Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2016 SKPC 136

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2016 SKPC 136 Date: October 13, 2016 Information: 33835014 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Calvin Joseph Fulton Appearing: Ms. Linh Le For the Crown Mr. Robert Rooney For the Accused DECISION ON SENTENCE F.M. DAUNT, J [ 1 ] Calvin Joseph Fulton entered a guilty plea to a charge of failing to report to his parole officer between April 10, 2015 and March 30, 2016 as required by his Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO), contrary to

section 753.3 of the Criminal Code . Crown counsel submits he should receive a sentence of 2 years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody from July 8, 2016, the date the information was sworn. Defence submits that a more appropriate sentence would be in the range of nine months to one year in prison, less 1.5 to 1 credit from March 30, 2016, the date he was taken into custody. FACTS [ 2 ] In November of 2014, Ginelle Peterson, Mr. Fulton’s Parole Officer, went on maternity leave, and Mr. Fulton was assigned

another parole officer, Mr. Miller. Mr. Fulton did not like Mr. Miller. In early April, 2015, a Correctional Service Canada (CSC) staff member reported an incident to Mr. Miller. He alleged that Mr. Fulton was under the influence of alcohol at Lucky’s Bar & Grill on April 3, 2015. On April 8, 2015, a decision was made to suspend Mr. Fulton’s long term supervision and issue a warrant for his arrest. On that day, Mr. Fulton phoned his Parole Officer to ask why the police had been to his house. He denied consuming alcohol, but promised to turn himself in to the Prince Albert police. Mr.

Fulton says he did in fact go to the police station, but they made him wait too long and so he left before surrendering into custody. On April 10, Mr. Fulton’s Parole Officer called his cell phone. Mr. Fulton was belligerent, but again promised to turn himself in the following Monday. He did not, and had no further contact with the Parole Office until arrested on unrelated charges on March 30, 2016.

He felt the breach was unfair and that his new Parole Officer was “out to get him.” Although CSC recommended that the Crown lay an information charging an offence contrary to s. 753.3, no charge was laid for breaching the alcohol condition. [ 3 ] Mr. Fulton actively evaded capture for almost a year. He remained at large until March 30, 2016, when he was arrested for theft, assault, uttering threats and breaches of his LTSO for failing to keep the peace and obey the law.

Following his arrest, he bragged to his Parole Officer about fooling law enforcement and made a vague threat toward the CSC staff member who saw him in the bar. He says this was a joke. CRIMINAL HISTORY [ 4 ] Mr. Fulton’s criminal record begins in 1977, when he was 16 years old. He is now 55 years old. Little information was given to this Court about Mr. Fulton’s criminal history, including the predicate offence, and the CPIC record filed seems to be incomplete. However, some of that history is reported in R v Fulton , 2005 SKQB 534 , a ruling rendered by Mr.

Justice Laing in the early stages of the Dangerous Offender proceedings: Mr. Fulton’s criminal record since 1977 indicates his four convictions for assault causing bodily harm were registered by 1986, at which time he was approximately 25 years old. The circumstances of the violent offences for which Mr. Fulton has been convicted since 1986 that appear from the material are as follows: 1. The assault causing bodily harm conviction in 1986 resulted in the victim being seriously injured with numerous broken facial bones as a result of the accused punching and kicking the victim after he was down. 2.

The assault with a weapon conviction in 1989 resulted from Mr. Fulton pulling a knife and chasing the victim around the bar. However, he was eventually restrained without doing any damage. 3. The three common assault convictions which were not listed above, and registered on the 4th of August, 1994, were committed against his common law spouse. On March 18, 1994, at approximately 22:30 hours, Mr. Fulton, according to the police report, punched, slapped and forcibly dragged his common law spouse into a car against her will.

At approximately 5:00 p.m. the same day, the second count alleges he punched and slapped her on the head. There is a third conviction involving a third altercation with his common law spouse on March 18, and while the details are not clear, it appears he kicked her in the stomach when she was pregnant. 4. The facts in the aggravated assault conviction in 2001 are summarized in a police report as follows: . . . the accused stabbed the victim once in the upper chest area. The incident allegedly occurred because the victim was standing up for a friend that had just previously had an argument with the accused.

All subjects had been drinking and alcohol is believed to have been a factor. The accused fled the scene following the incident. . . . 5. With respect to the robbery and threats convictions in April 2004 [not included in the CPIC record filed with this Court], the accused had been drinking at a party. The police report indicates Mr. Fulton was there 15-20 minutes when he started to flip out. He pulled out a big hunting-style knife and stuck it in the table and said to a third person, “Do you remember me”. At this point a friend of his stepped in and the accused, the friend, and a third woman left the party site.

While on the road, the accused asked the woman who was driving to stop the vehicle. When she did he went around to the driver’s door and pointed the hunting knife towards her and said, “get out”. She did, and he then got behind the wheel. The friend also exited the vehicle at this point. Mr. Fulton then gunned the truck, did a couple of doughnuts, drove towards the two persons he was with so they had to jump to get out of the way. The friend finally persuaded Mr. Fulton to stop and he let them back into the truck. The woman got behind the wheel and they drove off. At one point Mr.

Fulton pointed the knife at his friend’s side and told the woman driver, “Drive me to Green Lake or I’ll kill him”. The friend told the woman to ignore Mr. Fulton’s instructions and to drive to his house. When they got to the friend’s house, the friend and the woman left the vehicle. Mr. Fulton took off with the truck and was eventually pursued by the police and apprehended.

6. With respect to the two predicate offences, Mr. Fulton and another person entered the victim’s house unannounced through the back door, which was open. The victim was visiting with a woman neighbour. His son and his son’s children were in the house. The victim had a passing acquaintance with Mr. Fulton for over 20 years as he had worked at the penitentiary at one point in time as a barber. The victim stated Mr. Fulton appeared agitated, and described him as “screwed up on something. He was high.” Mr.

Fulton indicated to the victim that he was there to pick up some Ritalin pills which he believed another person had left there. The victim denied he had any such pills and Mr. Fulton started threatening him. As Mr. Fulton became more agitated he went over to the kitchen sink, picked up a serrated bread knife, and placed it horizontally against the victim’s throat, which caused what the police officer referred to as a “nick” on the neck. Photographs submitted at the trial indicate the “nick” had separated to some extent but was a minor injury. The victim described the cut as superficial.

The victim maintained he did not have any pills and finally he threw $15.00 on the table and said that was all he had. Mr. Fulton took the $15.00 and the victim’s son’s cell phone and left with the person he had arrived with. Before leaving, he said words to the effect to the victim, “If you go to the cops I will kill you”. One hour later he returned the cell phone to the victim. [ 5 ] At paragraph 18 of that decision, Mr. Justice Laing notes: A review of the foregoing record indicates that since 1986, there is only one offence for which Mr.

Fulton was convicted which resulted in serious personal injury to the victim. This was in 2001 when he stabbed the person once in the chest. There is no indication in the material of what consequences this person experienced medically or otherwise, but two observations can be made. The sentence imposed of six months plus 160 days time served suggests the total circumstances resulted in a penalty at the lower end of the range of sentences for such convictions, bearing in mind Mr. Fulton’s criminal record.

Secondly, it was one stab wound, not multiple stab wounds, which would be far more indicative of a failure to restrain violent behaviour. His robbery and threats convictions in 2004 and 2005, in both of which he held a knife on the victim, resulted in one minor personal injury only. The pattern demonstrated by Mr. Fulton is that he uses violence and threats as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself. The evidence is that Mr.

Fulton has been high or intoxicated when committing violent offences, yet in the last 20 years there has been minimal damage done to his victims. [ 6 ] At the conclusion of those proceedings, Mr. Fulton was declared a Long-Term Offender. He was sentenced on June 4, 2007 to four years imprisonment, followed by 10 years of supervision in the community. That four years was in addition to the 35 months he had spent in pretrial custody. This was Mr. Fulton’s fourth federal sentence. In 1989, he received 3 years and 6 months for an assault with a weapon, reduced on appeal to 2 years and 6 months.

In 1986 he received two years for a common assault. His first federal sentence resulted from merging several sentences of 12 months or less. [ 7 ] While serving his first three federal sentences, Mr. Fulton violated mandatory supervision several times. His third federal sentence expired in October of 1991. From 1991 to 2004, although he reoffended, Mr. Fulton managed to stay out of the Federal system. He received one conditional sentence, provincial terms of incarceration, and probation. From June 2007, the date of sentencing, until his release on day parole in 2009, Mr. Fulton functioned well.

His parole officer, Ginelle Peterson, testified that he was compliant with programming and was compliant in the institution. He actively participated in pro-social prison affairs. Ms. Peterson supported his application for day parole. She says he has matured considerably since 2007. [ 8 ] Mr. Fulton was released on day parole on June 24, 2009. He transitioned to statutory release on February 2, 2010. He reached warrant expiry without incident, and his LTSO began on June 3, 2011. His reporting requirements were reduced from once per week to once per month.

He had some instability in his marriage and in his employment, but nothing that worried his parole officer or elevated his risk in her mind. Until April of 2015, he never missed a reporting date. Because he had been doing so well, Ms. Peterson contemplated applying to the Court to reduce the length of his supervision order. Sadly, and to everyone’s surprise, in April 2015 Mr. Fulton was seen intoxicated in the bar and then withdrew from supervision. [ 9 ] According to the Parole Board’s decision: While some progress may be noted, your overall performance under your LTSO is not assessed as positive by the Board.

You are credited for a lengthy period of time serving your LTSO under supervision; however, your decision to go and remain UAL for nearly one year indicates that you continue to demonstrate poor judgement and that previous release plans were inadequate to manage your risk and compliance. It is not possible for CSC to monitor your behaviour and your risk when you choose to remove yourself from their supervision. Your criminal history is extensive and includes significant violence. Your history includes issues with compliance, the use of weapons, substance use, and multiple victims.

Previous decisions comment on your progress; however, your recent behaviour demonstrates a significant deterioration in your compliance and an escalation in your risk. [ 10 ] The Board has decided to impose more stringent conditions upon Mr. Fulton’s release into the community: 1. Avoid Drinking Establishments – Not to enter establishments where the primary source of income is derived from the sale or consumption of alcohol.

2. Reside at a Specific Place – Reside at a Community Correctional Center or a Community Residential Facility. 3. Respect Curfew – Respect a curfew from 2300 hrs to 0700 hrs daily except with your Parole Supervisor’s prior written agreement. 4. Must Abstain From Drugs – Abstain from the use of drugs other than prescribed medications taken as directed by a physician and over-the-counter drugs as recommended by the manufacturer. 5. Abstain From the Use of Alcohol. PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 11 ] According to the Pre-Sentence Report, Mr.

Fulton, aged 55, comes from a large blended Metis family, with nine half siblings and five full siblings. His parents were alcoholic and violent. When Mr. Fulton was 13 years old, his brother Wally drowned. The family moved to Green Lake. His parents stopped drinking and opened a cafe, but Mr. Fulton started exhibiting pro-criminal behaviour. He was an alcoholic by age 14. He attended a Catholic church and school and so was exposed to some pro-social norms, but his peer group consisted of prostitutes and addicts. Some of his siblings have been incarcerated both federally and provincially.

One of his brothers died in a bar-room stabbing. [ 12 ] Mr. Fulton has seven children and three step-children, and is a grandfather. He married his current wife in 2009, shortly after his release from prison. This relationship has been volatile, resulting in residence instability. Upon his release into the community, Mr. Fulton will not be allowed to live with his wife before completing a nine-month residency requirement, to be served at a community correctional facility. [ 13 ] Mr. Fulton’s extensive criminal record includes crimes of violence and non-compliance, dating back to 1977.

The last entry on his record is the predicate offence of robbery from 2007, a robbery which occurred in 2004. [ 14 ] In 2006, as part of the Dangerous Offender assessment, Mr. Fulton was diagnosed with alcohol dependence, psychoactive substance dependence, and anti-social personality disorder. He might also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder. During his incarceration, he completed all required programming, and currently there are no mental health concerns noted on his record. He claims he abstained from alcohol from 2004 until 2015.

He was sentenced on the predicate offence in June of 2007. He had 35 months pre-trial custody, so the offence must have occurred in 2004 or earlier. His claim of sobriety may well be true. [ 15 ] Before his last sentence, Mr. Fulton achieved only a Grade 9 education. Since 2007, he has successfully completed Grade 12. He has been steadily employed or self-employed since his release in 2009 and, according to Ms. Peterson, providing for his family. [ 16 ] Mr. Fulton enjoys gambling. For this reason, he would go into bars and play the VLTs, or go to the Casino, but he would not drink.

His LTSO conditions did not restrict him from entering drinking establishments, but he was not allowed to consume alcohol. He admits he may be developing a gambling addiction but does not appreciate how attending bars increases his risk. ANALYSIS CREDIT FOR PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY [ 17 ] Although Ms. Peterson believed that the Parole Board recommended a charge be laid under s. 753.3 for the April 3, 2015 incident, no information was sworn. The Crown directed a stay of proceedings on Mr. Fulton’s other charges in June and July, 2016.

The information before this Court was sworn on July 8, 2016, alleging a breach for failing to report between April, 2015 and March 30, 2016. To date, no information has been sworn alleging a breach of the no alcohol clause.

[ 18 ] As a result of the breach, upon his release, the Parole Board will add conditions to his release in order to reduce his risk. He will be required to reside in a community correctional facility for the first nine months of his release. As well, he will be prohibited from entering drinking establishments, and will be under curfew. He will continue to be prohibited from drugs and alcohol. [ 19 ] He will get no credit toward his LTSO for the time he was at large, because his LTSO was suspended. Because of the strange procedural history, it is unclear whether or when time was running on the LTSO while Mr.

Fulton was in custody. By virtue of s. 753.4 of the Criminal Code , while serving a custodial sentence, his LTSO is interrupted unless the court orders termination. Under s. 135.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , if he were arrested on a Parole Board warrant and committed to custody pursuant to that Act , his LTSO would continue to run. Within 90 days, the Parole Board must either cancel the suspension or recommend a charge under s. 753.3 of the Criminal Code . The offender cannot be held for more than 90 days unless he is charged under s. 753.3 . [ 20 ] In this case, Mr.

Fulton was arrested on March 30, 2016 for Criminal Code offences, including s. 753.3 , and remanded in custody pursuant to s. 515 of the Criminal Code , not committed to custody pursuant to s. 135.1(1)(

c) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act . As far as I am aware, the Board never cancelled the suspension of his LTSO, and so it is entirely possible his LTSO has not been running since April 8, 2015. [ 21 ] Furthermore, although the Board recommended a charge be laid under s. 753.3 – “our charge” as Ms. Peterson put it –none was laid. The charges for which Mr. Fulton was arrested have since been stayed. Ms. Peterson informed the court that, after he is sentenced, the powers that be will have to recalculate the end date of his LTSO.

She did not know whether or not he would receive credit for his pre-sentence custody or how it might affect the end date of his LTSO. In the circumstances of this case, Mr. Fulton’s LTSO may have started running July 8, 2016, the date the information was laid. It is unclear. [ 22 ] Barrington-Foote, J. in R v W (E) , 2016 SKQB 226 [ W (E) ], relying on R v Bourdon , 2012 ONCA 356 , refused enhanced credit for remand time because that time was credited toward the LTSO.

He also found the accused was not likely to be granted early release, given his dismal performance on the LTSO, and thus enhanced credit was not justified in that case. [ 23 ] Pre-sentence custody does not count in the calculation of the date for release on parole or mandatory supervision, so the offender’s liberty is compromised by the delay in sentencing. Given Mr. Fulton’s past performance while serving this sentence, it is not unlikely he would be granted early release, and that alone is a circumstance justifying enhanced credit.

See R v Summers , 2014 SCC 26 and R v Carvery , 2014 SCC 27 . [ 24 ] Section 719(3) of the Criminal Code allows the Court to take into account any time spent in custody “as a result of the offence.” Crown counsel submits that, because the information was not sworn until July 8, Mr. Fulton should receive no credit for time served before that date. The reason given for not laying a charge earlier was an “error in communication” between the Parole Office and the Crown office.

The oversight was not discovered until the Crown had already stayed proceedings on his Prince Albert charges and had decided to stay proceedings on his Saskatoon charges. Faced with the prospect of his imminent release from custody, the Crown essentially “gated” Mr. Fulton and charged him with withdrawing from supervision some 15 months earlier. [ 25 ] Mr. Fulton has been in custody for 199 days, from March 30, 2016 to October 13, 2016. That is the approximate equivalent of a 10 month sentence, assuming he were released after serving two thirds. Mr.

Fulton has been in custody since March 30 at least partly as a result of his withdrawing from supervision, which is the substance of the charge before the court. He has been out of the community for over six months; this separation from society has already addressed some of the objectives of sentencing and reduced his risk in some fashion. [ 26 ] However, technically, the Crown is correct. The “offence” was not alleged until July 8, and so he cannot be said to have been in custody as “as a result of the offence.” He was in custody as a result of other alleged offences.

Therefore, he has been in custody for 98 days as a result of this offence. I find this is a case for enhanced credit, as per Summers and Carvery , and I credit him an extra 49 days as a result, for a total of 147 days deemed served. [ 27 ] Mr. Fulton spent 101 days in custody between March 30, 2016 and July 8, 2016. I take this period into account for the purpose of assessing how much longer Mr. Fulton must be separated from society in order to achieve one of the purposes of sentencing enumerated in s. 718 of the Criminal Code . SENTENCING FOR BREACH OF LTSO

[ 28 ] R v Ipeelee , 2012 SCC 13 [ Ipeelee ] is the leading case on sentencing for an offence contrary to s. 753.3 of the Criminal Code , especially in the case of an Aboriginal (including Metis) offender. In that case, Mr. Justice LeBel characterizes the purpose of the Long Term Offender regime as both protection of the public and the rehabilitation/reintegration of the offender. The duty of the sentencing judge is to apply all the principles of sentencing, including restraint and Gladue factors, to arrive at a proportionate sentence that achieves the overall goals of sentencing.

He states, beginning at paragraph 54: ... Breaches can occur in an infinite variety of circumstances. Parliament did not see fit to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. Where no minimum sentence is mandated by the Criminal Code , the entire range of sentencing options is open to a sentencing judge, including non-carceral sentences where appropriate.

In its recommendations, the Task Force specifically stated that a key factor to the success of a long-term offender regime is “a speedy and flexible mechanism for enforcing the orders which does not result in lengthy re- incarceration in the absence of the commission of a new crime” (p. 19 [emphasis added in original]). It is the sentencing judge’s duty to determine, within this open range of sentencing options, which sentence will be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The severity of a particular breach of an LTSO will depend, in large part, on the circumstances of the breach, the nature of the condition breached, and the role that condition plays in managing the offender’s risk of reoffence in the community. This requires a contextual analysis.

As Smith J.A. states in R v Deacon , 2004 BCCA 78 ..., at para. 51, “the gravity of an offence under s. 753.3 must be measured with reference not only to the conduct that gave rise to the offence, but also with regard to what it portends in light of the offender’s entire history of criminal conduct.” Breach of an LTSO is not subject to a distinct sentencing regime or system.

In any given case, the best guides for determining a fit sentence are the well- established principles and objectives of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code . [ 29 ] The Supreme Court goes on to discuss Gladue , and how the sentencing court is required to take judicial notice of those historical factors which have led to the over-incarceration of Aboriginal peoples. There is no onus on the offender to establish a causal nexus between Gladue factors and the offence. [ 30 ] In Mr. Fulton’s case, he struggles with anti-social personality disorder.

This personality disorder features manipulation and dishonesty as coping mechanisms. In the past, Mr. Fulton has not fared well under supervision in the community. However, while serving his latest sentence, he completed all programming required of him. He “became involved in the Inmate Welfare Committee, participated in cultural activities and ceremonies, and often attempted to liaise between other offenders and staff.” [PSR Page 6] He functioned well on one form of release or another for almost six years. He learned different, more pro-social coping mechanisms.

From the date of his sentencing in June of 2007, he went almost 8 years without incident. As Ms. Peterson testified, he matured greatly during the time she knew him. Then, in the spring of 2015, he went off the rails. He felt he was unfairly accused of breaching his LTSO. Ms. Peterson said this took everyone by surprise, as he had been doing so well up until that point. However, I agree with Ms. Peterson that it should not matter who his parole officer is. His risk needs to be managed though he is not fond of the person supervising him.

It is also aggravating that he actively eluded capture for almost a year, and that he bragged about it, whether joking or not. [ 31 ] In Ms. Peterson’s opinion, his risk has been elevated. She recommended to the Parole Board that his level of supervision be increased, including a secure living environment, a curfew, and no drinking establishments. She feels this is the least restrictive response consistent with the protection of society, as mandated by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act . She would need some time after sentencing to secure accommodation for Mr.

Fulton and make arrangements for the new restrictions to take effect. [ 32 ] In support of its position of two years, the Crown filed several cases. Some of these were decided before R v Ipeelee , and are of little assistance. In R v W (E) , Mr. Justice Barrington-Foote sentenced an Aboriginal offender to 15 months for a single alcohol breach. However, in that case, the predicate offence was manslaughter. The offender breached his statutory release three times, including by committing a spousal assault.

Shortly after completing the six-month residency requirement of his LTSO, he consumed alcohol in front of police when he believed he would be arrested for an aggravated assault. The Court found there was a “very significant risk that the accused would turn to alcohol, particularly if faced with stress.” For that accused, alcohol consumption was strongly associated with extreme violence. [ 33 ] Mr. Fulton, on the other hand, has shown he can function well in the community for a significant period of time if he chooses.

His risk for violence, although elevated by alcohol use, is more related to his ability to manage his personality disorders. However, he has experienced some residence instability as a result of his somewhat volatile marital situation. He was charged with assaulting and threatening his wife, although the information was stayed when she could not be found to be served with a subpoena. Withdrawing from supervision allowed Mr. Fulton to return to his old ways and increased his risk to public safety. This is a more generalized risk than the alcohol consumption in R v W (E) .

In that case, the accused, by consuming alcohol, created an immediate and serious risk of violence. [ 34 ] Similarly, in R v Larocque , 2012 BCCA 216 , decided shortly after Ipeelee , the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 30

months imprisonment for two breaches of the offender’s LTSO. In that case, the LTSO had been suspended nine times before the offender committed the breaches before the Court. He was a sex offender who failed to complete programming and had performed dismally on the order. The sentencing judge found the conditions breached to be directly related to managing his great risk of reoffending generally, violently, and sexually. Furthermore, there is no mention in the decision that the offender was Aboriginal, and those portions of Ipeelee dealing with sentencing Aboriginal offenders were not applied. [ 35 ] In Mr.

Fulton’s case, from June of 2007 he fulfilled all requirements and performed relatively well for almost eight years, six of those under supervision in the community. This is in stark contrast to his past performance in the correctional system, which included offences of violence even while incarcerated. For some reason, he lapsed in April of 2015. He has been in custody since March 30, 2016, giving him some period of stabilization. The Parole Board has decided to increase the restrictions on his liberty upon his release back into the community. I defer to their expertise in managing Mr. Fulton’s risk. Mr.

Fulton needs a further period of incarceration for those plans to be put in place. However, the Long Term Offender regime relies on flexibility in sentencing, so that lengthy re- incarceration does not interfere with the offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. [ 36 ] The goals of sentencing include denunciation, deterrence, separation from society where necessary, rehabilitation, restoration, and to promote a sense of responsibility in the offender. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

A sentence can be decreased for mitigating factors and increased for aggravating factors. The principles of parity and restraint must also be considered, as well as the remedial requirement that particular attention be paid to the circumstances of First Nations, Inuit and Metis offenders. [ 37 ] I find an appropriate sentence, taking into account the time Mr. Fulton has already been separated from society, is a period of 240 days (about eight months). I credit him 147 days for the 98 days he has spent in custody since July 8, leaving 93 days left to serve. That is enough to bring home to Mr.

Fulton the importance of abiding by his conditions, but not so long as to interfere with his rehabilitation and reintegration. That will be served in a federal penitentiary, pursuant to s. 743.1(3.1) of the Criminal Code . There will be a $200.00 victim surcharge, payable by April 31, 2017. Dated this 13 th day of October, A.D. 2016, at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. __________________________ F.M. Daunt, J