use, which he admits would be in the range of $40,000 to $50,000 during the seven-month period, with his available funds from his own $5,000 "nest egg," monies earned from odd construction jobs and monetary advances he received from his mother.

He was evasive about how he dealt with this financial deficit, but he denied that this large financial deficit was made up by his participation in the sale of drugs.

He does concede that he "would not doubt" that it was made up from other criminal pursuits. [ 39 ] Corporal Helgeson, the Crown's drug expert, testified that based on his experience, the 180-gram amount (being approximately six ounces) of methamphetamine was indicative of an amount of drugs that a midlevel trafficker would acquire and that smaller amounts would be broken down to be used in a dial-a-dope operation for street distribution. [ 40 ] The expert testified that where a high-level dealer was "fronting an amount of $3,000" for a purchaser of such an amount of drugs, that it would be a form of a trust arrangement between the high-level dealer and the purchaser based on a past relationship of payment being made.

As part of this "circle of trust," the high-level dealer would be expecting to be repaid fairly quickly. [ 41 ] In his expert opinion, Corporal Helgeson said it would be common for such a quantity of drugs to be divided up quite promptly for street distribution in order to make the payment. [ 42 ] Corporal Helgeson also expressed the opinion that an individual who was highly addicted to drugs, such as methamphetamine, would be at risk if they purchased and held such a large amount of drugs.

The risk would be partly due to the deteriorating physical and mental functions of such an addict and their inability to deal with that large amount or the inability to hide it and to take precautions to avoid having it stolen or intercepted by the police. [ 43 ] Based on the fact the methamphetamine is readily available on a daily basis in Nanaimo, it was Corporal Helgeson's opinion that it would not be necessary for an addict to acquire such a large quantity for personal use. [ 44 ] In cross-examination he did agree that a regular purchaser of a small amount of methamphetamine places themselves at risk for street violence or robbery on each purchase occasion and that purchases of a large amount by a person with financial means all at one time could be less risky for the purchaser since fewer purchases are required thereby reducing exposure to such multiple risks. [ 45 ] However, he further noted that purchases of large amounts of drugs will usually involve dealing with persons associated with organized crime which exposes the purchaser to another but different potential level of violence.

Circumstances of the Offender [ 46 ] No pre-sentence report about Mr. Manhas was presented to the court. However, defence counsel provided fairly extensive oral submissions on his behalf. Evidence was called on Mr. Manhas's behalf at the sentencing hearing. The witnesses called for Mr. Manhas were as follows: (1) the Offender himself, (2) the Offender's mother, Jabir Kaur Manhas; (3) the Offender's estranged wife, Mandeep Kaur Manhas. [ 47 ] Based on the testimony of those witnesses, the court was told the following about the Offender's circumstances and background. [ 48 ] Mr.

Manhas is 38 years of age and is a long-time resident of Nanaimo where he completed his grade 12 at a local high school in 1993. He was a very good student, especially in his earlier grades.

After high school, he worked for a period of time in construction and as a house framer. [ 49 ] He subsequently furthered his education in 2003 and obtained a diploma in marketing and in business from a local university college. [ 50 ] In 2004/2005 he took and completed his real estate licensing course and thereafter obtained employment as a realtor with two separate local real estate firms between 2005 and 2010. [ 51 ] Thereafter he worked at a number of jobs, including construction and also assisted his mother in her business enterprises. [ 52 ] In 2004 he travelled to India with his mother where she had arranged for his marriage that year.

He married Mandeep Manhas in late December of 2004. Mr. Manhas returned to Canada. He arranged for his wife to come to Canada. She arrived in March of 2006. He and his wife have a daughter who is approximately four years of age, born in August of 2010. His wife works as a palliative care aide. Mr. Manhas and his wife encountered matrimonial difficulties starting in 2010, separated briefly in April of 2011 and then permanently in June of 2011.

[53] At that time, his wife and daughter lived in a transition house. The Offender's wife and daughter were then assisted by thetransition house agency to move into their own residence at the end of June 2011. There they have remained, separate and apart from theOffender. [54] Accordingly to all defence witnesses, the Offender's mother and his estranged wife and his child remain very close and caringabout each other, notwithstanding the matrimonial separation. The Offender's mother provides the child and the wife with somefinancial support.

The father and the child have a deep attachment and love with each other. [55] Mr. Manhas testified that in the period from 2010/2011 he went through a "midlife crisis" arising from financial problemsresulting from the downturn in the real estate industry in 2008 and 2009, stresses from his failing marriage and from the birth of hischild. It was in the summer of 2010 his drug use escalated, including the use of cocaine. [56] Mr. Manhas's father, who was a millworker, was also apparently quite successful in acquiring real estate investments and indeveloping real estate.

He died in October of 1999, leaving a widow and two sons. Mr. Manhas was close to his father. Mr. Manhas's61-year-old mother continues to reside in Nanaimo and now controls those investments and carries on the family business. She hasfrequently provided her son with significant financial support and with rent-free housing. [57] Mr. Manhas ended up on social assistance for a period of about a year starting around the summer of 2012. [58] The evidence suggests and defence counsel submits that Mr. Manhas has been highly dependent and overly reliant financiallyon his mother.

The mother is now aware of this problem, having received counselling in a residential treatment facility to overcome herunhealthy behaviour in which she is an inappropriate enabler for her two adult sons (including the Offender) and thereby supports themin a resulting destructive lifestyle including drug abuse. [59] The evidence suggests that the mother was consistently over the years providing rent-free accommodation and money for day-to-day living expenses to the Offender and his family.

He also received periodic amounts totalling as much as $20,000 from his motherover the course of about two years. [60] None of these circumstances are seriously challenged by Crown. Accordingly, for the purposes of sentencing, I accept them aspart of the facts. The Offender's drug use [61] Based upon the evidence called by the defence at the sentencing hearing, it is suggested that Mr. Manhas has battled drugaddictions for several years, and this has resulted in his criminal behaviour. Crown concedes that Mr.

Manhas is a drug user butchallenges the assertion that he is a severe addict to the extent that his addiction is the primary basis for his criminal behaviour and, inparticular, the sentencing offences presently before this court. [62] The onus is therefore on the defence to prove on a balance of probabilities the existence of this disputed fact, namely, theaddiction, as a mitigating factor: see Criminal Code s. 724(3), and R. v. Holt (1983), (ON CA), 4 C.C.C. (3d) 32. [63] Defence was provided with the opportunity to call evidence regarding the Offender's addiction. Accordingly, Mr.

Manhas wascalled and provided evidence on his own behalf. Mr. Manhas testified that he was initially and essentially a heavy recreational user ofvarious drugs, including marihuana and cocaine, especially during the period from 1999 to 2003. He did not take drug counselling ordrug rehabilitation, but apparently, from some point in 2004 and during the time that he was working as a realtor until 2010, he was notusing drugs other than marihuana on a very infrequent basis. [64] According to Mr.

Manhas's evidence, his addiction eventually was one of smoking crystal methamphetamine, smoking crackcocaine, and heroin use, including needle injections of these drugs. His serious addiction to these hard drugs started in the summer of2010 during the period he describes as his "midlife crisis." [65] Mr. Manhas testified that he was an active addict at the time of committing the offences subject of the sentencing chargespresently before this court.

He admitted that he was still functioning in terms of carrying on his life at the time of the offence butqualified it by saying "to a point." [66] His mother testified that she often loaned the Offender her company vehicle and says that he did not appear to be under theinfluence of drugs on those occasions. The lending of the vehicle occurred as much as a few days prior to the offences subject of thesentencing hearing. [67] Mr.

Manhas said that he did not display a number of symptoms commonly associated with heavy methamphetamine users,including open sores, tooth destruction, sleep deprivation, and hygiene problems. His mother and wife paint a different picture. Theytestified that they observed Mr. Manhas smoking marihuana and what appeared to be hard drugs in the home and observed a number ofimplements for that type of drug use, including the presence of injection needles. They observed Mr. Manhas associating with and usingdrugs often in the company of unsavoury and undesirable individuals.

They observed that as the drug use continued, Mr. Manhas'sbehaviour became more erratic with displays of unprovoked anger, including rendering physical damage to his residence, extensivesleeplessness, challenging communication with family members especially about drug use, and degeneration of his personal hygiene. [68] Mandeep Manhas became fearful for herself and the safety and the well-being of the child. This resulted in the matrimonialseparation. Notwithstanding the urgings of his mother, the Offender rebuffed all suggestions of undertaking any treatment for his druguse.

Both the mother and the wife deny knowledge of the Offender's trafficking in drugs. [69] The Offender testified that in the last nine years, he was an active addict for a period of three years. In his testimony, Mr.Manhas says that in the period leading up to the offence presently before the court, he was using drugs, mostly methamphetamine andcrack cocaine, on an hourly basis eight to 10 times a day. This was with a group of five drug-using acquaintances, including the female

companion in his presence when arrested on February 29, 2012. [70] In cross-examination he stated that when he gained his judicial interim release on charges in March of 2012, that he "probably"continued to use drugs only up to the first two weeks of April 2012 when he ran out of money and available favours (within the drugworld) to obtain drugs. [71] Based on his other evidence, he was not an active addict after April of 2012 until April of 2013.

He then started using onweekends, and this progressed to the heavy use of methamphetamines, cocaine, and heroin during the months of June and July of 2013,and by September of 2013, he was in the midst of "full-blown addiction." [72] He apparently took no steps to obtain treatment for this significant drug addiction following his initial judicial interim release inMarch of 2012 and up to his further incarceration in September of 2013. [73] The following is said to corroborate the active addiction of the Offender: the needles found in his possession at the time ofarrest on February 29, 2012; the needle marks still visible on his arm from drug injections; and his recent weight recovery of about 30pounds since being incarcerated in September of 2013 and which weight previously was lost while in the height of his most recent drugaddiction.

Proposed plan for the rehabilitation of the Offender [74] Through defence counsel, Mr. Manhas expresses remorse for this criminal conduct and for the negative impact rendered on hisfamily as a son, husband, and father. He testified about his desire of re-establishing a positive parental role with his daughter if he isreleased into the community. He speaks in terms of pursuing a reconciliation with his wife with whom he has kept in frequentcommunication during his incarceration. His mother seeks the return of her son to lead a normal and productive life. [75] Defence counsel says that Mr.

Manhas has done well during his recent extended period of incarceration. According to theevidence, he has been seeing an addiction counsellor since October of 2013 while incarcerated and has completed a substance abusemanagement course and a respectful relations course. [76] By way of a letter entered as an exhibit, his addiction counsellor at Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre hasconfirmed her suggestion that after dealing with his charges, that Mr. Manhas should apply to attend to go to the Maple Ridge TreatmentCentre and attend Mental Health and Addictions for ongoing support. Mr.

Manhas is willing to follow this advice. [77] Mr. Manhas testified about the prospect of accessing resources within the community to deal with his drug addiction issues butis much less specific about the details. [78] Tentative arrangements have been made for Mr. Manhas upon his release to return to work as a framer with a contractor knownto his mother and with whom she has had business dealings. His goal is eventually to return to real estate development and assist in thefamily business. Legal Parameters [79] The maximum punishment for trafficking in methamphetamine is imprisonment for life.

The maximum punishment for simplepossession of cocaine is no greater than seven years. There are no mandatory minimum sentences for either offences. Purposes and Principles of Sentencing [80] Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code set out the purpose and principles of sentencing.

Section 742.1 sets out theconditions applicable to imposing a conditional sentence order. These offences took place and charges were laid prior to the November2012 amendment to s. 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (punishment for trafficking in a controlled substance) and s. 742.1of the Criminal Code regarding the removal of the availability of a conditional sentence order for such trafficking offences, nowprohibited by s. 742.1(

e) of the Code. [81] Accordingly, as submitted by both counsel, there is no issue that a conditional sentence order or suspended sentence may beconsidered and may therefore be available to Mr. Manhas on these present charges before the court. [82] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, considered and set out the principlesto apply in the imposition of a conditional sentence order. Some of those principles that are particularly relevant to this case are asfollows: (

a) A conditional sentence is intended to address both punitive and rehabilitative sentencing objectives and should generallyinclude punitive conditions that restrict the offender's liberty. (b) "Safety of the community" not being endangered is merely one of the statutory prerequisites for imposing a conditionalsentence and is not the primary consideration. The threat of the specific offender must be considered. A sentencing judge mustconsider the risk of the offender reoffending and the gravity of the damage that could ensue. That risk should be assessed in lightof conditions that can be attached to the sentence to thereby reduce any risk to an acceptable level. (

c) A conditional sentence is available for all offences in which the statutory prerequisites are satisfied, and there is nopresumption that conditional sentences are inappropriate for specific offences. The gravity of the offence, however, is veryrelevant to determining whether a conditional sentence is appropriate in the circumstances. (

d) Serious consideration should be given to the imposition of a conditional sentence in all cases where the statutoryprerequisites are satisfied but there is no presumption in favour of a conditional sentence.

(

e) A conditional sentence can provide a significant amount of denunciation, particularly when onerous conditions are imposed and the terms of the sentence is longer than would have been imposed as a jail sentence. (

f) A conditional sentence can provide significant deterrence if sufficient punitive conditions are imposed, and judges should be wary of placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a conditional sentence and incarceration. However, there may be circumstances deterrence will warrant incarceration. (

g) When the objectives of rehabilitation, reparation, and promotion of a sense of responsibility may be realistically achieved, a conditional sentence will be the appropriate sanction subject to considerations of denunciation and deterrence. (

h) While aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender increase the need for denunciation and deterrence, conditional sentences may be imposed even if such factors are present. Positions of the Crown and defence on sentencing Crown's position [ 83 ] The Crown seeks in this case 16 months of actual custodial time. Crown stresses deterrence and denunciation in such a sentence. Crown is also seeking a one-year probation order.

Crown submits that a conditional sentence may be within the range of an appropriate sentence but would be an unfit sentence in this matter given the circumstances surrounding the offence and the prior convictions and the Offender's apparent lack of success in complying with bail conditions and complying with his two prior conditional sentence orders. Therefore, Crown says that a conditional sentence order is outside the appropriate range for this type of offence. [ 84 ] Crown points to several aggravating circumstances. They are the quantities and the value of the methamphetamine in the possession of Mr.

Manhas for the purposes of trafficking. Crown also points to the highly addictive nature of this drug and the significant problems it causes within the community. Crown notes that the pernicious and destructive effect of drug trafficking has been recognized by our courts in a number of decisions. [ 85 ] Crown also points to the apparent level of Mr. Manhas's trafficking operation as revealed by the cell phone and says that this is clearly not a one-off event. Therefore, Crown says, there is greater moral culpability on Mr.

Manhas. [ 86 ] Crown also seeks a lifetime ban on various weapons and other items described in s. 109 of the Criminal Code since this is the second possession for the purposes of trafficking offence conviction for Mr. Manhas. Crown also seeks a forfeiture order for certain items that were seized at the time of arrest. Crown is also seeking a DNA order as a secondary designated offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code .

Defence position [ 87 ] The range of sentences and the options for sentencing would be, in defence's submissions, custodial time up to one year, but defence says in this case it should be more in the range of about six months, or a suspended sentence or a conditional sentence order should be considered. [ 88 ] Defence seeks a conditional sentence of one year, including provisions for house arrest on the basis of the Offender's long-time but periodic drug addiction since 2003 and the lack of necessity to incarcerate this offender.

Rehabilitation should be a significant concern for the court with less emphasis on deterrence and denunciation in this case. [ 89 ] Defence says that the 16 months sought by Crown would be an unfair sentence. At best, the admitted circumstances lead to the conclusion that Mr. Manhas was a drug courier and not involved at a particularly sophisticated level in drug trafficking. Defence says that drug addiction rather than financial motive is the basis for the circumstances giving rise to the charges before the court. A sentence of incarceration would have a significant negative effect on Mr.

Manhas's family, especially his young daughter. [ 90 ] Defence points to the following mitigating circumstances. First of all, Mr. Manhas apparently has done extremely well in jail. Next, he has sought rehabilitation on his own initiative. Also, he has accepted responsibility for these offences and he has pleaded guilty without the necessity of a trial. Case law Crown case authorities [ 91 ] Crown has presented to the court a number of authorities upon which it relies.

The common theme among these authorities is that they deal with persons with no or limited prior criminal record where financial gain was the primary motive for involvement in the drug trade and where the court placed considerable reliance on deterrence and denunciation. Those case authorities are as follows. R. v. Van Der Hoek , 2011 BCSC 1656 [ 92 ] In this case, a mother and son in Port Alberni were convicted after trial of two offences of possession for the purposes of trafficking cocaine. The amount of drugs in that case amounted to 146 grams having a minimum street value of about $6,100.

Also, there was possession for the same purposes of MMDA (ecstasy) in an amount having a street value of between $2,030 and $4,060. At the time of arrest, police also seized $25,000 in cash. Also seized were a scale, police scanner, and cell phones used to facilitate the drug transactions. [ 93 ] The court found that the Crown had not established that this was a dial-a-dope operation but found it to be something beyond a street corner or back alley type of operation. Neither the mother nor the son had a criminal record. There had been no breaches of bail conditions by either of them.

There was no evidence of addiction. The court found that the motivation in this case was financial or

greed. [ 94 ] There is a thorough review and analysis of several recent cases involving these types of offences. The court rejected a conditional sentence order. [ 95 ] The mother received a nine-month custodial sentence on each offence running concurrently and a one-year period of probation. [ 96 ] The son, who was in a secondary role to the mother, received a six-month custodial sentence on each offence running concurrent and a one-year period of probation. R. v.

Hernandez, 2012 BCSC 238 [ 97 ] In this case, there were four convictions after trial, two for trafficking and two of possession for the purposes of trafficking involving four grams of heroin and approximately 1.9 grams of cocaine. The value of the drugs is not indicated. It is noted that the proceeds of trafficking were less than about $150. The court determined that this was not a dial-a-dope operation but, rather, street-level dealing with a degree of planning and implementation.

The offender in that case was not an addict, and again, greed or profit motive was the reason for the offender's involvement in the offence. [ 98 ] He had no prior criminal record. There had been no breach of bail conditions. Again, the court rejected a conditional sentence order and imposed a six-month custodial sentence. R. v. Holt , [2008] B.C.J. No. 461 [ 99 ] In that case, the offender pleaded guilty of possession of 83 grams of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. The estimated value of the drugs was between $6,640 and $9,888.

The court held that Crown had not established that it was a dial-a-dope operation. In this particular case, the offender was transporting drugs by boat to the Gibsons government wharf. During the arrest of the offender, police received a number of telephone calls on the offender's cell phone seeking to buy drugs. The offender was in possession of score sheets used for tracking drug transactions. [ 100 ] The offender in that case had a fairly old criminal record, including possession of a narcotic in 1996 and six adult convictions, including a breach of a recognizance and a failure to attend court in 1998.

He had had no material convictions since 2000. [ 101 ] No conditional sentence order was sought. However, the court did indicate that if such an application had been made, it would have rejected it. [ 102 ] At the time of the offence, the offender was an addict. However, after arrest, he sought and obtained counselling while in custody. [ 103 ] The sentence was a 12-month custodial sentence. R. v. Biernaczyk , [2011] B.C.J. No. 1386 [ 104 ] In this case, the offender was convicted for possession of 126.2 grams of powder and crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The drugs had a value of over $10,000 and a potential street value of $18,000 if cut and repackaged. [ 105 ] The offender was also in possession of several cell phones, bear spray, a marihuana grinder, $2,000 in cash, and other paraphernalia consistent with the process for making crack cocaine. [ 106 ] It was conceded that this was not a dial-a-dope operation but, rather, that the offender was in the process of setting up a midlevel drug operation involving some preplanning. There was clearly a profit motive. The offender was not an addict. He had no criminal record.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order and applied the decision in R. v. Holt , supra , and imposed a one-year custodial sentence. R. v. Cisneros , 2014 BCCA 154 [ 107 ] This was a case before the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The court was hearing an appeal of a fine of $2,000 and a one- year probation order arising from the offender pleading guilty to one count of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking in an admitted busy dial-a-dope business. The offender was not an addict, and clearly, greed and a profit motives were the reason for the offender's participation in the offence.

He had no prior criminal convictions. Notwithstanding the removal of the availability of a conditional sentence, given the timing of this offence, the Court of Appeal opined that a conditional sentence in the circumstances would be very much the exception. [ 108 ] Accordingly, a six-month custodial sentence was substituted for the original trial judge's sentence. R. v. Win , 2000 BCSC 1929 [ 109 ] The offender was convicted of seven counts of trafficking 15.40 grams of cocaine for $1,200 to an undercover police officer.

The offender had no prior criminal record, was not an addict, and profit motive was the main factor in this case. A conditional sentence order was sought and rejected by the court, and the court ordered a custodial sentence of 15 months concurrent on each count. R. v. Seu , 2011 BCPC 135 [ 110 ] In this case, the offender pled guilty in Nanaimo to charges of possessing 9.5 grams of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and four grams of heroin for the purposes of trafficking. The estimated lowest street value was about $1,650 for the drugs.

The court dealt with this matter on the basis that the offender had no criminal record at the time of the offence, he was not an addict or user, and

that financial profit and greed were his motives. [111] The court determined that the offender was operating at the lower end of a dial-a-dope operation, rejected a conditional sentenceorder, and imposed a custodial sentence of six months in jail and a probation order for two years. R. v. Ban, 2014 BCCA 68 [112] This was an appeal of a conditional sentence order of two years less a day and a two-year probation order for a secondconviction for possession for the purposes of trafficking in a controlled substance, namely, one kilogram of cocaine.

The offender had aprior conviction and had received a sentence of 24 months involving one kilo of methamphetamine. The arrest was made in this casewhile the offender was walking off the B.C. ferry terminal in Nanaimo. [113] The offender had a total of five prior convictions. It was determined that he was a drug courier and was undertaking that role inorder to repay a drug debt. Therefore, it was viewed to be a motive of financial gain. The Court of Appeal substituted a three-yearcustodial sentence with appropriate credits for time being served in place of the conditional sentence order.

Defence case authorities [114] Defence also relied upon a number of authorities which contain a common theme. In those cases, the offender suffered from adrug addiction and used trafficking as a means of supporting their own habit. Many of the offenders had multiple convictions. In thosecases, the court recognized the need for a rehabilitative approach in sentencing and imposed conditional sentence orders. Those casesare as follows. R. v. Bui, [115] This was an appeal by the Crown from the sentence imposed at trial.

The 39-year-old accused pleaded guilty to two counts oftrafficking in cocaine relating to the sale of cocaine on two separate occasions to two undercover police officers. The cocaine sold wasworth about $38,000. The accused was a first-time offender. He was married with two children. The pre-sentence report indicated thathe was a suitable candidate for a conditional sentence. The trial judge sentenced the accused to concurrent sentences of two years less aday to be served conditionally. [116] The appeal was allowed in part.

The court held that the judge correctly considered whether or not the sentence should be withinthe range of two years to three years, and then whether a conditional sentence was appropriate. The sentence that was imposed wasappropriate in the circumstances and adequately met the need for deterrence. [117] The court did increase the probation order for a term of two years and stated that it would be conducive to the offender'srehabilitation and to the principle of general deterrence. R. v.

Schell and Moran, (BC CA), [1981] B.C.J. 1726, 64 C.C.C. (2d) 421 [118] This is a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The appeal was by Crown from a sentence imposed upon theaccused on charges of making false statements, contrary to s. 320(1)(

c) of the Criminal Code. The accused were branch managers of amajor Canadian bank. The trial judge convicted the accused and imposed fines of $3,500 and placed the accused on probation for 18months. The Crown appealed, and the court held that the appeal should be dismissed. Imprisonment was not the only means of generaldeterrence. [119] The court also indicated that much would depend on the circumstances of each case, but here they found that though the trialjudge erred in not paying heed to the principles of deterrence, it was not necessary in the circumstances to impose a term ofimprisonment upon the accused.

R. v. Ellrodt, 1999 BCCA 57 , 1999 BCCA 0057 [120] This was an appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal on a sentence of two years less a day for possession for the purposesof trafficking in one-quarter pound of cocaine in Campbell River. The offender in that case had a lengthy criminal record and a recentprior possession for the purposes of trafficking conviction. He had a history of cocaine use. In a split decision of the court, a conditionalsentence order was imposed based on significant family circumstances. R. v.

Kozma, 2000 BCCA 440 [121] This was an appeal of sentences of three months, eight months, 16 months, and 24 months, served concurrently, with an 18-month probation order after conviction for four counts of trafficking in increasing amounts of cocaine, up to a pound, sold for $5,200. The offence took place in Penticton, British Columbia. There was a history of cocaine abuse that ended after the arrest. The offenderhad six prior convictions for non-related drug offences. This case is an early application of R. v. Proulx.

In this case, the courtsubstituted a conditional sentence of two years less a day and held that that provided sufficient denunciation and deterrence. R. v. Clough, 2001 BCCA 613 [122] This was an appeal of a nine-month custodial sentence. There was a conviction after trial of possession of cocaine for thepurposes of trafficking. The amount involved was nine ounces plus a small amount of marihuana. [123] In this case, the offender did not accept responsibility for criminal conduct. She was drug-dependent at that time of the offence.

There was evidence of rehabilitation and good employment opportunities prior to sentencing. On appeal, the court substituted a 12-month conditional sentence for the nine-month custodial sentence and included curfew conditions for the first six months of the

conditional sentence order. R. v. Waldron, 2003 BCPC 555 , 2003 BCPC 0555 [124] Here the offender pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully trafficking in cocaine. The offender had a criminal record,including a recent breach of recognizance. The court determined that the offender was a drug runner in a dial-a-dope operation. Thesentence imposed was 90 days on each count to be served concurrently along with 21 days for the breach, all concurrent. That sentencewas to be served on an intermittent basis on weekends. R. v.

Telford, 2006 BCPC 552 [125] In this case the offender pleaded guilty to possession of one kilo of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, having a value of$35,000. The offender was a family man gainfully employed. He was paid to deliver drugs and was not a sophisticated drug trafficker. He had a dated criminal record for property offences. He had been complying with bail conditions. A conditional sentence of two yearsless a day including house arrest provisions, electronic monitoring, and 50 hours of community work service were all imposed. R. v.

Aabedi, 2010 BCSC 1095 [126] In this case, there was a guilty plea for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine and heroin for the purposes oftrafficking. The offender was an entry level and junior driver for a very profitable dial-a-dope operation. The offender actively soughtthe job. The offender had struggled with drug addictions, specifically methamphetamine. The offender had prior criminal convictions. There was positive prognosis for rehabilitation, and accordingly, the court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence order. R. v. Preston, (BC CA), [1990] B.C.J.

No. 2886, 47 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273 [127] This is a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Crown had appealed a two-year suspended sentence andprobation orders on three charges of simple possession of heroin. The offender was 41 years of age with severe addiction for over 20years and with 23 convictions including prostitution and eight narcotics offences, four of which were trafficking in heroin. She was astreet-level dealer. The longest sentences were 18 months each for heroin trafficking and for confinement.

Most sentences were for ninedays or less. [128] She was on social assistance for around 16 years due to her lack of skills, her drug addiction, and associated poor health. Thecourt noted recent and sincere self-motivated attempts to rehabilitate herself at her own expense.

Some minor breaches had recentlyoccurred. [129] The court agreed that rehabilitation of the offender in this case was of greater importance than any deterrent value ofincarceration. [130] This particular case, I note, chartered a new course from the general rule that an addicted substance abuser who is a repeatoffender and who has an extensive record must be sentenced to jail as a consequence of a conviction for possession of a prohibitednarcotic.

The case makes the point that trial judges are encouraged in appropriate cases to take an enlightened and progressive approachto the difficult task of sentencing. [131] As I would expect, Crown and defence each have vigorously attempted to distinguish the other's case authorities and theirapplicability to the case before me. Consideration of R. v. Preston [132] Considerable reliance is placed by the defence on the Preston case which Crown says should not apply in the presentcircumstances. Crown says that a proper application of Preston is demonstrated in R. v. Furtado, [2014] B.C.J.

No. 425 at paragraph 28,where the Supreme Court of British Columbia states the following about a number of cases that have applied the Preston principles: 28 I note that the concept is stated differently in the decisions cited above: substantial steps toward rehabilitation, significant stepstoward rehabilitation, substantial likelihood of rehabilitation, and any reasonable chance of rehabilitation. In my view, the progress thatthe court is identifying in these decisions is best phrased as significant steps toward rehabilitation.

In other words, where addiction is thecause of a criminal record and the individual has taken significant steps toward rehabilitation, particularly for property crimes, the courtshould consider whether a conditional sentence order would best serve the goals of sentencing. [133] However Crown argues that in the present case we are dealing with a drug trafficker, not just a user, with multiple drug-relatedconvictions, a history of failure to abide by previous conditional sentences, who was found in possession of a large amount ofmethamphetamine and in circumstances where it was obvious that some profit motive and organized enterprise is involved.Furthermore, Crown says relatively few steps have been taken in order to achieve rehabilitation for drug misuse. [134] I am of the view that Preston does not mean that addiction for somebody involved in a criminal lifestyle is in itself an open gateto a conditional sentence order, but the addiction is a relevant factor for the court to consider.

Also relevant is the way an addict hasdealt with and proposes to deal with the addiction. Findings on the Disputed Facts Whether Crown has established the Offender was involved in drug trafficking as a midlevel dealer or in a dial-a-dope operation

[ 135 ] Crown has failed to establish the Offender's participation in drug trafficking at the level of a dial-a-dope or midlevel dealer and accordingly cannot rely upon it as an aggravating factor in sentencing. [ 136 ] I agree with defence's position about not drawing the inferences sought by Crown from the use of the text messages. Also there is insufficient evidence to link those messages to Mr. Manhas. [ 137 ] Similarly, at the time of his arrest on these charges, Mr.

Manhas was not receiving calls on his cell phone which would lend support to the notion of his involvement in a more highly organized trafficking operation. However, I find Crown has established that there was some expectation of a profit from the Offender's drug activities rather than simply as a means to satisfy his own personal consumption requirements and those of a user's bulk buyer group.

This conclusion is based on the following evidence before me: • the large amount of methamphetamine in the Offender's possession; • the value of that methamphetamine; • the reliance upon vendor financing from the Vancouver dealer in order to complete the drug purchaser; and • the Offender's inability to account for the deficit between the cost of his personal use and his available funds. Accordingly, some profit motive on his

part can be reasonably inferred. [ 138 ] This finding becomes important when I consider some of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Whether the defence has established that the Offender was participating in drug trafficking as a result of his addiction [ 139 ] Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the defence has established that the Offender was driven into participating in drug trafficking primarily from his drug addiction.

Rather, the conclusion is the Offender was involved in heavy drug use as part of his criminal lifestyle at the time of the offence and the heavy drug use was not necessarily the root cause. [ 140 ] I have no expert evidence before me to assess the level of the Offender's addiction and his functionality while consuming hard drugs over time. Defence has established that Mr. Manhas was a periodic heavy user of various hard drugs.

The evidence does support that there were various periods in the Offender's life where he was engaging in activity safely characterized as drug abuse and even that of drug addiction. [ 141 ] Mr. Manhas rejected suggestions of obtaining any treatment for his drug misuse. He took no active steps prior to his recent incarceration to seek any treatment or counselling. However, without assistance of counselling or rehabilitation on many occasions and for significantly long periods of time, Mr. Manhas stopped his abuse and use of hard drugs.

That is not to say that he was not experiencing some level of addiction prior to stopping, but I do not believe that his addiction at the time of committing this offence or these offences had rendered him with the high level of diminished functionality that is being suggested by defence. [ 142 ] During the period of his heavy use of drugs, he was able to convince his mother that he could safely borrow and drive her vehicle.

He was able to travel and meet with and convince the Vancouver drug dealer that he was responsible and trustworthy enough to be financed for and repay $3,000, being half the purchase price of the drugs.

He was able to plan how he intended on repaying that money on his own and to have a backup plan, by taking advantage of his mother. [ 143 ] While his personal level of hygiene apparently had diminished and his behaviour was periodically erratic, he was able to avoid many of the other deleterious effects of heavy and prolonged hard drug use. [ 144 ] I am not satisfied that drug addiction had taken over the Offender's life at the material time that he committed the offences before me and thus his prime goal in life was only to feed his addiction. [ 145 ] Accordingly, I must infer that there was a profit motive for his involvement in these offences.

Mitigating and aggravating factors Aggravating factors [ 146 ] I accept as aggravating factors the amount of and the value of the methamphetamine in the Offender's possession for the purposes of trafficking. I also accept the numerous prior convictions for both possession for the purposes of trafficking and also for simple drug possession. I treat as an aggravating factor the highly addictive nature of methamphetamine, and I accept that the Offender's motive in this was profit (or at least in part) for the offence.

Mitigating factors [ 147 ] I accept the following as mitigating factors: • the Offender's recent self-motivated attempts with a degree of success in obtaining counselling and treatment for his drug abuse while he has been incarcerated; • his plea of guilty without the necessity of a trial; • the acceptance of responsibility for the offence and recognition of the problems that it has caused his family; and • the family circumstances of his wife and child and the result of separation from them.

Reasons and conclusions [ 148 ] Having regard to these factors and the authorities placed before me, I am of the view that the appropriate range for a fit sentence in these circumstances and for this offender on the possession for the purposes of trafficking is between nine and 14 months. [ 149 ] I must now consider whether a conditional sentence order is appropriate in these circumstances. [ 150 ] The Offender is a bright man with the support of a mother and with a number of opportunities presented to him to succeed personally and professionally.

He has gravitated to a criminal lifestyle, much to the distress of his mother and his wife. [ 151 ] He has rejected suggestions of obtaining help for his drug abuse in the past. He has demonstrated a disregard for abiding by court orders on several occasions. He has failed to take proper advantage of and the benefit from the type of sentences that he has received when he has been allowed to serve those sentences in the community. In particular, I note the conditional sentence orders which have been imposed upon him in past occasions and most recently in August of 2012, have in fact been been breached. [ 152 ] Mr.

Manhas has chosen to allow his mother to help support his wife and child financially, while he has also taken financial advantage of her. He has participated fully in the local drug culture and gained some financial rewards from it. He is responsible for bringing a large amount of a hard and debilitating drug into this community. [ 153 ] He has shown marked progress and has started to take some positive steps towards rehabilitation while he has been incarcerated. Given his past history of reverting to drug abuse, I consider his recovery at this stage to be very fragile.

I am not satisfied that rehabilitation will be enhanced if he is relying on community-based programs rather than on what he can avail himself of in an institutional setting. [ 154 ] Deterrence and denunciation must be adequately addressed in any sentence rendered to this Offender for this repeat serious drug offence. Deterrence and denunciation by way of actual custodial sentences are therefore required. Past conditional sentences have not provided Mr. Manhas with the required level of deterrence or denunciation.

I am not convinced that a further conditional sentence, even with onerous house arrest conditions, will provide the required level of deterrence and denunciation based on the Offender's past behaviour and conduct. [ 155 ] Given this past history, there is a substantial risk of this Offender reoffending and again actively participating in the drug trade with resulting harm to the community. [ 156 ] I am sentencing Mr. Manhas to one year to be served in jail followed by a one-year period of probation. [ 157 ] With respect to the simple possession of cocaine, I note he is a repeat offender.

Fines have not deterred him.

Accordingly, I sentence him to 90 days to be served concurrently with the one-year sentence. [ 158 ] I will hear submissions on the terms of that probation order and then on the victim surcharge. [ 159 ] I will grant the forfeiture order being sought by Crown, and we will deal with the particulars of that. [ 160 ] I will also make the DNA order. [ 161 ] I will also impose the s. 109 lifetime ban on possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, and explosive substance. [ 162 ] I will now turn to the issue of the terms of the probation order and hear submissions on that. [SUBMISSIONS RE TERMS OF PROBATION ORDER] [ 163 ] THE COURT: The terms of the probation order will be as follows, using the pick list. [ 164 ] 201.

Keep the peace and be of good behaviour and attend court when required to do so by the court. [ 165 ] Report to and be under the supervision of a probation officer. Mr. Manhas must report within 72 hours of release from his custodial sentence, in person, at the Nanaimo probation office at the address to be provided to him and thereafter as directed. [ 166 ] 203. He must notify the court or his probation officer of his current residential address, and he is not to change that address without the prior permission of his probation officer. [ 167 ] I am going to impose 211.

You must abstain absolutely from the use, possession, or consumption of any illicit or illegal substances as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act unless with a valid medical prescription. [ 168 ] I am going to make this further order. You must attend, participate, and successfully complete in any drug assessment and counselling as directed by your probation officer including but may not be limited to any residential treatment as directed by your probation officer. [ 169 ] I believe those are the conditions that are being sought. You did not mention drug paraphernalia.

I sometimes have a challenge figuring out how one defines what that is. A knife used for heating purposes is, in fact, drug paraphernalia. [ 170 ] MR. FARENHOLTZ: Such things as, certainly, pipes could be, and needles and things like that. [ 171 ] MR. KING: I don't have a problem with pipes and needles.

[ 172 ] THE COURT: All right. Well, I will add to the prohibition on consumption of illegal or illicit substances, I will add in "or drug paraphernalia including injection needles and pipes suitable for smoking drugs." [ 173 ] MR. FARENHOLTZ: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 174 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 175 ] THE CLERK: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I missed how long the probation order was for. [ 176 ] THE COURT: One year. [ 177 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 178 ] THE COURT: This would attract victim surcharges.

However, given the custodial sentence that he will be serving, I will waive the victim surcharges in this matter on both counts. [ 179 ] The probation order will attach to the conviction of possession for the purposes of trafficking charge. [ 180 ] MR. KING: Thank you. [ 181 ] MR. FARENHOLTZ: With regard to forfeiture, I will just file the major exhibit flowchart. I have circled items 10, 13, and 14; they are an Apple telephone, Canadian currency of $70.36, and a Sanyo cam case. [ 182 ] MR. KING: No issue. [ 183 ] THE COURT: All right. I will make the forfeiture order for those items. [ 184 ] Mr.

Manhas, you are taking positive steps. I encourage you to continue with your rehabilitation and to take full advantage of every possible opportunity you have while you are serving the remainder of this sentence. [ 185 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 186 ] THE COURT: Thank you. (REASONS CONCLUDED)