R. v. Stave Lake Quarries Inc. Date:, 2016 BCPC 377

Citation: R. v. Stave Lake Quarries Inc. Date: 20161027 2016 BCPC 377 File No: 82342-1 Registry: Abbotsford/Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. STAVE LAKE QUARRIES INC. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE R. HAMILTON Counsel for the Crown: John Ahern and Brian McKinley Counsel for the Defendant: Gavin Cameron Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 24, 2016 Date of Judgment: October 27, 2016

INTRODUCTION [1] On May 17, 2007 Kelsey Ann Kristian was killed at work when a rock hauler she had been operating rolled over and crushedher to death. [2] The Defendant, Stave Lake Quarries Inc. (“SLQ”), was Ms. Kristian’s employer. [3] On July 11, 2016 SLQ entered a guilty plea to one count of criminal negligence causing Ms. Kristian’s death.

By entering itsguilty plea, SLQ acknowledged that, through one or more of its senior officers, the company showed wanton or reckless disregard forKelsey’s life. [4] I heard sentencing submissions on Monday October 24, 2016 and reserved my sentencing decision until today. [5] The Crown and Defence advance a joint submission on sentence and urge me to impose a $100,000 fine plus the mandatory15% victim fine surcharge for a total penalty of $115,000.

SLQ proposes to pay $50,000 immediately and SLQ will pay the balance of$65,000 over the next eighteen months. [6] On Friday October 21, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued its reasons in R. v. Anthony-Cook 2016 SCC 43 ,2016 S.C.C. 43 which provides guidance to judges in circumstances where they are considering a joint submission on sentence. For thereasons that follow, and with the guidance of the Anthony-Cook decision, I am not going to depart from the proposed joint submission onsentence. BACKGROUND [7] Ms. Kristian started working for SLQ the day before she died.

She was 22 years old. [8] At the time, SLQ operated a rock quarry in Mission, British Columbia. [9] The manager of the rock quarry operation was James Derek Holmes (“Derek Holmes”). The gravel pit supervisor for SLQ wasGarry Glen Klassen. Both Derek Holmes and Mr. Klassen were named as defendants in the original Indictment. [10] Mr. Klassen knew Kelsey, was a friend of her family, and introduced Kelsey to Barry Holmes, one of the owners of SLQ, aweek or two before SLQ hired Kelsey. Barry Holmes is Derek Holmes father. [11] Mr. Klassen made the decision to hire Kelsey as a rock hauler operator.

There is no evidence that SLQ requested, or Kelseyprovided, a copy of her resume prior to being hired by SLQ. [12] At the time SLQ hired Kelsey she had no prior training or experience operating large trucks. She had been a licenced driver forsix years. She possessed a class five licence and was not licenced to operate vehicles equipped with air brakes on public roadways.

While there was nothing preventing Kelsey from operating vehicles equipped with air brakes on private land, (and SLQ’s rock quarrywas on private land), she had no experience driving trucks with air brakes. [13] May 16, 2007 was Kelsey’s first day of work. A few days earlier, Kelsey attended the rock quarry and Mr. Klassen providedher with an orientation of the job site. [14] On May 16, 2007, Mr. Klassen assigned Kelsey’s training on how to operate the rock hauler to Rod Schaible, an SLQ employeewith plenty of experience driving large trucks.

Kelsey’s training consisted of her occupying the passenger seat and watching Mr.Schaible drive the truck, followed by Kelsey driving the truck under Mr. Schaible’s supervision. [15] It was Mr. Schaible’s understanding that his task was to instruct Kelsey on the operation of the rock hauler. He was not taskedwith reviewing site orientation and general safety matters with Kelsey. [16] During his time spent with Kelsey on May 16, 2007 and possibly part of the morning on May 17, 2007, Mr. Schaible reviewedthe following with her:

a) performing a pre-check of the truck regarding grease, oil, and brake checks;

b) using the pre-check checklist that was in a binder in the rock hauler; and

c) using the air brakes, parking brakes, and tire chocks. Chocks are typically wooden blocks placed in front of, or behind, the tires of atruck to prevent the truck from either rolling forward or backward depending on the grade or slope where the truck is parked. [17] I wish to emphasize that Kelsey’s entire training at the start of her work for SLQ consisted of driving with, and driving for, Mr.Schaible, along with whatever oral instruction Mr. Schaible passed along to Kelsey. [18] This training lasted for one day and possibly included a part of the morning on the day she died.

It bears repeating that whenKelsey was hired and trained she was a 22 year-old novice truck driver. She had never driven a large multi-ton truck and was notlicenced to drive a vehicle equipped with air brakes on public roads. Her trainer, Mr. Schaible, was not in the habit of engaging theparking brake in the rock hauler as he drove the truck during the day. As well, the rock hauler was not equipped with tire chocks, so Mr.Schaible’s practice was to chock the tires with large rocks. [19] Mr. Schaible did not utilize or give to Kelsey any books, manuals, or similar written materials.

Kelsey did not read the SLQSafety Manual, an operating manual for the truck, nor was she tested by anyone to confirm her understanding and knowledge of how to

safely operate the rock hauler. [ 20 ] Mr. Schaible did not instruct Kelsey to go through the full parking procedure on her own so that he could be sure she understood the use of the parking brake and tire chocks correctly. However, both Mr. Schaible and Mr. Klassen say they told Kelsey to engage the parking brake whenever she left the cab of the rock hauler. [ 21 ] After her day of training with Mr. Schaible or partway through her second day, Mr. Klassen asked Mr. Schaible if Kelsey was ready to operate the rock hauler. Mr. Schaible told Mr. Klassen that she was ready. Mr.

Klassen did not take Kelsey for a test drive to check for himself that Kelsey knew what she was doing in the cab of her rock hauler. Kelsey died the very next day or later the same day. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF KELSEY’S TRAGIC DEATH [ 22 ] My recitation of the facts of Kelsey’s tragic death comes largely from an Agreed Statement of Facts filed by the Crown and counsel for SLQ at this sentencing hearing. [ 23 ] On the afternoon of May 17, 2007, Kelsey’s second day on the job, she was operating a rock hauler, a Caterpillar 769B, at SLQ’s rock quarry. The rock hauler Kelsey was operating was a very large vehicle.

Empty, it weighed 60,000 pounds or 30 tons. It had the capacity to carry 35 tons of weight. For obvious reasons, it would be vitally important for the safety of everyone at the worksite to be certain that Kelsey knew how to securely and safely park the rock hauler. If a 30 ton truck left unattended began to roll down a hill on the worksite, there would likely be, and in this case there were, fatal consequences. [ 24 ] On the day in question, Kelsey was assigned an entry level task and was working directly with Mr. Klassen.

Kelsey’s task was to back up the rock hauler under an excavator to be loaded and then she was to drive in a straight line to the rock crusher, unload her cargo, and drive back again for another load. [ 25 ] During the afternoon of May 17, 2007, Mr. Klassen’s excavator broke down. Mr. Klassen had to leave the job site to obtain replacement parts so he instructed Kelsey to cease working as the operation was “done for the day.” Kelsey, however, did not park her rock hauler for the day when instructed to do so by Mr.

Klassen. [ 26 ] Eventually, due to the general work shut down at the SLQ rock quarry, Kelsey parked her rock hauler. She parked the truck near the top of a slope - a 10% grade hill. [ 27 ] Kelsey did not chock the tires of her rock hauler; the vehicle was not supplied with tire chocks and she did not use large rocks as was Mr. Schaible’s practice. Kelsey turned off the engine and did not engage the parking brake.

The vehicle was secured in its position on this slope only by the air brakes. [ 28 ] Because the truck engine was not running the air pressure in the air brakes bled off and, with nothing else holding the truck securely in place, the 30 ton rock hauler began to roll down the slope where it was parked. [ 29 ] Kelsey hung onto the driver’s door attempting to get into the cab of the truck to regain control of the vehicle. She encountered difficulty opening the driver’s door as it was secured with a bungee cord because the door handle was missing.

As the rock hauler continued down the slope, its passenger side tires ascended a berm, causing the truck to roll over on its left side crushing Kelsey under its weight. She survived for twenty minutes before dying at the scene. [ 30 ] An employee of SLQ, Bill Galuska, said he was working about 100 feet from where Kelsey had parked the rock hauler. He witnessed the whole tragic event that took Kelsey’s life.

He called for help and SLQ’s first aid attendant administered futile assistance under the guidance of emergency services who attended the scene. [ 31 ] It is important to note at this point that May 17, 2007 was the first time Kelsey had operated the rock hauler on her own and had parked the truck on her own. None of SLQ’s experienced senior officers, managers, or in fact anyone else, double checked to make sure that Kelsey had properly and safely secured her rock hauler. [ 32 ] A very cursory look around the rock hauler would have revealed Kelsey’s failure to chock the tires.

A quick look into the cab of the rock hauler would have revealed that she had failed to engage the parking brake. These lapses in the supervision of a new employee who was entrusted with the operation of a vehicle she had never driven alone and with air brakes she had no experience with are difficult to comprehend. Indeed the rock hauler was improperly parked for one-and-a-half to two hours before it began to roll down the slope, leading to this tragic accident. But it happened, and Kelsey died paying the ultimate human price for the defendant’s criminal negligence.

SLQ’S SAFETY RECORD PRIOR TO MAY 17, 2007 [ 33 ] Prior to May 17, 2007, SLQ had never been charged with, or convicted of, a criminal or regulatory offence. [ 34 ] From the 1990s and onwards, SLQ’s operations were regularly inspected by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and it had an exemplary record with no recorded infractions for poor training or supervision of employees. [ 35 ] In January, 2004, the Ministry of Energy and Mines recognized that SLQ had operated the rock quarry for the prior ten years in a safe manner with no lost time accidents. [ 36 ] As well, after reviewing the statements taken from the SLQ workers in relation to this incident they reveal no specific allegations of safety complaints being made and ignored.

WHAT HAS SLQ DONE SINCE MAY 17, 2007?

[ 37 ] In 2007, as a result of a number of fatalities at rock quarry operations in British Columbia and further reports of dangerous occurrences, the British Columbia government engaged with the industry to develop improved safety practices at rock quarries throughout the province. This process led to the creation of a “Best Practices Guide.” [ 38 ] Since May 17, 2007, no serious accidents or injuries have occurred at SLQ’s workplace. In response to the Best Practices Guide, SLQ implemented better record keeping and training practices.

SLQ developed a written Employee Orientation checklist and implemented a new practice ensuring that all employees at the rock quarry site receive the company’s Safety Manual and sign an acknowledgement stating that they have read that manual. [ 39 ] At the time of Kelsey’s death, SLQ had a Safety Manual which, as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, contains many statements of SLQ’s commitment to the safety of everyone working at the rock quarry. It is not clear if Kelsey received a copy of this Safety Manual.

If she did, she could not have absorbed its contents, the contents of the rock hauler operation manual, as well as the contents of the Health, Safety, and Reclamation Code that, along with the Mines Act, governed the operation of gravel pits in British Columbia at the time that Kelsey died given the sheer volume of those materials. DISCUSSION A. Corporate Criminal Liability [ 40 ]

Section 219 of the Criminal Code establishes the offence of criminal negligence.

Section 219 operating in concert with sections 22.1 and 217.1 of the Criminal Code establish the legal basis for charging a corporation with the offence of criminal negligence. These latter Criminal Code provisions arose out of the federal government’s response to the Westray Mine disaster that cost a number of miners their lives working in an unsafe mine.

The government passed Bill C-45 which brought into effect Criminal Code amendments that clarified the legal basis for finding a corporation guilty of criminal negligence and enhanced the factors a court is to consider when imposing a sentence on a corporation. [ 41 ] However, since the Criminal Code amendments there have been only two reported cases in Canada where a corporation has been convicted of criminal negligence causing death. I will briefly review those two cases below, but it is clear that corporate criminal liability for criminal negligence causing death is a very rare crime.

Most cases addressing harm caused to, or the loss of life of, workers is dealt with under the regulatory schemes in each of the provinces and territories. [ 42 ] In this case, SLQ entered a guilty plea acknowledging its responsibility for Kelsey’s death. In light of the guilty plea I do not propose to discuss the basis for SLQ’s guilt in this case at any great length. [ 43 ] Both the Crown and counsel for SLQ submitted that SLQ’s guilt in this case is founded upon the combined effect of SLQ’s hiring, training, and supervision of Kelsey at the rock quarry. No one individual was responsible for this tragic death.

Rather, the lack of a rigorous system in hiring, training, and supervising Kelsey lies at the heart of SLQ’s guilt in this crime. SLQ’s guilty plea is an acknowledgement of, and

an act of taking responsibility for, those lapses which directly caused Kelsey’s death. B. Position of the Parties [ 44 ] As I have indicated earlier, both parties have put forward a joint submission as to a fit and proper sentence to be imposed in this case. The joint submission is for a fine in the amount of $100,000 plus the mandatory victim fine surcharge of 15% which was the applicable surcharge in 2007 when this crime was committed. C.

Sentencing Principles [ 45 ] I start my discussion of the applicable sentencing principles by pointing out that criminal negligence causing death is one of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code . An individual convicted of this crime faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. With respect to corporations found guilty of this crime, there is no upper limit on the amount of the fine that can be imposed (s. 735(1)(a)). [ 46 ] The primary sentencing principle to consider in a case such as this is general deterrence.

The penalty imposed by the court must send a strong message to companies who operate unsafe businesses that if those working conditions result in harm to, or the death of, an employee, the consequences for the company will be severe. The fine imposed must be so significant that it cannot be considered simply as a cost of doing business. Other important sentencing principles to keep in mind are specific deterrence and denunciation.

The guilty corporation must be stopped from ever committing the crime again, and the sentence should send the message that society cannot tolerate corporations that employ workers in working conditions that are so unsafe that they can lead to bodily harm or death. [ 47 ] Bill C-45 also introduced specific sentencing principles to keep in mind when sentencing a corporation for committing a crime (s. 718.21).

In considering the ten factors a sentencing court should bear in mind when sentencing a corporation, I make the following points. [ 48 ] There is no evidence that SLQ realized any advantage in the criminal circumstances that led to Kelsey’s death (718.21(a)). [ 49 ] There was no degree of planning by SLQ in committing this offence.

Rather this is more an offence of omission rather than commission (718.21(b)). [ 50 ] There is no evidence that SLQ has tried to conceal its assets in order to show that it cannot pay a fine (718.21(c)). [ 51 ] I have not been told that the proposed fine jointly submitted by the Crown and SLQ in this case will adversely impact SLQ’s economic viability or the continued employment of its employees (718.21(d)). [ 52 ] I am unaware of the cost of the investigation and prosecution in this case.

But what I do know is that SLQ’s guilty plea has saved the public the substantial cost of an eight or nine week trial, which could have lasted even longer than that (718.21(e)).

[ 53 ] I am not aware of any regulatory penalty that was imposed upon SLQ arising out of this offence (718.21(f)). [ 54 ] The factors set out in s. 718.21(

g) to (

i) have no application in this case. [ 55 ] And lastly, SLQ has taken steps since May 17, 2007 to improve the workplace safety of its employees and to ensure that new employees are well acquainted with all of the safety protocols in place at the rock quarry (718.21(j)). D. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances [ 56 ] I turn first to the aggravating factors. The facts of this case, in my view, are an aggravating feature. SLQ’s conduct amounted to a marked and substantial departure from what Kelsey was entitled to expect in terms of her safety at the rock quarry.

There was a near total absence of any safety precautions put in place to ensure Kelsey’s safety: • It is not clear if Kelsey was given the Safety Manual to read. • Kelsey was taught how to drive the rock hauler by Mr. Schaible who did not engage the parking brake when parking the truck during the day. • The rock hauler had no tire chocks. • Nobody checked to see if this new employee with no experience driving large trucks had safely parked the rock hauler when work shut down for the day on May 17, 2007.

A momentary check of the rock hauler would have disclosed that Kelsey had not safely parked the truck. [ 57 ] The absence of any one of the last three inherently dangerous factors would have been a very simple solution to the safety problem posed by the improperly parked rock hauler and would likely have saved Kelsey’s life. [ 58 ] The other aggravating factor in this case is that SLQ stood in a position of authority as Kelsey’s employer. Kelsey was in no position to dictate safety protocols at her new job. She was entitled to rely on her employer to provide a safe worksite.

SLQ failed in its duty to Kelsey and she paid with her life. [ 59 ] Turning to the mitigating factors, there are three and they are significant. [ 60 ] First, SLQ had no record of any safety infractions or disciplinary actions taken against it for operating an unsafe worksite. SLQ had no criminal record. [ 61 ] Second, SLQ has entered a guilty plea. The importance of this mitigating factor cannot be overstated.

By acknowledging that it committed this crime and by taking responsibility for its failings leading to Kelsey’s death, SLQ has spared all the former employees, managers, and directors from the trauma of having to live through this tragedy again by coming to court to testify at a trial. SLQ’s guilty plea has spared Kelsey’s family of having to listen, again, to the tragedy that took her life. [ 62 ] SLQ’s guilty plea has brought certainty to the end of this proceeding and has spared the public the significant cost of a very lengthy trial. SLQ’s guilt in this case was by no means a certainty.

There were constitutional challenges arising from the delay in bringing this case to court which would have been nearly ten years when the trial was scheduled to start in February, 2017. While it is not for me to determine the merits of those Charter challenges, SLQ’s guilty plea has disposed of those applications which would have occupied considerable court time. [ 63 ] Third, SLQ has taken remedial steps to improve the safety protocols at its rock quarry. There have been no further reports of injured workers since May 17, 2007. E.

Prior Case Law [ 64 ] As I have indicated above there are only two other reported cases of a corporation being found guilty of criminal negligence causing death. [ 65 ] The first of those cases is R. v. Transpave Inc. 2008 QCCQ 1598 out of the Court of Quebec. The decision is only available in French so I have been unable to read the decision, but the Crown and SLQ prepared a joint book of authorities that included a

summary of the case which is sufficient for my purposes. [ 66 ] The accident in Transpave involved the death of an employee who was crushed by some heavy machinery when he tried to remove a blockage in the machine. At the time of the death, the machine was equipped with a safety device that had been disabled and Transpave did not have an adequate program to ensure the safety device was operational.

As well, Transpave’s safety and hazardous awareness training was inadequate. [ 67 ] Transpave entered a guilty plea and the sentencing judge fined the company $100,000 plus an additional victim fine surcharge of $10,000. The fine the trial judge imposed was in keeping with a joint submission by the parties. [ 68 ] I am not privy to any of the legal analysis developed by the judge in discussing the charges against Transpave. [ 69 ] The only other reported case on this topic is R. v.

Metron Construction Corp. 2013 ONCA 541 which was a Crown appeal of a sentence imposed following a guilty plea by Metron to a charge of criminal negligence causing death. [ 70 ] Briefly, Metron was hired to replace some concrete balconies on two high-rise buildings. Late in the afternoon on December 24, 2009, a number of workers on one of the high-rise buildings were to be lowered to the ground on a swing-stage - a platform that carries workers and that is raised and lowered by cables. The swing-stage in question in Metron was designed to carry only two people

at a time. The swing-stage had two lifelines which were safety devices that would prevent the workers from falling to the ground in the event they fell off the swing-stage. [ 71 ] At 4:30pm on December 24, 2009 the site supervisor for Metron along with five other workers all boarded this swing-stage. Only two workers were connected to the lifelines. The swing-stage failed as it was not designed to carry the weight of the six people and all of their equipment. The site supervisor and three workers who were not connected to the lifelines fell to their deaths.

Toxicology exams of the deceased revealed that two of the workers and the site supervisor had traces of marijuana in their systems. [ 72 ] The sentencing judge imposed a fine of $200,000.

The Crown had sought a $1,000,000 fine and Metron had sought a $100,000 fine. [ 73 ] During his analysis of the case, the sentencing judge considered fines that had been imposed in regulatory proceedings - because there was such a dearth of criminal cases on point - and he had also taken account of the prospect of the fine putting Metron into bankruptcy. [ 74 ] On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the court overturned the sentencing judge’s decision and imposed a fine of $750,000.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal concluded that while it was open to the sentencing judge to consider the regulatory cases, placing too much weight on those cases was an error of law.

Such an approach reflected a failure on the part of the sentencing judge to appreciate the higher degree of moral blameworthiness and gravity associated with Metron’s criminal conviction for criminal negligence causing death (para. 89). [ 75 ] Further, with respect to the sentencing judge’s consideration of Metron’s ability to pay a fine and the possibility that a large fine would force Metron into bankruptcy, the Court of Appeal decided those considerations were reversible errors.

The court stated that “… an organization’s ability to pay should not be treated as a prerequisite to the imposition of a fine” (para. 98). [ 76 ] In the result, the Court of Appeal concluded that the $200,000 fine was a demonstrably unfit sentence and increased the fine to $750,000. [ 77 ] In the case before me, and in support of their joint submission on sentence, the Crown and SLQ referred to each of the Transpave and Metron decisions. [ 78 ] Both counsel characterized the criminally negligent conduct in Metron to be more egregious than SLQ’s conduct. I agree.

However it is difficult to measure and compare criminal negligence from one case to another when the end result is identical. In both the Metron case and the case before me, very simple easy steps could have been taken by the senior officers in each of the organizations that would most certainly have prevented the death of an innocent worker. [ 79 ] As well, both counsel characterized the criminal culpability of the senior officer in the Transpave case as greater than in the case of SLQ.

I am not prepared to agree with that proposition. [ 80 ] While it is true that two years earlier Transpave had disabled a key safety feature on the equipment that led to that victim’s death, I do not see that active step taken by Transpave as being of greater criminal culpability than SLQ’s culpability in: • hiring a 22 year-old employee with no experience driving the truck she was being hired to drive when she was not licenced to drive that truck on public roads and had no experience driving a truck with air brakes; • failing to properly train her on how to drive and park the truck and ensure that she knew how to safely operate the truck before allowing her to operate the truck on her own; • failing to provide her with essential safety equipment for parking the truck in the form of tire chocks; and • failing to supervise her operation of the truck to ensure she had safely parked the truck when all that would be required is a cursory viewing of the truck. [ 81 ] So, while it is difficult to draw comparisons between two very different criminally negligent actions by these different corporate offenders, I do not see the actions of Transpave being of greater criminal culpability than the inaction of SLQ that led directly to Kelsey’s death.

ENDORSING OR NOT FOLLOWING A JOINT SUBMISSION ON SENTENCE [ 82 ] On Friday October 21, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in the Anthony-Cook case. In Anthony- Cook Justice Moldaver extensively reviews the law and legal tests that have developed concerning when a sentencing judge can reject a joint submission on sentence and impose a different sentence. [ 83 ] Justice Moldaver considers the four legal tests that have developed in this area of the law across Canada.

He decides that the appropriate test that a sentencing judge is to apply when considering rejecting a joint submission on sentence is the “public interest test.” He then goes on to provide some helpful guidance to sentencing judges across Canada who are considering rejecting a joint submission on sentence. [ 84 ] Justice Moldaver says that the public interest test stipulates that a sentencing judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest (para. 32). [ 85 ] Justice Moldaver goes on to say this about the high threshold established by the public interest test: In my view, these powerful statements capture the essence of the public interest test developed by the Martin Committee.

They

emphasize that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly, a conclusion with which I agree. Rejection denotes a submission 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 the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down.

This is an undeniably high threshold - and for good reason, as I shall explain (para. 34). [ 86 ] I will not go further with a review of the Anthony-Cook decision as I believe the paragraphs I have referred to make the point I wish to make. It is my view that the joint submission put forward by the Crown and SLQ is a fair and fit sentence if considered in light of all of the circumstances I have attempted to set out in this decision.

I am firmly of the view that “reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances” of this case would not view the joint submission on sentence in this case as a reflection that “the proper functioning of the justice system has broken down.” CONCLUSION [ 87 ] For the foregoing reasons, I endorse, accept, and will impose the sentence put before me jointly by the Crown and SLQ. [ 88 ] I sentence SLQ to pay a fine of $100,000. [ 89 ] I order that SLQ is to pay a 15% victim fine surcharge in the amount of $15,000. [ 90 ] I order that SLQ is to pay $50,000 towards that fine and surcharge by no later than 4:00 p.m. tomorrow, October 28, 2016. [ 91 ] I order that SLQ will have eighteen (18) months within which to pay the $65,000 balance of the fine and surcharge.

The Honourable Regional Administrative Judge R. Hamilton Provincial Court of British Columbia