Court File and Parties
Court File No.: Halton 177/13 Date: 2013-12-03 Ontario Court of Justice
Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Daniel Lee
Before: Justice Stephen D. Brown
Heard on: July 17, 2013 and October 21, 2013
Reasons for Sentence released on: December 3, 2013
Counsel:
- Maureen McGuigan and Mary Ward for the Crown
- Marcy Segal for the accused Daniel Lee
Reasons for Sentence
Introduction
[1] Daniel Lee pleaded guilty before me to a number of charges related to his operation of a motor vehicle in the City of Burlington on December 6, 2012 and the City of Toronto on January 29, 2013.
[2] The Burlington offences that Mr. Lee entered pleas to are as follows:
- December 6, 2012 at the City of Burlington – Operate a Motor Vehicle while disqualified contrary to s. 259(4)(a) of the Criminal Code;
- December 6, 2012 at the City of Burlington – Drive disqualified contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code;
- December 6, 2012 at the City of Burlington – Flight from Police contrary to s. 249.1(1) of the Criminal Code;
- December 6, 2012 at the City of Burlington – Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle contrary to s. 249(1) of the Criminal Code;
- December 6, 2012 – Breach of a probation order dated July 20, 2011 contrary to s. 733.1 of the Criminal Code.
[3] The Toronto charges that were waived in to this jurisdiction and pleaded to are as follows:
- January 29, 2013 at the City of Toronto – Drive Disqualified contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code;
- January 29, 2013 at the City of Toronto – Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle contrary to s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
[4] The Crown proceeded summarily on the Toronto charges and by way of indictment on the Burlington charges.
1.0 Facts of the Offences
[5] The facts underlying the pleas are set out as taken from the transcript of July 17, 2013 and are as follows:
Crown's Submission on Toronto Charges:
At the time of the Toronto charges, the accused had a driving record including an unpaid fine suspension in effect from July 5, 2007 and multiple driving prohibitions. The only one listed in the synopsis is from January 18, 2011 Toronto North Courts, 1000 Finch Avenue West in Toronto, a three-year prohibition. On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 10:16 in the morning, the accused was operating a 2005 Hyundai motor vehicle, Ontario plate BJNH 015, eastbound on Dupont Street in Toronto. He was traveling eastbound and was in the process of passing a shopping plaza situate at 840 Dupont Street. A police officer who was driving a stealth scout car stopped in the driveway of that plaza and about to exit as the accused drove past. The accused made eye contact with the officer which drew the officer's attention. The officer pulled out of the plaza and began to follow the accused while making a licence plate query using his onboard equipment. The accused came to a stop in a passing lane behind other traffic due to a red signal at Shaw Street. At the same time, the officer learns information by computer that there is a male being the accused, associated to this vehicle, who is wanted by Halton police for criminal driving offences in December 2012. He was also given a description of the accused. Having this information the officer now pulled to the curb lane alongside the vehicle operated by the accused. He does this to look at the driver, and it appears to him that the driver matches the description of the male wanted in the warrants. When the light turned green and traffic began to move, the officer pulled behind the accused intending to pull him over. The accused made a left turn to northbound Shaw Street as the officer activates his emergency lights. The accused immediately makes a left turn into the first available driveway being the same plaza the officer had exited and turned to go north in the plaza lot driving parallel to the east wall of the Sobey's store. The officer who is following came to a stop because this is a dead end with nowhere to go. Instead of remaining stopped the accused slowly attempts to turn his vehicle around and now approaches the officer head on. The officer positions his car to block the accused's path. The accused then accelerates into the police car and attempts to push the police car out of the way. The accused then reversed a few feet and again drove forward into the scout car, again trying to push it. The accused then repeated this maneuver one more time but this time when he reversed he pinned himself between the wall and the police car. The accused then exited his vehicle and fled on foot. He ran southbound through the lot, crossed Shaw Street, west to east, and ran to Dupont Street. Officers caught him as he turned the corner onto Dupont Street. He was held pending a show cause hearing. The indicated approximately $200 damage to the front end of the scout car's push bar. With regard to the probation, he was on probation at that time. On January 18, 2011 he'd been given a nine month conditional sentence, followed by a period of two years probation which came into effect April 20, 2012 with a term not to operate a motor vehicle or operate the driver's seat of same and as documented in the early part of the synopsis he was operating a 2005 Hyundai.
Defence Response:
The defence indicated that the accused was operating the vehicle, was driving dangerously, and did not have a licence. The defence did not agree that it matched the description but was not arguing that it was an illegal stop.
Court Finding:
Based on that there was a finding of guilt on those three counts.
Crown's Submission on Halton Charges:
On the 6th of December 2012 Constable Deneault, Halton Police was at Appleby Line and Corporate Drive in the city of Burlington. He observed a silver Hyundai motor vehicle, Ontario plate BJNH 105 beside him in the curb lane. The driver was using a cell phone while driving. The officer activated his emergency lights and pulled the vehicle over. The officer asked the driver for the ownership, insurance, and driver's licence. The driver produced the ownership and insurance. He advised the officer that he had left his wallet at home and his licence was in the wallet. He advised that he had no other identification. He gave a verbal identification as Yung Lee of 17 Chines Lane, Toronto. He gave a date of birth of the 10th day of March 1987. He reported that the car belonged to his dad Yung-Yi Lee, same address. The ownership and insurance matched this information. However, a CPIC check was conducted and there was no licence issued to the name and date of birth given. The officer returned to the driver and advised him of this. The driver advised that his first name on the driver's licence should be Dario. This information was checked and no driver's licence could be found. The driver was again spoken to by the officer. He was informed of the results and stated "My dad doesn't know I have the car." The officer questioned him, "What's your real name?" The accused answered, "Listen, I've got 100 bucks for you if you just let me go." The officer observed a bunch of 20 dollar bills rolled up in the suspect's right hand. The officer instructed the suspect to turn the car off and step out of the car. The accused offered the officer $500 to forget the whole thing. The officer instructed him to get out of the car. The driver put the car in drive and accelerated at a rapid rate making a U-turn and fled southbound on Appleby Line. The officer pulled a U-turn and followed the suspect and vehicle up to Appleby Line at Mainway at which time he disengaged the pursuit due to the high risk factors. The officer's speed was 120 kilometres an hour and the suspect vehicle was at that time widening the gap between them. The suspect went through a fresh red light at Mainway for southbound flow causing vehicles going west and east to stop aggressively to avoid a collision. This had occurred shortly after noon on a Thursday. Through further investigation which involved checking an address in Toronto, contacting a possible sibling of the accused, speaking with the mother of the accused, and finally checking past records, it was found that the accused proper name was Daniel Lee, date of birth 10th of March 1986. This founded the charge of obstruct police and also the allegation of offering a bribe, breach probation, dangerous driving, and flight from police. The officer noted that he believed the speed of the accused vehicle was over 130 kilometres an hour and the accused went through the red light almost colliding with other vehicles and the officer had emergency equipment operating. The probation order that the accused was on was already mentioned from Finch Court. He had an indication he was not to operate a motor vehicle or occupy the driver's seat as such and we've already heard when that probation is in effect. The two disqualifications that are referenced relate one for fail to stop, and one for dangerous driving. There was a third count of drive disqualified and that's specifically related to the Ottawa matter which specifically the Crown is satisfied is not him so that would have been count number four. So the Crown is not asking that count four be considered in anyway pursuant to Garcia and Silva. But we are asking that the other counts be so considered.
Defence Response:
It is admitted that he drove dangerously, that he was under disqualification, and that he was on probation.
Court Finding:
There will be findings of guilt on those other charges.
[6] After the plea and because of numerous factors that need not be set out here, I released Mr. Lee on a recognizance with his mother as his surety in the amount of $20,000.00. The release was on conditions that amounted to a house arrest and of course not to operate a motor vehicle. An updated presentence report was ordered.
[7] The plan was to obtain the presentence report and to sentence Mr. Lee about one month later, but because of scheduling problems of counsel and this Court the matter was not finally argued until October 21, and the next available date for sentencing was chosen as being December 3, 2013.
2.0 Circumstances of the Offender
[8] Mr. Lee is presently 27 years of age born March 10, 1983.
[9] He resides with his mother, maternal grandmother, and his younger brother at his mother's residence in Burlington. He helps with his grandmother's care as she suffers from dementia and other health problems. His mother is now retired.
[10] His parents have been separated since 2011 and his father has been out of the province for a period of time since the separation; however, it is noted that it was his father's motor vehicle that was being operated by the offender on one day when he incurred these charges.
[11] He finished high school and began a three-year program at Centennial College in Scarborough in Business Administration. He attended at school until the summer of 2010, but had to leave because of financial difficulties. He returned to school in December 2012, but could not complete his courses because he was arrested in January 2013 and remained in custody until July. He has three credits to complete.
[12] Since 2010 he has been employed in a variety of temporary jobs managing to remain steadily employed with one and sometimes two employers at a time. Despite this, he has been unable to pay off any of his fines or other debts.
[13] Alcohol abuse became a problem for the offender in 2006 when he started drinking alcohol daily. Pursuant to the terms of his probation order dated July 20, 2011 he was required to attend counselling for alcohol abuse and in November 2012 it was reported that he had completed five sessions at ADAPT and he now states, as does his mother, that alcohol abuse is no longer a problem.
[14] Mr. Lee currently owes approximately $20,000.00 in fines and debts but is currently employed.
[15] It is interesting to note that he and his mother mislead the probation officer doing the update to the presentence report by reporting that he was unemployed as he had been unable to obtain employment with his past employer after his release from custody. This was done, says the offender and his mother, so that his probation officer would not check with his employer to confirm employment which he feared would result in his loss of employment.
[16] It troubles me, however, that when an offender is released on bail and ordered to cooperate in the preparation of a presentence report to be utilized by the Court in a sentencing hearing that the offender would engage in this deceit and further that his mother, who should know better and who was his surety, would go along with this and as well actively mislead the probation officer regarding this point.
[17] Mrs. Lee and her partner of ten years, William Dunn, both testified at the sentencing hearing on October 21, 2013 and both gave evidence that they have seen a significant improvement in the offender's attitude since he was charged with the last offence and remained in custody for a period of over 5 months prior to his release on bail in July. They both testified that he has been adhering to all conditions of his release, has been working hard and making plans to return to school this coming January.
[18] His mother states that he has been kinder and sharing and more humble since his release from custody and that his relationship with his younger brother has improved. His younger brother was present at the sentencing hearing, although he did not give evidence. She also testified that his relationship with Mr. Dunn has improved since his release from custody and that they are talking more than before the offender was incarcerated.
[19] Mrs. Lee also indicates that her son listens to her now more than before he was incarcerated on these charges.
[20] Mr. Lee works in Scarborough for a label company and his mother drives him to work each morning and picks him up from the GO train after work.
[21] She stated that after he is sentenced he could live with her or with her ex-husband who lives closer to his work in Etobicoke. However, when it was pointed out to her that it was her ex-husband's vehicle that was used in one of the offences she stated on re-examination that it would be better for him to live with her after sentencing.
[22] Mr. Dunn gave evidence in support of Mr. Lee. He stated that he had a somewhat distant relationship with Mr. Lee prior to his incarceration and attributed this to Mr. Lee's shyness and his unresolved feelings over his parent's separation. However, since his release from custody in July their relationship has improved and they now talk about things and Mr. Lee does not bottle things up like he did in the past.
[23] He says that the period in custody has changed Mr. Lee and that he now realizes that he is not above the law and that he never wishes to return to custody and knows that a breach of his probation or prohibition orders in the future would most certainly result in his re-incarceration.
[24] In cross-examination, however, Mr. Dunn stated that he was not aware of any previous problems that Mr. Lee had with alcohol.
[25] He was also unaware that Mr. Lee has a previous impaired driving conviction and a conviction for another flight from police and dangerous driving. He was unaware that Mr. Lee has convictions for fail to comply with a recognizance and uttering a threat.
[26] He conceded in cross-examination that not knowing that information indicates that he does not know much about Mr. Lee's background and he agreed that it gave him some concerns that Mr. Lee and his mother were not sharing a lot with him.
[27] Daniel claims to have never been diagnosed with any mental health issues, however his mother claims that he did struggle through one period of depression and had to see his doctor but she says that since that time he has shown no signs of depression.
3.0 Position of the Parties
[28] The Crown seeks a global sentence of 15 to 18 months for all charges together with a lifetime driving prohibition. Ms. Segal seeks a suspended sentence or a further period of custody in addition to the presentence custody that would enable Mr. Lee to serve the remainder of his sentence on an intermittent basis so that he can continue his employment and his plans for returning to community college in January 2014. Alternatively, she submits that the sentencing principles can be properly addressed by a conditional sentence followed by probation.
4.0 Analysis
[29] Section 718 to 718.2 codifies sentencing principles as follows:
Section 718 – Fundamental Purpose of Sentencing:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
Section 718.1 – Proportionality:
A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
Section 718.2 – Sentencing Considerations:
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,…
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
[30] The Crown argues that the predominant sentencing principles that apply here are general and specific deterrence, and denunciation. She argues that Mr. Lee has shown a pattern of persistent inability to comply with the terms of court orders and that he has proven himself to be a danger to the public by his driving conduct warranting a period of custody in the range of 15 to 18 months in total less pretrial custody to be credited at a 1:1 basis.
[31] My view of these offences is that they are serious offences. Regarding the Halton charges in December 2012, when stopped by the police, Mr. Lee gave a false name, offered a bribe to the officer to let him go and when all of that failed he sped off at a speed in excess of 120 kilometers per hour going through a red light causing other drivers to take evasive action at around noon on a Thursday on a well-travelled roadway in the City of Burlington. His driving was so egregious that the police called off the pursuit in the interest of safety.
[32] He operated a motor vehicle on that date while prohibited from doing so and while on probation not to operate a motor vehicle or be in the front seat of a motor vehicle while on a probation order for a similar driving offence for which he received a nine-month conditional sentence of imprisonment on July 20, 2011.
[33] Notwithstanding this, he again operated a motor vehicle on January 29, 2013 when he knew that not only was he subject to the same probation and prohibition orders, but that he was likely wanted for the Halton charges in December.
[34] When the Toronto officer attempts to stop the offender he pulls into a plaza and when he finds himself in a dead end he turns his car around and accelerates towards the cruiser and strikes it attempting to push it out of the way. When this fails he reverses and then goes forward and strikes the police car again trying to push it out of his way so that he can make his escape. This fails and he reverses again and finds himself wedged in, and then runs from the scene and the police shortly thereafter apprehend him.
[35] His criminal record includes a conviction for impaired operation in 2010, Utter Threats February 4, 2011 for which sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for 14 months, convictions for Fail to Stop for Police and Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle on July 20, 2011 and he was given a 9 month conditional sentence and probation for 2 years, and Failing to Comply with a Recognizance on March 2, 2012 where he was given a suspended sentence and one year probation.
[36] His Highway Traffic Act record has been filed as an exhibit and is an atrocious record. The following sets out his HTA record:
| Date | Convictions, Discharges and Other Actions |
|---|---|
| 07/07/05 | Suspended re: Unpaid Fine Suspension No. 7113924 |
| 10/10/01 | Impaired Driving – C.C.C. Offence Date 2008/04/29 |
| 10/10/01 | Suspended Until Oct. 1, 2011, Ability Impaired Suspension No. 0184191 |
| 10/10/01 | Driving While Licence is Suspended – H.T.A. Offence Date 2008/04/25 |
| 10/10/01 | Suspended Until Apr. 1, 2012, Driving While Licence Suspended – H.T.A. Suspension No. 0184192 |
| 11/01/18 | Dangerous Driving – C.C.C. Offence Date 2010/02/08 |
| 11/01/18 | Suspended Until July 20, 2014, Dangerous Driving, C.C.C. Suspension No. 1110193 |
| 11/01/18 | Fail to Stop for Police Officer – C.C.C. Offence Date 2010/02/08 |
| 11/01/18 | Suspended Until Jan. 18, 2014, Fail to Stop for Police Officer Suspension No. 1124123 |
| 11/07/25 | Fail to Stop for Police Officer – C.C.C. Offence Date 2011/06/14 |
| 11/07/25 | Suspended for Life for Fail to Stop for Police Officer Suspension No. 1124124 |
[37] Mr. Lee's criminal record has been filed and is as follows:
| Date | Offence | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| 2010-10-01 | Driving While Ability Impaired Sec 253(a) CC | $1000 & Driving Prohibition 1 yr. |
| 2011-04-02 | Utter Threat | Suspended Sentence & Prob. 14 mos. |
| 2011-07-20 | 1) Flight from Police 2) Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle | 9 month conditional sentence & 2 years probation |
| 2012-03-02 | Fail to Comply with Recognizance | Suspended Sentence & 12 months probation |
[38] Ms. Segal submits that her client does not suffer from a mental disorder and states that she has had him assessed by Dr. Rootenberg, yet she has filed no report, letter or any other documents to support this. I find that her submission regarding this matter to be worthless on this sentencing hearing and she should know that these types of sentencing submissions without the backing of any evidence other than counsel's assertions amount to a veiled attempt by counsel to give evidence on a sentencing hearing which is improper and unhelpful.
[39] I find that I have grave concerns about the evidence given by Mrs. Lee and Mr. Dunn on this sentencing hearing.
[40] My concerns about Mrs. Lee involve her active involvement in a course of conduct to mislead the probation officer in the preparation of the pre-sentence report regarding the employment situation of Mr. Lee. I reject Ms. Segal's submission that this was a minor matter. Courts routinely rely on presentence reports in sentencing matters and to lie to a probation officer because one asserts that they will lose their job if they told the probation officer that they were working and she contacted the company to confirm this is nonsensical.
[41] On page 3 of his presentence report dated April 21, 2011 prepared by the same probation officer who produced the updated report where he lied about his employment she states as follows:
Since 2008, Daniel has been with different temporary agencies based out of Mississauga. He has worked in shipping and receiving positions, retail sales as well as line work. Currently he has been placed at a car part manufacturer. He has been working there since November 2010 but unsure how long this contract will run. He works on the manufacturing line from 10:50 pm to 7:10 am, Sunday to Friday. Daniel's second job is also full-time hours. He works 9am – 5pm at a sign imaging company in Mississauga. He started this employment in September 2010. Daniel did not want either of his employers to know he is front of the court, therefore he provided pay cheque receipts to confirm his employment.
[42] It is clear from this that this offender and his mother were aware that there are alternative ways to prove ones employment to a probation officer without having them contact the employer. Indeed, this very same probation officer accepted pay cheque receipts to confirm employment in the first presentence report.
[43] To come before me and testify in October that his mother felt that she had to comply with her son's wishes to mislead the probation officer because she and her son were concerned that the probation officer would simply phone up the employer and divulge to them the criminal charges resulting in a loss of his employment is misleading and deceitful.
[44] As well for Ms. Segal to submit that her client and his mother doing this is 'no big deal' is an ill-advised submission in light of the existence of the previous presentence report that should have been reviewed by her.
[45] It misses the point that for the Court to seriously consider a conditional sentence of imprisonment and that rehabilitative steps have been taken by this offender I must overlook the fact that this offender has been deceitful and misleading to a probation officer known to him and who has supervised his probation and in the past accepted pay stubs as proof of employment.
[46] That he could enlist his mother in this ill-advised scheme and that she would acquiesce in it indicates to me that he exerts an unfortunate influence over his mother who is put forward as a person who would assist with his supervision and rehabilitation and is a positive influence on him.
[47] As well, the lack of knowledge that Mr. Dunn had regarding the offender's previous difficulties with alcohol, together with his unawareness of his previous criminal offences, indicates to me that this family seems to be secretive, selective and manipulative in its sharing of information that would assist in the offender's rehabilitation even amongst those who are proposed to play an important role in his guidance and direction post sentence.
[48] All of the above does not bode well for this offender's prospects of rehabilitation.
[49] Had I known the information that I now know at the bail hearing in July, I would certainly not have released Mr. Lee on bail with his mother as a surety. I believe that I made a mistake in doing so and I am thankful that a further offence did not occur in the intervening period that may have endangered or injured or indeed killed a member of the public or Mr. Lee himself.
[50] His mother's quick flip flop in re-examination that she would not want her son to live with his father should he be released into the community after having agreed to this option in direct examination suggests to me that his mother is willing to say anything at any time whether under oath or not that would advance her son's position.
[51] To conclude, I find that Mr. Lee's 'progress' since his release from custody as testified to by his mother and her partner Mr. Dunn is artificial and contrived and that it is designed to paint the offender at his best while under the spectre of a significant sentence.
[52] As well, I find that their testimony regarding the impact that the pre-trial custody has had upon him to be suspect as well and I discount that significantly because of the stated credibility and reliability concerns that I have with their evidence.
[53] Mr. Dunn, notwithstanding a ten-year relationship with Mr. Lee's mother, seems to be sorely uninformed about the man that he comes to court to vouch for. I feel embarrassed for him as I found him to be a credible witness who unfortunately has come to the realization while on the stand that he has been significantly 'kept out of the loop' when it comes to matters of substance regarding the offender.
[54] In light of the above, I agree with the Crown that the overriding principles in this case are general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation. That said, the offender is a relatively young man who has had a steady work history and who has accepted responsibility to the offences by pleading guilty.
[55] I acknowledge that there may have been potential weaknesses in the Crown case regarding identification in the Halton charges and I am willing give some 'enhanced credit' for the plea on these charges.
[56] I am impressed with his ability to maintain employment and his desire to finish his college education to better himself.
[57] Mr. Lee was detained after a bail hearing on the Toronto charges. Although he did not have a bail hearing on the Halton charges, it is a given that, if he had, he would not have been granted bail.
[58] I am not prepared to give Mr. Lee much enhanced credit for time served up until his plea of guilt.
[59] I am certain that Mr. Lee does not want to go back to jail. I am not certain that this has yet overcome his insatiable desire to drive motor vehicles in a dangerous manner when prohibited by the Courts from so doing.
4.0 Conclusion and Sentence
[60] Taking all of the above factors into account I think that the following sentence is appropriate considering the offences and this offender.
[61] I acknowledge that he has served pretrial custody from January 29, 2013 until July 17, 2013, which I calculate to be 5 months and 19 days of pretrial custody. After reviewing the records from Maplehurst, I am only willing to grant him some enhanced credit of 6 months pretrial custody in total.
[62] For the offences in Halton, I think that the appropriate sentence is a global sentence of 10 months in custody less the pretrial custody of 6 months, resulting in a remaining sentence of 4 months.
[63] This sentence should be particularized as follows: two months of pretrial custody should be allocated to the two driving while disqualified counts. I will sentence him to one day on each count of drive disqualified, concurrent to each other and to any other charge, with credit for pretrial custody of one month on each charge.
[64] For the charges of Flight from Police, Dangerous Driving and Breach of Probation I will credit him with 4 months of pretrial custody. With that credit, I sentence him to a period of custody of 4 further months on each charge, concurrent to one another but consecutive to any other sentence.
[65] Regarding the Toronto charges, the appropriate sentence in my opinion would be one of a further eight months in custody. However, taking into account the youth of the accused and his guilty pleas and the other mitigating factors that I have recognized, and taking into account the totality principle as directed by s. 718.2(c) and restraint as directed by s. 718.2(d), I have concluded that the appropriate sentence for this offender in these circumstances should be one of a further period of custody of 4 months on each charge on this information, concurrent to each other but consecutive to any other sentence.
[66] Mr. Lee will, therefore, be sentenced to a further period of custody of 8 months in total. He is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for a period of 10 years pursuant to s. 259(2) of the Criminal Code, consecutive to any other period of prohibition previously imposed.
[67] The Victim Fine Surcharge is waived in light of the custodial sentence and the inevitable loss of employment for Mr. Lee.
Released: December 3, 2013
Signed: Justice Stephen D. Brown