Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Layla Aman

Before: Justice Heather Perkins-McVey

Reasons for Judgment released on: October 1, 2012

Counsel:

• Mr. Jason Neubauer, for the Crown
• Mr. Norman Boxall, for the accused Layla Aman

PERKINS-MCVEY J.:

Introduction

[1] Ms. Layla Aman entered a plea of guilt to one count of failure to remain at the scene of an accident causing death, contrary to s.252(1.3)(b) of the Criminal Code as a result of the events of August 18, 2011. In the early morning hours of August 18th, Ms. Aman was driving southbound on Bronson Avenue when she struck Mr. Miller with the passenger side of her vehicle. The contact caused Mr. Miller to be thrown approximately 15 meters to a resting place on the west side of the sidewalk of Bronson Avenue. As a result of the impact, Mr. Miller flipped twice in the air and his boots were thrown from his feet. One of Ms. Aman's car mirrors also broke off and was left at the scene. From the description of witnesses, Ms. Aman clearly must have seen Mr. Miller, as Ms. Aman's vehicle is seen attempting to veer into the middle lane of traffic to avoid Mr. Miller. Unfortunately the vehicle struck Mr. Miller and Ms. Aman did not attempt to stop and render any assistance as she was required to do. Mr. Miller died later that morning as a result of the injuries he suffered.

[2] At the sentencing hearing, the facts were presented by way of an agreed statement of facts which were filed as Exhibit 1. The family of Daniel Miller were present at the hearing, as they are today, and each of them, Kim Miller (Daniel's mother), Robert Miller (Daniel's father), Stephanie Hartman (Daniel's sister), Eric Miller (Daniel's brother) and Robert Miller (Daniel's eldest brother) provided reflective and emotional victim impact statements. A book of photographs highlighting various stages of Daniel's life along with thoughts in remembrance was also filed. This book was filed with the consent of defence counsel on behalf of the accused.

[3] The pain of their loss and the depth of the love they have for Daniel are reflected in that memorial book and in their victim impact statements. Daniel's family is clearly angered and upset that Dan has been taken from them and that he will never realize his future goals.

[4] Sadly, no sentence however harsh can change the sad fact of Daniel's death.

[5] I must point out that Ms. Aman is charged only with the offence of failing to remain at the scene of the accident. She was not charged with any other offences under the Criminal Code or the Highway Traffic Act. She was not charged with dangerous driving or any criminal offences related to her driving conduct that occurred prior to the accident. In this way, this case cannot be compared to other cases in this jurisdiction where death has occurred as a result of impaired or dangerous driving. The accused's act of hitting the victim is in law, considered an accident. The accused's offence is failing to stop and render assistance when she had the legal and moral obligation to do so.

[6] It is always difficult in sentencing when the Court is faced with facts as tragic as these. It is all the more tragic when we see that the accused facing the Court is a young woman, just turned age 25, with no prior record, who has a loving and supportive family and a promising future. In 2001, the Aman family were in a place similar to the Miller family, in a courtroom in this building, having suffered the loss of their son, Tareq Aman, who was murdered at age 19. Ms. Aman indicated in the Pre-Sentence Report that her own tragedy of losing her brother allows her to empathize with Daniel Miller's family and that she feels a lot of remorse for the family. As counsel stated in submissions in a case such as this there are no winners, everyone loses.

Facts

[7] The facts in this matter are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts filed as Exhibit 1 at the sentencing hearing.

[8] On August 17, 2011 at 3:10 a.m., Ms. Aman was driving a black 1999 Nissan south on Bronson Avenue. Ms. Aman was returning from a concert at Scotiabank Place. At the same time, Mr. Daniel Miller and Mr. Bryan Kowalchuk were walking home along Bronson Avenue. They both had been drinking at a friend's house. Mr. Kowalchuk described himself as being quite drunk, he estimated that Mr. Miller had consumed 6-7 beers and was mildly intoxicated.

[9] As the two men were nearing 332 Bronson Avenue, Mr. Miller started to cross from the east to the west side of the road. At this location, Bronson is a four lane roadway running north/south. The north and south lanes are divided by a solid white line. The posted speed limit is 60 kilometres per hour. There are street lights in this location. This is not however, a location of a pedestrian crossing.

[10] As Ms. Aman was driving southbound on Bronson, she moved from the slow lane to the middle lane to avoid Mr. Miller, who was crossing in front of her. As the Nissan was switching lanes, Mr. Miller doubled back into the path of the Nissan and was struck by the passenger side of the vehicle. Mr. Kowalchuk described that he observed Mr. Miller crossing the street. He said Mr. Miller turned to speak to him while standing in the street, and then turned back to continue crossing. It was when Mr. Miller turned back to cross the street that he was struck. Mr. Kowalchuk also described that Mr. Miller was weaving in the lanes to try to avoid the car, and that the car was also trying to avoid Mr. Miller.

[11] A second witness, Mr. Kraidi, said he observed two drunken males walking southbound on the east side of Bronson Avenue. He observed one of the males weaving back and forth as he walked across the street. He described this male looked quite drunk, seeming unsteady on his feet and wavering as he stood in the middle of the road. He saw a car which he thought was in the slow lane. He saw the male turn with his back to the southbound lanes. Mr. Kraidi observed the car driven by the accused attempt to veer into the middle lane to try to avoid the pedestrian, but the vehicle struck the pedestrian, Mr. Miller. Mr. Kraidi said the vehicle did not stop after striking Mr. Miller, and one of the car's mirrors broke off and was left at the scene.

[12] Mr. Miller was thrown approximately 15 meters, and as a result of the impact he suffered serious life threatening injuries. He died in hospital at 6:12 a.m.

[13] The police investigating the accident seized the car mirror left behind, along with other debris found at the scene. A collision reconstructionist determined that Ms. Aman's vehicle was travelling at a speed of between 41 to 50 kilometres at the time of impact. Hence speed was not a factor.

[14] Ms. Aman did not report the accident. After the media broadcast of this accident and of the failing to remain at the scene, a member of the public called Police to indicate they had observed a Nissan with damage to the front passenger side, and a license plate was provided. As a result, police attended at Ms. Aman's residence on August 19th to speak to her father, the registered owner of the vehicle.

[15] In speaking to police, Mr. Aman confirmed that his daughter said she struck something on Bronson Avenue while returning home from a concert. She told him she swerved to miss Mr. Miller, that she was confused and did not return home right away. He indicated she broke down every time he asked about it, and that she was very distraught. Mr. Aman consented to the police examining the vehicle.

[16] The vehicle was found inside the garage surrounded by various items, as apparently the driveway was being paved. Police were able to note and photograph damage to the vehicle and it was towed to a location for further investigation. As arranged the next day, Ms. Aman attended the police station but chose not to give a statement on the advice of counsel. She was released without charge at that time.

[17] Subsequently, Ms. Aman's boyfriend was interviewed by police. He confirmed that Ms. Aman also told him that she had hit someone on Bronson Avenue, and that she did not know what to do. He described she was extremely upset.

[18] On August 24th of 2011, Ms. Aman re-attended the police station and was charged with the offence under that brings her before the Court. She was released on a Promise to Appear with few conditions.

[19] The Crown has put forth evidence that on August 18th, Ms. Aman was stopped for travelling at a speed of 75 kilometres per hour over 128 metres. The officer observed Ms. Aman to be visibly upset and quite stressed. She was issued a ticket for speeding. No other Highway Traffic record is alleged.

Position of the Parties

[20] The Crown and defence generally agree that for offences such as these, that the principles of general deterrence and denunciation are the paramount principles of sentence, which the Court's disposition must reflect. The defence asks the Court to consider her youth, her lack of criminal record, her plea of guilt, supportive pro-social family, and her low risk to re-offend. The defence suggests that a sentence of 90 days to be served intermittently plus probation with significant community service hours will have the necessary deterrent effect and will also assist in Ms. Aman's rehabilitation. Counsel argues that for this accused young woman, the imposition of any jail will have the required effect of specifically deterring her.

[21] The Crown argues that a sentence of 9 to 12 months, plus 18 months probation, is required in order to denounce and deter the conduct. He argues that such a sentence will send a message about the seriousness of the obligation of every driver to stop and render assistance when there has been an accident. The Crown argues that what may have been an impulsive reaction to leave the scene, became something much more when Ms. Aman failed to turn herself in and attempted to avoid detection and responsibility. The Crown also argues that Ms. Aman only went to police when she had no choice, as she was caught.

[22] In this case, both parties agree that a jail sentence is required, along with probation, and a two year driving prohibition. The central issue for the Court is the length of jail, and length and terms of the probation orders to be imposed.

Layla Aman

[23] Layla Aman comes before me as a young woman with no prior criminal record or Highway Traffic record. She entered a plea of guilt to the offence of failing to remain at the scene of an accident. Ms. Aman is the youngest child of three children born to her parents who have been married for over 35 years. Ms. Aman continues to live in the family home with her parents. Ms. Aman appears to have a very positive relationship with her parents, who remain supportive of her. Ms. Aman is described in the character letters filed on her behalf, as a very respectful, caring, understanding and intelligent young woman. She is described as being very family oriented, devoting much often time to the care of her grandmother, until she died in 2012. She also assists the mother of a friend who suffers from rheumatoid arthritis. One of the character letters from Dr. Wahab Almuhtadi states:

"We are shocked to hear the tragic news that a young and polite girl is now facing a criminal charge for not stopping at the site of a fatal accident. This is unlike Layla as we question her poor lack of judgment of not stopping as extraordinarily abnormal."

[24] Ms. Aman has held a variety of jobs since entering the workplace in 2006. At the time of the offence she was employed in an administrative position for a property management company, but was fired from that position as a result of her arrest on the charge before the Court. In April 2012, she graduated from the Law Clerk program at Algonquin College. She is currently working as technical support for a communications company, but hopes to find work related to the Law Clerk program while she decides whether to return to school.

[25] Ms. Aman is reported to consume alcohol on the rare social occasion. Alcohol is not consumed or served in the family home and neither of her parents have even seen her consume alcohol. There is no evidence before me that alcohol or any intoxicant played any role in the offences before the Court.

[26] Also, Ms. Aman appears to socialize with a pro-social peer group that are known to Ms. Aman's family. Her friends are generally like-minded individuals who are attending school or employment. There are no concerns that Ms. Aman has been influenced by negative peers and her current boyfriend is seen as a positive influence.

[27] One of the recurring themes of the Pre-Sentence Report and the character letters filed, is the effect the death of Tareq Aman has had on Layla and her family. Layla is reported in the Pre-Sentence Report to have internalized her grief and tried to cope on her own without the support of professionals. Many have commented on the profound effect the death of Tareq had on Layla and what this prior traumatic event had on her reaction to the accident and her reluctance to cause further pain and burden to her parents.

[28] Through the Pre-Sentence Report, Ms. Aman has expressed genuine remorse to Mr. Miller's family.

[29] The Pre-Sentence Report is a very positive report, confirming that Layla is the product of a pro-social background. That Layla has graduated from college, and by all accounts is a hardworking person who thrives when kept busy with school or work. The probation officer who prepared the PSR does recommended however, that Ms. Aman could benefit from professional counselling with a psychologist to deal with the events she has dealt with surrounding this offence and the death of her brother.

[30] In evaluating the risk posed by Ms. Aman, the probation officer states:

"The subject is goal oriented and on a path that should lead to continued success and positive contributions to the community. In the absence of identified needs and areas of concern, the subject is deemed a low risk to re-offend."

[31] For the same reason that the accused was released to appear with almost no conditions, the probation officer also makes few recommendations for conditions, as few are required. The probation officer recommends only that she report as required, and attend for any assessment, treatment, counselling, or program as recommended by the probation officer.

[32] Given Ms. Aman's positive background, I agree that this is a case where any sentence the Court will impose will specifically deter Ms. Aman. Even going through the Court process itself, I'm sure has sent a strong message to Ms. Aman that she must not engage in any similar, or in fact, any criminal conduct in future.

[33] It is in consideration of this accused and these tragic facts that the difficult issue of sentence must be determined.

Fail to Remain s.252(1.3)

[34] This is an offence which creates a duty on drivers to stop at an accident, give their name and address and where a person is injured, offer assistance. This is not an onerous duty. Only the driver of a motor vehicle has that duty to stop and render assistance. No other citizens or bystanders have that legal duty or obligation to do so.

[35] Under s.252(1.3), which is the penalty section of the offence of fail to remain under s.252, the elements of the offence are; a driver who has care and control of a motor vehicle involved in an accident with another person, knowing that bodily harm has been caused to that person, and being reckless as to whether the death of that person resulted from the bodily harm which death in fact resulted, with intent to evade criminal or civil liability, failed to stop, give his or her name and address, and where a person is injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.

[36] As indicated at paragraph 64 of my decision in R. v. Wieczorek:

"The most important sentencing objectives in this matter are general deterrence and denunciation. The duty imposed under s.252 is not an onerous one. A person involved in an accident must remain at the scene, identify him or herself, and give assistance to any injured party. This allows for any criminal investigation to occur without delay. It resolves issues of civil or criminal liability. Just as importantly, there is a simple duty as a human being to show care and respect for those who may have been injured or killed, and to remain until authorities determine what has happened."

[37] These are the elements of the offence that Ms. Aman has acknowledged by her plea of guilt.

[38] The charge of fail to remain is an offence where the culpability is based on what you didn't do. The prohibited conduct is not doing what you are supposed to do, stay at the scene, give your name, and render assistance. The very purpose of that section of the Criminal Code is to allow criminal investigations to occur without delay or obstruction, and allows for the orderly resolution of any criminal or civil dispute arising from the accident.

[39] From the facts of this case and the evidence of the evasive action taken, it is clear Ms. Aman knew or had good reason to believe she had been involved in an accident and kept on going without bothering to check. Ms. Aman has also acknowledged in the Pre-Sentence Report that this was a heartbreaking accident and that she feels remorse. Further, by her acknowledged plea of guilt and the statement of facts, we know that she fled the scene without rendering any assistance, and is deemed to have done so to avoid civil or criminal liability.

[40] As indicated, she could not have been oblivious to the damage to her car's side mirror or the impact, given that it was so strong that Mr. Miller's boots were thrown off, and he was thrown 15 metres.

[41] Conviction for the offence under s.252(1.3) carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, plus a driving prohibition under s.259(2)(a). There is no minimum penalty. Given previous jurisprudence, the defence counsel is not seeking a conditional sentence.

[42] That being said, the offender must not be punished for the crimes she did not commit. This conviction is not for dangerous driving or impaired driving causing death. The offence to which she has pled guilty involves no finding of a causal relationship between the accused's driving and the fatal result.

The Law and Jurisprudence

[43] The Court of Appeal has characterized the offence of fail to remain as a serious offence. This view is supported by amendments to the penalty provisions of s.252, creating the offence under s.252(1.3), which is now an offence for which an accused could be subject to a possible maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

[44] The Ontario Court of Appeal has clearly stated in their decisions of R. v. Ramdass [1982] O.J. No. 177 (O.N.C.A.), R. v. Gummer, [1983] O.J. No. 181 (O.N.C.A.), and R. v. Fortin [1984] O.J. No. 158 (O.N.C.A.) that the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation are of paramount importance in determining the appropriate sentence in cases such as this, even when the accused is not charged with a driving offence related to the accident. In cases where there is also a driving related offence such as an impaired driving offence, or even dangerous driving, that aggravating factor is reflected in jail sentences of a much longer duration. That aggravating fact is however, not present in the case before us.

[45] The act of leaving the scene of an accident and not rendering assistance is considered morally abhorrent, as stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Ramdass at paragraph 5:

"It must be added however, that while Mr. Hall was killed instantly in this accident, the appellant has no way of knowing this, and leaving him on the road was not only contrary to the Criminal Code, but contrary to any standard of decency and humanity."

[46] The Court also states at paragraph 26 of R. v. Ramdass, that general deterrence is a paramount principle in a sentence for this offence. The Court quotes the decision of R. v. Andrew Roussy, released December 15th, 1967, for its statement of the principle of general deterrence. That decision states:

"But in a crime of this type, the deterrent quality of the sentence must be given paramount consideration, and here I am using the term "deterrent" in its widest sense.

The sentence, by emphasizing community disapproval of an act and branding it reprehensible has a moral or educative effect, and thereby affects the attitude of the public. One then hopes that a person with an attitude thus conditioned to regard conduct as reprehensible, will not likely commit such an act."

[47] In R. v. Ramdass, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of nine months imposed by the trial judge, but deleted the driving prohibition, stating that the jail sentence was sufficient deterrence, as the accused had an unblemished driving record. It should be noted that the accused in R. v. Ramdass was driving with a windshield obstructed by frost and had consumed alcohol at the time of the accident. That accused took four days before he called a lawyer with a view to accepting responsibility. Before he surrendered himself, the police investigation had succeeded in identifying him and he was arrested.

[48] Both counsel in their submissions have referred me to the decision of R. v. Schmitt 2011 ONCJ 546, [2011] O.J. No. 4961. In that case the accused had smoked marijuana and had a sip of beer prior to the accident. He was not speeding when he hit the cyclist who did not have the required light reflectors. The accused turned himself in and had a positive family background and no prior record. In that case the Court had been asked to consider a conditional sentence. The Court found that the offence was a serious personal injury offence, and thus a conditional sentence was precluded by virtue of s.742.1. The Court also made a finding that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the principles of sentence set out in s.718 to s.718.2, as the principles of deterrence and denunciation would not be met with a sentence served in the community. In Schmitt the Court found that a jail sentence of five months, followed by probation for 12 months, and a two year driving prohibition was appropriate. No community service was imposed as has been sought by defence counsel in this case before me.

[49] A review of the case law shows a wide range of possible dispositions for the offence of failure to remain at the scene of an accident, under s.252(1.3) depending upon the nature of the driving and the related accident. Whether the accused has also been charged with a moving violation. Whether the accused has consumed alcohol or drugs. Whether the accused stopped at all. Whether the accused turned themselves into police accepting immediate responsibility for the accident, and whether the accused took steps to evade responsibility and hide the damaged vehicle.

[50] Each of these factors, some aggravating, some mitigating, affect the length of the sentence imposed.

[51] Each case is of course dependent on its own facts and the unique circumstances of the offender. The Court in determining the appropriate sentence is guided by the principles of sentence set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code and must determine a sentence that is proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Sentencing is never an easy process but it is particularly difficult when you are balancing a serious offence with a youthful first offender.

[52] Sentencing is also not a one size fits all, as eloquently stated by Justice Clarke in R.v. Lee [1990] O.J. no. 524 at page 2 Justice Lee states:

"Sentencing is not a mathematical function, but rather an art, and each individual who appears before the Court is unique. While adhering to general sentencing principles, the ideal is to strike a just balance between crime and punishment."

[53] The Criminal Code sets out the principles of sentence. Pursuant to s.718 of the Criminal Code, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, by imposing sanctions that are just. The sentence must also be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[54] A sentence must be consistent with the principles of sentence.

[55] Those objectives are denunciation, both specific and general deterrence, separation from society, but only when necessary. Rehabilitation, promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[56] The principle of restraint under s.718(2)(e) is something that must also be considered for a first offender.

[57] The Ontario Court of Appeal in the decision of R.v. Batisse [2009] 93 O.R.(3d) page 64 at paragraphs 32-33, addressed the principle of restraint in reference to the operation of s.718(2)(e) stating:

"It is an important consideration, because the appellant was a first offender. As such, the restraint principle requires that the sentencing judge consider all sanctions apart from incarceration, and whereas here incarceration must be imposed the term should be as short as possible and tailored to the circumstances of the accused (see R.v. Priest [1996] 30 O.R (3d) s38 (CA.) at p. 545)"

[58] Further, the principle of restraint requires the sentencing judge to consider rehabilitation in determining the appropriate length of sentence. In giving a lower sentence given to a first offender, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in R.v. Blanas, [2006] 207 O.A.C. page 226 at paragraph 5:

"General deterrence cannot be the sole consideration, appropriate consideration must be given to the rehabilitation of the appellant, particularly when you are dealing with a first offender"

[59] It should also be noted that revenge plays no role in our concept of justice, and nor do the principles of sentence include the principle of revenge. Offenders are not incarcerated for the purpose of establishing equivalence between the loss suffered by victims and their families and the sanction imposed by the Court. The Court in imposing a sentence must recognize the inherent worth and dignity of the offender in attempts to balance all the principles of sentence, and the unique circumstances of each case.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[60] In consideration of an appropriate sentence, I take into account the following mitigating factors in this case:

a) The accused is a youthful first time offender. She was released without strict conditions, as conditions weren't needed.

b) She entered a plea of guilt, which is indicative of remorse, as are the comments of remorse to Mr. Miller's family in the Pre-Sentence Report.

c) She has the positive, pro-social support of family and friends. She herself has suffered the homicide of her brother.

d) She is not charged with any driving offences arising from the accident. There is no evidence of improper driving. Further, I advised that she is has not driven since being charged with this offence.

e) There is no evidence the accused was under the influence of either drug or alcohol.

f) Ms. Aman has a positive Pre-Sentence Report and does not seem to have drug or alcohol problems. She has graduated from college and is currently employed. She is described as respectful, polite, and hardworking.

g) Ms. Aman has excellent prospects of rehabilitation, and has been assessed as having a low risk to re-offend.

h) She was travelling between 41 to 50 kilometres per hour, so she was not travelling at an excessive speed, given the posted speed limit was 60 kilometres per hour. There is evidence of evasive actions being taken by the victim and the accused.

[61] I also take into account the following aggravating factors:

a) The seriousness of the offence is the number one aggravating factor. Mr. Miller was left to die.

b) The accused clearly saw Mr. Miller, took steps towards evasive action, and yet upon hitting him she fled without rendering any assistance, showing a callous disregard for Daniel Miller's valuable life.

The fact that she's not medically trained and likely could have done nothing to save him, does not excuse the behaviour, as she had a legal and moral obligation to remain.

Ms. Aman attended at the police station at the request of police, after they received information from an anonymous tip, and as well, information Ms. Aman's father. Ms. Aman told her father she hit someone, and he could see the damage, yet Mr. Aman does not go to the police immediately, and nor does she.

There was wide spread public broadcast of this offence, yet Ms. Aman continued to try to evade some responsibility. That she did not turn herself in, is not itself an aggravating factor, as she has no legal obligation to do so. This is indeed a neutral factor. But she does not have the benefit of such as a mitigating factor.

c) The other concern is that the vehicle was kept "shoe horned" as was described, into the garage, and out of sight, the license obstructed by items. I do note however, there was no attempt to repair the vehicle.

Sentencing Decision

[62] In this matter, while the paramount sentencing consideration must be general deterrence and denunciation, the Court must also ensure that a sentence addresses other principles of sentence where appropriate. I noted that denunciation, as has been upheld by the Courts is not the same as vengeance. Denunciation is a legitimate legal principle used where necessary to reinforce society's basic code of values.

[63] Bearing in mind the purpose and principles of sentence noted above. Considering Ms. Aman's plea of guilt, no prior record, otherwise good character and positive family support, given that there is no evidence of speeding or the consumption of drugs or alcohol. I also consider that she has recently completed a college degree and is employed. And that when sentencing a youthful offender, lengthy incarceration is considered not necessary or helpful as it works against rehabilitation. In these circumstances, shorter periods of jail may adequately address the need for deterrence.

[64] In R.v. Wieczorek I imposed a five month sentence for an offender with a similar profile as Ms. Aman. Although there were different aggravating factors in that case, as he had consumed alcohol, there were other mitigation factors he turned himself in early the following day and left the vehicle in the driveway. So although there are different aggravating factors and mitigation factors, I am of the view that a five month custodial sentence in this case is appropriate, followed by a period of probation for 12 months. There will also be a driving prohibition for a period of 2 years.

Terms and Conditions of Probation

[65] The terms and condition of probation will be as follows:

1. Statutory conditions apply, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

2. Appear before the Court if and when required to do so;

3. Notify the Court or probation office in advance of any change of name, address, employment, or occupation;

4. Ms. Aman must report to the probation office within two working days of her release from custody;

5. She will reside at an address approved of by the probation office;

6. As directed by the probation office, she will attend for assessment, treatment, or counselling, or any programs they may recommend with regard to this matter, particularly psychological counselling;

7. She will sign any and all releases as required by the probation officer, to monitor attendance and progress at any such counselling or therapy programs.

[66] And lastly, you will give back to the community in a positive way, as I know you are able to do, by performing 40 hours of community service, the work to commence within 30 days of the date of the commencement of this probation order, to be completed at a rate of not less than five hours per month, on consecutive months.

[67] Ms. Aman, I have to advise you that if you fail to abide by any of the terms of this probation order, indeed you may be charged with breach of probation, brought back before the Court, and subject to a further disposition.

[68] You are also prohibited from driving anywhere in Canada for a two year period.

Released: October 1, 2012

The Honourable Justice H. Perkins-McVey