R. v. Bredo

2017 BCSC 2134 R. v. Bredo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Bredo, 2017 BCSC 2134 Date: 20170606 Docket: 159210‑2; 159210‑30 Registry: Victoria Regina v. Joshua Tyler Bredo Before: The Honourable Mr. G. R. J. Justice Gaul Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: P. Donnachie R. Carot Counsel for the Accused: T. Russell Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Victoria, B.C. June 5, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. June 6, 2017 Introduction [1] Joshua Bredo has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter death of Daniel Levesque. Today he is to be sentenced for that crime. [2] My task is to formulate and impose a sentence that is appropriate and just in all of the circumstances. The sentence should reflect a number of factors including the gravity of the offence committed, the impact the offence has had on the victim's family and community, the offender's moral blameworthiness, and the need to foster the offender's rehabilitation. [3] Mr. Bredo accepts that he used a hammer to assault Mr. Levesque and that he unlawfully confined Mr. Levesque during the course of that assault. These underlying unlawful acts form the basis of the manslaughter charge and conviction. Circumstances of the offence [4] The factual foundation upon which Mr. Bredo's guilty plea rests is set out in the very detailed agreed statement of facts that was filed as Exhibit 1 on this sentencing. I have drawn heavily from this exhibit to prepare the following summary of the facts. [5] In June 2011, Mr. Bredo lived with his then girlfriend in an apartment on Cormorant Street in Victoria. Mr. Bredo's girlfriend believed he was heterosexual and that they were soon to be married. However, their relationship had begun to falter in the weeks leading up to the offence date. [6] In mid-June 2011, Mr. Levesque moved from Revelstoke, B.C., to Victoria. He was 20 years old at the time and had come to Vancouver Island for a fresh start in life. He was a budding musician and believed moving to Victoria would advance his career. He arrived here with little money and experienced difficulties finding employment. [7] Mr. Bredo met Mr. Levesque on 15 June 2011. At the time, Mr. Bredo was a manager-in-training at the 7‑Eleven convenience store located on Blanshard Street here in Victoria. He immediately hired Mr. Levesque to work with him at the store. [8] Very soon after that meeting, Mr. Bredo and Mr. Levesque discussed their mutual interest in certain drugs, including cocaine, which, along with alcohol, they used on an ever-increasing basis over the following seven weeks or so. Mr. Bredo usually paid for the drugs and alcohol. [9] Over these seven weeks, Mr. Bredo told various lies to Mr. Levesque about his life, family, sexuality, and intentions towards Mr. Levesque, in order to garner Mr. Levesque's attention, sympathy, and trust. Mr. Bredo also said and did things to lead Mr. Levesque to believe that he was heterosexual, including telling Mr. Levesque that he considered him to be like family and like a "little brother". Mr. Levesque believed Mr. Bredo's lies and came to trust him absolutely. Mr. Levesque came to see Mr. Bredo as one of his best friends. [10] Mr. Bredo gave Mr. Levesque gifts and arranged opportunities for Mr. Levesque in an effort to keep him close and spend time with him. Mr. Bredo regularly paid for dinners and drinks and assisted Mr. Levesque with money for food, cigarettes and transportation. He also arranged and paid for Mr. Levesque to have a recording and production session at a Victoria music studio. [11] Mr. Bredo said and did many things to lead Mr. Levesque to believe that he came from a close knit, affluent and well connected family that subsidized his lifestyle. This explained how he was able to offer Mr. Levesque so much. In particular, Mr. Bredo told Mr. Levesque the following lies: a) Mr. Bredo said he earned $60,000 per year working at 7-11 and $60,000 per year working on a mayoral campaign. In fact, Mr. Bredo earned considerably less at 7-11 and received only a small stipend for the work he did on the mayoral campaign. b) Mr. Bredo said he did not pay rent and had no bills or expenses because his parents owned an upscale condominium in downtown Victoria that he lived in. c) Mr. Bredo said he had secured a salary raise for Mr. Levesque at 7-11 and then made up various lies to explain why that fictitious pay raise had not yet materialized. d) Mr. Bredo said two of his family members were lawyers in a high-powered law firm in Calgary and that his family members also had a law firm in Victoria. Neither of these law firms existed and none of Mr. Bredo's family members are lawyers. e) Mr. Bredo said he had secured a job for Mr. Levesque with the fictitious Victoria law firm. That job was to start in September and would result in a higher income and greater opportunities for Mr. Levesque in the legal professions. Mr. Bredo led Mr. Levesque to believe that he would be given an orientation session with the law firm in early August. f) Mr. Bredo said he had planned a trip to Cuba with his ex-girlfriend and as she would no longer be going, he offered her ticket to Mr. Levesque. This trip was to occur after the orientation session with the fictitious law firm but before Mr. Levesque was to start work there. [12] Mr. Bredo also lied about fictitious events in his family, suggesting he was struggling with various family crises, including cancer and death, infidelity, and law suits against his family. All of this was designed to garner Mr. Levesque's sympathy for the difficulties Mr. Bredo said he was facing. Mr. Bredo compounded the situation by creating additional lies about his family members to explain why the orientation session with the fictitious law firm had not occurred on the date he had originally promised it would. Mr. Bredo told Mr. Levesque that the session had been rescheduled for the afternoon of 3 August 2011 and he used this as a pretext for inviting Mr. Levesque to his apartment on that date. [13] Using all of these lies, Mr. Bredo persuaded Mr. Levesque that he was his confidante and good friend. Concealed behind this web of deception was the fact that Mr. Bredo was physically attracted to Mr. Levesque and hoped for a sexual relationship with him. In pursuing that goal, Mr. Bredo misled and manipulated Mr. Levesque, alienated his own girlfriend, and abused his position at work. [14] As Mr. Bredo's infatuation with Mr. Levesque grew and he began to realize that Mr. Levesque did not harbour similar feelings for him, Mr. Bredo became frustrated and depressed. His drug and alcohol use escalated in an effort to escape his unhappiness. [15] By the end of July, Mr. Bredo's performance at work had diminished so much that his employment with 7‑Eleven was about to be terminated. Moreover, around this same time his girlfriend told him their relationship was over and that he had to vacate their apartment. [16] By the first days of August 2011, it was evident to Mr. Bredo that his world was coming undone. [17] On 3 August 2011, Mr. Bredo had had little sleep in the previous three days and had been using cocaine regularly. He also knew all of his lies, including those about the job opportunity with fictitious law firm and the phoney trip to Cuba would soon be discovered by Mr. Levesque. [18] When Mr. Levesque arrived at Mr. Bredo's apartment on the afternoon of 3 August 2011, he expected that he and Mr. Bredo would be going to the orientation at the law firm. However, Mr. Bredo fabricated another lie and told Mr. Levesque that the orientation had been cancelled. The two men then started using the cocaine which Mr. Bredo had purchased earlier that day. [19] Mr. Levesque began to question Mr. Bredo about the orientation session that had been cancelled, their upcoming trip to Cuba, and Mr. Bredo's various other stories. Soon Mr. Levesque realized that Mr. Bredo had been lying to him and manipulating him. The two men began arguing, with Mr. Levesque becoming upset at what he was hearing from Mr. Bredo. After he told Mr. Bredo that their friendship was over, Mr. Levesque attempted to leave the apartment. [20] Mr. Bredo, who was much larger and heavier than Mr. Levesque, tried to physically prevent Mr. Levesque from leaving the apartment. Mr. Levesque became frightened and tried to break away from Mr. Bredo's grasp. [21] Mr. Bredo panicked at the prospect of Mr. Levesque leaving the apartment and revealing to Mr. Bredo's friends and employer all of his lies and manipulations. Mr. Bredo was sleep deprived and intoxicated by cocaine. He grabbed a hammer that was in the apartment. Using the hammer, he struck Mr. Levesque on the head three times, once while Mr. Levesque was attempting to cover his head with his hands. During this altercation, the hammer broke into two pieces. At this point, Mr. Levesque's scalp was bleeding profusely. [22] Mr. Levesque continued his attempts to leave the apartment. He succeeded in making it to the front door, but Mr. Bredo caught him. A significant struggle ensued at the doorway. Again, Mr. Bredo physically prevented Mr. Levesque from leaving. During the struggle, Mr. Levesque's bleeding head and body forcefully came into contact with the walls around the doorway, leaving blood smears and stains. The struggle also caused several loud bangs and vibrations along the wall between the apartment and the neighbouring apartment. [23] While at the doorway, Mr. Levesque tried to open the door. As a result of this, he left bloodstains around the deadbolt. He managed to move the door handle two or three times and succeeded in partially opening the door. While Mr. Levesque was trying to open the door, he said, "Let me go, just let me go," and "Help me, help me." [24] Mr. Bredo prevented Mr. Levesque from completely opening the door. He then pulled Mr. Levesque back into the apartment and closed the door. Mr. Levesque's head was still bleeding. Mr. Levesque lost consciousness and fell to the living room floor. His head, saturated with blood, came into contact with the floor and this created a bloodstain that contained several blood clots. [25] In a panic, Mr. Bredo obtained a large knife from the kitchen. He then used that knife to self‑inflict injuries on his arm, stomach, and head. He then picked up Mr. Levesque, who was lying unconscious on the living room floor, and placed him face down on the couch. He then took the kitchen knife and placed it on the floor close to Mr. Levesque's right hand. [26] Mr. Bredo then lay down on the living room floor, some two feet away from the hammer head. He then called 9‑1‑1 and provided the operator with a false version of events. Mr. Bredo had placed the knife in such a way as to support his false version of events. [27] Within minutes of that 9-1-1 call, police officers and Emergency Health Services paramedics attended at the Cormorant Street apartment. The door to the apartment was unlocked and when the officers and paramedics entered they noticed blood smears and stains on all five walls and on the floor in the entrance way. Upon proceeding further into the apartment, they found Mr. Bredo conscious and lying on his back on the floor next to a couch. The hammer head was near him. Mr. Bredo spoke with the police and lied about what had happened. In doing so he exaggerated how serious his injuries were. [28] The police and paramedics also discovered Mr. Levesque, lying face down among pillows and blankets on a second couch in the living room. He was unconscious and had no pulse. The paramedics performed cardio pulmonary resuscitation and were able to resuscitate Mr. Levesque, however he did not regain consciousness. [29] Both Mr. Bredo and Mr. Levesque were taken to the Victoria General Hospital. Mr. Levesque was still unconscious when he arrived at the hospital. His condition worsened over the next two hours. He eventually went into cardiac arrest. Resuscitative efforts were unsuccessful and at 7:44 pm on 3 August 2011 Mr. Levesque was pronounced dead. [30] The police initially believed Mr. Bredo's lies and accepted that it was Mr. Levesque who had been the aggressor. Consequently, the police treated Mr. Bredo as the victim. It was not until after he had been taken to the hospital and the police were able to take further investigatory steps that Mr. Bredo became a suspect. History of these proceedings [31] Upon his discharge from the hospital at around 8:30 pm on 3 August 2011, Mr. Bredo was arrested for the murder of Daniel Levesque. He was subsequently charged with second degree murder the following day. [32] From 3 August 2011 to 9 December 2011, Mr. Bredo remained in custody on that second degree murder charge. [33] On 9 December 2011, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings and Mr. Bredo was released from custody. [34] On 21 December 2012, Mr. Bredo was re-arrested and charged with the first degree murder of Mr. Levesque. He has been in custody ever since that date. [35] On 4 December 2013, Mr. Bredo was additionally charged with the attempted sexual assault and the unlawful confinement of Mr. Levesque. [36] In January 2014, a preliminary inquiry before a Provincial Court judge was held and Mr. Bredo was ordered to stand trial on all three of the charges. [37] On 28 January 2015, Mr. Bredo's trial began before a justice of this court sitting with a jury. The trial proceeded until 2 March 2015. On that day, the court declared a mistrial on account of the Crown's inadvertent late disclosure of forensic computer evidence. [38] The judge who had presided over the aborted trial was keen to keep the matter on track and within a few days of the mistrial, a new trial date was scheduled to begin on 13 October 2015 and end in early December 2015. [39] In the spring of 2015, I became the judge assigned to preside at Mr. Bredo's trial. [40] The October 2015 trial date had to be adjourned when it became clear to all that the host of pretrial applications that were being scheduled could not be heard and decided in the allotted time. [41] In August 2016, the trial was re-scheduled to begin on 15 May 2017 and conclude in the third week of June 2017. [42] Regrettably, it again became clear during the course of the pretrial applications that still more time was required to conclude them all and that this would not happen in time for the spring 2017 trial date. Consequently, the trial was adjourned to the fall and winter of 2017. [43] There are still a significant number of outstanding pretrial applications that have yet to be heard and decided. This situation has created a growing concern that the fall trial date might be in jeopardy. [44] On Friday of last week, the Crown filed a new indictment charging Mr. Bredo with the manslaughter death of Mr. Levesque. In doing so, I take it the Crown has accepted that it cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bredo possessed the requisite intent to commit murder. Mr. Bredo has been arraigned on the indictment and it is to the new charge of manslaugher that he has pleaded guilty. Circumstances of the offender Background [45] Mr. Bredo was born in Prince George, B.C. He was 26 years old when he committed the present offence. He is now 32. [46] Mr. Bredo is a high school graduate. In 2005 he received a community college diploma in business administration. Following graduation, he worked in Prince George and Calgary, Alberta. [47] In 2010, he moved to Victoria and began working at 7‑Eleven. Criminal Record [48] Mr. Bredo has no adult criminal record. Pre-sentence custody [49] Both the Crown and defence agree that as of today, Mr. Bredo has served four years, nine months, and 23 days in pre-sentence custody. Moreover, they agree that a credit of one and a half days for every day of pre-sentence custody should be granted, meaning Mr. Bredo has already served the equivalent of seven years, two months, and 19 days. Victim impact [50] A large number of victim impact statements have been filed on this sentencing. Some of the individuals who prepared statements read them aloud in court. It is clear to me that words alone cannot describe the depth and breadth of pain Mr. Bredo's actions have caused to Mr. Levesque's family, friends, and community. [51] I can assure you all that the court has heard what you have had to say and it has all been taken into consideration when deciding whether to accept the joint submission the Crown and defence have proposed on this sentencing. [52] It also appears to me quite clear that as long as this legal proceeding is outstanding, there is little hope that those who have been impacted by this crime will be able to start the long path towards healing. Joint submission on sentencing [53] The Crown and the defence have made a formal joint submission on this sentencing hearing. In doing so, they have proposed that in addition to the pre-sentence custody Mr. Bredo has already served, he should serve another two years less one day in prison, followed by three years of probation. That equates to an effective prison sentence of nine years, two months and 19 days. [54] Crown counsel and counsel for Mr. Bredo are much more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the respective cases than the court is. Recently the Supreme Court of Canada explained in R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43 that a sentencing judge must not depart from a joint submission unless acceding to it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. [55] In his reasons for judgment, Mr. Justice Moldaver explained: [25] It is an accepted and entirely desirable practice for Crown and defence counsel to agree to a joint submission on sentence in exchange for a plea of guilty. Agreements of this nature are commonplace and vitally important to the well-being of our criminal justice system, as well as our justice system at large. Generally, such agreements are unexceptional and they are readily approved by trial judges without any difficulty [34] a joint submission should not be rejected lightly . Rejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold [35] Guilty pleas in exchange for joint submissions on sentence are a "proper and necessary part of the administration of criminal justice" . . . When plea resolutions are "properly conducted [they] benefit not only the accused, but also victims, witnesses, counsel, and the administration of justice generally" [36] Accused persons benefit by pleading guilty in exchange for a joint submission on sentence. . . The most obvious benefit is that the Crown agrees to recommend a sentence that the accused is prepared to accept. This recommendation is likely to be more lenient than the accused might expect after a trial and/or contested sentencing hearing. Accused persons who plead guilty promptly are able to minimize the stress and legal costs associated with trials. Moreover, for those who are truly remorseful, a guilty plea offers an opportunity to begin making amends. For many accused, maximizing certainty as to the outcome is crucial -- and a joint submission, though not inviolable, offers considerable comfort in this regard. . . . [39] From the Crown's perspective, the certain or near certain acceptance of joint submissions on sentence offers several potential benefits. First, the guarantee of a conviction that comes with a guilty plea makes resolution desirable. . . The Crown's case may suffer from flaws, such as an unwilling witness, a witness of dubious worth, or evidence that is potentially inadmissible -- problems that can lead to an acquittal. By agreeing to a joint submission in exchange for a guilty plea, the Crown avoids this risk. Second, the accused may have information or testimony to offer the Crown that can prove invaluable to other investigations or prosecutions. . . Third, the Crown may consider it best to resolve a particular case for the benefit of victims or witnesses. When an accused pleads guilty in exchange for a joint submission on sentence, victims and witnesses are spared the "the emotional cost of a trial"... . Moreover, victims may obtain some comfort from a guilty plea, given that it "indicates an accused's acknowledgement of responsibility and may amount to an expression of remorse" . . . [56] The range of sentence for manslaughter spans from suspending the passing of sentence and placing an offender on probation, to life imprisonment. The range is so broad because the factual foundation of the offence can vary greatly, from near accident to near murder. [57] In support of the joint submission that has been made, counsel have drawn to my attention a number of case authorities with features that are somewhat similar to the case before me and that address the range of sentence for manslaughter. Those cases include: a) R. v. Plowman, 2015 BCCA 423 [7 years] b) R. v. Helm, 2006 BCCA 240 [9 years] c) R. v. E.H., 2005 BCCA 3 [two offenders - 7 & 8 years respectively] d) R. v. Clarke, [2003] O.J. No. 1966 (C.A.) [9 years] Analysis The purpose and principles of sentencing [58] The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. [59] Section 718 of the Code sets out the purpose of sentencing as follows: 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 . . . (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. [60] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [61] Section 718.2 of the Code mandates that a sentencing court must take into consideration any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender when determining an appropriate sentence. Aggravating Circumstances [62] The defence accepts that the circumstances enumerated by Crown counsel during her submissions constitute aggravating circumstances. Those circumstances consist of the following: a) Mr. Bredo's pre‑offence lies which were the foundation of the close relationship that he fraudulently fostered with Mr. Levesque; b) the significant amount of cocaine that Mr. Bredo obtained and used in the days leading up to and including 3 August 2011; c) Mr. Bredo supplying Mr. Levesque with cocaine; d) Mr. Bredo's use of a weapon to assault Mr. Levesque; e) the magnitude and duration of the assault on Mr. Levesque; f) Mr. Bredo's refusal to allow Mr. Levesque to leave the apartment even when it was clear he had been injured by the hammer blows and was in emotional distress; and g) Mr. Bredo's post‑offence conduct, including his failure to provide aid to Mr. Levesque when it was or should have been patently clear to him that Mr. Levesque was in distress and in need of medical assistance. Mitigating circumstances [63] As for mitigating circumstances, there is Mr. Bredo's guilty plea. While it did not come at an early stage in these proceedings, it still is indicative of his remorse. It will also provide closure to the Levesque family and allow them to move on with their lives without the spectre of a trial and potential further legal proceedings hanging over them. [64] This guilty plea will also liberate a not insignificant amount of court time so that other matters, be they criminal cases, family cases, or civil cases, can be heard. [65] This is Mr. Bredo's first conviction as an adult. As such, he is a first‑time offender. [66] Finally, counsel for Mr. Bredo points to the portion of the agreed statement of facts entitled "Bredo's risk assessment", explaining that this paragraph was added to the document upon the unsolicited request of Mr. Bredo. This paragraph reads: Bredo acknowledges that during the short time he knew Levesque he had developed an unhealthy infatuation for Levesque, which was partly sexual attraction, and partly what he perceived at the time as a deep friendship. Bredo admits that his desire for a sexual relationship with Levesque led him to lie and manipulate Levesque throughout their relationship. Bredo's use of cocaine throughout this period affected his judgment and his sense of propriety, in regard to Levesque specifically, and in regard to his own sexuality in general, which had begun to show signs of deviancy. Bredo admits that these factors significantly contributed to his offending behavior and that his prospects for rehabilitation are quite dependent on him engaging in treatment that addresses all of these underlying issues including his sexual deviance, his violent offending, and his substance abuse. Decision [67] As I noted at the outset of these reasons, my task today is to determine and impose a sentence that is appropriate and just in all of the circumstances. This task has been circumscribed somewhat by the fact that both sides have presented the court with a joint submission on sentencing. [68] The gravity of the offence Mr. Bredo committed is severe. He took Mr. Levesque's life. The impact of the offence has been devastating to all those who knew and cared for Mr. Levesque. In my opinion, Mr. Bredo's moral blame-worthiness is high, justifying a sentence in the range suggested in the joint submission before me. [69] Using the language found in Anthony‑Cook at paragraph 34, I must consider whether the sentence recommended by both the Crown and the defence is so "unhinged" from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that my acceptance of it would lead a reasonable and informed person, aware of all the circumstances, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system has broken down. [70] I have listened to counsel's submissions on this hearing and I have carefully reviewed all of the written materials that have been filed. That includes the sketch drawing and photographs that were incorporated into the agreed statement of facts. I have also listened attentively to the speakers who read their victim impact statements. I have read and reread all of the victim impact statements that have been filed. Finally, I have considered what Mr. Bredo had to say yesterday when he addressed the court to acknowledge his guilt and express his remorse for his actions. [71] Having considered all of the relevant factors on this sentencing, including Mr. Levesque's family's need for a final and unequivocal conclusion to these proceedings, I am satisfied that the sentence proposed by both sides is an appropriate one and would not be seen by someone knowing all of the circumstances of this case as an affront to justice. [72] In reaching this conclusion I underscore the fact that the sentence I impose on Mr. Bredo today is in no way a reflection of the value or worth of Daniel Levesque's life. Nor can it be seen as a measure of the harm or suffering Mr. Bredo's crime has caused to Mr. Levesque's family and friends. Sentence [73] Mr. Bredo, you will stand, please. [74] Mr. Bredo, as a result of your unlawful act of assaulting Daniel Levesque with a hammer and confining him in the apartment, you caused his death. In doing so, you committed the crime of manslaughter. [75] Your counsel and Crown counsel have jointly submitted that the appropriate sentence for your offence is nine years, two months, and 19 days. Factoring in the time you have already spent in pre-sentence custody, both the Crown and your counsel submit that you should serve an additional two years less one day in prison, followed by a three‑year probation period. I accept that joint submission and sentence you accordingly. [76] You may have a seat. Probation order [77] Upon Mr. Bredo's release, he will be bound by a three‑year probation order. The terms of that order will consist of the following: a) He shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. b) He shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court. c) He shall notify the court or his probation officer in advance of any change of his name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. d) Within 24 hours of his release from custody, he shall report in person to the probation office nearest to the institution from which he is released, and after that he shall report to a probation officer as directed by that probation officer. e) When first reporting to the probation officer, he shall inform him or her of his full residential address and telephone number. f) He is to have no communication or contact, directly or indirectly, with any of the following persons: [Redacted for publication purposes]. g) He shall not attend at any place which he knows to be the residence, school, or work place of any of the aforementioned persons. Should he at any time find himself in the presence of any of these individuals, then he is to leave that location immediately without communicating with any of them. h) He shall not possess or consume any controlled substance as defined in s. 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, except as specifically prescribed by a medical doctor. i) He shall not possess any weapons as defined in s. 2 of the Code. j) He shall attend, participate, and complete any assessment, counselling, or other program as directed by his probation officer, which may include any of the following: violence prevention program, a drug abuse prevention program, other full‑time attendance program as may be directed by the probation officer, or forensic assessment, counselling, or treatment through the Forensic Psychiatric Centre here in Victoria, B.C., or other such centre closest to his residence. Ancillary orders Weapons prohibition [78] Pursuant to s. 109(2)(a) of the Code, I am imposing on Mr. Bredo a 10‑year prohibition from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance. [79] Pursuant to s. 109(2)(b) of the Code, I am imposing on Mr. Bredo a lifetime prohibition from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition. DNA samples [80] Manslaughter is a primary designated offence for the purposes of making a DNA data bank order. Consequently, pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code, I make an order authorizing the taking from Mr. Bredo for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis any number of samples of one or more of his bodily substances that are required for the purpose by means of the investigative procedures described in s. 487.06(1) of the Code. Non‑communication order [81] Pursuant to s. 734.21(1) of the Code, Mr. Bredo will be prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, during the custodial portion of his sentence, with any of the individuals that are listed in the no‑contact terms of his probation order. Sealing order [82] Pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this court, I am ordering that Exhibits 2A and 2B that were filed by the defence on Voir Dire #7 in the first trial be sealed and that no one may have access to these materials without first obtaining a court order. Victim surcharge [83] Pursuant to s. 737 of the Code, I am imposing a victim surcharge of $200. That amount is to be paid by Mr. Bredo no later than 60 days after his release from his custodial sentence. [84] Mr. Bredo, I have just set out the terms of your probation order. Do you understand the order? [85] THE ACCUSED: I understand. [86] THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Donnachie? [87] MS. DONNACHIE: No, My Lord. [88] THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Russell? [89] MR. RUSSELL: Nothing further, My Lord. [90] THE COURT: My final observations are these: This lengthy matter is now at an end. I hope that fact will provide Mr. Levesque's family, friends, and community with some solace and peace. I also thank counsel for their efforts on this matter. [91] MS. DONNACHIE: Sorry, My Lord, there is one last matter to address, the outstanding indictment. [92] THE COURT: Yes. [93] MS. DONNACHIE: 159210‑2, Crown would be directing a stay. [94] THE COURT: Indictment 159210, the Crown is directing a stay of proceedings. [95] MS. DONNACHIE: Dash 2. [96] THE COURT: Dash 2. [97] MS. DONNACHIE: Yes, My Lord. [98] THE COURT: So ordered. [99] MS. DONNACHIE: Thank you. [100] THE COURT: I thank counsel for their work. We will stand the court down. "G. R. J. Gaul J."