His Majesty the King v. Noel John Sock –, 2023 NBKB 042

MCR-18-2021 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK TRIAL DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONCTON Citation: His Majesty the King v. Noel John Sock – 2023 NBKB 042 Date: 20230316 BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING - AND – NOEL JOHN SOCK Date of Hearing: February 21, and March 16, 2023 Date of Decision: March 16, 2023

Before: Justice Richard G. Petrie At: Moncton, New Brunswick Appearances: Mario Cormier and Katie Myers for His Majesty the King Alexander Pate for the Accused D E C I S I O N Petrie, J. (Orally) I. Introduction 1 . On February 21st, 2023, the first day of a scheduled four week trial, the Crown and Defense advised the Court of a plea resolution on the four count Indictment facing Mr. Sock. As a result, Mr. Sock pled guilty to the first count, that is manslaughter pursuant to

section 236 (

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada . After a plea inquiry pursuant to section 606(1.1) of the Code, I was satisfied that Mr. Sock’s guilty plea was both an informed one as well as voluntarily made. As a result, I accepted Mr. Sock’s plea and convicted him of the manslaughter of Erika Vautour . The Crown then proceeded to withdraw the three other remaining charges from the Indictment against Mr. Sock. 2 . Also at trial, the Crown and Defense submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts, marked as Exhibit A-1. These facts were expressly confirmed as agreed by Mr. Sock. 3 .

The Court next ordered both a Pre-Sentence Report, with a Gladue component and Victim Impact Statements to be prepared and submitted upon the return for the sentencing hearing today. 4 . The Crown and Defense have arrived at a joint recommendation on sentence for Mr. Sock. II. Circumstances of the Offense 5 . The circumstances of the offence are captured by way of the Agreed Statement of Facts, Exhibit A-1. 6 . The facts are as follows:

a) On March 8 th , 2020, shortly after 6:30am, the Richibucto RCMP were dispatched to 2093 Ch St Ignace, in St Ignace, New Brunswick, the residence of Erika Vautour, after receiving a 911 call from Jerry LeBlanc.

b) Erika Vautour, and her partner, Jerry LeBlanc, were inside their residence when they heard glass bread. Erika Vautour told Jerry LeBlanc that she thought they were being robbed and to “grab the gun”.

c) While Jerry LeBlanc was looking for bullets for the gun, he gave Erika Vautour a machete. Erika Vautour opened the door with a flashlight and the machete and said: “they are not even scated. They got a gun, “ then quickly closed the door again.

d) At this point, Jerry LeBlanc heard a gunshot and saw Erika Vautour on the floor of the entrance way of the residence. The bullet, discharged from the firearm Noel Sock had in his possession, had gone through the door and had struck Erika Vautour.

e) Jerry LeBlanc then saw two masked individuals, Noel Sock and Rhona Joseph, come into the trailer, asking “where is the stuff?” They both had guns in their hands.

f) Jerry LeBlanc stated he did not know, and Noel Sock and Rhona Joseph ran off.

g) Kelsey Clair, who was waiting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle they drove up in, was then pushed into the passenger seat by Noel Sock, who drove them both away.

h) Meanwhile, Rhona Joseph went back into the residence with a 30-30 Winchester Rifle. Jerry LeBlanc grabbed the 30-30 Winchester Rifle and took it away from her and tried to shoot her with it but failed as the gun was empty. He then tried to take off her mask – which he eventually was able to do by pulling out some of her hair and putting his fist inside her mouth.

i) Rhona Joseph ran to the residence of neighbors, located a couple doors down from 2093 Ch St. Ignace. Rhona Joseph indicated that she had been assaulted by her boyfriend and that he left her on the side of the road.

j) While the neighbors were trying to get medical assistance for her, they saw her leave on foot and hitchhike a ride with one of their other neighbors.

k) The other neighbor picked up Rhona Joseph close to the crime scene at 2093 Ch St. Ignace. He drove her to 84 Riverside Drive in Elsipogtog First Nation, the residence of Noel Sock.

l) When RCMP and paramedics arrived on scene, they found Erika Vautour inside the entrace of the residence, with a bullet wound to her head and a graze mark on her leg. She was rushed to hospital.

m) IDENT member Cpl. Richard Belliveau examined the scene and found the mask and the 30-30 Winchester Rifle, that Jerry Leblanc took form Rhona Joseph, along with one fired bullet.

n) That a swab from the handles/trigger of the 30-30 Winchester and the mask, were obtained by Cpl. Richard Belliveau and later matched to a sample of Rhona Joseph.

o) Forensic Specialist, Yannik Gauthier, did analyze the fired bullet, and stated in his report found that it is consistent with a .22 calibre bullet with conventional rifling which can be eliminated as having been fired from the 30-30 Winchester Rifle that Rhona Joseph had in her possession.

p) At the hospital, Erika Vautour was declared deceased. The autopsy was conducted on Erika Vautour by Dr. Ather Naseemeuddin and he prepared a “ Final Post Mortem Report ” on March 9 th , 2020.

q) The report stated that the final cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head.

r) When interviewed by police, Rhonda Joseph and Kelsey Clair both stated that Noel Sock was the male offender present with them at the residence of Erika Vautour on the morning of March 8 th , 2020 and had discharged the firearm that killed her. III. Victim Impact Statements 7 . Victim Impact Statements from Ms. Vautour’s mother Gisèle Vautour and, father Eric Thorne, were received by the Court. Probation Services was unable to reach Mr. Jerry LcBlanc. 8 . Mr. Thorne describes the deep anguish of losing his daughter in such a “senseless” act of violence. Mr.

Thorne is tortured by the last memories of his daughter in the hospital clinging to life before she passed. He has also had to seek medical assistance for himself in dealing with this loss. 8. Ms. Gisèle Vautour outlines the sheer misery that she continues to suffer over the horror of Erica’s death. She outlines the pain and loneliness she endures having lost not only her daughter but her closest friend and companion. Ms. Vautour candidly acknowledges having to self-medicate in order to get through. My sense of her statement is that the loss of her daughter has been plainly debilitating. As Ms.

Vautour says, she now has to live her life with a shattered heart and broken spirit. 9 . It is clear to me that the loss of Erica Vautour and the violent circumstances in which it occurred, has tragically changed people’s lives forever. The family and friends of Erica Vautour have suffered a terrible loss. It is all quite devastating. Ms. Vautour was still a young woman with a full life ahead of her. I wish to express my utmost sympathy to you for your loss.

IV. Circumstances of the Offender 10 . A Pre-Sentence Report was filed by the Department of Public Safety. It contained a comprehensive Gladue component. 11 . Mr. Sock is currently 34 years of age. He is of Mi’kmaq descent and is a registered band member of the Elsipogtog First Nation, where he owns a house. While he was born in Ontario, he moved back and has lived at Elsipogtog First Nation since he was approximately 7 years old. 12 . In terms of the Gladue component, the Report generally sets out the history of the Mi’kmaq peoples including in the geographical area of the current province of New Brunswick.

The Report, sadly, highlights the historical and ongoing systemic trauma and effects of colonialism on Aboriginal Peoples. 13 . The rather notorious impacts of the Residential Schools Program, with the express goal of assimilating Aboriginal peoples into “white” Canadian society, has been recognized as contributing significant adverse and intergenerational effects on Aboriginal Peoples and which is reflected in terms of their higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, and rates of incarceration. 14 .

The Report also notes that many children from Elsipogtog were forced to attend Residential Schools and Day Schools locally, or in Shubenacadie Indian Residential School. The Report notes that there are nearly 10 former students of Indian Residential Schools living in the community , and “over half of the community” of Elsipogtog are descendants of former Indian Residential School students. 15 . The Report draws the connection between how these systemic effects have affected Mr. Sock. At the top of Page 18, the Probation Officer Ms.

Graham states: … It is imperative to consider how the systemic effects of colonialism have affected Noel John SOCK; primarily, these affects are illustrated by his substance use issues, being verbally and physically abused at school, in the community, and in his home, he has been exposed and impacted by the misuse of alcohol and drugs within the community and the misuse of alcohol in his home. 16 . Mr. Sock was interviewed by telephone on March 1, 2023 by Ms. Graham. He had also participated in two prior PSRs in the relatively recent past. 17 . The Report reveals Mr.

Sock’s personal circumstances to include that he has a Grade 7 education; he is single; he does not have any children; and he is from a large family. Mr. Sock began experimenting with drugs and alcohol at a relatively young age. 18 . Mr. Sock has had some real challenges during his upbringing. His parents separated when he was young, and he was largely raised by his father. He lost one of his sisters in 2007 to suicide, and he indicates that was a significant personal loss.

He reported to being very close to his paternal grandmother and to having been deeply impacted by the loss of his grandmother when he was 10 years old. 19 . Mr. Sock also lost his father in 2016. Mr. Sock indicated that this loss had a profound effect on him and, in fact, he points to his father’s passing as beginning a downward spiral of excessive alcohol and hard drug abuse. This also coincided with him getting in trouble with the law. Criminal activities to support a growing addiction are an all too common and vicious cycle. It was this cycle that lead Mr.

Sock to his involvement with the law and, I believe to him being before the Court today. 20 . While Mr. Sock reports to being in good physical health, he has experienced symptoms of anxiety and depression, and he has been prescribed medication to help deal with those symptoms. 21 . Mr. Sock also reports that he suffered from bullying as a child in school and in the community. He also, at times, was subject to physical abuse from his father and often forced to leave his father’s residence. Mr.

Sock acknowledged previous involvement with the justice system, and it is noted that he has dealt with Probation Services in the past. He has also participated and completed the Elsipogtog Healing to Wellness Program on two separate occasions.

22 . Mr. Sock reports to now having a positive relationship with his mother and a sister to whom he talks regularly. 23 . While Mr. Sock indicates that he was not directly impacted by the Indian Residential Schools, he has suggested that one or both of his parents may have attended Indian Day Schools and he believes that his mother, in particular, may have suffered abuse there. He also acknowledged that he has rather limited involvement with Indigenous traditions, celebrations, and gatherings currently, but he does express a desire to increase his involvement in the future. V. Legal Framework 24 . Under

section 236 of the Code, a person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. As a firearm was used in the commission of the offence, the seriousness is elevated and S.236(

a) of the Code also requires a minimum sentence of four years imprisonment. 25 . There are some mandatory Ancillary Orders that apply: Firearm possession prohibition as per

section 109; DNA sampling as per

section 487.051; Forfeiture Order pursuant to S.490.1; and Victim Surcharge (with exceptions). The Crown also seeks a non- communication order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code. I note that the Defence has accepted these orders to be appropriate, with the exception of the Victim Surcharge, which they have asked me to waive. VI. Principles of Sentencing 26 . Sentencing is not an exercise in pure vengeance or retribution. It is fact and circumstance driven and must always be in accordance with the governing rules of law. 27 . The Criminal Code sets out various principles related to sentencing.

With respect to those principles, I note that the purposes and principles of sentencing are set out in

section 718 of the Code and they include the following objectives: (

a) the need to denounce unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and others from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society where necessary; (

d) to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders; (

e) to promote a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement in offenders for the harm they have done; and (

f) to provide reparations for harm done. 28 .

Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. 29 . The gravity of the offence of manslaughter and the degree of responsibility of the offender can vary wildly due to the very nature of the charge.

An act of manslaughter can be committed by different unlawful acts that lead to the death of the victim. As enunciated by multiple courts, manslaughter can range from circumstances of “near accident” to “near murder”. As such the moral blameworthiness of the accused can equally span a broad spectrum. See R v Peters , 2014 BCSC 1009 at para 12 ; R v Landry , 2021 NSSC 179 at para 33 ; R v LaBerge , 1995 ABCA 196 [Laberge] at para 6 . And see more recently, R v Carty (unreported, File No SJCR- 11-2021) at paragraph 29. 30 .

In R v Laberge , at para 7 , the Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the analysis of the range of “near accident” to “near murder” begins by determining the unlawful act that led to the death of the victim and the culpability associated with the unlawful act: Unlawful acts may be divided into three broad groups: those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, bodily injury; those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, serious bodily injury and those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, life-threatening injuries.

Only when the offender's proven mental state at the time of commission of the offence is evaluated in the context of the crime itself, in other words in terms of its relative degree of seriousness, is it possible to classify for sentencing purposes the degree of fault inherent in the crime committed.

31. This decision has been cited with approval in multiple levels of courts in New Brunswick. See R v K.R.B., 2007 NBQB359, R v Basque, (NBCA), R v Landry, 2017 NBQB 206, R v Foster, 2004 NBQB 316, R v Hachey, 2018 NBQB 106,and R v Hudnet-Pelletier & Melanson, 2018 NBQB 110. 32.

The Court in R v Laberge, beginning at paragraph 17, lists six(6) questions which need to be canvassed in order to guagethe moral culpability of the offender: Was the unlawful act, viewed objectively, likely to subject the victim to the risk of bodily harm which was neither trivial nor transitory?This is the minimum required to support a manslaughter conviction (assuming that the actus reus and mens rea of the underlying acthave been established). (...) Did the offender know that the unlawful act would likely subject the victim to the risk of bodily harm which was neither trivial nortransitory or did the offender, knowing of the probable consequences of the act, proceed recklessly in the face of the risk?

If so, thedegree of moral fault of the offender increases. (...) Was the unlawful act, viewed objectively, likely to subject the victim to the risk of serious bodily injury? If so, then an offender in thiscategory is more culpable than he would have been had the unlawful act placed him in the minimum objective category. (...) Did the offender know that the unlawful act would likely subject the victim to the risk of serious bodily injury or did the offender,knowing of the probable consequences of the act, proceed recklessly in the face of the risk?

Again, if the offender knew that the actwould likely cause serious bodily injury or was wilfully blind to this possibility, he is even more blameworthy. Was the unlawful act, viewed objectively, likely to subject the victim to the risk of life-threatening injuries? If the answer is yes, then thetrial judge should go on to ask whether the act, viewed objectively, was likely to cause life-threatening injuries.

Did the offender know that the unlawful act would likely subject the victim to the risk of life-threatening injuries, short however of whatwould be required to establish the intention to kill required for murder, or did the offender, knowing of the probable consequences of theact, proceed recklessly in the face of the risk? And if so, can it be concluded that the offender knew of, or was wilfully blind to, thelikelihood of causing this level of injuries, not simply putting the victim at risk for these injuries. Again, if so, his culpability increases. 33. In the case before me, Mr. Sock shot Ms.

Vautour in the head through a door, just seconds after she had shut it. Thedischarge of the firearm in the direction of where Ms. Vautour was standing just seconds before, viewed objectively, is an unlawful actwhich was likely to put her at risk of life-threatening injuries. In fact, viewed objectively, it was likely to cause life threatening injuriesand did so. 34. Consequently, the culpability of Mr.

Sock in this instance is rather high and thus utilizing the analysis from R v Laberge, Ican not disagree with the Crown’s contention that this offence might be considered closer to “near murder” than “near accident.”

Section 718.2 also directs the Court to take into consideration aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to theoffence or the offender. It sets out certain circumstances which shall be deemed to be aggravating. In addition, the

section provides thata sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. 36. Of relevance before me today,

section 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code states: 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: …

(

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. 37. As the Defence argues, in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in R v Gladue (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR688 and R v Ipeelee [2012] SCC 13, the proper application of s. 718.2(

e) requires that judges approach the sentencing of Indigenousoffenders in a way that considers the systemic or background factors that may have played apart in bringing those offenders before thecourts – and with an eye to implementing sentencing procedures or sanctions that are appropriate in the circumstances for those offendersbecause of their Indigenous heritage. 38. In this case, I am satisfied of the following aggravating and mitigating circumstances applicable to this conviction: Aggravating Factors 39.

In terms of aggravating factors, the very nature and circumstances of this offence, ie. engaging in a masked, home invasionearly in the morning and choosing to shoot a firearm through a door which the victim had just shut is grave and most serious. Mitigating Factors 40. In terms of mitigating factors, Mr. Sock is a relatively young man of Indigenous descent, and he benefits from theprinciples outlined in R v Gladue. I am satisfied that he, as an Indigenous person, has experienced some related systemic and backgroundfactors, and that it is only appropriate to give this some consideration. Mr.

Sock plead guilty, albeit on the first day of trial, but his pleadid alleviate the need for a lengthy trial. I also note that his previous criminal record is relatively limited. He has never spent timeincarcerated previously. V. Joint Recommendation on Sentence 41. As I said earlier, the parties have put before this Court a joint recommendation on sentence. I am of the view that bothCrown and Defence counsel are well placed to arrive at a joint submission that addresses the interests of both the public and the accused. 42.

Joint recommendations on sentence, although not strictly binding, are to be accorded significant weight and deference. ACourt should not reject a joint submission lightly. Our Court of Appeal has long directed sentencing judges not to disregard jointrecommendations unless they are clearly unreasonable (for instance, R. v. Guignard, 2005 NBCA 35 , [2005] NBJ No. 132; R.v. Steeves, 2010 NBCA 57). 43. In R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, the Supreme Court of Canada provided specific guidance to sentencing judges withrespect to joint submissions.

At paragraph 34, Justice Moldaver states: In my view, these powerful statements capture the essence of the public interest test developed by the Martin Committee. Theyemphasize that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly, a conclusion with which I agree. Rejection denotes a submissionso unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informedpersons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, tobelieve that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down.

This is an undeniably high threshold — and for goodreason, as I shall explain. (Emphasis Added) 44. The Crown and Defense joint recommendation on sentencing of Mr. Sock for the manslaughter of Erica Vautour is eight(8) years imprisonment, less equivalent remand credit. 45. Both parties have submitted a number of authorities to support their recommended sentence including: R v Martinez 2015BCSC 653; R v Kahn 2018 ABQB 587; R v Garthwaite 2018 ONSC 6776; R v W.M. 2021 SKCA 103; R v Jongbloets, 2018 BCSC 403;R v Gordon, 2020 ONSC 7395; R v Thomas, 2007 BCSC 1530; and R v MacDonald, 2007 BCCA 606

46 . Martinez, Krahn , and Garthwaite happened to all be cases involving manslaughter by firearm in circumstances connected to a robbery and where the accused pled guilty. Jongbloets was similar except the accused was convicted after trial. 47 . Martinez involved a 20-year-old Indigenous man, with no prior criminal record. He was sentenced to 7 years incarceration. 48 . Krahn involved a 31-year-old accused with a challenging past and a lengthy criminal record. He was sentenced to 10 years incarceration. 49 .

Garthwaite involved a 24-year-old accused with a challenging upbringing and a criminal record including convictions for firearms offences. He was sentenced to 10 years incarceration. 50 . Jongbloets involved a 28 year old offender with an extensive criminal record including convictions for violence. He was sentenced to 10 years’ after trial for two firearms-related deaths. He was on a bail recognizance at the time of the offence. 51 . W.M. was also a robbery circumstance but one in which the accused committed manslaughter by a violent beating with a baseball bat.

The accused was a 17-year-old indigenous youth tried as an adult. He had no prior criminal record. While he was sentenced to 9 years in jail at trial, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to 7 years in light of the trial judge’s failure to give appropriate weight to the accused Indigenous background and lack of any criminal record. 52 . In Gordon , a dispute over drugs escalated into a physical altercation during which the offender stabbed the victim with a knife.

The sentencing judge found that aggravating circumstances included the use of a knife causing multiple stab wounds, the vulnerability of the victim who was unarmed, the fact that the offence occurred in the context of a drug transaction, and at a time when the offender was on bail. Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth and lack of a criminal record. The offender was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. 53 . Thomas and MacDonald , are companion cases arising from a death during a home invasion.

The victim eventually died from his injuries inflicted by the accused men through a prolonged and violent assault. Both men pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The Court imposed a sentence of 9 years on Mr. Thomas, and 7 years for Mr. MacDonald. 54 . Mr. Thomas was 41 at the time of the offence and had a record of 11convictions, primarily involving drugs and alcohol. The sentencing judge found he was the ringleader in planning the home invasion, and the death would not have occurred but for his instigation of the events. Mr. MacDonald was 34 and on parole at the time of the offence.

He had a significant criminal record. The Court observed he had been the person least involved in the beating, but he had been fully involved in the planning, which involved a high risk of violence. 55 . While no two cases are ever truly alike, the parity principle captured by S. 718.2(

b) of the Code, highlights that “ a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”. 56 . My read of the authorities cited to me above suggests an applicable sentencing range of 7-10 years in this circumstance. 57 . It has been noted by many Courts that the sentencing range for manslaughter is necessarily varied and broad. Justice Glennie in R v.

Pearson [2002] NBJ 227 (NBQB) states at paragraphs 21 and 22 : 21 For sentencing purposes, the offence of manslaughter can encompass an infinite number of situations, but they all share one characteristic. A death has been caused by culpable homicide. Because the taking of life is a central feature of manslaughter sentencing, courts will emphasize the roles of denunciation and deterrence. However, rehabilitation and reintegration are relevant especially in the examples of situational killings where the offender presents little or no risk of future danger.

Manslaughter sentencing is completely variable and dependant on the circumstances leading to the death, which permits the court to distinguish between degrees of culpability. The offender's background and the existence of mitigating or aggravating factors round out the sentencing matrix, and produce a variety of sentences that run from the non-custodial to life imprisonment.

22 The offense of manslaughter remains a most serious crime for it is premised upon the death of another person in unlawful circumstances. When manslaughter involves the use of a firearm, Parliament has deemed it to be particularly serious as evidenced by a minimum sentence now contained in

Section 236 (

a) of the Criminal Code and the maximum of life imprisonment. The use of firearms is a highly regulated and hazardous activity, and the minimum sentence in s. 236 (

a) was enacted by Parliament as part of its larger gun control strategy. Also see R v. E(TK) [2007] NBQB 28 And most recently R v Nikita Dedam 2023 NBKB 24 58 . I fully appreciate that no sentence this Court imposes on Mr. Sock will make what happened to Erika Vautour anymore understandable or less painful for her family and friends. No sentence will, in any way, be proportionate to their loss. 59 . Overall, after my consideration of both counsel’s submissions, along with a review of Mr. Sock’s criminal history and a consideration of Mr.

Sock’s personal circumstances, I am satisfied that the joint recommendation is not unreasonable. Nor does it, bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and it is not contrary to the public’s interest. In short, I accept the joint recommendation. Mr. Sock – Please Stand 60 . For Count one of the Indictment, and for the offence of manslaughter in the death of Erika Vautour, contrary to

section 236 (

a) of the Criminal Code , Noel John Sock, this Court hereby sentences you to a period of imprisonment of eight (8) years. 61 . This period of imprisonment will be less a credit for the applicable pre-trial remand time at 1.5 days credit. Mr. Sock has been detained strictly on this matter and on a pre-trial basis, since October 9, 2021, until today, for a total of 521 days. He is entitled to a credit at a rate of 1.5 per day of pre-trial detention, for a total credit of 782 days. This means that his detention going forward is ordered to be for a period of 2138 days.

I have chosen to express this, to avoid confusion with the Institution, to be a period of 5 years plus 312 days going forward. 62 . As a further consequence of his conviction, the following Ancillary Orders are issued: a. A Mandatory Firearms Prohibition Order under subsection 109(2) of the Criminal Code is imposed for life. b. Mandatory Order under

section 487.051 of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. c. S. 490.1 Forfeiture Order with respect to items earlier identified by the Crown, and I have signed this Order separately. d. A Non-Communication Order pursuant to s.743.21(1) of the Code with respect to Ms. Gisèle Vautour, Mr. Eric Thorne, and Mr. Jerry Leblanc. e. I will waive any Victim Surcharge under

section 737 as Noel Sock will be serving a significant term of imprisonment. 63 . Mr. Sock, in closing I sincerely hope that this very serious crime and its devastating impact on the victim and her family, as well as on your own freedom, will be a real turning point in your life. I hope that you will treat it that way. 64 . With that, I will return you back to the custody of the sheriffs.