R. v. Spindor, 2016 BCPC 396 (CanLII)
Citation: R. v. Spindor Date: 20161209
2016 BCPC 396 File No: 78729-1
Registry: New Westminster
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REGINA
v.
ADAM SPINDOR
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE R. HARRIS
Counsel for the Crown: M. Dattilo
Counsel for the Defendant: D.G. Butcher, QC
Place of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.
Date of Hearing: November 2, 2016
Date of Judgment: December 9, 2016
INTRODUCTION
[1] The effective operation of any police agency relies on the trust of the public. A loss of the public’s trust can cripple the effective operation of any police agency. The task for this court is to identify a fit and appropriate sentence in the circumstances where a police officer breaches the public’s trust by committing theft.
BACKGROUND
[2] Adam Spindor, pleaded guilty to breaching the public trust by committing theft contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code. At the time of the offence, the offender was on duty and working as a New Westminster police officer.
[3] The Crown urges the court to suspend the passing of sentence and place Mr. Spindor on probation. In contrast, counsel for Mr. Spindor argues the granting of a conditional discharge would be fit and appropriate.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE
[4] In February of 2015, Mr. Spindor was 29 years old and he had been a police officer with the New Westminster Police Department since February of 2007.
[5] In the later portion of 2014, a unit in the police department noticed money was missing from a petty cash jar that was stored in their office area. An investigation was commenced and the area where the jar was stored was placed under video surveillance.
[6] A review of the surveillance video showed, on December 26, 2014, a large, bald individual handling the jar. An audit of the money in the jar revealed that $45 was missing.
[7] Unfortunately, technical difficulties resulted in the video images being less than ideal. Despite this, investigators examined other video in the building, collected data from pass card readers and analyzed information contained in the duty logs. These efforts resulted in Mr. Spindor being identified as the person who handled the jar on December 26, 2014.
[8] With the above in mind, investigators wanted to know the scope of Mr. Spindor’s criminality and, therefore, they decided to conduct an integrity test. As such, a plan was created where an undercover officer posing as a citizen would approach Mr. Spindor and falsely claim to have found a backpack. The undercover officer would then give Mr. Spindor a backpack containing numerous items including marked bills, a gift card and other sundry items. Thereafter, Mr. Spindor would be followed to see if he processed the backpack as required by police policy.
[9] On February 13, 2015, at 1:05 am, an undercover officer approached Mr. Spindor who was in uniform and in a marked police unit. The undercover officer told Mr. Spindor he had found a backpack and that he did not want to leave it so he gave it to Mr. Spindor who took it and placed it on the front passenger seat of his police unit.
[10] The surveillance team then followed Mr. Spindor as he went about his duties and at 4:07 am they watched as he went to a gas station and filled his police car with gas. While at the gas station Mr. Spindor stood in the area of the passenger door of his police car, however, due to the physical layout the surveillance team could not see what he was doing.
[11] When Mr. Spindor left the gas station, officers searched a garbage can that was in the immediate area of where Mr. Spindor had been standing. Inside the garbage can the police found the backpack that the undercover officer had given to Mr. Spindor. Missing from the backpack was the wallet, brochures, a folder and papers.
[12] Video surveillance from the gas station revealed Mr. Spindor handling the backpack, removing the wallet and throwing it into the garbage can.
[13] After leaving the gas station, Mr. Spindor went to a convenience store where he stayed for six minutes. Once Mr. Spindor left the store investigators searched a garbage can and found items from the backpack. These items were not seized because the surveillance team reported to the investigators that Mr. Spindor appeared to be returning to the convenience store.
[14] Investigators later learned that Mr. Spindor returned to the convenience store because he had seen a suspicious vehicle (one of the surveillance vehicles). Mr. Spindor queried the license plate on the suspicious vehicle and the result was unusual thus prompting Mr. Spindor to believe that he was under surveillance.
[15] As such, Mr. Spindor returned to the gas station and with his flashlight he searched the garbage can where the investigators had located and recovered the backpack. Unable to locate the backpack, Mr. Spindor next went back to the convenience store and retrieved the items that he had placed in the garbage.
[16] Mr. Spindor next went to the police station and prepared a found property report. The report was deficient in that he did not list all of the property that had been turned over to him. Instead, he indicated that there were miscellaneous papers and a textbook. These items were lodged for destruction. The report did not mention the backpack and the items contained therein.
[17] Investigators arrested Mr. Spindor on February 19, 2015, and on February 20, 2015, Mr. Spindor informed the President of the Police Association that money from the backpack was in a filing cabinet at the police station.
[18] An investigator went to the filing cabinet and retrieved cards and money that appeared to be from the backpack. Examination of the money revealed all of the Canadian bills, except for a $100 bill matched the monies that had been placed in the wallet by investigators.
[19] On February 27, 2015, Mr. Spindor was terminated by the New Westminster Police Department.
[20] Mr. Spindor explains that a gambling addiction was a contributing factor to this offence.
MR. SPINDOR’S BACKGROUND
[21] Mr. Spindor is 31 years old. He is married and he has a daughter who is 3 years old and son who is almost 2 years old. Mr. Spindor’s wife is 38 years old and she is on disability owing to injuries suffered in a car accident.
[22] Prior to becoming a police officer, Mr. Spindor studied criminology and he worked part time at a food distributor. When he was 21 years old, Mr. Spindor was successful in achieving a long held ambition and he was hired by the New Westminster Police Department.
[23] In 2008, Mr. Spindor completed his police training and he was assigned to patrol work. All of the materials filed demonstrate that Mr. Spindor excelled as a police officer. By way of example, his performance appraisals rated him as exceeding expectations and highlighted events where his actions distinguished him as a police officer.
[24] Also filed were several letters of acknowledgment. These letters were given in recognition of work performed by Mr. Spindor. Some examples include, negotiating a suicidal female off of a bridge, helping locate a missing person, assisting with a fatal motor vehicle accident, helping recover a 9mm handgun, and performing CPR on a male who had jumped from the Patullo Bridge.
[25] Despite Mr. Spindor’s apparent success as a police officer there were two critical incidents that negatively impacted him and effected how he performed his duties and his personal life. The first incident occurred when Mr. Spindor attended an apartment and located a male who had days earlier committed suicide by hanging. The male was Mr. Spindor’s age, had the same first name and was from Mr. Spindor‘s home town. Mr. Spindor had difficulty processing this event and in an effort to obtain closure he went to the male’s funeral.
[26] In March of 2015, Dr. Smith, a forensic psychiatrist, prepared an independent evaluation regarding Mr. Spindor and, at paragraph 70, she commented:
70. Mr. Spindor was evidently very badly affected by the discovery of the hanging and decomposing body of a young man in 2008 shortly after he graduated from the police academy. He identified with the young man but also empathized enormously with his family and he struggled to understand how the young man could have been so selfish. He was subsequently haunted by vivid images of the hanging body as well as the odour of decomposition. He suffered nightmares of this episode and because of the horror of being exposed to such a situation would subsequently avoid “check welfare” calls as much as possible.
[27] The second incident occurred on July 31, 2011. When Mr. Spindor had been dispatched to a report of a man in a local park sitting at a picnic table and crying. When Mr. Spindor went to investigate the male attacked him with a knife cutting Mr. Spindor’s shirt, tearing his bullet proof vest and slashing his cheek.
[28] In discussing the second event Dr. Smith noted at paragraph 71:
71. The stabbing in 2011 was also clearly very upsetting for Mr. Spindor. Although he was not seriously hurt, this episode also haunted him in nightmares and made him very wary of being injured or attacked again.
[29] Of significance is the impact the events had on Mr. Spindor and their link to his gambling and the offence before the Court. In this regard Dr. Smith stated in paragraphs 72 -77
72 These two incidents together with the constant exposure to aggressive behaviour and disturbing situations in his work seemed to sap Mr. Spindor’s former enthusiasm for his work. He began to hide from his duties and lived in dread of finding dead bodies or being injured. He began to feel disengaged, detached and as if functioning on autopilot, both at work and in his relationship with his wife. He also became uncharacteristically irritable, mostly with this wife but also at work.
73. Over time symptoms of depression developed including low mood, loss of drive, motivation, interest, pleasure and energy, interrupted sleep, feelings of uselessness, helplessness and hopelessness as well as thoughts of death.
74. In my opinion Mr. Spindor probably developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress and symptoms of depression. He was aware that he was emotionally troubled but resisted treatment because of a fear that he would be viewed as weak or that he would be found to have something wrong with him. For someone who is so sensitive to the opinions of others, this fear was particularly intense.
75. Throughout this time Mr. Spindor began to hate his job. However, he felt trapped and could see no way out. He had no transferable skills and once he was married and had started a family the possibility of retraining was out of the question as he had serious financial responsibilities. His wife was disabled and unable to work. This sense of being trapped added to feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, which in turn fueled the depression.
76. Against this backdrop of depression and post-traumatic stress Mr. Spindor began gambling. As with any addiction, the gambling provided a very transient relief from the depression and offered a sense of exhilaration that was otherwise lacking in his life. However, the gambling was not sustainable and led to debt as well as conflict with his wife. Although able to quit gambling for approximately three years, he resumed the habit in mid-2014 possibly because of mounting stress and depression resulting from the trap “tightening” with growing financial responsibilities after the birth of his son and the absence of any way out of his career. Although very limited in the amounts he could gamble because his wife controlled their finances, the cravings to gamble were considerable and it is very likely that these cravings together with the depression and post-traumatic stress clouded his judgment, resulting in the theft of the money in December 2014 and February 2015.
77. There is no evidence in Mr. Spindor’s history to suggest that his personality is characterized by anti-social or psychopathic traits. In fact he has, if anything, been somewhat conformist and is largely driven by a need to please people and to be socially accepted. The recent gambling and the associated thefts are therefore highly out of character and are in my opinion understandable only in the light of the untreated and undiagnosed depression, post-traumatic stress and gabling addition.
[30] Dr. Mathew, a psychiatrist, also conducted an evaluation of Mr. Spindor. In Dr. Mathew’s report dated November 1, 2016, he concluded:
To conclude, this patient presents with features of a Major Depressive Disorder as well as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This patient was free from these disorders in 2008. The events at the workplace did contribute to the onset of Major Depressive Disorder as well as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
[31] In addition to the above, I note a memorandum from an executive officer documenting Mr. Spindor’s improper handling of an assignment. This memorandum supports the notion that Mr. Spindor was performing above expectations shortly before the stabbing incident and then shortly thereafter his work negatively came to the attention of a supervisor.
[32] Since Mr. Spindor’s arrest, he has stopped gambling, he has attended counselling and he is involved with Gamblers Anonymous. Mr. Spindor remains unemployed and he is pursuing a claim with Work Safe BC.
[33] David Ravvin, a counsellor, who saw Mr. Spindor over a number of sessions, was of the view, without giving a formal diagnosis, that Mr. Spindor’s gambling is in sustained remission.
[34] As for Mr. Spindor’s mental health he is under the care of physician, receiving medication and attending counselling.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The Crown
[35] The Crown, after considering the mitigating circumstances, urges the Court to suspend the passing of sentence and place Mr. Spindor on probation for 18 - 24 months. The Crown argued their sentencing position is proportional, and consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing.
[36] The Crown opposes a conditional discharge on the grounds that a discharge would be contrary to the public interest. The Crown argues the circumstances of the instant matter require a sentence where denunciation and deterrence are the primary objectives. In support the Crown places strong reliance on R. v. Cook, 2010 ONSC 5016 (CanLII), [2010] O.J. No. 4414 where, at paragraph 38, Justice Hill adopted the words in R. v. LeBlanc, 2003 NBCA 75, at par. 25:
If one unbundles the several principles that come into play in shaping a fit sentence for conduct by an on-duty police officer amounting to criminal breach of trust under s. 122, general deterrence and denunciation overshadow all others. Those principles command more than lip service; they must impact upon the sentencing process and help shape its outcome.
[37] Other cases relied on by the Crown are: R. v. Kelly, 2004 ABPC 110 (CanLII), [2004] O.J. No. 811 (C.J.), R. v. Kramp, 2014 ONCJ 780, R. v. Lensen, [1993] O.J. No. 2323 (C.J.), R. v. Lensen, [1994] O.J. No. 359 (C.A.), R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 (excerpts), R. v. Whitney, 2015 BCPC 27.
The Defence
[38] Counsel urges the court to grant a conditional discharge and place Mr. Spindor on probation for 18-24 months. In support, counsel points to the mitigating factors and argues Mr. Spindor’s circumstances are exceptional, thus, justifying a reduced emphasis on denunciation and deterrence.
APPLICABLE LAW
i. Breach of trust
[39] A breach of trust by a public officer is defined in s.122 and reads as follows:
Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
ii. The purpose and principles of sentencing
[40] The purpose and principles of sentencing are found in ss. 718 - 718.2 of the Code. Section 718 of the Code states:
718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[41] Section 718.1 of the Code establishes the fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. Specifically, any sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[42] Section 718.2 of the Code provides:
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization,
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence, or
(vi) evidence that the offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order made under section 742.1 or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
iii. General legal principles
[43] Any sentence imposed must consider the unique circumstances of the offender. This approach contributes to ensuring the sentence meets the intended purpose and principles of sentencing, R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] S.C.J. No. 28, para. 92.
[44] A cardinal principal of sentencing requires a sentence to be proportional. How proportionality is determined was discussed by Wagner J., in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 (CanLII), [2015] 3 S.C.R 1089 at paragraph 53:
[53] …Proportionality is determined both on an individual basis, that is, in relation to the accused him or herself and to the offence committed by the accused, and by comparison with sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Individualization and parity of sentences must be reconciled for a sentence to be proportionate:
[45] The primary sentencing objective when sentencing a police officer for breach of trust is denunciation and deterrence: R. v. Cook, 2010 ONSC 5016 (CanLII), [2010] O.J. No. 4414, at paragraph 38, and R. v. Kramp, [2010] O.J. No. 6592.
[46] Further, and unless exceptional circumstances are present, a police officer convicted of committing a criminal breach of trust can expect to receive a custodial sentence, Kramp, supra., and R. v. Lensen, [1993] O.J. No. 2323.
[47] Cases where the circumstances warranted the imposition of a non- custodial sentence typically involve, an addiction contributing to the offence, as well as, prior good character, and substantial and sustained steps towards rehabilitation: Kelly, supra., Kramp, supra., and Lensen, supra.
iv. Conditional discharge
[48] The authority for granting an absolute or conditional discharge is found in s. 730(1) of the Code, which reads as follows:
730 (1) Where an accused, other than an organization, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence, other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or for life, the court before which the accused appears may, if it considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, instead of convicting the accused, by order direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on the conditions prescribed in a probation order made under subsection 731(2).
[49] In R. v. Fallofield (1973), 1973 CanLII 1412 (BC CA), 13 C.C.C. (2d) 450 (B.C.C.A.), the court at pp. 454 -455 provided guidance on whether or not a discharge is appropriate. The court stated:
(1) The section may be used in respect of any offence other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or the offence is punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or for life or by death.
(2) The section contemplates the commission of an offence. There is nothing in the language that limits it to a technical or trivial violation.
(3) Of the two conditions precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction, the first is that the Court must consider that it is in the best interests of the accused that he should be discharged either absolutely or upon condition. If it is not in the best interests of the accused, that, of course, is the end of the matter. If it is decided that it is in the best interests of the accused, then that brings the next consideration into operation.
(4) The second condition precedent is that the Court must consider that a grant of discharge is not contrary to the public interest.
(5) Generally, the first condition would presuppose that the accused is a person of good character, without previous conviction, that it is not necessary to enter a conviction against him in order to deter him from future offences or to rehabilitate him, and that the entry of a conviction against him may have significant adverse repercussions.
(6) In the context of the second condition the public interest in the deterrence of others, while it must be given due weight, does not preclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions.
(7) The powers given by s. 662.1 should not be exercised as an alternative to probation or suspended sentence.
(8) Section 662.1 should not be applied routinely to any particular offence. This may result in an apparent lack of uniformity in the application of the discharge provisions. This lack will be more apparent than real and will stem from the differences in the circumstances of cases.
[50] In R. v. Kelly, [2004] O.J. No. 81, Justice Cowan declined to impose a discharge in the circumstances where Kelly committed a breach of trust by giving cocaine to a police agent and involving himself and the agent in betting on fixed horse racing. At paragraph 66 Justice Cowan stated:
66 Defence has asked for a conditional discharge in this case. To grant this I would have to find that this is in Robert Kelly's best interests as well as not being contrary to the public interest. While it would very much be in Mr. Kelly's best interest, I find it would be contrary to the public interest to grant one. The public has an interest in having police officers maintain the highest standard of integrity and character. Robert Kelly maintained that standard for most of his working life but fell into the dark side of life of drugs and alleged fixed horse races. If I granted a discharge in this case, I would be disregarding the public interest and the disrepute Mr. Kelly has brought to himself and the police service. Were it not for his prior good record, guilty plea and efforts at rehabilitation, Mr. Kelly would be looking at a jail term.
[51] At paragraph 61 Justice Cowan commented on a case where a police officer received a conditional discharge. In this regard he stated:
61 Mr. Brauti referred me to the case of R. v. John Gregory4, the decision of my brother Judge Palmer, who sentenced a police officer charged with theft over $5,000. His honour granted a conditional discharge to the officer, taking into account that the condition suffered by the officer was a direct result of his employment, and his efforts to be a good police officer. I did not make that finding in this case and the case can be differentiated on its facts.
[52] In R. v. Whitney, 2015 BCPC 27 (CanLII), [2015] B.C.J. No. 327, after pleading guilty to breach of trust by stealing money, the offender received a suspended sentence. The facts of that case were: an undercover officer pretended he found an abandoned satchel and gave it to Whitney who was an on-duty police officer. Whitney lodged the satchel at the detachment but in doing so he took $650 and he falsified reports. In declining to grant a conditional discharge Judge Rideout stated at paragraphs 92 - 93:
95 While I take into account Whitney's depressive state of mind in March 2013, I do not find that his depressive state of mind sufficiently explains his conduct when he committed the breach of trust. His criminal behaviour appears to be motivated by opportunity.
96 While the imposition of a conditional discharge may well be in the best interests of Whitney, I am not satisfied that the imposition of a conditional discharge would be in the public interest. The message must be clearly sent to police officers that when they commit a breach of trust while on duty, that any sentence that is imposed requires that deterrence be paramount to preserve the public faith in the integrity of the justice system.
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS
[53] In the circumstances I find the following to be aggravating; Mr. Spindor breached his oath of office while on duty and while obligated to protect the public.
[54] In addition, I observe Mr. Spindor was aware of the risks of his conduct and that he attempted to conceal his behaviour by filing misleading reports. I also find that his behaviour brought negative public attention to the New Westminster Police Department and their officers.
[55] As for the mitigating factors, Mr. Spindor entered a guilty plea, thus showing remorse and saving the state the time and expense of prosecuting the matter. Since Mr. Spindor’s arrest he has engaged in steps to rehabilitate himself and I am satisfied that he has made meaningful progress.
ANALYSIS
[56] The critical issues to be determined are: is the granting of a conditional discharge in the best interests of the Mr. Spindor and is the granting of a discharge contrary to the public interest?
[57] With respect to the first issue, I am satisfied that the granting of a conditional discharge is in Mr. Spindor’s bests interests. This is because he will be re-entering the job market and the presence of a criminal record would substantially hinder his ability to find meaningful employment and support his family.
[58] The more vexing issue is; would the granting of a discharge be contrary to the public interest? The Crown argues the circumstances warrant a heightened degree of deterrence and that a discharge would fail to achieve this.
[59] I agree cases involving a breach of trust committed by a police officer require a heightened degree of deterrence, however, I am also of the view that this does not necessarily mean that a conditional discharge can never be a fit and appropriate. In this regard, I note there is no mandatory minimum and therefore a discharge is an option. Furthermore, to decide that a discharge is never available to a police officer who commits a breach of trust would fail consider the individual before the court thus creating the risk of running afoul of the proportionality principle and thereby imposing a sentence that is unfit and does not meet the purpose and principle of sentencing.
[60] In the circumstances I observe, a degree of denunciation and deterrence has already been achieved. This has been done through the publicity associated with Mr. Spindor’s arrest, his charges, his guilty plea and his court appearances, as well as, being terminated from his employment. It is via these processes that there is some measure of accountability by the offender: R. v. D.E.S.M. (1980) C.C.C. (3d) 371 BCCA.
[61] I also observe that the court in Fallofield stated:
(6) In the context of the second condition the public interest in the deterrence of others, while it must be given due weight, does not preclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions.
[62] As such, and after considering all of the factors, including that Mr. Spindor’s offending behaviour was triggered by harm he suffered while serving the community, I am satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to grant a conditional discharge and place Mr. Spindor on probation. Such an approach while still having a denunciatory and deterrent effect, will also serve to assist in Mr. Spindor’s continued rehabilitation.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE
[63] You will be bound by a probation order for 24 months. You must comply with the following terms and conditions:
You must keep the peace and be of good behavior;
You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court;
You must notify the court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation;
You must report on or before 4:00 p.m. Friday, December 9, 2016, to a probation officer located at 275 East Cordova Street Vancouver, BC and thereafter as and when directed by the probation officer;
At the direction of and to the satisfaction of your probation officer you must attend and participate in and successfully complete any counselling that you may be directed to. This can include but is not limited to psychological counselling and gambling counselling;
At the direction of your probation officer you must complete 150 hours of community service work. This work must be completed on or before March 1, 2018 and it must be completed to the satisfaction of your probation officer;
You are prohibited from entering any casino or participating in any form of betting or games of chance wherein the prize has a monetary value. This includes but is not limited to, slot machines, sports betting, blackjack, lottery tickets and raffle tickets; and
While outside your place of residence you must carry a copy of this order on your person at all times.
VICTIM FINE
[64] The victim fine of $200.00 is payable on or before June 1, 2018.
_____________________________
The Honourable Judge R. Harris
Provincial Court of British Columbia