R. v. Chatur Date:, 2011 BCPC 67

Citation: R. v. Chatur Date: 20110316 2011 BCPC 0067 File No: 80546-2CR Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ALIF MADATALY CHATUR ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE BULLER BENNETT Counsel for the Crown: J. Fogel Counsel for the Accused: L.D. Meyers, Q.C. Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam, B.C. Date of Hearing: February 17, March 16, 2011 Date of Judgment: March 16, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Mr. Chatur is before me for sentencing on Information 80546-C2. After a preliminary inquiry was held in August and September of 2009, Mr.

Chatur re-elected and pleaded guilty to Count 3, a charge that on or about the 15th day of October 2008, at or near Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, he did, in committing an assault upon the complainant, Brian Merrill, did cause bodily harm to the complainant contrary to s. 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code . He pleaded guilty also to Count 4, that on or about the 15th day of October 2008, at or near Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, he did knowingly utter a threat to Brian Merrill to cause death or bodily harm to Brian Merrill and his family, contrary to s. 264.1(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] The circumstances of the offences are as follows: The offences arise out of a business relationship that soured. Mr. Chatur and some others invested large amounts of money in Mr. Merrill's helicopter parts business. Over a period of time, the business was not as successful as everyone had hoped. Eventually, Mr. Chatur locked Mr. Merrill and his daughter, who also worked for the business, out of the warehouse which was located in Maple Ridge, B.C. This building was the space used by the Merrills, Mr. Merrill and his daughter, to conduct the business. [ 3 ] On October 15th, 2008 Mr.

Chatur and another man went to the warehouse to meet a prospective customer and the Merrills. Mr. Chatur let everyone into the warehouse area. After the customer left, Mr. Chatur met with Mr. Merrill in the back area of the premises. Mr. Chatur struck Mr. Merrill in the left-hand side of his head. This blow broke Mr. Merrill's eardrum and he lost some hearing as a result. Mr. Merrill's lip was cut, as well. [ 4 ] The friend who had come with Mr. Chatur was with Ms. Merrill in the front of the premises. The friend, at Mr. Chatur's direction, brought Ms. Merrill into the back area. Then Mr.

Chatur put an electric drill to Mr. Merrill's forehead and pulled the trigger, making it spin. There was no injury as a result of this. However, Mr. Chatur put the drill down and said in everyone's hearing that he would kill Mr. Merrill's daughter and his wife and break Mr. Merrill's arms and legs so he could not work if the money was not repaid, the money being his investment in the business. [ 5 ] Those are the circumstances of the offences.

[ 6 ] Mr. Chatur is 35 years old. He came to Canada with his family from Nairobi, Kenya. Mr. Chatur finished Grade 12 and he has some post-secondary education. He has worked as a tow truck driver and he has gone on to own tow trucks of his own. He has a limousine business. He has operated this business for about eight years. [ 7 ] Mr. Chatur has the goal of becoming a paramedic and we have filed a certificate of his completion of the entry level paramedic course at the Justice Institute. He completed that course in February of this year. I understand from counsel that Mr.

Chatur will not be able to do this type of work, being a paramedic, with a record for violence. [ 8 ] Mr. Chatur looks after his grandmother, mother and older sister. He has had the same girlfriend for over ten years. Mr. Chatur has been very generous with charities. I have proof of his donations to several charities. [ 9 ] Mr. Chatur has a criminal record in the United States. In 1998, Mr. Chatur was convicted of conspiracy and what we call possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. His sentence was 57 months in jail and supervised release for three years. He was transferred to Canada in 1999.

In explaining the reason for this offence, Mr. Chatur said in court here that he was raised in poverty and saw the drug business as a way of getting out of poverty quickly. He also said that he realized what he did was wrong and since has made money the hard way, by working hard, continuing his education and making sacrifices. [ 10 ] Mr. Chatur has been seeing a therapist, Katherine Ouellette. In a letter dated February 10th, 2011, she writes, and I should state for the record the letter is directed to defence counsel.

She writes: I am writing in response to your request for clinical information on the above-named client. Of course, that is Mr. Chatur. Mr. Chatur self-referred to my practice and has been seeing me on a weekly basis since February 2008. At that time his motivation to seek counselling surrounding issues of anhedonia - a lack of joy in what by objective standards would be viewed as a successful life and no insight to any impediments to that missing joy. I am very familiar with the circumstances that now bring Mr.

Chatur before the court, as they occurred following his decision to undertake counselling and have often been the focus of our discussions. So while I was not retained to address the pathway of errors in this matter, I am conversant on the matter and prepared to share clinical insights. Mr. Chatur is an honourable man who has built a number of successful businesses by standards of excellence consistent with his personal ethos of integrity, humility and reciprocity. Mr.

Chatur's values the tenets of his Ismaili faith and works hard to practice the expectation that he be a solid family man, humanitarian and philanthropist. As with the passion put to use to achieve outstanding success, Mr. Chatur struggles collaterally with issues of perfection and control. Perfection and control are at the root of what prompted Mr. Chatur to counselling and not surprisingly also at the root of the pathway to the matter now before the court. I am of the opinion that a uniquely wrong event unfolded - almost the perfect storm - surrounding Mr.

Chatur accessing a place of unknown vulnerability in counselling, learning to surrender control/perfection and facing a transaction that he regarded as dishonourable and dishonest. In that moment, Mr. Chatur overreached to regain the control normally in place and hyper- expressed and over-reacted. Mr. Chatur was deeply shocked, disturbed and remorseful about his behaviour. To this end, counselling has focused on the triggers and pathway to egregious error, providing the tools necessary that it never occur again and constructively practising the behaviour changes. Mr.

Chatur has worked very sincerely to own this practice of personal change. In assessing for recidivism clinically we look to remorse, insight and patterning. Mr. Chatur convinces me that he is sincerely remorseful, accountable and evidences a global pattern of change. I therefore am of the opinion that Mr. Chatur is not at risk to repeat the inappropriate behaviour and think he will conduct his life in a manner commensurate to the other aspects of his success in life. [ 11 ] I note also that Mr. Chatur has been on bail for a considerable period of time.

There are no incidents with respect to his compliance with his bail conditions. In court on the date of submissions for sentencing, Mr. Chatur apologized genuinely to the court for what he did do. [ 12 ] Turning now to the submissions of counsel, Crown counsel pointed out that Mr. Chatur's criminal record is a serious one, but noted that it is an unrelated record. Crown counsel pointed out, also, that the offence was not premeditated or provoked, but it was not entirely impulsive either. Crown suggested that there be a conditional sentence order in the range of three to five months, with probation to follow.

Crown also seeks a five-year firearms prohibition under s. 110 of the Criminal Code and on Count 3 seeks the mandatory DNA order. Crown opposes a discharge, given the seriousness of the offences before me. [ 13 ] Defence counsel submitted that Mr. Chatur was actually the victim of some con artists, the Merrills, being Brian Merrill and his daughter, Caroline Merrill. They had done this sort of thing before. They had essentially conned investors into what was really a sham operation.

The Merrills did not immediately report this matter to the police and defence counsel says that they only came forward to the police to protect their own position in civil litigation. Defence counsel also submitted that this whole incident almost bankrupt Mr. Chatur. I understand the loss was somewhere in the range of $200,000. [ 14 ] After hearing the evidence at the preliminary inquiry, I cannot necessarily conclude that it was a fact that Mr. Chatur was a victim of con artists. I suppose that is something that is better left for another day.

It was clear, though, from the evidence at the preliminary inquiry that the Merrills did not immediately report this matter to the police. My check of their evidence shows that they said that they were too frightened to do so. I do not know whether they came forward to protect their position in civil litigation, but I do know that there is civil litigation pending. [ 15 ] Defence counsel did submit that there was no premeditation or provocation and I think that that is an accurate characterization of

the situation. Defence counsel characterized the situation as Mr. Chatur simply "boiling over". That is certainly in accordance with whatMs. Ouellette has written, as well. I think that that is a proper characterization. [16] Defence counsel has pointed out too that Mr. Chatur has demonstrated good character for many years. Defence asks me toconsider a conditional discharge and asks me to consider the overriding principle of public interest and how to best define that. [17] Both counsel referred to several decisions.

I do not have them in any particular order other than in the order that they werereferred to by counsel. [18] The first is R. v. Minty. The citation I have is [1999] Carswell B.C. 243, a decision of Justice Errico in the Supreme Court. Thefacts briefly are this: Mr. Minty was suspicious of his wife's fidelity to him. Mr. Minty came home unexpectedly from working in alogging camp. He entered the family bedroom with an axe handle. He found his wife in bed with the other man. [19] After trial, Mr. Minty was convicted of assaulting and threatening his wife and assaulting the other man with a weapon. At trialMr.

Minty was found to have planned the offence and the court considered the seriousness of the offences. Mr. Minty did not have acriminal record for violence. [20] The pre-sentence report suggested that Mr. Minty was still not accepting the fact that he was not justified in taking the action hedid in all of the circumstances. There was a global sentence of five months in jail and probation for two years. Mr. Minty's appeal ofsentence was dismissed. I take it this was a

summary conviction appeal. [21] At paragraph 13 the court stated: With respect to the sentence appeal, I have received letters of character reference not available to the trial judge. As well, since theconviction, the appellant has successfully completed courses in navigation and marine emergency duties which entitle him to be askipper on a fishing vessel or mate on a coastal shipping vessel. Although praiseworthy, I do not think these developments should havean impact on sentence as the appellant was a person with a lawful occupation at the time of the imposition of sentence. [22] And that is at paragraph 13.

I will come back to that later in my decision. [23] The next is R. v. Boomhour. The citation is [2005] Carswell Ontario 10210 Ontario Court of Justice. Boomhour was a policeofficer. He was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and threatening. The complainant was his mother. Boomhour did not have acriminal record. On appeal, the 90-day jail sentence was reduced to 30 days. There was, of course, probation to follow. The appealcourt, in this case the Court of Justice, considered the effect of and the difficulty of incarceration and those factors were not consideredby the trial judge.

So, the jail sentence was reduced to 30 days. [24] The next case is R. v. Marley. The citation is [2006] Carswell, New Brunswick Reports 249, New Brunswick Court of Appeal. There were two co-accused but in this case referring to Marley, there was a guilty plea after two months in custody. Marley did not havea criminal record and the co-accused did not have a criminal record either. [25] I will just read directly from the headnote: Marley was charged with causing a disturbance by shouting and using obscene language, assault with weapon, uttering death threats andresisting arrest. Marley was a first-offender.

After spending slightly more than two months in jail on remand, both pleaded guilty to allcharges. Each was sentenced to 12 months in jail followed by probation for 30 months for the assault and two consecutive terms of fourmonths in jail for uttering death threats and one month concurrent for resisting arrest and causing a disturbance. Appeal allowed in part. Marley was sentence to time served for assault with weapon. Sentence for uttering death threats was varied tofour months concurrent.

Trial judge erred in principle by failing to take into account time accused spent in jail on remand, accused'sguilty pleas and accused's youth, Marley's lack of any criminal record... [26] And then there is reference to the co-accused. [27] The next case is R. v. Jimenez. The citation is [1999] O. J. No. 1847, Ontario Court of Justice General Division. The offencewas assault causing bodily harm. Mr. Jimenez punched a man in the mouth after some disagreement in a bar. The court found that Mr.Jimenez used more force than was necessary to defend himself. Mr.

Jimenez was found guilty after trial and sentenced to eight monthsjail. There was also an order for restitution in the amount of almost $10,000. [28] On appeal, the court set out that Mr. Jimenez was 23 years old, he was a promising baseball player. He was married and had athree-year-old daughter. On appeal, the court imposed a conditional discharge with six months probation, restitution was lowered toreflect the actual costs of dental work, amongst other things required, and the restitution then was set at about $5,000. [29] On appeal the court did find that there was some provocation by the complainant.

There was no premeditation. The act wasimpulsive. Mr. Jimenez immediately expressed remorse and, as I stated, the court imposed a conditional discharge on appeal. [30] The next is R. v. Vandewalle. The citation is [1998] O.J. No. 5312, a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice General Division. Vandewalle was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm. The court did find some provocation. The offence involved three or morepunches to the face. Mr. Vandewalle was a transport driver who travelled on a regular basis to the United States.

Going to paragraph 10,I will read in the decision: Although the occasion is rare, the law does not prohibit the granting of a conditional discharge even when relatively serious bodily harmresults from an assault. See Regina v. Wood (ON CA), 1975 24 C.C.C. (2d), 79 at 80 and Regina v. Gilpin 1975, 36C.R.N.S. 363 at 364. The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized in each of those cases that when the circumstances of a violent offence andthe circumstances of the offender warranted it, an exception was available. This offender was a 25 year old well-employed first offender,

whose employment may well have been prejudiced by the registration of a conviction. The trial judge in deciding that the circumstancesof this offence warranted an exception for this offender directed his mind to the appropriate criteria and imposed a discharge withsignificant conditions. He made no error. For all of these reasons this appeal by the Crown is dismissed. [31] The next decision is R. v. Grewal [2009] Surrey Registry No. 1600182C, a decision of my colleague, Judge Wingham, on April16th, 2009. Grewal pleaded guilty to assault.

Also, as in this case, it was a business deal that went sour, however the business involvedimporting contraband. Judge Wingham considered whether the offence warranted the registration of a conviction. Grewal had takentraining to be a realtor. There were documents in court that confirmed that. [32] Judge Wingham concluded and accepted the submissions of counsel that Mr. Grewal could not do that type of work if he had acriminal record, Judge Wingham concluded that the public interest was best served by making sure that Mr. Grewal was employable as arealtor, therefore, without a criminal record.

Judge Wingham went on to impose a nine-month conditional discharge with certainconditions. [33] Those are the first group of cases referred to. I will come back to them in my decision. [34] Of course, the relevant sections of the Criminal Code are s. 718 and the sections that immediately follow. I have reviewed thosecarefully. I will not read them into the record in the interests of time. [35] In the matter before me, there are aggravating circumstances. I see those aggravating circumstances as follows: first of all, theseare serious charges and the Crown has proceeded by indictment.

The circumstances of the -- [36] MR. FOGEL: Sorry, Your Honour. [37] THE COURT: Thank you. [38] MR. FOGEL: The Crown had re-elected to, with my learned friend's consent, on September 29th, to proceed summarily. [39] THE COURT: That is right. Thank you very much. Yes. And the Crown has proceeded summarily on these charges. Thankyou. [40] The circumstances of the offences are serious in and of themselves. Mr. Merrill suffered bodily harm. His eardrum waspunctured and he lost hearing as a result. In the course of the threat, a drill was held to his head.

Not only was the threat to injure Mr.Merrill but also to kill Mr. Merrill's wife and his daughter. Both Mr. Merrill and his daughter were terrified by these incidents and, ofcourse, that was the intent. [41] These offences arose out of a business deal or in the business context. There are so many other legal options available for reliefin these circumstances. Many involve going to court, many do not. [42] Mr. Chatur does have a criminal record. It is dated.

However, it is for a serious offence and I note that the terms of the record orthe terms of the sentence were for a total period of - I just want to make sure I have this correctly - approximately eight years. The jailsentence was 57 months with supervised release to follow for three years. [43] In fairness to Mr. Chatur, there are mitigating circumstances. He did plead guilty after a preliminary inquiry and the Crown didproceed summarily. There was no premeditation. There is, in my view, a significant gap in his criminal record. There are no incidentsof concern or any incidents for that matter, regarding Mr.

Chatur's release on bail. Mr. Chatur has apologized for his actions. [44] He has a stable family. He is known for his philanthropy and he started counselling some three years ago for his own personalrehabilitation. I accept that Mr. Chatur has made progress in his personal counselling. I also accept that the actions were out ofcharacter. Nonetheless, Mr. Chatur is still responsible for what he did do in October of 2008. [45] In my view, the principles of sentencing that would have to be particularly addressed are those of general deterrence anddenunciation.

In my view, the cases I have already referred to are distinguishable on their facts. The cases involve different charges anddifferent circumstances of offences and offenders. However, they do show the range of sentences available to the court. [46] Turning now to whether Mr. Chatur should receive a conviction or a conditional discharge for these offences, I have beenreferred to the following cases: first, R. v. Small, 2001 BCCA 91 , [2001] B.C.J. No. 248. Mr. Small pleaded guilty toproduction of marihuana. The circumstances are that he was selling the marihuana he produced to the B.C.

Compassion Club Societybelow market value. It is noteworthy that he had a prior absolute discharge for the same offence. [47] On this occasion, however, Mr. Small was given a conditional discharge for 12 months. The court took into consideration thematter that the marihuana was being produced to the society below market value but also noted the profit aspect of the offence. [48] The next is R. v. Fournier. It is a decision of my colleague, Judge Ferbey on July 27th, 2009. It is Vancouver File No.1820354C2. After trial, Mr. Fournier pleaded guilty to trafficking in ecstasy to an undercover operator at a rave. Mr.

Fournier had twoprior threatening matters. For the first threatening, he received an absolute discharge. For the second threatening, he received aconditional discharge. Judge Ferbey found, amongst other things, that the record was dated and unrelated. She imposed an 18-monthconditional discharge. [49] The next is R. v. Ahmed, [2006] B.C.J. No. 1854, a decision of my colleague, Judge Hicks. After a trial on charges of dangerousdriving and obstruction, Judge Hicks found on obstruction - and I will just read some aspects of that case into the record. At paragraph 6,Judge Hicks wrote:

The Crown notes that this offence is at the relatively lower end of the scale of seriousness in respect to offences of this nature. Hisidentification was eventually confirmed and he was not released with the police under a misapprehension as to who he was. However, hetook an active step to conceal his identity from the police. [50] At paragraph 5, Judge Hicks wrote: The Crown has tendered Mr. Ahmed's record.

It is as follows: (youth record deleted); in 1997 at New Westminster he was convicted ofrobbery and sentenced to three months; in 2000 in Surrey he was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams ofalcohol in his blood and fined $600; in 2001, November, he was convicted of possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000 andreceived a 60-day sentence, from what I can make out on the report filed. [51] At paragraph 20 Judge Hicks wrote: I have a discretion to exercise.

I take from these decisions and Fallofield, that the past record does not preclude a judicious considerationof the discharge provisions. Were Mr. Ahmed to appear for sentencing without immigration implications, it is unlikely I would hear asubmission for a conditional discharge.

It is the immigration implication which impacts here, considering his past record, but I take itfrom the cases that I must consider all of the factors which relate to him, including the implications of a discharge on his immigrationstatus or a conviction on his immigration status, when deciding whether it should be utilized in this case. [52] At paragraph 23 Judge Hicks went on: I am satisfied that the principles enunciated in Fallofield and other cases allow me to conclude that it is not contrary to Mr.

Ahmed'sinterest that he be conditionally discharged, nor I am satisfied is it contrary to the community interest in these circumstances that thatoccur. [53] I am sorry. That was paragraph 24. At paragraph 23 - I have got these out of order - Judge Hicks wrote: The offence before me is relatively at the low end of the seriousness scale and its circumstances similarly are at the low end of that scale,but potential implications to conviction I am advised are serious, although not a bar. [54] I have also been referred to the decision of R. v. MacCormack (NB CA), [2000] N.B.J.

No. 24, I am justgoing to state for the record that this involved impaired driving charges. Mr. MacCormack did have a criminal record, but the court tooka curative approach to sentencing in this case and did impose a conditional discharge for a further impaired driving conviction. [55] Going back to the analysis required for a conditional discharge, in my view in this case these are serious offences and seriouscircumstances. They are not at the lower end of the seriousness scale as referred to in Ahmed.

The serious aggravating circumstancesoutweigh the mitigating. [56] In my view a conditional discharge would not adequately address general deterrence and denunciation. Therefore, a conditionaldischarge would not be in the public interest. [57] I bear in mind certainly it would be in Mr.

Chatur's own interest not to have a conviction, especially given his desire to be alicensed paramedic; however, I note, as referred to in a previous case, he had lawful employment other than that of a paramedic at thetime that he committed the offences and at the time that he is before me for sentencing. [58] In my view, balancing both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, jail is the only fit sentence because in my view,deterrence and denunciation and ultimately the public interest are best served when there is a clear message that violence and threats ofviolence are taken seriously by the courts. [59] Turning now to the analysis required for a conditional sentence order, of course the sentence is less than two years.

Mr. Chaturhas done well on bail and I give considerable weight given to the letter written by Ms. Ouellette. I conclude that Mr. Chatur is at a lowrisk to re-offend. In my view, with the appropriate conditions, a conditional sentence order can address the principles of denunciationand deterrence. [60] Therefore, there will be a conditional sentence of five months on both counts to be concurrent with each other and these are theconditions that I am imposing under the conditional sentence order. Of course, Mr. Chatur, you have to keep the peace and be of goodbehaviour.

You will have to report by 12:00 noon tomorrow, March 17th, 2011, to a supervisor in this building and report thereafter asand when directed by your supervisor. You will remain within the Province of British Columbia unless written permission to go outsideof the province is obtained from your supervisor.

You will notify your supervisor in advance of any change of name or address andpromptly notify your supervisor of any change of employment or occupation. [61] You must have no contact directly or indirectly with Brian Merrill or Caroline Merrill or any members of their immediate family. [62] You must not have in your possession any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code, including any knives unless for theimmediate preparation or consumption of food, for the purposes of employment while at your place of employment or any firearm,crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance or anyauthorizations or registrations held by you until dealt with according to law. [63] You must abstain absolutely from the consumption and possession of alcohol or any non-prescription drugs or substancesreferred to in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for which you do not have a prescription.

You must attend for and accept suchcounselling as directed by your supervisor, including but not limited to psychiatric and psychological counselling. [64] You must obey a curfew as follows: you will remain continuously within your residence between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and7:00 a.m. seven days per week. You may be outside of your residence during those hours only with the written permission of your

supervisor and only for compelling personal reasons. You must carry that written permission with you at all times when you are outside of your residence during your curfew.

You must present yourself at the door of your residence if any police officer or your supervisor knocks on your door of your residence to determine compliance with this order. [ 65 ] Under the direction of and to the satisfaction of your supervisor, you will participate in the electronic monitoring program. [ 66 ] Also, by the end of the fourth month of this order, you will have completed 40 hours of community work service. [ 67 ] Those are the terms on the conditional sentence order. [ 68 ] On both matters also concurrent with each other there will be probation to follow for a period of 12 months.

During that time, of course, you have to keep the peace and be of good behaviour; report to court when required to do so. You will have no contact directly or indirectly with Brian Merrill, Caroline Merrill or any member of their immediate family.

Those are the terms on the probation order. [ 69 ] Also, on Count 3 only there will be the mandatory DNA order and that will be through the Ridge Meadows detachment and that will be completed on Tuesday, March 22nd, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and there will be also on both counts a five- year firearms prohibition under s. 110 of the Criminal Code . [ 70 ] THE CLERK: That was five-year, Your Honour? [ 71 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 72 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 73 ] MR. FOGEL: Your Honour, just to address the no contact on both the CSO and the probation order -- [ 74 ] THE COURT: Yes? [ 75 ] MR.

FOGEL: -- I had asked that there be an exception except indirect contact via counsel for the purposes of any civil matters that are outstanding. [ 76 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 77 ] MR. FOGEL: Because he does have the -- [ 78 ] THE COURT: That is still ongoing, yes. Okay. Certainly, we will add those exceptions to both orders, Madam Registrar, except indirect contact through counsel. And I will just leave it at that. [ 79 ] THE CLERK: Leave it at that? Okay. [ 80 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 81 ] MR. MYERS: If I may, Your Honour? [ 82 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 83 ] MR.

MYERS: Is that curfew to extend throughout the period of this conditional sentence order? [ 84 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 85 ] MR. MYERS: And would you allow an exception for lawful employment purposes? He has a limousine service and sometimes he is called out to assist with breakdown of vehicles and things of that sort. [ 86 ] THE COURT: For the next four months he is going to have to make other arrangements. [ 87 ] MR. FOGEL: I'm sorry, Your Honour? You said four months. Did you mean five months? [ 88 ] THE COURT: Oh, it is five months. Yes. Five months CSO.

He will have to make other arrangements for that. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)