R. v. Dewat, 2019 BCPC 183 (CanLII)
|
|
2019 BCPC 183 |
|
|
Date: |
||
|
File No: |
170248-2-C |
|
|
Registry: |
Victoria |
|
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REGINA
v.
KARAN DEWAT
ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE D.M. McKIMM
|
Counsel for the Crown: |
T. Corsi |
|
Counsel for the Accused: |
M. Klein, Q.C. |
|
Place of Hearing: |
Victoria, B.C. |
|
Date of Hearing: |
June 6, 2019 |
|
Date of Sentence: |
August 2, 2019 |
Introduction
[1] Mr. Dewat has pled guilty to an offence that he unlawfully trafficked in heroin and fentanyl on May 19, 2017 contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. There is no mandatory minimum penalty; the range of potential sentences are a suspended sentence to life imprisonment although a conditional sentence order is not available. My task is to craft a fit and proper sentence for this offender and this offence.
Facts
[2] In May 2017, Victoria Police were conducting an undercover operation ferreting out individuals dealing narcotics. Early in the investigation, police came across the phone number of a young person alleged to be trafficking in narcotics. They called that young person and arranged to meet for the purposes of purchasing heroin. The location was selected and at the anointed hour, the young person arrived at that location driving a motor vehicle and met with the officer. Mr. Dewat was in the front passenger seat of the vehicle. The officer had a conversation with the young person for which he asked for $40 worth of heroin. The young person offered the officer the narcotics and took the $40 of buy money.
[3] The officer then asked the young person in street vernacular whether or not the heroin contained fentanyl to which the young person replied, “we only offer [fentanyl] if someone asks for it”. The officer then indicated that he was interested in acquiring fentanyl and at this point, Mr. Dewat piped up and said that there was fentanyl in the narcotics they had just sold to the officer but that they did not like to tell people that because most people did not like fentanyl. There was also conversation that the officer was welcome to call the two of them back any time if they wished to buy more narcotics.
[4] The accused was arrested a number of months later and spent a brief time in custody before being released on strict bail. He has been successfully living under those bail conditions until the time of sentencing.
Circumstances of the Offender
[5] At the time of the offence, Mr. Dewat was just over 18 years of age. One year before the date of the offence, the accused was arrested for trafficking in cocaine. In December 2017, he received a nine month probationary period for that offence. Consequently, at the time of this offence, he was on youth court judicial interim release pending trial.
[6] Mr. Dewat resides at home with his parents. His father is a taxi driver and his mother works as a medical office assistant at the Vancouver General Hospital. He has a very stable relationship with a young woman and they are working together to establish a business for her as an aesthetician. Mr. Dewat is employed full-time developing his own entrepreneurial business and is in the process of completing his grade 12 education through distance learning. He has also taken a number of advanced courses in the lighting industry to advance his new business.
[7] As a young person, Mr. Dewat was a gifted athlete. He represented Canada internationally at the age of 12 in a soccer tournament in Sweden. He was also a gifted student and earned high marks until his grade 8 year. On or about the time of his move from elementary school to middle school, the family moved from South Vancouver, where he enjoyed a community with a preponderance of Punjabi children and families, to a new home in Burnaby, British Columbia. Sadly, Mr. Dewat did not adapt well to that move.
[8] Although there were fewer Punjabi children to associate with in Burnaby, he found that those he did manage to associate with spent their time smoking marijuana and other antisocial activities. In grade 8, he began consuming marijuana which quickly became a habit and by his mid-teens, he was spending all the money he could acquire on marijuana and smoking the substance to a degree which the forensic psychologist who assessed him considered “a prodigious habit.”
[9] By grade 10 he began to be truant at school and developed a persona as a tough guy and a bully. By grade 12, his truancy and lack of ambition together with the discovery of drug paraphernalia in his locker led to his expulsion from Burnaby South Secondary School. He began to attend an alternative storefront school in Burnaby where he was confronted with individuals deeply immersed in the criminal subculture. While attending the alternative school, he began to consume Xanax and quickly developed an addiction to that, together with continuing his heavy marijuana usage.
[10] Regrettably at this time, he began to be inculcated into the criminal lifestyle by his peers who were gang members. He quickly accumulated a drug debt to those gang members and as part of the gang process, his $2,000 drug debt was escalated by the gang to a $13,000 debt which was referred to as “interest payments”. This is a standard pattern of the gang culture used to conscript young men into their ranks. He was forced to give his BMW to another member of the gang as a partial satisfaction of the debt and began to sell narcotics at street-level to maintain good relations with the gang, as well as to meet his obligations.
[11] In May 2017, he and the young person, a person about six months younger than he, were assigned by the gang to travel to Victoria to sell narcotics in the usual “dial-a-dope” process. He concedes that he had no idea what he was doing or how to undertake this criminal activity effectively. On the other hand, and to his credit, he also concedes that he was attracted by the apparently easy money and lifestyle of the drug subculture.
[12] Throughout the course of his brief criminal career, he continued to be heavily addicted to Xanax and marijuana. At the time of his arrest, he had gone from being an athletic man of 195 pounds to an emaciated 130 pounds. He accepts that he knew what he was doing was not right, but also that he was terrified of the gang members who threatened both he and his family if he didn’t continue to sell narcotics and live the gang life. He said to the report writer, “I knew it was not right… But I was really scared… For me and my family… I did not know how to get out!”
[13] While his first arrest as a young person does not seem to have had much effect on him, there is no question that his second arrest as an adult for the more serious offence of trafficking in fentanyl has been a sharp wake up call to this young man. He describes to the report writer that his arrest in 2017 was possibly the best thing that ever happened to him as it motivated him to become pro-social and empowered him to extract himself from the gang connections that had plagued him at the time of his arrest. The report writer also noted, “he is very regretful and remorseful regarding his criminality, and the antisocial, drug abusing lifestyle that occurred for an approximately two-year period prior to do Mr. Dewat’s current offence. [Mr. Dewat] is very guilt ridden regarding the impact of his crimes upon his family. He is highly appreciative of their support and thankful for their assistance in extracting him from the drug world and gang influence. Mr. Dewat characterized himself as “really lucky” that he did not experience even more negative or perhaps fatal consequences as a result of his criminal associations.”
[14] Dr. Robert Ley, a highly respected forensic psychologist, completed a thorough and complete psychological profile of Mr. Dewat. Dr. Ley found that Mr. Dewat was not only a youthful person but was very immature at the time of his crime. He opined that he had made a deliberate and conscientious effort to turn his life around. He found him to be open and non-defensive when dealing with the issues that bring him before the court. The court was struck by the fact that although his first appointment with Dr. Ley was on his birthday, Mr. Dewat cancelled all his birthday plans because the psychological assessment was more important. In short, Mr. Dewat displayed throughout an objective and mature attitude towards his wrongdoing and the consequences for his crime. Dr. Ley opined that because of Mr. Dewat’s positive pro-social adjustment during the last 15 months, his risk to reoffend is low and that is particularly so if Mr. Dewat continues to be bound by conditions such as those that have been placed on him during the course of his judicial interim release.
[15] In his report, Dr. Ley writes:
My estimate that Mr. Dewat represents a low risk to reoffend is supported by the application of the risk assessment instruments to him and his case. As I have explained above, in my opinion Mr. Dewat is not fundamentally an antisocial person. His antisocial and criminal behaviour in the present case have been a result of his own drug dependence and immature gravitation towards a psychologically intoxicating persona as a drug dealer and a wannabe gangster. Likewise in my view Mr. Dewat is not psychopathic. The application of the PCL-R to his background and criminal history yields a low score. As I noted above, Mr. Dewat had a stable childhood that was free of adverse life events and behavioural problems. His prognosis improves as a result of the onset of his adjustment difficulties occurring in early adolescence as opposed to his preteen years.
Mr. Dewat does not have most of the psychological, emotional, behavioural or historical features that typify psychopaths. In other words, Mr. Dewat is not characteristically or typically selfish, grandiose, narcissistic, callous, manipulative or remorseless. However, similar to many drug-dependent people and immature adolescents who gravitate towards criminality, Mr. Dewat has acted in many of those ways when impaired by drugs and are negatively influenced by his antisocial peer group. However, in my opinion these characteristics are not fundamental to Mr. Dewat or engrained in his personality. Thus his prognosis and risk status are much improved. Additionally, Mr. Dewat does not have the unstable lifestyle features and compromised features and compromise personal history that are seen in psychopathic people.
[16] Dr. Ley points out that the criminal process has already inflicted many deterrents on the potential of Mr. Dewat reoffending. It has been costly for him both emotionally and financially and it has created embarrassment and shame and he is guilt ridden from his criminal behaviour. He describes having suffered a blow to his self-esteem while also embarrassing his father, his family, and his girlfriend. He understands that any future reoffending will utterly derail and destroy any of the positive gains he has made since the time of his arrest. In short, Dr. Ley suggests that Mr. Dewat is an excellent candidate for a community-based disposition. Dr. Ley also points out that any extended period in custody would be highly destructive to the significant advancements that Mr. Dewat has made in his life. Re-incarceration would, no doubt, drive Mr. Dewat back to a persona consistent with gang life and would present a high possibility that he would relapse into drug consumption.
Position of the Parties
Position of the Crown
[17] Crown seeks a sentence of three years for Mr. Dewat. They quite properly point out that while there are mitigating circumstances, there are serious aggravating circumstances as well. Most notably, Mr. Dewat indicated a willingness to be called again to supply further narcotics. Mr. Dewat was on judicial interim release as a young offender at the time of the offence. The offence was a classic “dial-a-dope” operation. Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Dewat advised the officer that although he knew he was trafficking in fentanyl, he deliberately failed to disclose that fact to unwitting buyers. This, the Crown points out, creates an enormous risk to the vulnerable population hopelessly addicted and relying on the services of individuals like Mr. Dewat. The Crown suggests that Mr. Dewat falls at the upper end of the range of 18 to 36 months articulated by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112.
Position of the Defense
[18] Counsel for Mr. Dewat ask the court to find that Mr. Dewat is a case of exceptional circumstances and it is just and appropriate to sentence Mr. Dewat outside of the Smith range. They submit that a sentence of probation or perhaps an intermittent sentence of less than 90 days meets all of the principles of sentence.
Analysis
[19] I have considered carefully the principles of sentence Parliament has articulated in section 718 of the Criminal Code which provides:
Purpose
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and 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 and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by 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 or to the community.
[20] For those that chose to traffic in fentanyl, there is no question that the primary objective of sentence must be the principals articulated in 718(a) and (b). The death toll as a result of this drug is alarming and widely known. As the Court of Appeal wrote in R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112:
…according to statistics prepared by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, British Columbia has one of the worst, if not the worst, problems of fentanyl abuse in Canada. This public safety emergency has prompted various media campaigns, public alerts and outreach efforts by police and social workers who are involved in seeking to contain this scourge – yet fentanyl abuse continues to claim lives every day in our communities. The danger posed by such a drug must surely inform the moral culpability of offenders who sell it on the street and obviously increases the gravity of the offence beyond even the gravity of trafficking in drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
Smith at paragraph 44
In that case, the court determined that the appropriate range of sentence for those that traffic in fentanyl, even first offenders such as the accused in that decision, is a jail sentence of 18 to 36 months.
[21] In all cases, however, we must not lose sight of the factor contained in section 718(d) that sentencing must also do what can be done to assist in rehabilitating offenders. This is particularly so when we are dealing with youthful offenders such as Mr. Dewat. In R. v. Lui, 2014 BCSC 1929, Mr. Justice Romilly wrote:
[25] In the case of youthful offenders, the principal element for consideration, consonant with the maintenance of public confidence in the effective enforcement of the criminal law, should be the offender’s reformation and rehabilitation: R. v. Morrissette (1970), 1970 CanLII 642 (SK CA), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 307 (Sask. C.A.) per Culliton C.J.S.
[26] In the case of a youthful first offender, a court’s first question is to ask whether a suspended sentence with probation would not be a suitable sentence for the offender, and for the offence: R. v. Beacon and Modney (1976), 1976 CanLII 1331 (AB CA), 31 C.C.C. (2d) 56 (Alta. S.C. App. Div.) per Sinclair J.A. It is also a general principle of sentencing that before imposing a custodial sentence on a first offender, the court should carefully explore the other dispositions available. A custodial sentence should only be imposed in cases where the circumstances are such or the gravity of the offence is such that no other sentence is appropriate: R. v. Biron (1991), 1991 CanLII 3911 (QC CA), 65 C.C.C. (3d) 221 (Que. C.A.) per Rothman J.A.
[27] In R. v. Ijam (2007), 2007 ONCA 597 (CanLII), 226 C.C.C. (3d) 376 at 389-90 (Ont. C.A.), Sharpe J.A., also reminds us of how we should deal with the sentencing of youthful first offenders. He wrote:
[55] It is well established by the case law that when sentencing a youthful first offender the paramount considerations are rehabilitation and specific deterrence; a sentencing judge should not place undue weight on general deterrence. This principle was established long ago in R. v. Stein (1974), 1974 CanLII 1615 (ON CA), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 376 (Ont. C.A.), a case that also dealt with a first offender who had committed serious commercial crimes (thirteen counts of obtaining property by false pretences). Writing for the court, Martin J.A. stated at 377:
In our view, before imposing a custodial sentence upon a first offender the sentencing Court should explore the other dispositions which are open to him and only impose a custodial sentence where the circumstances are such, or the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate. In our view, this offence does not fall within the category of offences where a custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to be imposed upon a first offender, nor are there other circumstances which require the imposition of a custodial sentence.
[56] In R. v. Priest, supra, [(1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.)] the trial judge sentenced a youthful first offender to a custodial term on the ground that a custodial term was required for the purpose of general deterrence in light of the prevalence of the offence of break and enter in the community. Rosenberg J.A. held, at 294-295, that the trial judge had erred by over-emphasizing general deterrence:
The primary objectives in sentencing a first offender are individual deterrence and rehabilitation. Except for very serious offences and offences involving violence, this court has held that these objectives are not only paramount but best achieved by either a suspended sentence and probation or a very short term of imprisonment followed by a term of probation.
Citing R. v. Stein, supra, Rosenberg J.A. added:
[I]t has been an important principle of sentencing in this province that the sentence should constitute the minimum necessary intervention that is adequate in the particular circumstances. This principle implies that trial judges consider community-based dispositions first and impose more serious forms of punishment only when necessary. These principles have now been codified in the recently proclaimed sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Section 718(c) instructs that separation of offenders from society is an appropriate objective of sentencing "where necessary". Section 718.2(d) directs that an offender should not be deprived of liberty "if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances".
...
The rule laid down by this court is that ordinarily for youthful offenders, as for first offenders, the objectives of individual deterrence and rehabilitation are paramount.
[57] This principle has been frequently applied by this court: see R. v. Vandale and Maciejewski (1974), 1974 CanLII 1610 (ON CA), 21 C.C.C. (2d) 250 (C.A.); R. v. Hayman (1999), 1999 CanLII 3710 (ON CA), 135 C.C.C. (3d) 338; R. v. Borde (2003), 2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA), 172 C.C.C. (3d) 225; R. v. Kutsukake (2006), 2006 CanLII 32593 (ON CA), 213 C.C.C. (3d) 80.
[28] See also Owens at paras. 21, and 29-30. In that case, the young accused who was charged as a result of a dial-a-dope operation, had turned his life around since the offence, had his sentence suspended and he was placed on probation.
[29] However, for a serious offence or one involving violent crime, deterrence to others should be the prime consideration taken into account, even where the offender is young: R. v. Campbell (1981), 1981 CanLII 486 (BC CA), 64 C.C.C. (2d) 336 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Gonidis (1980), 1980 CanLII 2879 (ON CA), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 90 (Ont. C.A.); and R. v. Ouellette (1990), 1990 CanLII 3821 (NB CA), 105 N.B.R. (2d) 222 (C.A.).
[22] There is no question that society is better protected when a youthful offender embraces a pro-social path and goes on to lead a law-abiding and successful life. The risk of imposing a significant jail sentence on an impressionable and immature youthful offender, of course, is that they regress back into the criminal lifestyle that got them in trouble in the first place. This element is particularly salient in the case at bar where the offender is described as not only youthful but also immature. One must only assume a chronic abuse of marijuana from the age of 13 has stunted the emotional and intellectual development of the young man before the court. I’m satisfied on the balance of probabilities that re-incarceration of Mr. Dewat would indeed lead to a significant regression and possibly return to the abuse of narcotics. As Dr. Ley writes:
If Mr. Dewat is incarcerated, almost certainly a custodial sentence will cause a significant regression in his adjustment. If Mr. Dewat is incarcerated, he will have to adopt an antisocial orientation, an anti-authority attitude and a violent, criminally-oriented persona. Those negative adjustments are necessary for self-protection and peer affiliation in correctional settings. Additionally, by virtue of the adolescent years that Mr. Dewat spent in association with a criminal element, almost certainly he will be familiar with other inmates who have a consolidated criminal value system. Thus there is a significant risk in custody that Mr. Dewat will relapse into criminal associations and resume criminal behaviour upon his community release. In short, in jails it is necessary to act tough and espouse enjoyment of criminality, drug use, et cetera. Also, drugs are plentiful in jails and prisons, and thus there is a significant risk of Mr. Dewat relapsing into drug use while serving a jail or prison sentence.
[23] I accept the aggravating circumstances submitted by crown counsel. This crime is certainly aggravated by the fact that not only was Mr. Dewat selling fentanyl, he was consciously and deliberately declining to warn his consumers of the risks that they were incurring in acquiring his drugs. Were he older, such as the accused in the Smith decision, there is no doubt that this aggravating circumstance would establish a conscious and complete disregard for human life and demand a significant federal jail sentence. I’m satisfied, however, that in the case of Mr. Dewat, this statement was more one of bravado as a result of his complete lack of ability or capacity to understand the seriousness of his criminal offending. I’m supported in this conclusion by the evidence of his profound sense of remorse and regret for his behaviour, not only as a result of the consequences to he and his family, but also that he had caused significant risk to his community.
[24] In my view, a sentence which includes a restorative justice element will go a great distance to ensuring that Mr. Dewat fully understands the error of his ways and the magnitude of the harm that his behaviour unleashed on our community.
[25] I have also considered the aggravating circumstance that this was a “dial-a-dope” operation and the evidence establishes that he was undertaking this enterprise for about two years. I find however, that this aggravating element is ameliorated by the fact that he had found himself enmeshed in a gang lifestyle from which he did not have the maturity or strength of character to find a way to disengage. I’m satisfied that Mr. Dewat was acting as he did as a result of a sincere fear for his own personal safety and the safety of his family and a lack of understanding as to how he could disengage from that lifestyle.
[26] There are many mitigating factors in Mr. Dewat’s favour. He has pled guilty, albeit he did so in the face of an overwhelming case. He is sincerely regretful and remorseful for his criminal behaviour. He has made and continues to make sustained and significant efforts to rehabilitate himself and engage in a pro-social lifestyle. In my view, these constitute exceptional circumstances that take Mr. Dewat outside the ordinary range of sentences for this very serious and aggravated offence. In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the analysis in R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285 where the Court writes:
[59] In summary, absent exceptional circumstances, the sentence for a first offence or with a minimal criminal record, dial-a-dope drug seller will be in the range of six to eighteen months imprisonment, depending on the aggravating circumstances. Exceptional circumstances may include a combination of no criminal record, significant and objectively identifiable steps towards rehabilitation for the drug addict, gainful employment, remorse and acknowledgement of the harm done to society as a result of the offences, as opposed to harm done to the offender as a result of being caught. This is a non-exhaustive list, but at the end of the day, there must be circumstances that are above and beyond the norm to justify a non-custodial sentence. There must be something that would lead a sentencing judge to conclude that the offender had truly turned his or her life around, and that the protection of the public was subsequently better served by a non-custodial sentence.
[27] I must also consider the principle of proportionality (Criminal Code section 718.1) and in this sense, I must consider similar cases of similar offenders. I have considered carefully the decisions of R. v. Joon, 2017 BCPC 301 and R. v. McClain, 2018 BCPC 369 and find their analysis compelling and persuasive. Both those cases involved young persons selling fentanyl to undercover police officers. They both describe young persons who have also made significant strides in turning their lives around and finding their way to a pro-social lifestyle. In both of those cases, probation was imposed with punitive conditions that speak to the need for general and specific deterrence. R. v. Carrillo, 2015 BCCA 192.
[28] I will suspend the passing sentence pursuant to section 731(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in this case. It is my desire that any breaches of the period of probation that is to follow will be brought back to this Court and that the court be invited to pass sentence within the range proposed by R. v. Smith. It is not appropriate to indicate what the consequence will be to Mr. Dewat should he breach this order and the crown seek to have him sentenced for this offence (R. v. Sangster, (1973) C.R.N.S. 339 (Que. C.A.)) but Mr. Dewat should understand that I wish any breaches to be brought back before me and that, but for the most trivial of breaches, he can expect the Smith range to apply the full force and effect.
[29] Mr. Dewat, I suspend the passing sentence and place you on probation for a period of 36 months. For the first 18 months of that sentence, you shall be bound by house arrest conditions and you will not leave your residence other than for employment or schooling purposes or once a day to attend to your physical fitness. I’m satisfied that your return to physical health and fitness is fundamental to your ability to continue on a pro-social lifestyle and I wish this period of probation to support that positive change.
[30] The terms of your probation will be as follows:
2001: You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the court required to do so by the court. You must notify the court or the 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.
2002: You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Madar.
2005: You must not go to or be within 10 meters of any residence, school or work place of Mr. Madar.
2101: You must report in person to a probation officer at 836 Courtney Street in Victoria, British Columbia by 3 p.m. today, and after that, you must report as directed by your probation officer.
2204: You must reside at your parents’ residence and you must provide your probation officer with your phone number, and you must not change your residence or your phone number without written permission from your probation officer.
2205: You must obey all of the rules of your residence, so long as they do not conflict with the terms of this order or the directions of your probation officer. If there is a conflict, you must tell your probation officer about the conflict immediately.
2209: For the first 18 months of this order, you must obey a curfew by being inside of your residence 24 hours a day each and every day. You must present yourself immediately at the door to your residence or answer the phone when any peace officer or probation officer attends at your residence or calls to check your compliance with the house arrest condition of this order. You may be away from your residence during the house arrest with the written permission of your probation officer. Such permission is to be given only for compelling reasons. You must carry the written permission when you are outside your residence during the house arrest hours. You may also be away from your residence during the house arrest hours:
a. While in the course of your employment, or when travelling directly to, or returning directly from, your place of employment. If requested you must provide your probation officer with details of your employment, including location and hours of work.
b. In the event of a medical emergency and then only while at a health care facility, or when travelling directly to, or returning directly from the facility. If requested, you must provide your probation officer with written confirmation that you went to the facility, signed by a representative of the healthcare facility to which you went.
c. In the immediate presence of either of your parents.
d. In the presence of a person approved in writing by your probation officer. You must carry the written permission with you when you are away from your residence during the house arrest hours.
e. For the purposes of exercising for 90 minutes per day and for travelling to or from the fitness facility. This exercise shall occur during operating hours of a licensed fitness facility and you shall advise your probation officer of the name and address of the facility to which you intend to attend. You may only be at that facility when actively engaged in an exercise activity.
2401: You must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicating substance except in accordance with a medical prescription.
2403: You must not enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, bar, pub, lounge, nightclub, beer garden or any other business from which minors are prohibited at any time by the terms of their liquor licence.
2406: You must not possess drug paraphernalia including but not limited to pipes, rolling papers and syringes.
2501: You must attend, participate in and successfully complete any intake, assessment, counselling or program as directed by the probation officer. Without limiting the general nature this condition, the intakes, assessments, counselling or programs may relate to alcohol or drug abuse or your mental health.
2509: You must complete 30 hours of community service work under the direction of your probation officer. Your community service work must be completed no later than July 1, 2020.
2516: You must participate in a restorative justice program at the direction of your probation officer and it is my wish that the restorative justice program have as its focus and understanding of the harm caused by the distribution and sale of illegal narcotics in our community.
2610: You must not possess, either personally or through another person, any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or explosive substance, anything that resembles a weapon or firearm, any weapon as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, or any related authorizations, licences or registration certificates.
________________________________
The Honourable Judge D.M. McKimm
Provincial Court of British Columbia