Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Halton 13-2835, 13-2820

Date: 2016-01-04

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Andrew Meaniss

Before: Justice D.A. Harris

Heard on: January 27, April 21, and August 17, 2015

Reasons for Sentence released on: January 4, 2016

Counsel:

• Arish Khoorshed & Nick Chiera, counsel for the Crown
• Johnathan Marler & Elizabeth Bristow, counsel for the defendant Andrew Meaniss

HARRIS J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] Andrew Meaniss pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm to Raymond King.

[2] Crown counsel had elected to proceed summarily.

[3] Mr. Meaniss is before me today to be sentenced.

[4] Crown counsel suggested that I should sentence him to imprisonment for six months.

[5] Counsel for Mr. Meaniss suggested that I suspend sentence or impose a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

[6] Both counsel agreed that I should place him on probation for two years and make the following ancillary orders:

1. a DNA order; and
2. a firearms prohibition order pursuant to s. 110 of the Criminal Code.

[7] I find that a conditional sentence of imprisonment for nine months followed by probation for two years is the appropriate sentence here.

[8] My reasons for this are as follows.

CONDITIONAL SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT

[9] The conditional sentence came into being when section 742.1 of the Criminal Code was proclaimed in 1996.

[10] The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently stated in R. v. Proulx that "Parliament clearly mandated that certain offenders who used to go to prison should now serve their sentence in the community."

[11] The Supreme Court of Canada stated further that an offender who meets the criteria of section 742.1 will serve a sentence under strict surveillance in the community instead of going to prison. His liberty will be constrained by conditions to be attached to the sentence. In case of breach of conditions, the offender will be brought back before a judge who may order him to serve the remainder of the sentence in jail, as it was intended by Parliament that there be a real threat of incarceration to increase compliance with the conditions of the sentence.

[12] Section 742.1 lists five criteria that a court must consider before deciding to impose a conditional sentence. These are:

1. the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not specifically excluded by the legislation;
2. the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment;
3. the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years;
4. the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and
5. a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.

[13] The first four criteria are prerequisites to any conditional sentence. These prerequisites answer the question of whether or not a conditional sentence is possible in the circumstances. Once they are met, the next question is whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. That decision turns upon a consideration of the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.

[14] In Mr. Meaniss' case, the first four prerequisite criteria have been satisfied.

[15] His offence was not excluded pursuant to section 742.1.

[16] Nor is it punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.

[17] Crown counsel agreed, as do I, that I should impose a sentence of imprisonment for much less than two years. In fact, the maximum sentence is imprisonment for 18 months.

[18] Finally, I find that Mr. Meaniss serving his sentence in the community, subject to appropriate conditions, would not endanger the safety of the community. I am satisfied that, with the appropriate safeguards in place, there is no danger that he would return to crime following the imposition of a conditional sentence.

[19] That then leaves the question of whether a conditional sentence is appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case. In making this decision, I must consider the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

[20] The fundamental purpose of sentencing as expressed in section 718 is to contribute to respect for the law, the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation; deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences; separating offenders from society, where necessary; assisting in rehabilitating offenders; providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[21] The relevance and relative importance of each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender.

[22] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The punishment should fit the crime. There is no single fit sentence for any particular offence.

[23] Doherty J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in R. v. Hamilton that:

The "gravity of the offence" refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by the offence.

[24] He went on to state that:

The "degree of responsibility of the offender" refers to the offender's culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of the offence, especially the fault component, and any specific aspects of the offender's conduct or background that tend to increase or decrease the offender's personal responsibility for the crime.

[25] He then quoted Rosenberg J.A. who had previously described the proportionality requirement in R. v. Priest:

The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good.

[26] On this point, Doherty J.A. concluded by stating that:

Fixing a sentence that is consistent with s. 718.1 is particularly difficult where the gravity of the offence points strongly in one sentencing direction and the culpability of the individual offender points strongly in a very different sentencing direction. The sentencing judge must fashion a disposition from among the limited options available which take both sides of the proportionality inquiry into account.

[27] Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing, but it is not the only principle to be considered.

[28] The assault had a significant impact on the victim, Mr. King, considering his age and other personal circumstances, including his health and financial situation. Section 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code specifically provides that this is an aggravating circumstance, and that the sentence should be increased to account for that.

[29] I must also consider section 718.2(d) which provides that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances".

[30] I must also consider the impact of section 718.2(e) which provides that:

"... 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."

[31] The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of this section in Gladue v. The Queen and said that section 718.2(e) applies to all offenders, and that imprisonment should be the penal sanction of last resort. Prison is to be used only where no other sanction or combination of sanctions is appropriate to the offence and the offender.

[32] The Supreme Court also noted that section 718 now requires a sentencing judge to consider more than the long-standing principles of denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Now a sentencing judge must also consider the restorative goals of repairing the harms suffered by individual victims and by the community as a whole, promoting a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgment of the harm caused on the part of the offender, and attempting to rehabilitate or heal the offender. As a general matter restorative justice involves some form of restitution and reintegration into the community. A conditional sentence is much more effective than jail in achieving these restorative justice goals.

[33] I must also note that the Supreme Court of Canada expressly said in R. v. Proulx, supra that a conditional sentence is "a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence" although it is not as effective as a sentence of real imprisonment.

[34] I also note that:

there need not be any equivalence between the duration of the conditional sentence and the jail term that would otherwise have been imposed. The sole requirement is that the duration and conditions of a conditional sentence make for a just and appropriate sentence.

[35] I can therefore impose a conditional sentence that is longer in duration than the jail term that I might otherwise have imposed.

[36] As I stated earlier, the maximum sentence for assault causing bodily harm is imprisonment for 18 months when the Crown proceeds summarily.

GLADUE PRINCIPLES

[37] In this case, I must also pay particular attention to Mr. Meaniss' circumstances as an Aboriginal offender.

[38] As I noted earlier, section 718.2(e) provides that:

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 [emphasis added].

[39] The Supreme Court of Canada made it clear in R. v. Gladue, supra that sentencing is an individual process, and that in each case the consideration must continue to be what is a fit sentence for this accused for this offence in the community.

[40] The effect of section 718.2(e) is to alter the method of analysis which sentencing judges must use in determining a fit sentence for Aboriginal offenders.

[41] It is not a mitigating factor on sentencing simply to be an Aboriginal offender, nor does simply being an Aboriginal offender provide anyone with immunity from being imprisoned.

[42] Rather, section 718.2(e) was enacted as a remedial provision in recognition of the fact that Aboriginal people are seriously overrepresented in the prison population across Canada, and in recognition of the reasons why this overrepresentation occurs. So, while section 718.2(e) requires a sentencing judge to consider reasonable alternatives to imprisonment for all offenders, special consideration must be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

[43] The subsection also requires that a sentencing judge consider a shorter period of imprisonment, in appropriate cases, for an Aboriginal offender.

[44] Section 718.2(e) and Gladue command a different methodology for determining a fit sentence for an Aboriginal offender, but do not necessarily dictate a different result. The more violent and serious the offence committed, the greater the likelihood that the terms of imprisonment imposed on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders will be the same or similar. In the case of serious and violent offences, even for Aboriginal offenders, the balance will often tilt in favour of deterrence, denunciation and the need for social protection.

[45] In R. v. Peters, supra, the Ontario Court of Appeal went on to say that:

To say that the balance will often tilt in favour of deterrence and denunciation in the case of serious and violent offences, as this Court did in [Whiskeyjack], is not to say that it always will. Neither Gladue nor its progeny establish that Aboriginal offenders are to be sentenced to terms of incarceration in all cases of serious offences. At the end of the day, as many authorities have noted, it remains for the sentencing judge to consider the case as a whole and to arrive at a sentence that is fit and just in the circumstances. [emphasis original]

[46] These issues were revisited by the Supreme Court of Canada more recently in R. v. Ipeelee, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code is a remedial provision designed to ameliorate the serious problem of overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in Canadian prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing.

[47] Section 718.2(e) does more than affirm existing principles of sentencing; it calls upon judges to use a different method of analysis in determining a fit sentence for Aboriginal offenders.

[48] It directs sentencing judges to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders because those circumstances are unique and different from those of non-Aboriginal offenders. When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, a judge must consider the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts and the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his particular Aboriginal heritage or connection.

[49] Judges may take judicial notice of the broad systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people generally, but additional case-specific information will have to come from counsel and from the Pre-Sentence Report.

[50] Courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples.

[51] There is no burden of persuasion on an Aboriginal accused to establish a causal link between the systemic and background factors and commission of the offence. "It would be extremely difficult for an Aboriginal offender to ever establish a direct causal link between his circumstances and his offending. The interconnections are simply too complex".

[52] The Supreme Court reiterated in Ipeelee that Gladue had stated quite clearly that section 718.2(e) should not be taken as requiring an automatic reduction of a sentence, or a remission of a warranted period of incarceration, simply because the offender is Aboriginal. So Gladue factors, on their own, do not necessarily justify a different sentence for Aboriginal offenders. Rather, they provide the necessary context for understanding and evaluating the case-specific information presented by counsel.

[53] I am however mindful of the fact that more than 15 years after the Supreme Court of Canada released Gladue, the proportion of Aboriginal offenders incarcerated in Canadian prisons and reformatories has increased. Clearly, that is not going to change if we simply pay lip service to the principles of Gladue and then look for reasons not to apply them.

[54] Further, the Gladue analysis must be performed in all cases involving an Aboriginal offender, regardless of the seriousness of the offence.

[55] In addition, I must note again that denunciation and deterrence are not the only sentencing objectives that I must consider. Watt J.A. stated in R. v. Jacko that:

Restorative justice sentencing objectives are of crucial importance in the circumstances. They include assistance in rehabilitation, providing reparations for harm done to the victim and to the community, promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement by offenders about the harm their conduct has done to the victims and to their community.

[56] He went on to state that:

In cases such as these, we must do more than simply acknowledge restorative justice sentencing objectives and note approvingly the rehabilitative efforts of those convicted. They must have some tangible impact on the length, nature and venue of the sentence imposed. The rehabilitative efforts here, more specifically those of Jacko, extend well beyond the promises made all too frequently between conviction and sentence, and all too infrequently executed and maintained in the days, weeks and months following imposition of a lenient sentence.

[57] Before I can apply the applicable principles of sentencing, however, I must look at the facts underlying the offence here, the impact that it had on its victims, and the background of Mr. Meaniss.

THE OFFENCE

[58] Mr. Meaniss was the step-son of Raymond King. They lived together in Halton Hills (Georgetown).

[59] The property manager for their residence, Ms. D. Brown, called the police to complain that Mr. Meaniss was beating Mr. King with his fists. In fact, he beat Mr. King to the point that Mr. King was on the ground. As he got up, Mr. Meaniss started beating him down again.

[60] Mr. King suffered a fractured skull and a broken jaw.

[61] Mr. Meaniss admitted to police that he had beaten Mr. King "because he deserved it".

VICTIM IMPACT

[62] I received two Victim Impact Statements from Mr. King and one from Ms. Brown.

[63] Mr. King sustained physical injuries in the form of a fractured skull and a broken jaw.

[64] He was unable to work for some time after this.

[65] He also was fearful following the offence although he believes that the assault only occurred as a result of Mr. Meaniss abusing drugs and alcohol. His feelings were complicated by the fact that he continues to be in a relationship with Mr. Meaniss' mother and considers Mr. Meaniss to still be part of the family.

[66] Ms. Brown suffered from stress and depression as a result of witnessing the assault.

BACKGROUND OF MR. MEANISS

[67] I have had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report, a Gladue Report and other material provided on behalf of Mr. Meaniss. Those sources have provided me with the following information.

[68] Mr. Meaniss is now 24 years old.

[69] His mother Debbie was 14 and his father was 18 when Mr. Meaniss was born in Kirkland Lake, Ontario. His father moved to the North West Territories before his birth in order to avoid criminal charges or other retribution by Debbie's family for the sexual activity with the underage girl.

[70] Debbie is a member of the Beaverhouse First Nation.

[71] The Beaverhouse First Nation is only accessible by boat in the summer and by snow machine in the winter. The Meaniss family lived on the reserve from ice break up until freeze up of the lake, and in nearby Kirkland Lake during the winter months.

[72] Debbie's father Roy Meaniss was the head chief of the Beaverhouse First Nation from 1993 until 2007. He also worked at various times in mines, at Friendship Centers in Kirkland Lake and Cochrane, and at the Mental Health Center in Cochrane. He passed away in November, 2007.

[73] In the Pre-Sentence Report, Debbie Meaniss reports a strong family history of alcoholism including both of her parents. In the Gladue Report she described her father as "the only positive role model" in her son's life. Mr. Meaniss took the death of his grandfather very hard.

[74] In 1994, Debbie Meaniss and her son moved to Cochrane along with her new partner Richard. They had a daughter together, Page. Their relationship was a tumultuous one, involving drinking and physical fighting. Mr. Meaniss witnessed this although he and his sister were not subject to any physical abuse themselves. Shortly after moving to Cochrane, Debbie left Richard. Richard did remain an active part of the lives of Page and Mr. Meaniss, who continued to call Richard his dad.

[75] In 2001, Debbie and her children moved briefly to North Bay. She then introduced them to Raymond King, who she had started seeing while in Cochrane. After staying in North Bay for six months they all moved into Raymond King's home in Georgetown.

[76] Mr. Meaniss was very unhappy about this. He had established friends in North Bay and was doing well in school. He viewed Mr. King as a hoarder who took advantage of his mother financially. He drank. He made Mr. Meaniss feel unwelcome and did not treat him well.

[77] Mr. Meaniss played football while attending high school. He was being offered scholarships to continue doing so in university. His football career came to an end however when he broke his leg at the age of 16.

[78] In 2008, he graduated from high school and found his own apartment while working as a roofer. He lost contact with his mother and sister.

[79] Then the bank foreclosed on the home shared by Debbie and Raymond King. Debbie committed a crime to obtain money and spent three months in jail in Milton. While in jail she gave birth to a daughter Isabelle who died later from unknown causes.

[80] Eventually, Mr. Meaniss leased a house where he could live together with his sister, his mother and with Mr. King. The arrangement went well for only two months. Then, Mr. King started drinking. He became abusive when he drank.

[81] In 2011, Debbie's former partner Richard died of a drug overdose. This devastated Mr. Meaniss. He had viewed Richard like a father and had now lost two father figures (his grandfather and Richard) within a four year period. Following this, Mr. Meaniss started using marihuana which led to other drugs like cocaine.

[82] In 2013, Mr. Meaniss was convicted of drinking/driving offences and lost his licence. He hired Mr. King to drive him around but his drinking made that a problem.

[83] In addition, when drunk Mr. King became verbally abusive and called Richard a drug addict. This led to disagreements between Mr. Meaniss and Mr. King. Ultimately one of those arguments led to the current offence.

[84] According to Mr. Meaniss:

I didn't understand that at the time that this man is sick. I see there is something wrong with him and I need to realize that: before I wasn't seeing that at all. I just hated the man. When he said those things I exploded and there was a physical altercation between him and me.

[85] Mr. Meaniss had a prior criminal record that includes two convictions for drinking and driving and one for failing to appear.

[86] Since being charged 28 months ago he has been on bail.

[87] During that time, he was charged and convicted for driving while disqualified. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 30 days to be served intermittently. That is his only significant period of incarceration.

[88] He has not been charged with any other offences while on bail. One surety did revoke at one point but the circumstances behind that are so unclear that I cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from this.

[89] He resides in Milton with his current surety. There appear to be no problems there.

[90] He has started his own roofing business which is still very much in the growing stage. The two reference letters show two customers who were very satisfied with both the quality of his work and his attitude.

[91] He has been dating his current girlfriend since February 2015.

[92] He attends Covenant Alliance Church in Orangeville.

[93] He attended for 6 counselling sessions between July 25 and December 17, 2014. I am not very impressed, to say the least, by his explanations for why he stopped going. I am also unimpressed by what appears to be a tendency to blame others for the mistakes that he has made.

[94] I also note at this time the fact that the Pre-Sentence Report and the Gladue Report are very different both in their tone and in their content. The latter is certainly more favourable for Mr. Meaniss.

ANALYSIS

[95] In cases like this, involving unprovoked violence causing bodily harm, the predominant sentencing objectives are denunciation and deterrence.

[96] Probation is primarily rehabilitative.

[97] A conditional sentence on the other hand can be punitive and is capable of providing significant denunciation and deterrence.

[98] Actual imprisonment will obviously also satisfy the need for denunciation and deterrence.

[99] So, while I accept that there may be cases involving an assault causing bodily harm where a suspended sentence and probation might be appropriate, I find that this is not one of those cases. In that regard, the cases cited by counsel for Mr. Meaniss can be easily distinguished. Mr. Clement was sentenced 16 years after his offence and he had made much more significant efforts at rehabilitation than Mr. Meaniss has. Ms. Peters also had made significant efforts to rehabilitate herself. I also note that the majority decision in R. v. Peters is as much a deference case as anything else, and that Watt J.A. wrote a spirited dissent in which he took the position that "the sentencing decision is cumbered by error and is manifestly unfit" and not deserving of such substantial deference.

[100] I am satisfied that the issue before me is whether I should send Mr. Meaniss to jail or sentence him to a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

[101] In the absence of the Gladue factors, I would probably send him to jail. Even considering the Gladue factors, I find it to be a close call as to what I should do.

[102] I must be mindful however of the fact that the method of analysis which Gladue mandates that I must use in determining a fit sentence for aboriginal offenders will only have real meaning if, in appropriate cases, I choose not to send someone to jail for a serious crime. I am satisfied that, having regard to all of the circumstances here, this is one of those cases.

[103] Mr. Meaniss is still a young man.

[104] He had a very dysfunctional upbringing, exposed to both alcohol abuse and physical abuse. His biological father left him before he was born. He then suffered the loss of two father-figures. His dreams of football stardom were shattered at an early age.

[105] He now appears to be trying to make something of his life.

[106] The jail sentence resulting from his driving while disqualified conviction should have brought home to him the consequences for breaching a court order.

[107] He has entered a guilty plea, which I take to be an expression of remorse and an acceptance of responsibility.

[108] I note also his final comments in the Gladue Report regarding Mr. King:

He is a good man in some senses. I know this. I was focussing on the bad aspects of him. The drinking and the putdowns went hand in hand. He wants a son and he wants someone there for him. His family doesn't speak to him at all. He wants a good relationship and so do I. If my mother never met Raymond or made the decision for us to move down here, I wouldn't be the man that I am now. I think that everything happens for a reason. We want to be a family again.

SENTENCE

[109] For all of the above reasons, I sentence Mr. Meaniss to a conditional sentence of imprisonment for nine months to be served in the community. This will be followed by probation for two years.

[110] The terms of the conditional sentence of imprisonment will require that Mr. Meaniss:

1. keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

2. appear before the court when required to do so by the court;

3. report in person to a supervisor within two working days and thereafter report when required by the supervisor and in the manner directed by the supervisor;

4. notify the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation;

5. remain within the province of Ontario unless written permission to go outside the province is obtained from the court or the supervisor;

6. cooperate with his supervisor. He must sign any releases necessary to permit the supervisor to monitor his compliance and he must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to his supervisor on request;

7. live at 361 Bussell, Milton, Ontario, or a place approved of by the supervisor and not change that address without obtaining the consent of the supervisor in advance;

8. a home confinement condition will be in effect for the full duration of the conditional sentence;

9. during that time he will remain in his residence at all times except:

   • (a) between 1 pm and 5 pm on Saturdays in order to acquire the necessities of life,
   • (b) for any medical emergency involving him or any member of his immediate family (spouse, child, parent, sibling),
   • (c) for going directly to and from, or being at school, employment, court attendance, religious services and legal or medical or dental appointments, or any assessment, treatment or counselling sessions,
   • (d) he will confirm his schedule in advance with his supervisor setting out the times for these activities,
   • (e) with the prior written approval of the supervisor. The written permission of the supervisor is to be carried with him during these times.

10. During the period of home confinement, he must present himself at his doorway upon the request of his supervisor or a peace officer for the purpose of verifying his compliance with his home confinement condition.

11. not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means, with Raymond King except with the prior written consent of the above named person filed in advance, by that person, with the assigned supervisor. This may be cancelled by the person in any manner at any time.

12. not be within 20 metres of any place where he knows Raymond King to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place he knows him to be except with the prior written consent of the above named person filed in advance, by that person, with the assigned supervisor. This may be cancelled by the person in any manner at any time.

13. attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative programs as directed by the supervisor, and complete them to the satisfaction of the supervisor, for anger management including any program offered by the Anishnawbe Health Services; substance abuse; alcohol abuse; and any other program directed by the supervisor.

[111] The terms of the probation will require that Mr. Meaniss:

1. keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

2. appear before the court when required to do so by the court;

3. notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation;

4. report in person to a probation officer within two working days of completing his conditional sentence of imprisonment and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in his supervision;

5. cooperate with his probation officer. He must sign any releases necessary to permit the probation officer to monitor his compliance and he must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to his probation officer on request;

6. not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means, with Raymond King except with the prior written consent of the above named person filed in advance, by that person, with the assigned probation officer. This may be cancelled by the person in any manner at any time.

7. not be within 20 metres of any place where he knows Raymond King to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place he knows him to be except with the prior written consent of the above named person filed in advance, by that person, with the assigned probation officer. This may be cancelled by the person in any manner at any time.

8. attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative programs as directed by the supervisor, and complete them to the satisfaction of the supervisor, for anger management including any program offered by the Anishnawbe Health Services; substance abuse; alcohol abuse; and any other program directed by the probation officer.

[112] I also make the following two ancillary orders.

[113] This is a primary designated offence and I make an order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, authorizing the taking from Mr. Meaniss of any number of samples of one or more bodily substances, including blood, that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

[114] Finally, pursuant to section 110 of the Criminal Code, for the next five years Mr. Meaniss is prohibited from owning, possessing, or carrying any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance.

[115] Mr. Meaniss will have 90 days to pay the victim fine surcharge.

Released: January 4, 2016

Signed: "Justice David A. Harris"