R. v. Maki

2023 BCSC 2470 R. v. Maki

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Maki, 2023 BCSC 2470 Date: 20230720 Docket: 35801-2; 35801-3 Registry: Williams Lake Rex v. Stephen Tosh Maki Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Church Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown appearing by videoconference: M. Aziz Counsel for the Accused: J. Killoran Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Williams Lake, B.C. May 16, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Williams Lake, B.C. July 20, 2023 [1] THE COURT: Stephen Tosh Maki was charged on Indictment 35801‑2 with one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, namely fentanyl, for the purposes of trafficking, and one count of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace. These charges arose from events that occurred on January 19, 2020, near Williams Lake. [2] Mr. Maki pleaded not guilty to these charges and his trial proceeded before me on December 13, 2022, when I heard his Charter application alleging that his s. 8 and 9 Charter rights had been violated in the course of the investigation. On December 15, 2022, I found that no Charter breach had occurred and dismissed his application. Later that same day, after discussions with his counsel, Mr. Maki changed his plea on Count 1 to guilty and thereby admitted that he possessed fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking on January 19, 2020, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and

Substances Act. [3] A pre-sentence report was ordered and Mr. Maki's sentencing hearing was adjourned to May 16, 2023. [4] In terms of the circumstances of these offences, on January 19, 2020, Constable Linde of the Williams Lake RCMP was working as part of the traffic unit and patrolling Highway 97 near Blue Lake when he noted a high‑end SUV travelling southbound. Constable Linde turned his police vehicle around to follow the SUV to check for winter tires. As he began to follow the SUV, he observed the SUV pass another vehicle on a double solid yellow line and it appeared to be travelling at excessive speed. After he caught up to the SUV, he obtained a radar reading for the vehicle at 142 kilometres per hour in an area where the posted speed limit was 90 kilometres per hour. [5] Before he was able to conduct a traffic stop of the SUV, he observed the SUV abruptly pull off the highway and into a brake check area. Constable Linde followed the vehicle into the brake check and activated his emergency lights as he pulled up behind the SUV. As he exited his police vehicle, Constable Linde observed the male driver exit the vehicle, lean over and vomit, reach over and close the driver's side door, and then continue vomiting. Constable Linde approached the male driver, asked him how he was doing and asked to see the male's driver's licence and vehicle registration. The driver opened

the driver's side door of the vehicle and reached in to retrieve his wallet and, as he did so, Constable Linde leaned on the driver's door and observed a large unsheathed hunting knife and what appeared to be a can of bear spray wrapped in camo tape in the driver's door pocket. [6] The driver produced a care card in the name of Stephen Maki. When asked who the vehicle belonged to, the driver replied, "a buddy of a buddy". The insurance papers showed the vehicle registered to a numbered company based in the Lower Mainland. [7] Constable Linde waited for other members to arrive and then arrested the driver, Mr. Maki, for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. A search of the vehicle incidental to arrest revealed a number of other weapons, as well as a plastic bag containing $74,680 in Canadian currency and a total of 42 grams of fentanyl in powder form and 804 fentanyl pills. [8] With respect to the circumstances of Mr. Maki, he is currently 30 years of age and resides with his fiancée, Jara Ross, and his half‑brother and his girlfriend in the Langley area. [9] According to Exhibit 2 on sentence, Mr. Maki has a short criminal history with convictions that bookend this offence. He has convictions for possession of a weapon, uttering threats, and possession of a controlled substance from May 2021, with an offence date of December 29, 2019, and

convictions for assault and mischief from June 11, 2021, with an offence date of May 16, 2020. [10] In both cases, he received a suspended sentence and probation for 12 and 18 months respectively. [11] I note that the pre-sentence report prepared in relation to his convictions arising from the December 29, 2019, offences reference other convictions prior to 2019, while the presentence report prepared with respect to this offence refers only to the convictions on the JUSTIN conviction list, which was entered as Exhibit 2 on this sentencing hearing, and an arrest in 2012 for theft under $5,000 that was resolved by alternative measures. That pre-sentence report provides that Mr. Maki's convictions begin in 2019 and include assault, mischief, and possessing a weapon, which is consistent with Exhibit 2. [12] Given that discrepancy, I have relied on Exhibit 2 as evidence from the Crown to establish Mr. Maki's criminal history. [13] The earlier pre-sentence report describes Mr. Maki's background, including his parents separating when he was a toddler and the absence of any relationship with his father until he was in his teens. His mother re‑partnered and he had a good relationship with his stepfather, but unfortunately his stepfather died suddenly when Mr. Maki was age seven. [14] More recently, Mr. Maki suffered further loss when his father died in the year prior to committing this

offence. [15] He has experienced various health challenges, including being involved in two car accidents where he suffered injury, being diagnosed with a brain tumour at age 18 years, and suffering the loss of his eye after being seriously assaulted with brass knuckles. [16] Mr. Maki began consuming alcohol and marihuana at an early age, and used various other drugs, including cocaine, after he became an adult. He became involved with peers involved in substance abuse and criminal activity. He has struggled with substance abuse and has attended counselling at the Maple Ridge Treatment Centre in 2019, but relapsed shortly after he left the program. [17] The pre-sentence report writer expressed concern about the relatively short period of sobriety at that time. [18] Mr. Maki struggled with school and, while it was suspected that he had a learning disability, he was never formally tested. He finished Grade 12, but has not graduated from high school. [19] Despite those challenges, Mr. Maki has been able to maintain regular employment in various occupations, and his employer told the pre-sentence report writer that he was a reliable and hardworking employee. [20] The updated pre-sentence report prepared in April 2023 confirmed Mr. Maki's ongoing efforts at sobriety, his attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous and counselling, and his return to sports as a coping mechanism. The report

writer confirmed Mr. Maki's sobriety with his collateral contacts, including his family members and his fiancée. [21] In terms of the positions of the parties, the Federal Crown seeks a sentence of four and a half years of imprisonment on Count 1. Counsel pointed to the quantity and variety of controlled substances found in the possession of Mr. Maki, which he said pointed to mid‑level trafficking, and the need to emphasize denunciation and deterrence, given the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking in light of the current opioid crisis. [22] Crown counsel takes the position that while Mr. Maki is a first‑time trafficker, the nature of the drug, namely fentanyl, the larger than street‑level quantity of drugs, and the large amount of money, together with the personal circumstances of Mr. Maki, point to a much higher level of moral culpability and will necessarily attract a penitentiary‑term sentence to provide a greater emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. [23] The authorities presented by the Crown reflect a sentencing range of two and a half years to five years. These include the following: R. v. Ban, 2014 BCCA 68; R. v. Capot Blanc‑Acko, 2019 BCSC 2353; R. v. Bissat, 2019 BCSC 432; and R. v. Gill, 2022 BCCA 127. [24] While the Crown acknowledged Mr. Maki's guilty plea, he also submitted that it was not an early guilty plea. He further submitted that despite his struggles

with substance abuse, it appears that Mr. Maki was not engaged in drug trafficking to support his addiction, but rather for profit. Counsel pointed to the information in the pre-sentence report regarding Mr. Maki's ability to earn income from legitimate employment. [25] The Crown further submitted that although Mr. Maki does not have a related criminal record, there were aspects of his criminal record that were concerning, specifically his conviction for assault and mischief for offences that occurred in May 2020, after the date of this offence. [26] The Crown is also seeking the mandatory ancillary orders, including a firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code, and also seeks a DNA order for Count 1, which is a secondary designated offence. [27] Counsel for Mr. Maki seeks the imposition of a conditional sentence order of two years less a day, to be followed by a two‑year probation order. He pointed to the recent legislative change that makes a conditional sentence order statutorily available for the offence to which Mr. Maki has pleaded guilty. Counsel distinguished the cases relied on by the Crown, pointing out various facts regarding the circumstances of the offence or the offender that were more egregious than the case at bar, such as a lengthy related criminal record in the case of R. v. Capot Blanc‑Acko, or prior convictions for trafficking in the case of R.

v. Ban. [28] Defence counsel urged me to consider the circumstances of Mr. Maki as outlined in both the updated presentence report ordered with respect to this offence, and the earlier presentence report which identified Mr. Maki's longstanding issues with alcohol use, prior significant head injuries, one of which resulted in the loss of his eye, and his addiction to GHB. [29] He pointed to the letters of support from family and friends in Exhibit 3 regarding the poor choices made by Mr. Maki around the time of this offence, his efforts at sobriety since mid‑2020, and the manner in which he has turned his life around since that time. [30] Defence counsel also referred to Mr. Maki's guilty plea, which was somewhat mitigating, his acknowledgement of the offence and expression of remorse during the sentencing hearing, and the fact that he is a relatively youthful offender with good prospects for rehabilitation. [31] In accordance with the statement in R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285, defence counsel submitted that Mr. Maki has demonstrated exceptional circumstances, including objectively identifiable steps towards rehabilitation, gainful employment, and remorse, that justify the imposition of a non‑custodial sentence. [32] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to a respect for the law and the maintenance of a just,

peaceful, and safe society. The objectives of sentencing include: the denunciation of unlawful conduct; the deterrence of the offender and others from committing further offences; separation of the offender from society where necessary; rehabilitation of the offender; reparation for harm done; and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, including acknowledgment of the harm done. [33] Section 718.1 further provides that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [34] Other important principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718.2, which provides that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. [35] An offender should not be deprived of liberty if a less‑restrictive sanction is appropriate. [36] All reasonable sanctions other than imprisonment should be considered, if they are reasonable and consistent with the harm done, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders, and a sentence should be increased or reduced to take account of any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. [37] The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, focused on the issue of sentencing ranges and starting points in connection with convictions for trafficking in fentanyl.

The decision comments on the serious problem that illicit trafficking of drugs, in particular fentanyl, poses to our society. These observations echo comments that have been made by appellate courts for many years. [38] While the decision in Parranto involved high‑level wholesale trafficking in fentanyl, the general comments by the court regarding the scourge of illicit trafficking in fentanyl are relevant to this case. The Supreme Court of Canada said at paras. 88 to 93: [88] Trafficking in such substances causes both direct and indirect harms to society. Directly, the distribution and abuse of hard drugs leads to addiction, debilitating adverse health effects, and, all too frequently, death by overdose. . . . [89] Trafficking also leads indirectly to a host of other ills, including an increase in all manner of crime, committed by those seeking to finance their addiction, as well as by organized crime syndicates . . . Given that much of this criminal activity is violent, trafficking has come to be understood as an offence of violence, even beyond the ruinous consequences it has for those who abuse drugs and in the process, destroy themselves and others. . . . [90] A further and perhaps even more devastating consequence of the hard drug trade is its impact on families and the intergenerational trauma it causes: Trafficking in drugs, and in particular hard drugs such as cocaine,

is a crime whose victims can be found far beyond the individuals who become addicted to the drugs. Families can be torn apart by either the loss of the individual to the addiction itself or to the violence that all too often accompanies the drug trade. . . . . . . [91] Finally, the trafficking of hard drugs leads to "significant if not staggering" costs to society in terms of health care and law enforcement expenses, as well as lost productivity . . . [92] Trafficking in hard drugs is thus a "crime with such grievous consequences that it tears at the very fabric of society" . . . [93] As grave a threat as drugs such as heroin and cocaine pose, that threat pales in comparison to the one posed by fentanyl and its analogues. Indeed, over the past decade, fentanyl has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada, revealing itself as public enemy number one. [39] With respect to sentencing for offences related to fentanyl trafficking in British Columbia, the Court of Appeal in R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112, established a generally applicable range of 18 to 36 months' jail for first‑time street‑level traffickers. [40] In a more recent decision of our Court of Appeal in R. v. Schneider, 2019 BCCA 310, the court said at paras. 22 and 23: [22] This Court in Smith emphasized the need to give the sentencing goals of deterrence and denunciation primacy when considering the

range of sentences for offences involving trafficking in fentanyl, due to its deadly nature and the rapidly escalating crisis of fentanyl‑caused deaths. However, the offender in Smith had not shown exceptional efforts to rehabilitate -- indeed, he had shown repeated trafficking behaviour that was more extensive than the facts of the present case -- and the option of a suspended sentence in that case was not realistic. [23] As noted recently in R. v. Williams, 2019 BCCA 295, sentencing ranges are guidelines only and are not intended to set out a baseline minimum sentence in all cases, regardless of the circumstances . . . [41] Mr. Maki does have a short criminal record, but this is his first conviction for possession of controlled substances for the purposes of trafficking. [42] The Crown relies on its submission that the quantity of fentanyl found in the possession of Mr. Maki was larger than street‑level, although I note there was no evidence before me regarding this, other than the admission that the possession of that quantity was for the purposes of trafficking. [43] The Crown relies on authorities that reflect a sentencing range of two and a half years to five years' imprisonment. While I accept that these kinds of offences typically attract significant sentences that emphasize denunciation and deterrence, I agree with the submission of defence counsel that the

circumstances of the offenders and/or the offences in the cases relied on by the Crown were more egregious, either involving evidence of trafficking in much larger amounts of drugs or offenders with several prior convictions for drug trafficking. [44] I have considered the cases relied on by defence counsel in support of his submission that a conditional sentence order of two years less a day would be a fit sentence in the circumstances of this case. These include the cases of: R. v. Flintroy, 2021 BCSC 1187; R. v. Kirk, 2023 BCSC 301; and R. v. Sehn, 2021 BCSC 2292. Counsel also referred me to two decisions of our Provincial Court, R. v. Coppick, 2023 BCPC 71, and R. v. Stulec, 2022 BCPC 301. [45] As I have already noted, the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offences committed in similar circumstances. However, sentencing is an inherently individualized process and no two cases present the same factual matrix. [46] In terms of the circumstances of the offences and the offenders, the cases that arguably most closely resemble the case at bar are those of Kirk and Flintroy. In Kirk, Mr. Justice Baird considered the significant delay in proceedings that was not attributable to the offender as a mitigating factor on sentence. He determined that the four‑year penitentiary term sought by the Crown would be counterproductive in

the circumstances of the offender, as it would imperil or likely defeat his promising course of rehabilitation and he would emerge from the penitentiary a far greater risk to reoffend. [47] Justice Baird described the sentence he ultimately imposed as sanctions with conditions that were restrictive, deterrent, and rehabilitative, and which would see the offender under the supervision of the court for five years, which he described as being the equal, if not the better, of a three‑year conventional prison sentence in terms of denunciation and deterrence, and more effective at achieving the objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the community, and promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender. [48] In Flintroy, Mr. Justice Crossin found that the offender's moral culpability was reduced despite her involvement in a serious and substantial drug operation involving possession of drugs with a street value of over one million dollars. He found that her role in the operation was secondary to that of her co‑accused, describing her as a follower. [49] Other than the admitted possession of the quantity of fentanyl in this case, there is no evidence before me with regard to Mr. Maki's role in this enterprise, other than his indication to the presentence report writer that he had accepted a ride from a person he knew to be a drug dealer, and his statement to the court during his

sentencing hearing that he knew about the presence of the drugs in his bag in the vehicle. [50] I note that in the updated pre-sentence report, Mr. Maki's mother described him as easily influenced by his peers, something that Mr. Maki himself confirmed. [51] The statutory pre-conditions for a conditional sentence order are that the sentence imposed must be less than two years, and the court must be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the public and would be consistent with the fundamental principles and purposes of sentencing. [52] There have been a number of letters filed on behalf of Mr. Maki that describe his very positive progress in addressing his addictions and his efforts to lead a prosocial and productive life. [53] There are letters from members of his family, neighbours, and employers, many of whom describe their observations of the significant changes in Mr. Maki's life over the past three years. [54] Some of them describe his struggles with substance abuse and his attitude and behaviour during the time of this offence, and contrast that with his current situation where he has made amends to his family, maintains full‑time employment, and has been sober for almost three years. [55] It is apparent from those letters that Mr. Maki has made positive changes in his life to find a way forward. [56] There are aggravating and mitigating

factors in this case. Mr. Maki does have a criminal record, although it is relatively short, and he was in possession of fentanyl, a dangerous drug that causes immeasurable harm in our society. [57] The mitigating factors in this case are that Mr. Maki has pleaded guilty to this offence. He does not have any prior criminal convictions for drug trafficking, and he has expressed remorse and a willingness to continue his efforts to address his substance abuse issues and maintain his sobriety. [58] The offence to which Mr. Maki has pleaded guilty is a serious offence for which his moral culpability is high. As the court noted in Kirk, people who commit similar offences in similar circumstances to this are routinely handed penitentiary sentences of the magnitude sought by the Crown. [59] However, Mr. Maki's circumstances as set out in the two presentence reports, together with the letters of support in Exhibit 3, persuade me that his rehabilitative steps have been exceptional and he has truly turned his life around. Over the three and a half years since the date of this offence, Mr. Maki has taken objectively verifiable steps to remove himself from negative peer influences, address his issues with substance abuse, and comply with release conditions. He has not committed any further offences since May 2020. [60] He has been gainfully employed for much of that time and, by all

accounts, he has demonstrated a strong work ethic and proved himself a valuable and reliable employee, even during the early days of his journey to sobriety. He has expressed remorse for his poor choices and involvement in this offence. [61] When considered in the context of the various challenges faced by Mr. Maki during his life to this point, I am persuaded he has demonstrated exceptional circumstances. To borrow from the words of Mr. Justice Crossin in Flintroy, to abort Mr. Maki's positive journey at this stage would not be in the public interest, and in fact it would be contrary to the public interest. [62] Mr. Maki has demonstrated his commitment to being a productive member of the community and has turned his life around. [63] In my opinion, deterrence and denunciation are met and the protection of the public better served by a non‑custodial sentence. [64] A fit and proportional sentence for Mr. Maki must give paramount consideration to denunciation and deterrence, but in all of the circumstances that I have outlined must also address rehabilitative and restorative objectives. As the Supreme Court of Canada instructed in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, a conditional sentence order can address both punitive and rehabilitative objectives. [65] I have concluded that a conditional sentence order of two years less a day with strict conditions would address the paramount principles

of denunciation and deterrence, and recognize Mr. Maki's exceptional efforts at rehabilitation. It will be followed by a period of probation of three years, which will address the principle of assisting in the rehabilitation of the offender and promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender, as well as acknowledging harm done to the victims and the community. [66] As was the case in Kirk, Mr. Maki will be subject to conditions that are restrictive, deterrent, and rehabilitative, and be under the supervision of the court for five years, much longer than he would be if sentenced to the penitentiary term sought by the Crown. [67] So Mr. Maki, would you please stand up, sir. On Count 1 on the indictment, I sentence you to a conditional sentence order of two years less a day, which is 730 days. If you are wondering why it is 730 instead of 729, next year is a leap year. [68] The conditions of your conditional sentence order are as follows: [69] You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [70] You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [71] You must notify the court or your conditional sentence supervisor in advance of any change of name and address, and promptly notify the court or your supervisor of any change in employment or occupation. [72] You must remain in British Columbia unless you have prior written permission from the court or your

conditional sentence supervisor to leave the province. [73] You must report by telephone to a conditional sentence supervisor at the Langley Community Corrections Office within two working days after the making of this conditional sentence order. If the office is closed, you must try again the next business day and continue calling until you have spoken to a conditional sentence supervisor and received further direction to report. After that, you must report as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor. [74] When first reporting to the conditional sentence supervisor, you must inform him or her of your residential address and phone number. You must not change your residence or phone number without written permission from your conditional sentence supervisor. [75] You must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicating substances, except in accordance with a medical prescription. [76] You must not possess, directly or indirectly, any weapon as defined in the Criminal Code, including: a. firearms and ammunition; b. cross-bows, prohibited or restricted weapons or devices, or explosive substances; c. anything used, designed to be used, or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person, or to threaten or intimidate any person; d. any imitation of all of the above, including any compressed air guns or BB/pellet guns; or e. any related authorizations,

licences, or registration certificates, and you must not apply for any of these. [77] You must not reside in any residence in which any other person keeps or stores any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, or explosive substance. [78] You must attend, participate in, and successfully complete any intake, assessment, counselling, or program as directed by the conditional sentence supervisor. Without limiting the general nature of this condition, the intake, assessment, counselling, or program may relate to drug or alcohol abuse. [79] For the first eight months of this order, you must obey house arrest by being inside your residence, or within 10 metres from the front door of your residence, 24 hours a day, every day. You must present yourself immediately at the door to your residence or answer the phone when any peace officer or conditional sentence supervisor attends or calls to check on you during house arrest. [80] You may be away from your residence during the house arrest with the written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor. Such permission is to be given only for employment or other compelling reasons. You must carry the permission with you when you are outside of your residence. [81] You may be also be away from your residence during the house arrest hours: a) while at or going directly to or returning

directly from a healthcare facility because of a medical emergency. If asked, you must provide your conditional sentence supervisor with proof of your attendance at the facility; b) when travelling to or from or attending any counselling, treatment, or program; and c) between the hours of 12:00 pm and 2:00 pm each week day to attend to shopping or other personal business. [82] For the following eight months of your sentence, you must obey a curfew by being inside your residence, or within 10 metres of the front door of your residence, between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am every day. You must present yourself immediately at the door of your residence or answer the phone when any peace officer or conditional sentence supervisor attends or calls to check on you during the curfew. [83] You may be away from your residence during the curfew with the prior written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor. Such permission is to be given only for employment or other compelling reasons. You must carry the permission with you in electronic format, with you, when you are outside of your residence. [84] You may also be away from your residence during the curfew hours while at, or going directly to, or returning directly from a healthcare facility because of a medical emergency. If asked, you must provide your conditional sentence supervisor with proof of your attendance at the

facility. [85] Do you understand those conditions, Mr. Maki? [86] THE ACCUSED: I do, Madam Justice. [87] THE COURT: Let me be very clear, Mr. Maki, that a conditional sentence order is a jail sentence, but it is served in the community. If you breach the conditions of this order, there are potentially very serious consequences, including the possibility that your conditional sentence order will terminate and you will serve the rest of the sentence in custody. Do you understand? [88] THE ACCUSED: I do, Madam Justice. [89] THE COURT: Mr. Maki, you are having to use your crutches. You can go ahead and sit down while I read the rest of your probation conditions. [90] THE ACCUSED: Okay, thank you. [91] THE COURT: After your conditional sentence order is completed, you must comply with a probation order for a period of three years. The conditions of your probation order will be as follows: [92] You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [93] You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [94] 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 officer of any change of employment or occupation. [95] You must report by telephone to a probation officer at the Langley Community Corrections Office within two business days after completion of your conditional sentence order,

unless you have obtained, before completion of your conditional sentence, written permission from the probation officer to report elsewhere or within a different timeframe. After that, you must report as directed by your probation officer. [96] When first reporting to your probation officer, you must provide them with the address where you live and your phone number. You must not change your address or phone number without notifying your probation officer in writing in advance of any change. Your reporting will end when you have satisfied your probation officer that you have: (a) completed all counselling and treatment, or that it is not required, and your probation officer has told you that you are no longer required to report. [97] You must not possess or consume controlled substances, as defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, except with a medical prescription. [98] You must attend, participate in, and complete any intake, assessment, counselling, or education program as directed by your probation officer. [99] You must not possess, directly or indirectly, any weapon as defined in the Criminal Code, including: firearms and ammunition; cross-bows, prohibited or restricted weapons or devices, or explosive substances; anything used, designed to be used, or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person, or to threaten or intimidate any person; any

imitation of all the above, including any compressed air guns or BB/pellet guns; or any related authorizations, licences, registration certificates, and you must not apply for any of these. [100] Do you understand those conditions, Mr. Maki? [101] THE ACCUSED: I do, Madam Justice. [102] THE COURT: In addition, I will also impose the required ancillary orders. [103] Pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code, you are prohibited from possessing: (a) any firearm other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for a period of 10 years from today; and (b) any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life. [104] Count 1 on the indictment is a secondary designated offence and, after considering the factors set out in s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to make an order in Form 5.04 authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from you for the purpose of registration in the DNA National Data Bank. [105] You must attend at the Murrayville Police Station at or near 222nd and Fraser Highway, British Columbia, by no later than August 31, 2023, and submit to the taking of samples. This order is valid until executed. [106] All right, did I miss

anything? [107] CNSL J. KILLORAN: I don't think so, Justice. Mr. Maki has a surgery scheduled, but his CSO supervisor can give him permission to go to that, so that's ‑- that's all I can think of, thank you. [108] THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Aziz, any conditions or any concerns about the conditions I have imposed? [109] CNSL M. AZIZ: No, Madam Justice. [110] THE COURT: All right. The victim fine surcharge will be imposed and I will give Mr. Maki 60 days to pay it. [111] CNSL J. KILLORAN: Thank you. [112] CNSL M. AZIZ: The Federal Crown directs a stay on Count 2. [113] THE COURT: All right, so Count 2 is stayed. Anything else that we need to address? [114] CNSL J. KILLORAN: Nothing comes to mind, Justice. [115] THE COURT: All right, and Mr. Aziz ‑- [116] CNSL M. AZIZ: Nothing further, Justice. [117] THE COURT: All right. Good luck to you, Mr. Maki. [118] THE ACCUSED: Thank you, Madam Justice. [119] CNSL J. KILLORAN: Thank you. [120] CNSL M. AZIZ: Thank you, Madam Justice. "The Honourable Madam Justice Church"