Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Kitchener 16-6674 Date: 2018-05-10 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Jeffrey Thompson

Before: Justice C.A. Parry

Heard on: July 12, October 27, and December 20, 2017, and January 24 and May 1, 2018

Reasons for Judgment released on: May 10, 2018

Counsel:

• Scott Wheildon, for the Crown
• Jeffrey Garland, for the accused Jeffrey Thompson

PARRY J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] In this sentencing, I am tasked with deciding the appropriate sentence for Mr. Thompson, an aboriginal offender with no prior record, who decided to become involved in the illegal medical marijuana dispensary business during a time in which law enforcement attitudes about those businesses had been in flux while the federal government mused about making marijuana legal.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE

[2] In 2016, Mr. Thompson operated a marijuana dispensary. He did so with impunity. The local police force was not prosecuting vendors of medical marijuana. In the summer of 2016, though, as the promise of legislative changes lingered, the local police force gave notice to vendors of a change in their stance. Vendors could expect at some point in the future that the police would begin to crack down on dispensaries. Mr. Thompson closed his dispensary but continued to supply others who decided to continue to sell medicinal marijuana.

[3] On the 6th of October 2016, Mr. Thompson was arrested after bringing about 3.8 kilograms of marijuana to the residence of Mr. Calvin Blades. Mr. Thompson believed that Mr. Blades operated a marijuana dispensary that distributed marijuana to those who consumed it for medical reasons. The police had been investigating Mr. Blades. Mr. Thompson's arrest was the byproduct of that investigation. History proves that Mr. Blades was not in fact operating a dispensary for medical marijuana users. He was simply a drug trafficker. Nevertheless, the Crown concedes that Mr. Thompson believed Blades to be the operator of a dispensary.

[4] After Mr. Thompson's arrest, the police searched his home. There, they found more marijuana, about 7.7 kilograms of the stuff. For the purposes of the sentencing the parties admit that he possessed this marijuana for the purpose of trafficking it to dispensaries. The police also found about 2.5 kilograms of cannabis resin, which Mr. Thompson possessed for the purpose of selling to medical marijuana dispensaries.

Charges

The charges for which I must sentence Mr. Thompson are as follows:

1. Trafficking in marijuana in an amount over 3 kg, contrary to section 5(1) of the CDSA [the sale of product to Mr. Blades]

2. Possession of marijuana in an amount over 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) and (3) of the CDSA [the 7.7 kilos at home]

3. Possession of marijuana resin for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) and (3)(a.1) of the CDSA [the 2.5 kilos found at home]

[5] A little historical context is necessary to properly understand the relative gravity of these offences and the degree of moral culpability to assign to Mr. Thompson's conduct.

[6] In the last several years, marijuana dispensaries began to blossom in the Waterloo Region, as they did in many parts of Ontario. This bloom appears to have corresponded with the election of the liberal government, which had campaigned on the promise to legalize marijuana. For a considerable period of time, our local police force did not raid or prosecute these dispensaries. The dispensaries operated openly and with impunity.

[7] The campaign promise did not materialize with great dispatch. Ultimately, our local police force, in the interests of fairness, gave a heads-up to the local dispensaries. They warned those who illegally sold medicinal marijuana that they were going to enforce the law.

[8] Mr. Thompson had operated one of these illegal outfits and made money doing so. He shut down his medical dispensary when the risk of police enforcement became apparent. However, he continued to supply other unlawful dispensaries, with the belief that people who suffered medical ailments were the end recipients of his product. He knew he was breaking the law. He knew that the police had signaled a renewed intention to enforce a previously unenforced law. Yet he nevertheless flouted the law, believing that his purpose was noble and his product needed. I also infer that he continued to sell marijuana to other dispensaries with the hope that the recommencement of the prosecution of marijuana traffickers might not occur prior to legalization. He was akin to the guy who held on to his stocks too long, thinking the bull market might last a little longer. The market crashed, though. And he got burned.

[9] In the sentencing materials provided by the defence [exhibit 4], twelve people provided letters of support. They describe their medical circumstances and the relief they received from the product sold by Mr. Thompson. From their point of view, he is a compassionate human being who relieved their suffering at a reasonable price. It is fair to conclude that Mr. Thompson did not believe that his product was harming people, but rather believed it was helping them. In that regard, he can be distinguished from those who would sell patently harmful drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine – indifferent to the foreseeably inevitable harm those drugs cause.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER

[10] Mr. Thompson comes to this court as a first offender with no prior record. Mr. Thompson is aboriginal. He is a status member of the Qalipu First Nation. He was born in Kitchener, but his family is from Newfoundland. His mother is one of twenty-one children. She and her siblings did not learn of their aboriginal heritage until about fifteen to twenty years ago, when Mr. Thompson was a teenager. Mr. Thompson received status about six years ago.

[11] I am told that Mr. Thompson maintained a close connection to his relatives in Newfoundland. As a child, he spent his summers there.

[12] The Gladue report indicates that Mr. Thompson's father consumed alcohol to excess. His dad also engaged in harsh physical discipline. Mr. Thompson also encountered regular marijuana use amongst his extended family. The report suggests that the family environment normalized excessive alcohol consumption and marijuana consumption. The pre-sentence report suggests that Mr. Thompson internalized and normalized these values too. Mr. Thompson readily admitted past abuse of alcohol as a teenager, but denied it had been a problem since. He also discounted hard drugs as being a part of his life. His fiancé [now wife], Amanda Dalton, disagreed. She described Mr. Thompson as struggling with alcohol and drug abuse for years. His partying was a source of conflict in the relationship. According to her, it undermined the quality of his home life with Ms. Dalton and their child. According to her, he rationalized his behaviours. Ms. Dalton also noted in her PSR interview that about 4 years ago Mr. Thompson's father and Mr. Thompson engaged in very "cathartic" discussions during a visit by the father (from Newfoundland). Those discussions served as a turning point in Mr. Thompson's life. Mr. Thompson turned his back on the use of hard drugs and stopped getting drunk too. She further noted that he only sporadically used his marijuana prescription to treat his arthritis. He was a changed man.

[13] Ms. Dalton also described the accused as an excellent father, who has (especially more recently) had a stable and positive relationship with their son.

[14] Despite the baggage he carried from his youth, Mr. Thompson was an excellent student with a gift for mathematics. After high school, he completed a Business Administration program at Conestoga College. He obtained gainful employment using this diploma, prior to leaving his chosen field of work to join the burgeoning marijuana dispensary industry.

[15] Since his arrest, Mr. Thompson obtained employment as a bookkeeper. He has also been taking courses to upgrade his education. He is in his third year of a Bachelor of Business program at Conestoga College. Thereafter, he plans on pursuing certification as a CPA (chartered professional accountant). Since his arrest, Mr. Thompson has also been abiding by his terms of release.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CALVIN BLADES: THE CUSTOMER OF MR. THOMPSON

[16] Mr. Blades received a little over 15 months jail as a result of the raid that occurred after Mr. Thompson sold marijuana to him. There are similarities and differences between Mr. Blades and Mr. Thompson.

[17] The cases of the two men are similar because they took part in the sale of 3.8 kilograms of marijuana. Mr. Thompson was the vendor, Mr. Blades the buyer. The differences between the two cases are both mitigating and aggravating.

[18] The single aggravating distinction is that Mr. Thompson possessed about twice as much more marijuana at home as he sold to Mr. Blades.

[19] The mitigating distinctions are as follows:

• Mr. Blades was not in fact in the medical marijuana dispensary business. He did not claim to the court to have any humanitarian goals. Mr. Thompson, on the other hand, had been led to believe that Mr. Blades operated a dispensary. The Crown accepted that Mr. Thompson possessed this state of mind when selling to Mr. Blades.

• Mr. Blades had a criminal record, which included a conviction in 1995 for possession of a drug for the purpose of trafficking. He received six months imprisonment for that offence.

• Mr. Blades was also on a weapons prohibition at the time of the raid. Despite this weapons prohibition, he had several imitation firearms in his home [which can be seen in exhibit 1]. He also possessed a prohibited weapon: a flick-knife. Mr. Blades consequently pleaded guilty to two additional charges: possession of a prohibited weapon [contrary to section 91(2)] and possession of firearms while prohibited from doing so [contrary to section 117].

THE CROWN'S POSITION

[20] The Crown suggests a sentence in the range of 12 months. The Crown points to the persistent nature of the conduct and the quantity of the product. The Crown also asks me to consider the sentence imposed upon Mr. Blades and impose a sentence that reflects the principle of parity. The Crown urges me to sentence the accused in accordance with the current statutory penalty provisions, and not any provisions that Parliament may pass in the future. The Crown concedes that the sentencing jurisprudence suggests a wide range of reasonable sentences for the conduct in question, but submits that 12 months is a fit sentence.

THE DEFENCE POSITION

[21] The defence suggests a suspended sentence. The defence asks me to place significant emphasis upon the accused's aboriginal status, the accused's benevolent intentions when selling marijuana, the accused's lack of record, the accused's continued rehabilitation since arrest, and his strong prospects for continued rehabilitation. The defence also agrees that I must sentence in accordance with the law as it exists, and not as it might become; however, the defence also submits that I may legitimately take notice of evolving social mores and trends in sentencing when considering a fit sentence.

ANALYSIS

[22] I fully agree that I must sentence the accused in accordance with the law as it exists today, not as it might become: see R. v. Bentley, 2017 ONCA 982. I also agree that sentences for marijuana trafficking vary greatly. The range is wide. Justice O'Donnell (a former federal prosecutor, I believe) made this observation in R. v. Bao, [2018] O.J. No. 1154. I also agree with Justice O'Donnell's observation that judges are entitled to take notice of changes in social mores when assessing the gravity of the offence. They must take the temperature of their community when assessing the seriousness of the conduct in question.

[23] In this case, the parties have agreed upon aspects of the historical context of this case. Until recently, our police force was not actively prosecuting medical marijuana dispensaries, nor were many other Ontario forces. The police force appears to have recognized the implicit message sent by this lack of enforcement. When it ultimately decided to crack down on dispensaries in our region, it gave a heads-up to them in the summer of 2016. This seems to have been done out of a sense of fairness: in recognition that its previous inaction might be construed as tacit permission.

[24] While Mr. Thompson knowingly flouted the law, he did so at a time when a reasonable person might perceive that law enforcement attitudes towards marijuana vendors had been permissive and obviously in a state of flux. Mr. Thompson, sensing the winds were changing, closed down his own dispensary, but kept selling to others who remained in operation. I infer that he was pushing his luck, hoping that the laissez-faire attitude toward the drug would continue longer, long enough – perhaps – for the law to change. As noted, he is akin to a trader who held on to his stock too long. He nevertheless committed his offences when citizens might understandably be unsure about how vigorously law enforcement might investigate and prosecute their activity. He also committed his offences at a time when the federal government had openly discussed tabling legislation that would legalize the product.

[25] A recent case from this jurisdiction also provides some indication of a shift in social and prosecutorial attitudes. The case involves the proprietors of a dispensary, the type of dispensary to whom Mr. Thompson would have sold marijuana. Nour and Shady Louka pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. Nour Louka was the owner-operator of the dispensary. The offence occurred in August of 2016 – shortly after the police had sent letters to all the other dispensaries in the jurisdiction, warning them that enforcement of the law was looming. Unfortunately, the police inadvertently failed to give notice to the Loukas. The police then raided the Louka's dispensary in August 2016. On July 21, 2017, Justice Westman imposed an absolute discharge on both of them. Interestingly, the Crown in that case began by seeking jail, but ultimately only sought $10,000 in fines. I infer that the Crown took its position in recognition of the lack of notice given to the Loukas and in recognition of the parity principle. Nevertheless, the Crown's position in the Louka case seems to reflect a recognition of the relaxation of social values in relation to marijuana. It is important to note that the Crown did not appeal the sentences – another implicit recognition by the Crown of the social context (in Kitchener, in particular, and Canada as whole) in which the offence occurred.

[26] A shift in prosecutorial and societal attitudes can be seen elsewhere in the province. In particular, I note the case of Jodie and Marc Emery in Toronto. Both of these offenders operated a large dispensary chain, which generated for them tens of thousands of dollars of revenue on a weekly basis. Pursuant to a joint submission, the court imposed $150,000 fines upon each. Neither went to jail [apart from some pre-bail custody]. And the Crown did not seek jail. By many orders of magnitude, the Emery's crime dwarfed Mr. Thompson's. The Emery case also involved the sentencing of the two operators of individual dispensaries – offenders whose conduct is more comparable to that of Mr. Thompson. For the individual dispensary owners, the Crown and defence sought $10,000 fines. I have read the Crown's submissions, which provide somewhat vague rationales for the joint submissions, and infer that the Crown's position is in part a reflection in the change in societal attitudes towards the offence.

[27] Evidence of the change in the societal values and social context might be seen as well in the Crown approach to other dispensary cases in the recent past. The Crown concedes that in the recent past, dispensary cases have been known to resolve by way of peace bonds or other forms of diversion. Counsel for Mr. Thompson provided a letter by Jack Lloyd, who has acted for counsel on scores of dispensary cases. Given the Crown's general concession – which accords with my general awareness of such resolutions during the relevant time frame – I do not find it necessary to rely upon the specifics provided in the letter of Mr. Lloyd, which essentially proposes to keep score. Simply put, it was not unheard of for individual dispensary cases to be diverted in some fashion during the time period in which Mr. Thompson was supplying dispensaries. This reality provides insight into the relaxed social mores towards marijuana at the time Mr. Thompson committed his crimes. That said, I recognize that in any individual case, many factors (which are unknown to me) are brought to bear on the Crown's exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. I do not intend to peek behind the curtain of that discretion.

[28] The passage of new marijuana legislation also provides evidence of a shift in the societal values towards marijuana. As of the date of the writing of this judgment, the bill that would legalize the possession and moderate production of marijuana [for personal use] has passed a second reading in the senate. The Prime Minister has signalled the continued intention to have this bill become law this summer. In making this observation, I do not purport to rely upon a law that has not yet passed. That law would purport to set a range of sentences for traffickers that is similar to the current regime, in any event. However, I view the passage of the bill through the House of Commons and two senate readings as evidence of the pervasive change in social attitudes towards the illicit drug in question. After all, the bill was tabled by a democratically elected government that campaigned on the promise of its passage.

[29] Assessment of communal values by sentencing judges is important, because values change. Sentencing ranges change too. I could point to many, many examples of the evolution of sentencing ranges, but one will suffice. If you look back twenty years or more ago, sentence ranges for offenders who sexually abused children were significantly lower than they are today. In the case of R. v. D.D., [2002] O.J. No. 1061, Justice Moldaver delivered a forceful judgement, which signalled the beginning of a significant shift in sentencing ranges for sexual predators of children. Since the release of D.D., the Court of Appeal has specifically recognized the "upward trend" in sentences for sexual abusers of children: see R. v. W.Y., [2015] O.J. No. 5230 (C.A.); and R. v. P.M., 2012 ONCA 162, [2012] O.J. No. 1148 (C.A.). The D.D. decision effectively supplanted the range suggested by the decision of B.J. released 12 years before D.D.: see R. v. B.J. (1990), 36 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.).

[30] The Crown relies upon R. v. Bentley when arguing that sentencing ranges and social mores have not drastically changed. That case involved the production of a very large amount of plants. Production offences are considered by courts and statute to constitute significantly more serious offences than mere trafficking of marijuana or possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana. There are good reasons for this distinction. For example, grow houses often use unsafe electrical systems, often create risk of mold damage to homes, often have other unsafe conditions, and often rely upon stolen electricity. Often, tenants commit the offences without knowledge of their landlords. Accordingly, grow house ranges are typically higher than ranges for possession offences. Outdoor grows often involve trespass upon the lands of innocent farmers; the illegal grows may also be protected by dangerous traps. Mr. Bentley, in growing a very large number of plants (in the circumstances in which he grew them) committed a related but more serious offence. I am therefore of the view that in its reliance upon Bentley, the Crown has asked me to compare oranges to tangerines. They have a similar flavour, but one fruit is obviously more substantial than the other.

[31] I also note, with the greatest of respect, that the Bentley decision sends somewhat of a mixed message. In the Bentley case, the court decided that the fresh evidence demonstrated that the accused had been deterred and rehabilitated by the prosecution. Notwithstanding that finding, the court held that general deterrence and denunciation required an 18 month sentence. In other words, it held that post sentence rehabilitation did not reduce the required level of denunciation and general deterrence. The court then stayed the imposition of that sentence, having concluded that it was "not in the interests of justice" to re-incarcerate the accused and make him serve the sentence declared to be fit by the court. The court did not elaborate on what it meant by "not in the interests of justice". Without further guidance about what "interests of justice" motivated the decision to stay the sentence, I cannot help but wonder if (in addition to the passage of time) changing attitudes towards marijuana played a role in the decision to stay the sentence. The court's decision was rendered very shortly after the new marijuana legislation was passed by the house of commons. I also cannot help but wonder whether the court would have stayed the sentence if the substance had been methamphetamine or cocaine. In the final analysis, I have trouble reconciling the words of the judgment with its deeds. The ostensible sentence seems to have little deterrent or denunciatory effect once the court decided against imposing it: many parents would agree that their children do not derive much deterrence from watching a sibling being told to play with his friends immediately after being told he was grounded. Given the ambiguous import of the Bentley decision and given that the decision pertains to marijuana production, I find that the case does little to assist the Crown in its position.

[32] Having made these observations, I remind myself that I must not forget the principles of general deterrence and denunciation in my analysis. They remain primary considerations. This case involves a sizeable amount of marijuana. The statute as currently conceived envisions significant potential sentences when significant quantities are involved. Mr. Thompson acted in flagrant defiance of the statute. General deterrence and denunciation must remain amongst the primary considerations in the sentencing of Mr. Thompson. However, I have concluded that evolving societal attitudes towards marijuana have dulled the blades of these principles somewhat.

[33] The Crown urges me to not forget the sentence imposed upon Mr. Blades. I agree – to a point. As noted already, there are significant mitigating distinctions between Mr. Thompson's case and Mr. Blades. One man is a weapons-toting drug trafficker, who has been imprisoned before, and who flagrantly violated his weapons ban. The other man is an aboriginal offender who believed he was supplying the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary; he is a man with no record; and a man who has flourished while on release for the last 18 months. He is also a man for whom many have voiced their gratitude for his role in easing their suffering. Finally, he is a man who did not equip himself with the tools of violence in the pursuit of his social cause.

[34] The defence asks me to place significant weight on the accused's aboriginal heritage. I must therefore examine that heritage and its relationship to the accused's offending conduct. The evidence before me clearly establishes Mr. Thompson's aboriginal heritage. That said, the degree to which that heritage bears upon his culpability for the offences is somewhat difficult to discern. Having reviewed the Gladue report in this case, I am satisfied that Mr. Thompson grew up amongst some fairly significant family dysfunction[1]. I appreciate that Mr. Thompson normalized his upbringing when speaking to the author of the pre-sentence report. However, I am nevertheless satisfied that he grew up in an environment that normalized alcohol abuse; that involved emotionally distant parenting; and that normalized marijuana use [at a time when such use was perhaps viewed with less tolerance than it is by many today]. Mr. Thompson's spouse described behavioural traits in Mr. Thompson's adulthood that would appear to be a logical extension of the environment in which Mr. Thompson was raised. She also described how Mr. Thompson appeared to have an epiphany after a "cathartic" discussion with his father four years ago – after which, his behaviour changed drastically for the better. It is difficult to discern any causal connection between the "cultural oppression, social inequality, the loss of self-government and systemic discrimination" visited upon Mr. Thompson's ancestors and the home environment in which Mr. Thompson was raised. However, case law tells me to avoid searching for and insisting upon causal connections: see R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433. Case law also tells me that "unless the unique circumstances of the particular offender bear on his or her culpability for the offence or indicate which sentencing objectives can and should be actualized, they will not influence the ultimate sentence." I do not propose to insist upon drawing a causal connection between the historical treatment of aboriginal people and Mr. Thompson's childhood family life. To do so, would be unfair and unrealistic. However, I do discern a causal relationship between Mr. Thompson's childhood family environment and his behaviours and attitudes in adulthood: His extended family normalized and gave legitimacy to the product he later sold in his adulthood. His family happens to have been aboriginal. Consequently, I have concluded that there is a connection between the unique circumstances of this aboriginal offender and his offending conduct.

[35] The defence urges me to give Mr. Thompson significant credit for his conduct since arrest. I agree with this submission. Since his arrest in October of 2016, Mr. Thompson has obtained full-time employment, continued to take an active role in his family life, and made significant strides towards upgrading his education. His prospects of a successful career appear strong. His prospects for a return to crime seem slim.

[36] The Crown argues the quantities of the drug is aggravating. I agree with this submission. Indeed the CDSA permits a significant maximum penalty for the marijuana charges, by virtue of the fact that the amount possessed exceeded three kilograms.

[37] The Crown also urges me to consider as an aggravating factor Mr. Thompson's insistence upon trafficking even after he became aware of a change in our local police force's attitude towards dispensaries. I agree with this submission to a degree. As noted, Mr. Thompson was operating within a time of flux and uncertainty, which followed immediately after a time in which the police stance towards dispensaries was permissive. Having said that, I also agree that courts should not condone defiance of the law, even if a change in that law seems imminent, and even if the police by their inaction might be seen as giving tacit permission to violate that law.

[38] To sum up, I have considered the following factors:

1. The quantity of the drug possessed for the purpose of trafficking;

2. The wide ranges of sentences that have been imposed on similar offenders – which recently has included joint submissions for large fines for the self-proclaimed "prince of pot" and his princess;

3. The need for general deterrence and denunciation of those who would traffic even relatively benign drugs and therefore flout the law;

4. The nature of the drug and its relatively benign characteristics when compared with other drugs banned by the CDSA;

5. The relatively recent lack of police prosecution of these crimes in our community at the time of the offence – the prosecutorial context in which the crime was committed;

6. The relatively relaxed social attitudes towards the drug at the time of the offence – the social context in which the offence was committed;

7. The relatively relaxed social attitudes towards the drug at the time of sentencing – the social context at the time of sentencing;

8. The fact that Mr. Thompson continued to sell to dispensaries even after he sensed a change in law-enforcement attitudes towards his business;

9. The relatively favourable distinctions between Mr. Thompson's circumstances and that of his customer (Mr. Blades);

10. Mr. Thompson's non-malevolent motives for committing the crime [providing a medicinal product to dispensaries];

11. The benefits provided by Mr. Thompson to some who sought his product;

12. The principle of restraint, Mr. Thompson's aboriginal heritage, and the apparent connection between his offending conduct and the family environment in which he was raised; and

13. Mr. Thompson's post offence good conduct and prospects for long term rehabilitation.

[39] Having considered all of these factors, I have concluded that a 45 day intermittent sentence is a proportionate and just sentence – one that gives sufficient weight to the gravity of the offence in this community at the time the offence occurred; and one that gives sufficient weight to the relative moral culpability of this offender given his circumstances and the historical context in which he committed the crimes. I will impose a 45 day sentence on each count, to be served concurrently. Section 732(3) shall not apply: these concurrent sentences shall not collapse and be served on consecutive days.

[40] Mr. Thompson will be on probation while serving his intermittent sentence. In addition, I will place Mr. Thompson on probation for 1 year following the completion of his intermittent sentence. The terms of probation will be as follows:

Statutory Conditions

(1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

(2) Appear before the court when required to do so.

(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 and in addition.

Intermittent Sentence Only:

(4) You must appear at the jail to serve your intermittent sentence on time, in a sober condition, with a blood alcohol concentration of zero, and not under the influence of or in possession of any controlled substance unless you are taking that controlled substance pursuant to a lawfully obtained prescription.

(5) You will go into custody today for processing and be released. You will serve the remainder of your sentence at an institution named by the institution from which you were originally released. The balance of your sentence will be served commencing Friday May 11, 2018, at 8:30 p.m. until Monday May 14, 2018 at 6 a.m. and thereafter on each successive Friday at 8:30 p.m. until the following Monday at 6 a.m. until the sentence is served.

Optional Conditions for the Entirety of the Order:

(6) Report in person to a probation officer within 2 working days of your release from custody 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 your supervision.

(7) Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer.

[41] I will also impose an order pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code [10 years for the weapons listed in s. 109(2)(a) and life for the weapons listed in section 109(2)(b)]. Mr. Thompson's offence is a secondary DNA offence. Having regard to the circumstances of the offence and my view of Mr. Thompson's prospects for rehabilitation, I have concluded that his privacy interests outweigh the interests of the administration of justice in obtaining his DNA. Consequently I will not impose a DNA order. Mr. Thompson shall have six months to pay the victim fine surcharges.

Released: May 10, 2018

Signed: Justice C.A. Parry

[1] In saying this, I recognize that Mr. Thompson enjoyed the benefits of a large and close knit extended family, with 20 aunts and uncles. I do not wish to paint his childhood as being all bad. It is clear that his family is close and continues to be so. Even so, some of his dysfunctional adult attitudes and behaviours can be connected to the behaviours he witnessed as a child.