Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2017 SKPC 007

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2017 SKPC 007 Date: January 16, 2017 Information: 36862843, 33835037, 33834136, 46627833, 43723441 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Destiny Adam Appearing: Mr. Brent Slobodian For the Crown Mr. Garth Bendig For the Defence _____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ON SENTENCE H.M. HARRADENCE , J _____________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On December 21, 2016, I sentenced this offender, Destiny Adam. At that time I indicated to counsel that I would provide my reasons in writing. [ 2 ] A joint submission was recommended by both Crown and Defence counsel. During this sentencing process the Supreme Court released R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 . Given my conclusion that the joint submission is unacceptable, written reasons will assist to explain my analysis. They may also assist in the resolution of future cases and will facilitate appellate review. (para 60) [ 3 ] I had concerns about the joint submission.

I ordered a pre-sentence report, I gave counsel an opportunity to make additional submissions, and I have taken time to reflect on the joint submission and the principles of sentencing.

THE GUILTY PLEAS [ 4 ] This offender plead guilty, on October 5, 2016, to the following offences: Information 36862843 – On or about the 5 th day of July, A.D. 2014 at or near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, contrary to section 4(1) of The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ; Information 33834136 – On or about the 15 th day of July, A.D. 2014 at or near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan did being at large on her undertaking given to a justice or a judge without lawful excuse fail to attend Court, to wit, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Provincial Court in accordance therewith, contrary to section 145(2) (

a) of the Criminal Code ; Information 46627833 – On or about the 31 st day of January, A.D. 2016 at or near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan did being at large on her recognizance entered into before a justice or a judge and being bound to comply with a condition thereof to wit, stay inside your approved residence from 11:00 P.M. each night to 7:00 A.M. the next morning unless you have the prior written permission of the Court, and come to the door of your approved residence when asked to do so by a probation officer or designate or police officer who may be checking the residence and curfew conditions of this order, fail without lawful excuse to comply with that condition contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code ; Information 43723441 – On or about the 6 th day of July, A.D. 2016 at or near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan did being at large on her recognizance entered into before a justice or a judge and being bound to comply with a condition thereof to wit, stay inside your approved residence from 11:00 P.M. each night to 7:00 A.M. the next morning unless you have the prior written permission of the Court, and come to the door of your approved residence when asked to do so by a probation officer or designate or police officer who may be checking the residence and curfew conditions of this order, fail without lawful excuse to comply with that condition contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code ; and Information 33835037 – On or about the 5 th day of January, A.D. 2015 at or near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan did willfully attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice by providing false evidence to the Court during a criminal trial of Jade Napope and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code .

THE CHANGE IN THE LAW REGARDING JOINT SUBMISSIONS [ 5 ] A joint submission was proposed by counsel on October 5, 2016. Mr. Bendig, senior and experienced defence counsel, and Mr. Slobodian, who is junior to Mr. Bendig but respected Crown counsel, put forward a joint submission for my consideration. Mr. Slobodian candidly admitted that the joint submission was hefty for an offender with no criminal record. [ 6 ] The law, relating to joint submissions, in Saskatchewan had been defined by our Court of Appeal in a number of cases: R v

Webster, 2001 SKCA 72, 207 Sask R 257; R v N (JC), 2005 SKCA 64; R v Kasakan, 2006 SKCA 14; R v BF, 2008 SKCA 122; R vOmoth, 2011 SKCA 42; R v Kinney, 2011 SKCA 122; R v Flannagan, 2012 SKCA 45: “Joint submissions…should be accepted by thetrial judge unless they are unfit…or unreasonable”. (See para 7 in Webster where Justice Cameron refers to R v GWC (2000), 2000ABCA 333 , 150 CCC (3d) 513 Alta CA.) [7] On October 5, 2016, based on the law as it stood, I had concerns regarding the joint submission, most notably the absence insubmissions by counsel, of any reference to Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, (SCC) [Gladue].

It appeared to me, that Ms.Adam was a First Nations offender. [8] As a result of my concerns, I ordered a pre-sentence report specifically requesting some information regarding thisoffender’s history and background. Sentencing was adjourned to December 6, 2016. [9] While the pre-sentence report was being prepared, the Supreme Court of Canada released R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43,on October 21, 2016. This decision revisited the law surrounding joint submissions and the “jumping” or “under-cutting” of jointsubmissions by sentencing judges.

Justice Moldaver, speaking for the Court, rejected the Saskatchewan test and stated the law conciselyat para 42 of the Anthony-Cook decision as, a judge being able to reject a joint submission only, “where the proposed sentence would beviewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper function of the justice system”. [10] Justice Moldaver emphasizes the importance of sentencing judges exercising restraint in order to ensure that resolutionagreements are afforded a high degree of certainty. [11] Justice Kalmakoff in R v Boyer, 2016 SKQB 352, [2016] SJ No 595, which was released on October 25, 2016, applied thenew test stating that it, “represents a more stringent test for rejection” of joint submissions than had previously been recognized inSaskatchewan authorities: 28 In Anthony-Cook, the Supreme Court specifically rejected the "fitness" and "demonstrably unfit" tests in favour of the morestringent "public interest" test for rejecting joint submissions.

Anthony-Cook says that a sentencing judge is not free to reject a jointsubmission simply because he or she concludes that the sentence being proposed is outside the appropriate range, or unfit, or evendemonstrably unfit.

As noted previously, at para. 34, Justice Moldaver said that, in order to reject a joint submission, a sentencing judgemust conclude that the sentence being proposed is: ...so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons,aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that theproper functioning of the justice system had broken down. 29 To that end, in my view, Anthony-Cook represents a more stringent test for rejection than did the previous governing authorities inSaskatchewan. [12] In Anthony Cook, Justice Moldaver, at para 43, adopts R v DeSousa, 2012 ONCA 254, 109 OR (3d) 792 [DeSousa], whereJustice Doherty emphasizes the caveat that certainty of outcome is not the ultimate goal of the sentencing process.

In DeSousa, JusticeDoherty equated a conditional sentence order with a jail sentence served in the community and concluded it was not warranted by thefacts of that case. THE JOINT SUBMISSION IN THIS CASE [13] In this case, counsel recommended a joint submission of an 18 month conditional sentence order.

As part of this proposal,counsel endorsed lengthy and restrictive conditions including, electronic monitoring, no electronic devices, search clauses and 200 hoursof community service work along with other conditions. [14] As noted, this offender plead guilty to two substantive charges, possession of cocaine and willfully attempt to obstruct justice. She also plead guilty to three charges relating to breach of her release document. [15] The facts can be stated concisely and are not in dispute. On July 5, 2014, police stopped a vehicle operated by Jade Napope.

This offender, Destiny Adam, was in the passenger seat. A search was conducted including a search of Ms. Adam’s person. Three bags of cocaine were seized from inside her bra, weighing a total of 10.4 grams. Other drugs and drug related material were seized from the vehicle. Both Napope and this offender were separately charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. Napope’s trial was held before me. Ms. Adam testified saying that the drugs belonged to her and her alone and Napope was not involved. I rejected her testimony finding it to be patently false. I convicted Napope. Ms.

Adam was charged with attempting to obstruct justice resulting from her testimony at Napope’s trial. [ 16 ] Mr. Bendig now says she admits her testimony was false. In his submissions, Mr. Bendig says she was under duress to provide the untruthful testimony, “direct comments were made where she feared harm for her family.” She was not trafficking nor did she possess the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. He says he and his client were caught in a quandary.

On the trafficking charge, if she did not testify, she would in all likelihood be convicted of possession for the purposes of trafficking and face a certain jail term, given the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal sentencing range. If, on the other hand, she did testify she would admit perjury and may well be convicted of the possession for the purpose of trafficking charge. [ 17 ] In his sentencing submission, Mr. Bendig indicates that it was important to his client that she not be incarcerated.

The Crown says that through the negotiation process they agreed to a conditional sentence order instead of incarceration and they agreed to reduce the trafficking charge to one of simple possession. [ 18 ] Both counsel agree that this offender is young, has no criminal record, and has ended her relationship with Napope. She has attempted to move on with her life. She is a First Nations offender, being a member of a remote Northern Saskatchewan First Nation. As detailed in the pre-sentence report, she has experienced family breakdown, family abuse, and economic disadvantage.

Despite these facts, she is continuing to make significant progress and hopes to attend university in the future: The subject has no children. The subject is currently single. She was previously in a relationship with the co-accused, Jade Napope. The subject said the relationship with Mr. Napope was abusive and did not last long. Collateral sources indicate the couple dated for approximately a year and a half. The two became involved because they were both involved in the drug culture and party scene in Prince Albert. During the pre-sentence report interview the subject dismissed having knowledge of Mr.

Napope’s criminal lifestyle. At the time of the index offence the subject experienced problems when associating with negative peers who were involved in the criminal justice system. Over the past 12 months there is no evidence of the subject experiencing any problems when associating with her peers. She says she has distanced herself from people she got into trouble with and Mr. Napope is currently in custody. She says she now spends her leisure time with other students and family members.

She plans and attends school events and is the Vice President of the Student Leardership Council (SLC) at Saskatchewan Institute of Technologies (SIIT) in Prince Albert. She says she is a volunteer for the Prince Albert Grand Council (PAGC) and attended the Cultural Camp offered this past summer. She plans to attend a sweat lodge in the future and has access to an Elder at school. She is a member of St.

Mark’s Roman Catholic Church and is currently participating in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) program with her mother and siblings. [1] [ 19 ] There is no doubt that the charge of attempt to obstruct justice is a serious charge which strikes the very heart of our justice system. As noted by Mr. Slobodian in this case, the attempt failed. ANALYSIS [ 20 ] Following Anthony Cook , I must analyze the joint submission with reference to the public interest test and the five factors outlined by Justice Moldaver: 51 First, trial judges should approach the joint submission on an "as-is" basis.

That is to say, the public interest test applies whether the judge is considering varying the proposed sentence or adding something to it that the parties have not mentioned, for example, a probation order… 52 Second, trial judges should apply the public interest test when they are considering "jumping" or "undercutting" a joint submission ( DeSousa , per Doherty J.A.). That is not to say that the analysis will be the same in either case. On the contrary, from the accused's perspective, "undercutting" does not engage concerns about fair trial rights or undermine confidence in the certainty of plea negotiations.

In addition, in assessing whether the severity of a joint submission would offend the public interest, trial judges should be mindful of the power imbalance that may exist between the Crown and defence, particularly where the accused is self-represented or in custody at the time of sentencing. These factors may temper the public interest in certainty and justify "undercutting" in limited circumstances.

At the same time, where the trial judge is considering "undercutting", he or she should bear in mind that the community's confidence in the administration of justice may suffer if an accused enjoys the benefits of a joint submission without having to serve the agreed-upon sentence (see DeSousa , at paras. 23-24 ).

53 Third, when faced with a contentious joint submission, trial judges will undoubtedly want to know about the circumstances leading to the joint submission -- and in particular, any benefits obtained by the Crown or concessions made by the accused.

The greater the benefits obtained by the Crown, and the more concessions made by the accused, the more likely it is that the trial judge should accept the joint submission, even though it may appear to be unduly lenient… 54 Counsel should, of course, provide the court with a full account of the circumstances of the offender, the offence, and the joint submission without waiting for a specific request from the trial judge.

As trial judges are obliged to depart only rarely from joint submissions, there is a "corollary obligation upon counsel" to ensure that they "amply justify their position on the facts of the case as presented in open court" (Martin Committee Report, at p. 329). Sentencing -- including sentencing based on a joint submission -- cannot be done in the dark.

The Crown and the defence must "provide the trial judge not only with the proposed sentence, but with a full description of the facts relevant to the offender and the offence", in order to give the judge "a proper basis upon which to determine whether [the joint submission] should be accepted" ( DeSousa , at para. 15 ; see also Sinclair , at para. 14). 55 … counsel must be able to inform the trial judge why the proposed sentence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest.

If they do not, they run the risk that the trial judge will reject the joint submission. 56 There may, of course, be cases where it is not possible to put the main considerations underlying a joint submission on the public record because of safety or privacy concerns, or the risk of jeopardizing ongoing criminal investigations (see Martin Committee Report, at p. 317).

In such cases, counsel must find alternative means of communicating these considerations to the trial judge in order to ensure that the judge is apprised of the relevant considerations and that a proper record is created for appeal purposes. 58 Fourth, if the trial judge is not satisfied with the sentence proposed by counsel, "fundamental fairness dictates that an opportunity be afforded to counsel to make further submissions in an attempt to address the ... judge's concerns before the sentence is imposed" ( G.W.C. , at para. 26 ).

The judge should notify counsel that he or she has concerns, and invite further submissions on those concerns, including the possibility of allowing the accused to withdraw his or her guilty plea, as the trial judge did in this case. 59 Fifth, if the trial judge's concerns about the joint submission are not alleviated, the judge may allow the accused to apply to withdraw his or her guilty plea. The circumstances in which a plea may be withdrawn need not be settled here.

However, by way of example, withdrawal may be permitted where counsel have made a fundamental error about the legality of the proposed joint submission, for example, where a conditional sentence has been proposed but is unavailable. [ 21 ] Given this offender’s background, I must pay careful attention to s. 718.2(

e) and consider it in the context of the other principles of sentencing found in ss. 718 , 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code , including deterrence and denunciation. Having listened to counsel and read the pre-sentence report, I find, after considerable consideration and deliberation, that there is no evidence before me that counsel considered Gladue factors in arriving at the joint submission. I have reached the conclusion that I do not have from counsel the evidence required to provide a full account of this offender and offence.

In the words of Justice Moldaver in Anthony-Cook , at para 54 , relying on DeSousa , I do not have “a proper basis on which to determine whether the joint submission should be accepted”. [ 22 ] It is an understatement to say that Gladue factors are critically important to this Court, to the public of this city, community and province. I refer specifically to Justice Cory’s decision in Gladue at para 75 and 81 . 75.

The role of the judge who sentences an aboriginal offender is, as for every offender, to determine a fit sentence taking into account all the circumstances of the offence, the offender, the victims, and the community. Nothing in

Part XXIII of the Criminal Code alters this fundamental duty as a general matter. However, the effect of s. 718.2 (e), viewed in the context of

Part XXIII as a whole, is to alter the method of analysis which sentencing judges must use in determining a fit sentence for aboriginal offenders.

Section 718.2 (

e) requires that sentencing determinations take into account the unique circumstances of aboriginal peoples. 81. … By means of s. 718.2 (e), sentencing judges have been provided with a degree of flexibility and discretion to consider in appropriate circumstances alternative sentences to incarceration which are appropriate for the aboriginal offender and community and yet comply with the mandated principles and purpose of sentencing.

In this way, effect may be given to the aboriginal emphasis upon healing and restoration of both the victim and the offender. [ 23 ] I also refer to the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Volume 5 [2] , which indicates as follows: Once Aboriginal persons are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted, they are more likely to be sentenced to prison than non-Aboriginal

people. In 2011, Aboriginal people made up 4% of the Canadian population, yet they accounted for 28% of admissions to sentenced custody. Of those admitted into provincial and territorial custody in 2011–12, Aboriginal females accounted for 43%, compared to 27% for Aboriginal males. And in the same year, 49% of girls below the age of eighteen admitted to custody were Aboriginal, compared to 36% of males. There is a troubling link between the substance abuse that has plagued many residential school Survivors and the over incarceration of Aboriginal people.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (fasd) is a permanent brain injury caused when a woman’s consumption of alcohol during pregnancy affects her fetus. The disabilities associated with fasd include memory impairments, problems with judgment and abstract reasoning, and poor adaptive functioning. Studies from Canada and the United States suggest that 15% to 20% of prisoners have fasd. A recent Canadian study found that offenders with fasd had much higher rates of criminal involvement than those without fasd, including more juvenile and adult convictions.

Diagnosing fasd can be a long and costly process and the lack of a confirmed diagnosis can result in the unjust imprisonment of Aboriginal people who are living with a disability. In this way, the traumas of residential school are quite literally passed down from one generation to another. As well as being more likely to be involved as offenders with the justice system, Aboriginal people are 58% more likely than non- Aboriginal people to be the victims of crime.

Aboriginal women report being victimized by violent crime at a rate almost three times higher than non-Aboriginal women—13% of Aboriginal women reported being victimized by violent crime in 2009. The most disturbing aspect of this victimization is the extraordinary number of Aboriginal women and girls who have been murdered or are reported as missing. A 2014 rcmp report found that, between 1980 and 2012, 1,017 Aboriginal women and girls were killed and 164 were missing. Of these, 225 these cases remain unsolved. [ 24 ] This offender was in an abusive relationship with Jade Napope at the time of this offence.

I have concluded that this relationship was a significant motivating factor leading to her involvement in the drug culture and these offences.

The submissions of Counsel, together with the contents of the pre-sentence report, convince me that this offender was a young vulnerable Aboriginal female, trapped in a relationship she did not know how to escape, used by her abusive partner as a pawn to advance his interests. [ 25 ] The pre-sentence report, at page 3, directly relates addiction and domestic violence to the history of this offender as an Aboriginal person: The subject identifies as being of Indian ancestry from Fond Du Lac Denesuline First Nation. The subject reports having always lived in an urban setting.

She recalls being affected by poverty in childhood. Her mother was always able to provide a home, however there was not always enough food. The subject believes she was affected by family breakdown since her mother had four children with four different men. She witnessed alcoholism and domestic violence in her mother’s relationship. She said she tried to hide her background from her peers in school. Roy Bell was the father figure for the subject from age five to 12; the subject spoke positively about Roy.

The writer spoke to Rhonda Adam who confirmed the subject’s accounts from childhood and agreed that the situation at home was not good when the relationship with Roy ended. The subject left home when she was 13. She said it was too stressful at home trying to go to school and look after her younger siblings in an alcoholic environment. She moved in with an uncle and reported having had a positive experience. When she was 14 she moved to Edmonton to live with her biological father. She stayed for approximately one month. She said she left because her father was sick with lung disease and unable to care for her.

Mr. Kenny passed away when the subject was 16. The subject returned to her uncle’s and began a pattern of living with him and staying with friends until she was 18. [ 26 ] This evidence establishes the troubling link between alcoholism, domestic violence and this offender. The unique circumstances of this young female aboriginal offender are vividly illustrated by the pre-sentence report, these circumstances would be difficult for many to comprehend or appreciate. [ 27 ] Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Counsel considered these circumstances in any meaningful way in arriving at the proposed sentence.

In my view, this is demonstrated poignantly by the fact that the Aboriginal heritage of the offender was not confirmed by Counsel until I inquired prior to ordering a pre-sentence report. [ 28 ] The quandary described by the offender’s counsel, together with her background, youth and bottom line not to go to jail dominated her approach creating a significant power imbalance between her and the Crown. [ 29 ] Based on the totality of the evidence I have concluded that the joint submission viewed by a reasonable and informed person

would be seen as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system. The proposed sentence, viewed through the lens of the individual circumstances of this offence and offender, is contrary to the public interest. Applying the direction of the Anthony-Cook decision the joint submission is rejected. THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE [ 30 ] This is a classic case of a young First Nations offender caught in a web of despair and hopelessness. Her background screams Gladue factors. In order to respect and apply s. 718.2 (

e) these factors must be recognized and applied in the crafting of a just sentence. I am satisfied that a jail sentence, served in custody or in the community, would not reflect the restraint mandated by these circumstances. [ 31 ] Ms. Adam has no criminal record. She has moved on and is attempting to better herself through education. In applying Gladue , I refer to the trilogy of cases decided by Chief Justice Richards ( R v Chanalquay , 2015 SKCA 141 , R v Slippery , 2015 SKCA 149 , and R v Peekeekoot , 2014 SKCA 97 ).

I refer to para 58 of Peekeekoot and specifically paras 40 and 41 of Chanalquay : [3] [40] First, systemic and background factors. In Ipeelee , the Supreme Court said these factors may speak to the culpability of an Aboriginal offender if they reveal something of his or her level of moral blameworthiness and, as a result, may affect the nature of an appropriate sentence ( Ipeelee at para 73). Systemic and background factors are, of course, not the only considerations which are relevant in determining an offender’s blameworthiness.

The sorts of factors that normally come into play on this front remain relevant to an assessment of the culpability of an Aboriginal offender. The circumstances of such an offender “which could reasonably and justifiably impact on the sentence imposed” may speak to his or her moral culpability to an extent which would lead to a different sort of sentence than what might normally be imposed for the same offence. But, there is no invariable rule on this front ( Ipeelee at para 71).

Sentences have to be determined on a case-by-case basis taking into account all relevant considerations ( Gladue at para 88 ). [41] The second and ultimately most important aspect of the Gladue framework that must be considered by a sentencing judge is the types of sanctions which might be appropriate. In this regard, and keeping in mind that the root purpose of s. 718.2 (

e) is to address the overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders in Canadian jails, a sentencing judge must carefully consider available alternatives to incarceration. Programming specific to an Aboriginal community may be particularly significant in this regard. However, the absence of programs and treatment aimed directly at Aboriginal offenders does not eliminate a judge’s obligation to consider a restorative justice approach. Such things as other kinds of programming or sentencing alternatives available to all offenders may also be helpful in crafting an effective sanction.

These restorative-type aspects of a sentence will normally be brought into play by way of the terms of a conditional sentence or probation order. [ 32 ] I have already referred to this offender’s background and how this did, in my view, reduce her moral blameworthiness. There is no evidence to show that she was involved in trafficking or benefitted from it. She was in an abusive relationship, as indicated in the pre-sentence report, she witnessed alcoholism and domestic abuse in her mother’s relationship. She left home at an early age.

This, I find, led directly to the dysfunctional relationship with Napope which continued and which reduces her culpability. It is apparent to me that she was threatened by Napope to participate in the charges of cocaine possession and attempt to obstruct justice. [ 33 ] This offender is well on her way to making changes in a positive way. She has been assessed as a low risk to re-offend, by the author of the pre-sentence report. Ms.

Martsinkiw, an experienced and respected probation officer, concludes the report by saying, at page 5: The subject is well on her way to making the necessary changes to live a crime free life. She needs to continue to be mindful of the people she associates with in her leisure time and recognize the negative impact crime has on others in general. The subject has no criminal record and has been assessed as a low risk to reoffend. Saskatchewan Community Corrections reporting standards are determined by a number of principles; the higher the risk, the more intensive is the corresponding programming and intervention.

Low risk offenders are typically not required to report and are generally not referred to programming. The writer has attached recommended conditions for a community based disposition. [ 34 ] Taking into account these circumstances and the six factors listed in s. 718 , including deterrence, denunciation, protection of the public and rehabilitation, I am satisfied that a suspended sentence with probation is the appropriate sentence. The sentence will be as follows: A .

In relation to the charge of willfully attempting to obstruct justice, this offender is sentenced to 12 months probation containing the mandatory conditions and the following optional conditions:

i. Report to a probation officer at 12 th Floor, 800 – Central Avenue, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, ph. (306) 953-2835 (toll free 1-800- 305-3888) within two working days and after that as told to do so by your officer or designate. ii. Reside at a residence approved by your probation officer and not change that residence without the prior written permission of your probation officer or designate or the Court. iii.

Stay inside your approved residence from 10:00 p.m. each night to 6:00 a.m. the next morning unless you have the prior written permission of your probation officer or the Court, or for employment purposes. iv. Not possess or consume alcohol. v. Not possess or consume drugs that have not been prescribed for you by a medical doctor. vi. Not enter or be in any place in which the main purpose is the sale of alcohol, such as bars or liquor stores. vii.

Participate in an assessment and complete programming for alcohol and drug treatment, which may include in-patient or out-patient treatment, as told to do so by your probation officer. viii. Participate in personal counselling as told to do so by your probation officer. ix. Complete 75 hours of community service work within the first 9 months as told to do so by your probation officer. x. Have no contact of any kind in any way, directly or indirectly, with Jade Napope. xi. Make all reasonable efforts to remain enrolled in an educational institute or employment as directed by your probation officer.

In addition, there will be a surcharge in the amount of $200.00 payable by April 1, 2017. B. In relation to the charge of possession of cocaine, she will be sentenced to a fine of $500.00 plus a 30% surcharge to be paid by April 1, 2017. C. In relation to the charge of breaching her undertaking by failing to appear in Court on July 15, 2014, she is sentenced to a fine in the amount of $100.00 plus a 30% surcharge to be paid by April 1, 2017. D.

In relation to the charge of breaching her recognizance by failing to abide by her curfew on January 31, 2016, she is sentenced to a fine in the amount of $100.00 plus a 30% surcharge to be paid by April 1, 2017. E. In relation to the charge of breaching her recognizance by failing to abide by her curfew on July 6, 2016, she is sentenced to a fine in the amount of $100.00 plus a 30% surcharge to be paid by April 1, 2017. Dated this 16 th day of January, A.D. 2017, at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. ________________________

H.M. Harradence, J