R. v. Soos, 2021 BCPC 287

Citation: R. v. Soos 2021 BCPC 287 Date: 20211020 File No: 92240-1 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. CHADENDEEP KAUR SOOS ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P.D. WHYTE Counsel for the Crown appearing by videoconference: C. Kemble Counsel for the Defendant: R. Ballantyne Place of Hearing: Abbotsford, B.C. Date of Hearing: September 17, 2021 Date of Judgment: October 20, 2021 [ 1 ] On September 17, 2021, Chadendeep Kaur Soos appeared before me for sentencing following the entering of a guilty plea to

[ 1 ] On September 17, 2021, Chadendeep Kaur Soos appeared before me for sentencing following the entering of a guilty plea to operating a conveyance that was involved in an accident with a person and knowing or being reckless as to whether that accident resulted in death or bodily harm, failed to stop her conveyance and offer assistance, contrary to s. 320.16(3) of the Criminal Code . The offence is colloquially known as hit and run.

The maximum punishment for this offence is a term of life imprisonment and for a first offence, a $1,000 fine. [ 2 ] Counsel presented a joint submission consisting of a six-month conditional sentence order with the mandatory $1,000 fine and an 18-month driving prohibition, as well as a discretionary DNA order for this secondary designated offence.

At the time of counsels' submissions, I reserved my decision so I might have an opportunity to review the case law provided and consider whether I was able to endorse this joint submission. [ 3 ] There are two issues to be determined in this sentencing case: (1) can the court endorse the joint submission for a conditional sentence; and (2) if so, can the court endorse the terms of the conditional sentence jointly proposed. [ 4 ] The event that brings Ms. Soos before the court occurred on the evening of August 20, 2019. Mr.

Dharanpal Sidhu, an elderly gentleman, began walking northbound across the 32000 block of Marshall Road in Abbotsford. Ms. Soos was operating a black SUV that evening, toward the setting sun which I infer would have been westbound. The front passenger side of Ms. Soos' vehicle struck Mr. Sidhu near the middle of the road, throwing him into the air. I understand that Mr. Sidhu was crossing at an intersection where there was neither a traffic light nor a crosswalk. Rather than stopping and rendering assistance, Ms.

Soos drove home where, in a distraught state, she called her uncle and told him what had occurred. [ 5 ] Mr. Sidhu was taken to hospital with injuries that were initially not considered to be life threatening. Tragically, however, he succumbed to those injuries later that evening. [ 6 ] The area of the accident had already been cleaned, to some extent, by fire department and emergency personnel. Police attended the scene and located a part of a front grill of a vehicle. They conducted interviews and obtained and reviewed CCTV footage. [ 7 ] Ms.

Soos attended the Abbotsford Police Department the next day, accompanied by her uncle and legal counsel. I am advised that Ms. Soos admitted responsibility for the accident, despite being advised by her counsel to engage her right to silence. [ 8 ] Witnesses that spoke to the police reported that Ms. Soos' vehicle was not speeding, nor was there evidence that she was engaging in other conduct that would be considered unsafe, such as texting and driving. This was, by all accounts, a terrible accident and is not attributable to any particular driving deficiency on the part of Ms.

Soos. [ 9 ] Cases such as these are challenging. While there may be a natural inclination to tie the horrific result of the accident to Ms. Soos' conduct post-accident, it would be an error to do so. The issue of causation of injuries or death is not an included element of the offence. Ms. Soos faces no criminal sanction based on her driving pattern, use of alcohol or drugs, or even a lack of proper attention to driving.

Her criminal liability arose after the accident occurred when she failed to remain at the scene to render assistance and provide her contact information. [ 10 ] I have had the benefit of reading the counselling report authored by Terry Voth of Voth Counselling Services Ltd. Mr. Voth met with Ms. Soos on seven occasions for counselling between August 4th and September 15, 2021. [ 11 ] Ms. Soos is a 24-year-old single woman with no prior criminal record or driving history. She works in the accounting department of Westland Insurance in White Rock.

Additionally, she attends BCIT where she takes courses toward a diploma in accounting. She is described as, and I accept she is, an otherwise prosocial young person with a strong sense of social responsibility. [ 12 ] Mr. Voth described Ms. Soos' difficult upbringing. There was significant violence in her family of origin, generally directed toward her mother by her father. Ms. Soos was also the object of mental and physical abuse at the hands of her father. This "family secret," as it is termed by Mr. Voth, resulted in Ms.

Soos having a somewhat stunted social development as she tried to avoid drawing attention to her chaotic family life. Mr. Voth opined that Ms. Soos' early experiences contributed to the development of her struggles with depression and anxiety. I am told Ms. Soos is prescribed Wellbutrin and Effexor to assist her with her mental health issues. [ 13 ] Mr. Voth opined that on the day of the accident, Ms. Soos was preoccupied about a recent police attendance at her home due to a domestic violence complaint. She was experiencing a state of heightened anxiety as she considered what might be happening at home.

This may have contributed to some inattention on her part. Whether it did or not, Ms. Soos faces no charge other than failing to remain at the scene of the accident. [ 14 ] After the collision, Ms. Soos panicked. She had not been in a motor vehicle accident before. Despite knowing that she had struck a person, she drove home where she confessed to her uncle. As her counsel described it, she lacked the sense to come back. Considerations for a Conditional Sentence [ 15 ]

Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code lists criteria a judge must consider before imposing a conditional sentence among them. [ 16 ] Firstly, the offence must not be punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. [ 17 ] Next, the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years. [ 18 ] Thirdly, the safety of the community must not be endangered by the offender serving his or her sentence in the community. [ 19 ] And fourthly, a conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 through 718.2. [ 20 ] The maximum sentence of life imprisonment previously operated as a bar to the imposition of a conditional sentence for this

offence. I accept counsels' submissions, however, that a conditional sentence is now available given the court's decision in R. v. Chen,2021 BCSC 697. Justice Schultes determined in Chen that s. 742.1(

c) violated s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms dueto overbreadth. [21] Further, as I am considering a term of imprisonment of less than two years, a conditional sentence is available. [22] I must also be satisfied that serving a sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. It is the riskposed by the specific offender that I must consider and not the broader risk of whether a conditional sentence would endanger the safetyof the community because it would not provide sufficient deterrence or would undermine general respect for the law.

I must consider therisk of the offender reoffending and not the gravity of the damage done in the event of a repeat of the offence. [23] I find the safety of the community would not be subject to undue risk by Ms. Soos serving a conditional sentence. She is anotherwise law-abiding citizen and I have no basis to conclude that she would not strictly follow any conditions I might order. A lengthydriving prohibition would reduce whatever limited risk Ms.

Soos might pose. [24] The final precondition to assess is whether the imposition of a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamentalpurpose and principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 through 718.2.

A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation anddeterrence; however, there will be circumstances where the need for denunciation and deterrence is so pressing that incarceration will bethe only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future. [25] Moving to the purpose, objectives and principles of sentencing. [26] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This is thefundamental principle of sentencing.

Further, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime preventioninitiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. [27] When considering a sentence, I must be mindful of the objectives of sentencing as outlined in s. 718 of the Criminal Code.Particularly Ms.

Soos, the objectives of sentencing in this case include denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring the offender and otherpersons from committing offences, assisting with rehabilitating the offender, and promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender andacknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community. [28] A judge is also guided by a number of principles set out in s. 718.2, including the following which I consider particularly relevantto Ms.

Soos. [29] Firstly, a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. [30] Next, a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders, for similar offences, committed in similarcircumstances. [31] Next, an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. [32] Finally, all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harmdone to victims or the community should be considered for all offenders. [33] In cases of this nature, it is clear that the primary factors to be punctuated on sentence are denunciation and deterrence.

As notedin R. v. Wieczorek, 2010 ONCJ 582 , [2010] O.J. No. 5260 at paragraph 64: The duty imposed [by what was then] s. 252 is not an onerous one – a person involved in an accident must remain at the scene, identifyhim or herself and give assistance to any injured party. This allows for any criminal investigation to occur without delay, resolves issuesof civil or criminal liability.

Just as importantly, there is a simple duty as a human being to show care and respect for those who mayhave been injured or killed – to remain until authorities determine what has happened. [34] A victim impact statement was drafted by Mr. Sidhu's granddaughter. This statement was read into the record and detailed thedevastating effect this event has had on Mr. Sidhu's widow. After 50 years of marriage, she feels hopeless, lonely and stressed. Shedescribed a sense of permanent pain and loss of happiness. She feels unsafe walking the streets.

Her life partner has died and she hassuffered a profound loss as a result. [35] In terms of mitigating and aggravating factors I find as follows. [36] Firstly, she is a first-time offender. She has neither a prior criminal history nor a record for Motor Vehicle Act offences. At age 24she is a youthful offender. Her prospects for rehabilitation are excellent. [37] Next, Ms. Soos entered a guilty plea and has accepted responsibility for the offence. She also cooperated with the policeinvestigation and admitted her involvement. [38] Next, Ms. Soos has expressed genuine remorse.

She has written a letter of apology to Mr. Sidhu's widow and entered intocounselling of her own accord. [39] Next, there is no suggestion that Ms. Soos was operating her motor vehicle unsafely. She is not accused of speeding, dangerousdriving, driving while texting, or driving while impaired. This is perhaps better described as a lack of an aggravating factor. [40] Finally, Ms. Soos is gainfully employed. She has a good work ethic and a bright future. [41] In terms of aggravating factors I find as follows.

[ 42 ] Firstly, Ms. Soos waited until the next day to claim responsibility for this offence. There is no suggestion she took any steps to cover up her involvement but she did not formally acknowledge what happened until the day after the accident. It is speculative to consider whether by stopping and rendering assistance at the scene Mr. Sidhu's outcome would have been any different. [ 43 ] Next, Mr. Sidhu's wife has suffered significantly as a result of his death.

In that sense, there has been a profound effect on the family of the deceased and is a statutorily aggravating factor pursuant to s. 718.2(a)(iii.1). [ 44 ] Crown and defence tendered a number of cases for the court's consideration including the following. [ 45 ] Firstly R. v. Oliveira , 2016 ONSC 120 . The offender in Oliveira pleaded guilty to failing to stop at the scene of an accident or involving a death. The deceased was riding a bicycle at slow velocity in the centre lane of a highway. The offender struck the cyclist, hurtling him into oncoming traffic. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The offender went home as if nothing happened but turned himself in to authorities approximately 48 hours later. The offender had no prior criminal record but some history of driving infractions. He was 25 years old and had a good family and employment history. [ 46 ] The Crown sought a sentence of between 12 and 18 months imprisonment, followed by a lengthy driving prohibition.

The defence sought a 60-day intermittent sentence with three years' probation and 240 community work hours. [ 47 ] The court ultimately imposed a six-month sentence but reduced it to a 90-day intermittent sentence after giving credit for stringent bail conditions, to be followed by three years of probation. The offender was also directed to perform 240 community work hours. [ 48 ] Ms. Soos' circumstances are similar to Oliveira but somewhat less aggravating, given that no driving record was alleged by the Crown. [ 49 ] Next, R. v. Aman , 2012 ONCJ 654 .

After striking a pedestrian and throwing him onto a sidewalk, the offender in Aman failed to stop and render assistance. The offender attended the police station the following day but declined to provide a statement. She was 25 years of age, had no prior criminal record, had the support of her family and expressed genuine remorse. [ 50 ] The Crown sought a nine to 12 month jail term, while the defence argued for a 90-day intermittent sentence with community work hours. [ 51 ] The court imposed a five-month sentence plus 12 months' probation and a driving prohibition.

She was required to perform 40 community work hours as a term of her probation. [ 52 ] Ms. Soos' circumstances are similar to the offender in Aman , however, it is to be noted that Ms. Soos provided a statement to the police, against the advice of her counsel. This is deserving of significant mitigation and is a distinguishing factor from the offender in Aman . [ 53 ] Next, R. v. Waddell , 2005 BCPC 302 . The offender in Waddell was drinking and driving. He struck the deceased, throwing her several metres.

Despite briefly stopping, the offender left the scene without rendering assistance, nor did he provide a statement or admit his liability. He was implicated following a two-month police investigation. [ 54 ] The offender, aged 68 years, served 12 years in the Canadian military. He quit drinking after the accident.

He was described as honest, loyal, hard-working and otherwise a man of integrity, an odd conclusion given the nature of the allegations. [ 55 ] He had no criminal history or driving record. [ 56 ] The court sentenced the offender in Waddell to a nine-month conditional sentence with 40 hours community work hours, probation, and a driving prohibition. [ 57 ] Ms. Soos circumstances are clearly less aggravating than those of the offender in Waddell . However, this case appears to be out of step with the other sentencing precedents supplied by the Crown. [ 58 ] Next, R. v. De Freitas , 2014 ONCJ 805 .

The offender in De Freitas struck a 19 year old BMX bike rider, riding without a helmet or a light. The deceased died the following day. The offender turned himself in to the police the next day, admitting that he knew he had struck a person. The offender was 18 years old, had no criminal record or driving history, and attended university on a football scholarship. He took responsibility for his actions and demonstrated remorse. [ 59 ] The court opined that the appropriate sentencing range for first-time offenders with no underlying driving offences was between three and six months' jail.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by probation and a driving prohibition. The offender was directed to complete 100 hours of community work service as part of his probation. [ 60 ] Next, R. v. Sandhu , 2014 ONCJ 95 . In Sandhu , the court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence for an offender who struck a van with mechanical issues carrying more people than allowed and driven by an unlicensed driver. An 11-year-old child was killed. The offender went to a body shop and said he had struck a moose. Six days later he turned himself in to the police.

The court described the offender's attempt at deception as "not particularly sophisticated." [ 61 ] He entered a guilty plea, accepted responsibility, had no prior criminal history and was otherwise a productive member of society. The court considered a conditional sentence but determined it would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing. The court remarked that the offender could not give anything back to the deceased or his family but could compensate the community in the form of community service. One hundred and fifty community work hours were ordered. [ 62 ] Ms.

Soos circumstances are clearly more favourable than the offender in Sandhu .

[ 63 ] Next, R. v. Gourlay , 2018 BCSC 884 . This is a relatively recent decision from the B.C. Supreme Court.

The offender in Gourlay pleaded guilty to hit and run and obstruction of justice after he struck and killed a woman who was sitting on a curb at a bus stop in what was described as a "non-criminal driving error." However, the 42-year-old offender left the scene and washed his car and replaced a broken front signal light in an attempt to conceal his involvement. [ 64 ] The offender was described as not possessing a significant criminal record, having stable employment which he lost as a result of the accident, having some substance use issues, and having family support.

He was seriously assaulted while serving time in custody before sentence which was considered a mitigating factor. Interestingly, the court found no aggravating circumstances. [ 65 ] The sentence imposed was 10 months' jail for the hit and run followed by a two-year driving prohibition. No probation was indicated and no community work hours ordered. [ 66 ] Again, the circumstances in Gourlay are more aggravating than those of Ms. Soos. Gourlay took active steps to obstruct the police investigation. [ 67 ] The final case tendered in support of this joint submission was R. v. Alves , 2012 BCPC 403 .

The offender in Alves struck and killed a 77-year-old pedestrian. The offender stopped briefly before leaving the scene. He turned himself in to police later that evening. [ 68 ] He pleaded guilty in a case where the Crown proceeded by indictment. The Crown argued for a sentence of eight-and-a-half to nine months and that a conditional sentence order was unavailable as the offence was a serious personal injury offence.

The defence submitted that a 12 to 18 month conditional sentence was both available and appropriate. [ 69 ] Much of the Alves decision is focused on whether a conditional sentence order was available to the offender. The court ultimately determined it was not; however, the court went on to assess whether a conditional sentence was appropriate were it available. [ 70 ] The offender was 69 years of age and of Portuguese descent. He immigrated to Canada in 1982 and moved to B.C. in 1995 where he worked in the restaurant industry until his retirement in 2008.

In addition to several entries on his driving record, the offender was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm. Additionally, at the time of the accident the offender did not possess a valid driver's licence. [ 71 ] The court determined that the appropriate range of sentence was three to 18 months imprisonment. The court was concerned with the risk the offender posed to the community given his driving history and his impaired driving conviction.

A conditional sentence was ultimately determined to be inconsistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing given the circumstances of the offence and the offender. He was sentenced to four months' jail, 18 months of probation, and a two-year driving prohibition. The probation conditions were not described in the decision. [ 72 ] I infer from the Alves decision that the offender's prior criminal history and driving history factored prominently in the analysis. These are, again, factors that are distinguished from Ms.

Soos' circumstances. [ 73 ] Having considered all of the cases tendered during the sentencing hearing, I am satisfied that the range of sentence for this offence, for a first-time offender without a record for driving infractions is between three and 18 months' jail. I am further satisfied that a conditional sentence is available given the decision in R. v. Chen . [ 74 ] I am also satisfied, given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of Ms. Soos, coupled with the consideration of the purpose and principles of sentencing that a conditional sentence is the appropriate disposition.

However, I find I cannot endorse the conditional sentence in its current proposed form. I am of the view that a fit and appropriate sentence for this offence and this offender should include a term of house arrest. [ 75 ] I further find it eminently reasonable that Ms. Soos give back to the community. She has expressed remorse and it is genuine. She has undertaken counselling, albeit just prior to sentencing and on the advice of her counsel.

While she is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation, the serious nature of her conduct calls out for something more than the terms proposed by counsel. [ 76 ] I have reached this conclusion with consideration to the Supreme Court of Canada's discussion regarding joint submissions contained in R. v. Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 .

I am of the view that reasonable and informed persons, aware of all of the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty and resolution discussions would conclude that the proper functioning of the system had broken down if I was to endorse the sentence jointly proposed in this case. [ 77 ] The conditions jointly proposed for Ms.

Soos, in addition to the mandatory conditions, are as follows: that she report to her conditional sentence supervisor and provide that person with her address and phone number; that she reside as directed and not change her address without permission; that she be bound by curfew between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; and that she not possess or consume drugs or alcohol. These are the only terms sought. I do not find these terms to be sufficiently punitive to reflect the denunciation and deterrence required in the circumstances. [ 78 ] Ms. Soos committed a serious offence. Whether Mr.

Sidhu's outcome would have been different if she had stayed and discharged her duty as a driver and as a human being, I cannot say. I am invited to conclude that her attendance would have made no difference to Mr. Sidhu's ultimate fate. However, it may well have made a difference to Mr. Sidhu to have Ms. Soos stay with him. He was mortally injured, whether he knew it or not. He was likely in pain. He was likely scared. If he was conscious at the time, which we will never know because Ms. Soos left. He was without the comfort of his wife of nearly 50 years, or his granddaughter or other people who loved him.

He was alone, at least initially. Ms. Soos' obligation was simple, it was clear, and she failed to discharge it. [ 79 ] A conditional sentence in name alone without restrictive or meaningful sanctions cannot be expected to have the same effect as one with such sanctions. Here, the restrictions will not impact Ms. Soos' life a great deal. She does not stay out late. She goes to work early and returns before her curfew. I have heard nothing to suggest that the imposition of an alcohol and drug prohibition will impact her life in any way.

[PROCEEDINGS] [ 80 ] THE COURT: In short, what I have determined here is I do not find the proposed conditions will provide much in the way of denunciation and deterrence, which are the primary factors punctuated on sentence as noted in R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 at paragraph 30 : If a conditional sentence is not distinguished from probation, then these offenders will receive what are effectively considerably less onerous probation orders instead of jail terms. Such lenient sentences would not provide sufficient denunciation and deterrence, nor would they be accepted by the public.

Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is “to contribute . . . to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society”. Inadequate sanctions undermine respect for the law. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish a conditional sentence from probation by way of the use of punitive conditions. Further at paragraph 103: ... conditions such as house arrest should be the norm, not the exception.

This means that the offender should be confined to his or her home except when working, attending school, or fulfilling other conditions of his or her sentence, e.g. community service, meeting with the supervisor, or participating in treatment programs. Of course, there will need to be exceptions for medical emergencies, religious observance, and the like. [ 81 ] In virtually every case supplied by the Crown and the defence in support of their joint submission where either an intermittent sentence or a conditional sentence was pronounced, community work service was ordered.

When I asked counsel why they were not jointly proposing community work service hours for Ms. Soos, I was told that neither had considered them as being required. This is, in my view, an oversight that must be corrected. [ 82 ] Ms. Soos, would you stand now, please. [ 83 ] I have heard from Mr. Ballantyne his submissions regarding my proposed conditions. I am going to take those into consideration, I have taken those into consideration and I am ultimately not going to change my position on sentence, but my one concern for you is that you have an opportunity to go to temple on Sunday.

I think that is an appropriate time for you to be taking care of yourself and connecting to your faith. My expectation would be that you would discuss that with your conditional sentence supervisor and that would be an appropriate exception that they can give you permission for. So you are going to be obligated to go and talk to them - and I say this is in addition to the time that you are allowed outside of your house arrest, you will have to let them know that is what you want to do. If, for some reason, that is a problem for them then you talk to Mr.

Ballantyne, you bring the matter back before me and we will talk about it further but, in my view, that is an appropriate use of an exception for your house arrest. [ 84 ] Having said that, I do impose a conditional sentence order for a duration of six months. The compulsory conditions are as follows. [ 85 ] Firstly, you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court.

You must notify the court or your conditional sentence supervisor, in advance, of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or your supervisor of any change of employment or occupation. Additionally, you must remain in the province of British Columbia unless you have prior written permission from the court or your conditional sentence supervisor to leave the province. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 86 ] In addition, Ms.

Soos, you must report in person to a conditional sentence supervisor at the Abbotsford Community Corrections office here in the courthouse by 3:00 p.m., today, that is Wednesday, October 20, 2021, and after that you must report as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor. [ 87 ] When first reporting to your conditional sentence supervisor you must provide them with the address where you live and your phone number. You must not change your address or phone number without prior written permission from your conditional sentence supervisor. [ 88 ] For the first three months of this order, Ms.

Soos, you must obey house arrest by being inside your residence or on the lot where your residence is located 24 hours a day, every day. Additionally, you must present yourself immediately at the door to your residence or answer the phone when any peace officer or conditional sentence supervisor attends or calls to check on you during the house arrest and, rest assured, they will do that, Ms. Soos. It is their job and they can be there because you are under house arrest 24 hours a day. They can, in theory, come anytime during that 24 hours.

You need to be there. [ 89 ] You may be away from your residence during the house arrest with the written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor. Such permission is to be given only for employment or other compelling reasons, including religious reasons, or the completion of your community work hours. You must carry the written permission with you when you are outside of your residence. [ 90 ] In addition, you may be away from your residence during the house arrest hours: (

a) while at or going directly to or returning directly from a healthcare facility because of a medical emergency. If asked, you must provide your conditional sentence supervisor with proof of your attendance at the facility. A further exception to the house arrest will be you may also be away from your residence during the house arrest hours on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to attend to your personal affairs. [ 91 ] For the second three months of this order, Ms.

Soos, you must obey a curfew by being inside your residence or on the lot where your residence is located between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. every day. Once again, you must present yourself immediately to the door of your residence or answer the phone when any peace officer or conditional sentence supervisor attends or calls to check on you during the curfew. Once again, you may be away from your residence during the curfew with the prior written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor. Such permission is to be given only for employment or other compelling reasons including religious reasons.

You must carry the permission, which can be in electronic format, when you are outside your residence.

[ 92 ] You may be away from your residence during the curfew hours: (

a) while at or going directly to or returning directly from a healthcare facility because of a medical emergency. If asked, you must provide your conditional sentence supervisor with proof of your attendance at the facility. [ 93 ] In addition, Ms. Soos, you must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicating substances except with a medical prescription. [ 94 ] Ms. Soos, you must complete 60 hours of community work under the direction of your conditional sentence supervisor. I have considered Mr. Ballantyne's suggestion of reducing that to 40 hours. I find 60 to be appropriate.

As you heard me say from the decisions that I received, the upper end, the maximum amount of community work hours is 240. This is a six-month order. In my view, 60 hours is appropriate and a way that you really can give back. You heard some of the comments that I mentioned that other judges have made in other cases. You cannot give back to Mr. Sidhu or really to his widow beyond what you have done which is apologize in a genuine manner, but you can give back to the community and it is appropriate that you do so with 60 hours of community work service.

So you must complete those hours under the direction of your conditional sentence supervisor. Your community work service must be completed by March 20, 2022. That gives you about five months out of that six-month order. [ 95 ] I am sentencing you on Information 92240-1 to a fine of $1,000, plus the mandatory 15 percent victim fine surcharge, which I decline to waive. I decline to waive it because you are working. You have been working regularly.

You have done well in your work but there is no particular reason for me to waive that fine and I decline to do so. [ 96 ] In terms of time to pay the fine and victim fine surcharge, Mr. Ballantyne? [ 97 ] CNSL R. BALLANTYNE: Three months time to pay, please. [ 98 ] THE COURT: Three months? [ 99 ] CNSL R. BALLANTYNE: If I may address you on one point - two points? [ 100 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 101 ] CNSL R. BALLANTYNE: One is you do say to be away from school for her job or religious and so on. That does include - just specifically so I've said it, school. She does attend school. [ 102 ] THE COURT: Yes.

Thank you for that. [ 103 ] CNSL R. BALLANTYNE: She's continuing to do school. [ 104 ] THE COURT: Yes. If we can just add that as well into the - this is with the permission of the conditional sentence supervisor. Going back to that condition briefly, Mr. Clerk, for both the house arrest and curfew. Employment, religious or education reasons. [ 105 ] CNSL R.

BALLANTYNE: I know it's covered by religious but might you have Sunday from - three hours from 10:00 until 1:00 p.m. so that she has that time and, quite frankly, with the curfew it might facilitate her to do that because I agree with you, anything to do - to impact her faith will certainly assist her. [ 106 ] THE COURT: I thought of that Mr. Ballantyne but I am content to leave that in the hands of the conditional sentence supervisor. Again, if that is a problem come back and we will talk about it but - [ 107 ] CNSL R. BALLANTYNE: No.

It's just a suggestion. [ 108 ] THE COURT: - at this point, that seems appropriate. [ 109 ] CNSL R. BALLANTYNE: If I may just briefly speak with my client for one minute? [ 110 ] THE COURT: Certainly. [ 111 ] CNSL R. BALLANTYNE: Thank you, Your Honour. Those are my input. [ 112 ] THE COURT: All right. Thank you. So that fine and victim fine surcharge will be due January 20, 2022, three months from today, Ms. Soos. It is $1150. It is not a small amount so your best option is to pay a little bit when you can.

When you get some money maybe as you are regularly paid, come here to the court registry and make payments so it does not add up all at once in late January. [ 113 ] These are outside of the conditions, of course, but they are ancillary orders. Pursuant to s. 320.24(5) of the Criminal Code , Ms. Soos, you are prohibited from operating any motor vehicle on any street, road, highway, or other public place in Canada for a period of 18 months from today's date. Do you have a licence right now? [ 114 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 115 ] THE COURT: All right.

Well, you are not prohibited to drive at all for the next 18 months, understood? [ 116 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 117 ] THE COURT: In terms of the ancillary orders sought, this offence is a secondary designated offence. Having considered the factors outlined in s. 487.051(3), I am satisfied it is in the best interest of the administration of justice to authorize the taking of a sample of bodily substances from you for registration in the DNA National Data Bank. This is part of the joint submission. What that means practically for you, Ms.

Soos, is a swab of your cheek, could be a hair sample, in theory a blood sample but it is typically not very

invasive. What you need to do and I will direct that you must attend at the Abbotsford police station in Abbotsford, British Columbia, on or before November 20, 2021, that is in the next 30 days, and you must submit to the taking of the samples. This order remains valid until it is executed. You can talk to Mr. Ballantyne about that. Again, it is typically a swab of your cheek. Get some cells from the inside of your cheek and that gets registered in the National Data Bank for offenders. [ 118 ] Ms. Kemble, anything I have overlooked from the Crown's perspective? [ 119 ] CNSL C.

KEMBLE: No, thank you, Your Honour. [ 120 ] THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Ballantyne, anything further for Ms. Soos? [ 121 ] CNSL R. BALLANTYNE: No, thank you. [ 122 ] THE COURT: All right. I wish you the very best of luck, Ms. Soos. This is a terrible situation for everybody involved but my hope is that you move beyond it. This sentence is severe for your level of responsibility but the case law directs it be severe. I wish you the very best of luck. I am sure we will not see you in this forum again. Thank you for attending today. Thank you. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)