Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Kitchener 19-1431 Date: 2019-12-11 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Nicole Eidt

Before: Justice M. A. Sopinka

Heard on: December 5, 2019

Reasons for Judgment on Sentence released on: December 11, 2019

Counsel:

• Ms. J. Young, counsel for the Crown
• Ms. M. Salih, counsel for the accused Nicole Eidt

Reasons for Judgment

SOPINKA J.:

Introduction

[1] Ms. Eidt pled guilty to criminal negligence causing death of her 20 month old daughter Amelia Runstedler. On February 21, 2019, Ms. Eidt was renting a room at a home in Kitchener. The father of Amelia, Chris Runstedler, had been living there as well until his arrest several days prior on drug related charges. Despite a long period of sobriety commencing with her pregnancy with Amelia, Ms. Eidt had recently relapsed into opiate drug use.

[2] During the evening of February 20, 2019, Ms. Eidt had put Amelia to bed then used what she believed to be fentanyl at approximately 2:00 a.m. Later analysis determined that the substance was, in fact, carfentanil. Ms. Eidt used drugs again at approximately 10:00 a.m. in the bathroom of the home then put the baggie with the remaining drugs in the zippered upper left chest pocket of her sweater before returning to the bedroom. When Ms. Eidt got into the bed, Amelia woke up. Ms. Eidt put on an Elmo movie on the television and got out a puzzle for Amelia to play with. Ms. Eidt fell asleep while Amelia was playing on the bed.

[3] When Ms. Eidt awoke, Amelia was laying on top of her: she was limp and her lips were blue but she was warm to the touch. Ms. Eidt noticed that the baggie of drugs was missing from her pocket and she observed the baggie on the bed. The baggie was wet and yellow in colour while the drugs inside of it were blue. Ms. Eidt started screaming hysterically for help which garnered the attention of others in the home and 911 was called at 12:02 p.m. Ms. Eidt started CPR on Amelia and continued until paramedics and police arrived.

[4] Upon police arrival, Ms. Eidt immediately took responsibility for her actions and explained to the police her suspicions that Amelia had ingested the fentanyl from her pocket. She repeatedly told police that she was not a victim and that she had killed her daughter.

[5] Amelia was transported to hospital where life saving measures were continued. Her right hand was stained by a blue substance. Tragically, Amelia was pronounced dead at hospital at 1:30 p.m. During a subsequent autopsy, Amelia was determined to be a healthy child and the pathologist could not determine a cause of death without the toxicology results. It was later determined that in her system Amelia had 8.4 nanograms/milliliter of carfentanil. The toxicologist reported that in fatalities attributed to carfentanil, postmortem blood concentrations ranged from 0.0233 to 0.5 nanograms/milliliter. Clearly, the carfentanil in Amelia's system far exceeded a lethal dose. In addition, Amelia had 1.6 ng/ml of fentanyl in her system and deaths attributed to fentanyl toxicity have been associated with blood concentrations of 3 ng/ml and greater.

[6] Upon further investigation of the room in which Ms. Eidt and Amelia had been residing, police discovered that there was no crib in the room. On the bed was located a small, yellow coloured baggie with a blue coloured substance within it. A baby soother was also located near the baggie. Also located on the bed were stuffed toys, books, a pink and black bag and a knife in a sheath. An unopened package of Narcan was situated on the top of a box in the space at the foot of the bed. The jacket worn by Ms. Eidt when Amelia ingested the carfentanil was found on the floor and was observed to have a zippered pocket at the front. A piece of tinfoil with apparent drug residue on it was found in the drink holder of a child safety seat located on the floor at the foot of the bed.

[7] A number of drug related items were also located within the room. Ms. Eidt's position was that those items belonged to Mr. Runstedler who was arrested days before for trafficking in narcotics. The Crown asserts that Ms. Eidt's position regarding ownership of those items cannot be disproved. The items located in the closet included prescribed methadone, glass pipes, a small torch, two scales with apparent drug residue and 3 pieces of tin foil cut into rectangles. A pink basket in the closet also contained syringes, alcohol wipes and foil.

[8] A locked safe was also found in the closet and was seized by police. A search warrant was issued and executed on the safe and its contents included bags of suspected crystal methamphetamine, a loaded syringe, a cellular telephone, keys, and drug packaging and paraphernalia.

[9] Ms. Eidt had most recently come to the attention of Family and Children's Services on January 25, 2019 when a family member made a referral through a physician as it was suspected that Ms. Eidt was using drugs. On January 31, 2019, Family and Children's Services ("F&CS") spoke to both Ms. Eidt and Mr. Runstedler and both denied that Ms. Eidt was using drugs. Further follow up attempts with Ms. Eidt became difficult as F&CS tried to schedule a home visit without response. On February 13, 2019, F&CS did an unscheduled visit at her last known residence and were advised that she had moved to an unknown location. Eventually, contact was made with Ms. Eidt and a home visit was, in fact, scheduled for February 21, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., but Ms. Eidt cancelled that visit by telephone message at 5:50 a.m. that same morning.

[10] This is an exceedingly difficult sentencing. Ms. Eidt has already suffered terribly with the knowledge that her actions led to the death of her beautiful, innocent daughter. She will, undoubtedly, live with that pain for the rest of her life. Ms. Eidt is a victim of the terrible opiate crisis that plagues our community as, despite recent and lengthy success with sobriety, she had relapsed into daily fentanyl use just weeks prior to this event. On the other hand, a beautiful innocent child of 20 months has lost her life due to the negligent actions of her mother who, despite knowing of supports in the community to whom she could turn, used carfentanil in her presence. The community is, no doubt, both shocked and horrified that this could occur, and the sentence imposed must reflect that reality.

Mitigating Factors

[11] There are a number of mitigating factors for the Court to consider as follows:

(1) Ms. Eidt entered a guilty plea at an early opportunity. While the offence occurred some time ago, it was her intention to do so from the inception of the matter. The prosecution of this matter would have involved significant Court resources.

(2) The background of Ms. Eidt is tragic. She was sexually abused by an uncle when she was 8 to 9 years old which led to behaviour that caused her to be frequently suspended from school and an introduction to alcohol and drug consumption. By age 12 she was in foster care and by age 14 she had started to use crack cocaine. At 16 years old, she began opiate use and became impregnated by a man 30 years her senior. She aborted that child which caused a severe psychological imbalance and thereafter she became fully addicted to both crystal methamphetamine and heroin. Her addiction led her to work in the sex trade industry, started her criminal record and caused her to contract hepatitis C.

(3) Ms. Eidt did pursue a path to overcoming her addiction after she met Mr. Runstedler and became pregnant with Amelia who was born on June 17, 2017. Ms. Eidt successfully battled her addiction for several years by starting the methadone program and herself contacting F&CS during her pregnancy and asking for assistance to ensure she stayed clean of drugs. Until January of 2019, Ms. Eidt successfully battled her addiction and stayed sober.

(4) Ms. Eidt is described by family members who provided victim impact statements as a caring and devoted mother to Amelia. Despite many challenges as a parent, until her drug use recommenced, she provided well for her daughter.

(5) Ms. Eidt was making very positive strides with her life in the months leading up to Amelia's death: she obtained her driver's licence, completed her high school education, opened bank accounts, worked part time and was studying at Conestoga College.

(6) Since the incident, Ms. Eidt has experienced extreme anxiety and depression leading to suicidal ideation and protective custody at the prison. She has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and has stayed free of drugs for the last 9 ½ months while incarcerated, a goal which she hopes to continue in the future.

(7) It is abundantly clear that Ms. Eidt is extremely remorseful and continues to suffer immense grief over Amelia's death. She was very emotional throughout the proceedings and provided a heartfelt apology to her family, the Court and her "beautiful angel". She reiterated her desire to continue to battle her addiction and to never stop fighting to ensure Amelia's death is not in vain.

(8) Ms. Eidt has the support in the community of her mother and the parents of Mr. Runstedler, all of whom were in Court for the sentencing hearing.

Aggravating Factors

(1) The most significant aggravating factor is that a beautiful, innocent child of 20 months has died. No sentence will bring Amelia back, but the sentence imposed must reflect that a young life has been lost in these tragic circumstances.

(2) A point of contention among counsel in this matter is the extent to which the nature of the drug which killed Amelia, carfentanil, is an aggravating factor. The Crown has provided the Court with numerous authorities, many of them local, which highlight the inherent dangerousness and lethality of fentanyl and, by analogy, it's much more potent and lethal cousin, carfentanil. When sentencing those who traffick that poison in our community, the nature of the substance is a significant aggravating factor that vastly increases the range of sentence. To some extent, Ms. Eidt herself is a victim of those traffickers to whom such significant sentences are given as she is one of many members of our community who have succumbed to the tragedy of the opioid crisis. The gravamen of the offence itself is that by her negligence in having that deadly substance in her pocket in proximity to her young daughter a life was lost. In my view, the inherent dangerousness of fentanyl and carfentanil increases Ms. Eidt's moral blameworthiness in respect of that offence and, to that extent, does present as an aggravating factor when considering the appropriate sentence.

(3) The impact on the victims in this matter is also, in my view, an aggravating factor. While quite obviously Ms. Eidt herself is a victim of her own actions, both her mother and Mr. Rundstedler's parents filed victim impact statements illustrating the immense grief they have experienced as a result of the loss of Amelia. Her grandparents all reflect on what a beautiful, caring and happy child she was. She brought much love and joy to all of their hearts and her loss in such tragic circumstances is simply devastating.

(4) Ms. Eidt has a prior criminal record for property offences, breaches and drug related convictions. She has served a sentence in the past of approximately 7 ½ months and the last entry on her record is from May 2016 which corresponds with the information about when she started to turn her life on a positive trajectory.

(5) Ms. Eidt's actions in respect of child welfare authorities also presents an aggravating circumstance. She knew that she could find assistance through F&CS as she had contacted them voluntarily when pregnant with Amelia to assist. She was untruthful with authorities about recommencing drug use and then failed to draw on the supports offered by cancelling a visit on the very day of Amelia's passing. Ms. Eidt's lack of candour with child welfare workers does aggravate her conduct as it removed a safety net that might well have saved Amelia.

(6) The circumstances under which Ms. Eidt was living also presents an aggravating factor. Clearly the environment of her home was unsuitable for a child: there was no crib, drug paraphernalia was scattered throughout the room including a tin foil wrapper in the child's car seat cup holder. The risk of danger to Amelia was heightened by the environment in which she was living, all of which was well known to, if not created by, Ms. Eidt.

Analysis

[12] Both counsel presented numerous cases to the Court to attempt to find some precedents for the appropriate range of sentence in this matter. It does not appear that there are any authorities which reflect parallel facts or circumstances, but the Court can glean some guidance from the cases provided.

[13] Ms. Salih, on behalf of Ms. Eidt, suggested that the cases are divided into different categories and ranges depending upon the nature of the conduct and her approach is borne out in the cases relied on by both counsel.

[14] At the low end of the sentencing range, are cases where the Court has imposed no jail or a sentence of several months. The conduct at issue in those matters involves a momentary lapse of attention resulting in the death of a child. An example of that is the decision in Regina v. Matthews, [1998] O.J. No. 626 (C.A.), where the accused was convicted after trial after leaving a child alone in a bathtub for 2 ½ minutes resulting in a drowning death. The sentence imposed at trial of 60 days intermittent was varied on appeal to a 4 month conditional sentence.

[15] The next category of offences falls into the range of a mid-reformatory to low end penitentiary sentence. The conduct involves a discrete negligent act resulting in death, but the negligence arises from an ongoing issue that the accused is aware of but fails to take the necessary precautions. The authorities that fall into this range include Regina v. Condon, 2007 BCSC 1334, wherein the addiction of the accused was known to cause seizures and she was told not to drive if using drugs. The accused ignored this advice and had a seizure while driving after use causing the death of one person and bodily harm to two others. The Court imposed a sentence of 2 years less a day to be served in the community. The Court did opine at paragraph 8 that "there are cases of clear and immediate endangerment that would generally attract heavier sentences: these include street racing or firearms types of offences. This is a case of intermittent type of risk, of a deadly result, from what otherwise would have been a normal activity".

[16] In Regina v. Hariczuk, [1999] O.J. No. 3110 (C.J.), the accused had a longstanding addiction for which he was on the methadone program. He kept the methadone in the fridge and told his son not to take anything out of the fridge. Tragically, the son drank the mixture during the night and died. The accused had a lengthy record and acquired additional convictions while awaiting sentence. Despite the Crown's position for a sentence of 4 to 6 years, the Court imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.

[17] Regina v. Holding, 2000 BCCA 425, involved a man who suffered from epilepsy and knew he shouldn't drive. He drove despite the warnings and got into an accident where his 2 year old son was killed. The Court of Appeal substituted a 9 month conditional sentence for the 2 years jail imposed by the trial judge.

[18] In Regina v. Panfilova, [2017] ONCJ 326, a child died of heat stroke when the daycare provider left her in a vehicle unattended in a car seat. The facility had been investigated for being run in excess of the legal number of children and the provider had installed cameras to observe who was attending the home to avoid detection. The accused took some steps to cover up the death including bringing the child inside and removing evidence. In imposing 22 months custody, the Court opined that leaving the child in the car was a discrete negligent act but it arose from ongoing circumstances of which the accused was aware.

[19] Finally, in this category is Regina v. Pauchay, [2009] S.J. No. 128 (P.C.), where the accused was a long standing alcoholic and he left his two young children outside in temperatures of extreme cold where they died of exposure. He had a significant record and Gladue factors were considered by the Court. The Court imposed 3 years custody while recognizing that the actions of the accused were not a momentary lapse of judgement as he drank himself to a state where he could not care for his children.

[20] The next category of offences as submitted by the defence from the cases provided are those where ongoing prolonged neglect of a child leads to death resulting in the imposition of a penitentiary sentence in the low single digits. Those cases include Regina v. Lovett, [2017] A.J. No. 1234 (Q.B.), where a child died of infection after two weeks of medical inattention and significant suffering resulting in a 3 year sentence. The Court opined that the misguided views and treatment choices of the mother were a form of abuse and her actions resulted in a sentence reflective of the higher end of moral culpability. In Regina v. McDonald, [2013] S.J. No. 193 (C.A.), a child died of an untreated skin infection but also had untreated rib fractures and numerous bruises. The Court of Appeal varied the sentence of 2 years less a day to 3 years jail which was the maximum sentence requested by the Crown: the Court of Appeal noted it might have gone higher. The facts substantiated that the child had suffered a lingering death from a prolonged lack of care.

[21] In Regina v. DaSilva, [2005] O.J. No. 5314 (C.A.), a child was abandoned for 4 days without food or water and died of dehydration while the mother went dancing and pursued a love interest. The Court accepted that the conduct was serious neglect but that the mother was not aware that it would cause the child's death nor was there evidence of prolonged abuse or physical assaults. The Court of Appeal considered the 3 years imposed on those facts to be at the bottom end of an appropriate range.

[22] In Regina v. Simons, [2018] A.J. No. 598 (P.C.), a caregiver left a child in a closet in a car seat for 5 hours while she went shopping. The child was asphyxiated by the harness after sliding down in the seat. The accused concealed the circumstances of death for several months and was sentenced to 3 ½ years in custody.

[23] The last category of conduct leading to the highest sentences in these types of cases involves deliberate misconduct where the child dies often through violence. Where parents have deliberately shaken a child resulting in death, sentences have been imposed in the range of 5 years [Regina v. Calahoo, [2019] A.J. No. 57 (Q.B.)] to 8 years [Regina v. Summers, [2011] O.J. No. 6377 (S.C.J.)]. In Regina v. Siconolfi, [2015] O.J. No. 6650 (C.A.), the accused had beaten the child for several days causing a weakened condition and the child died of heat stroke. The sentence imposed of 6 years in jail was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Finally, in Regina v. Alexander, 2014 ONCA 22, a child suffered burns to 40% of her body accidentally but her mother chose not to get medical assistance to avoid being accused of inflicting the injuries. The Court held that the mother knew of the injuries and took a risk that the child would die to escape culpability. The accused lacked remorse and insight and an 11 year sentence was upheld.

[24] The defence position is that Ms. Eidt's conduct falls into the second category of cases reviewed, that is a discrete negligent act resulting in death but arising from an ongoing issue of which the accused is aware but fails to take steps to rectify. On this basis, Ms. Salih submits that the appropriate range of sentence is 12 to 18 months in custody. Ms. Eidt has served 294 days of pretrial custody which, when enhanced using the standard calculation, would be 441 days, or one year and 76 days. The Crown's position is that, when considering the aggravating factors and emphasizing the principles of deterrence and denunciation, the appropriate sentence is in the range of 5 to 7 years less Ms. Eidt's pre-trial custody.

[25] In considering the applicable sentencing principles in this matter, there must be some emphasis on general deterrence and denunciation. While the facts in Alexander, supra, involved more egregious conduct in that the mother of the child failed to seek medical attention taking the risk that the child might die, the Ontario Court of Appeal did comment on the applicable sentencing principles when considering criminal negligence in the death of a child as follows at paragraph 26:

The sentencing judge held that denunciation and deterrence were the main considerations on sentencing in this case. She did not err in doing so. As the sentencing judge observed, the circumstances of this crime and this offender cried out for denunciation and deterrence rather than rehabilitation. Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code places primacy on denunciation and deterrence on sentencing for an offence that involves the abuse of a minor and ss. 718.2 (a)(ii.1) and (iii) of the Code provide that an offender's abuse of a minor or of a position of trust or authority in relation to a victim, as occurred here, are aggravating factors on sentencing.

[26] In the case of Ms. Eidt, there is no evidence of any prolonged physical abuse of Amelia, nor was that the case in Alexander. However, it is inarguable, in my view, that Ms. Eidt's use of a deadly drug such as carfentanil in the presence of her child and then leaving the drug within reach of her child as occurred here is evidence of abuse of that child thereby engaging the sentencing principles as set out above. The fact of Amelia's death in the circumstances under which it occurred undoubtedly has shocked members of our community and cries out for the Court to consider with some prominence the factors of general deterrence and denunciation. I consider that specific deterrence is not particularly apt given that Amelia's death itself has achieved that goal: Ms. Eidt will likely regret the consequences of her actions and mourn her daughter's death every day of her life.

[27] The sentencing principle of rehabilitation is one that must also be considered. Clearly Ms. Eidt's drug addiction is directly linked to the commission of this offence. She has the tools to battle that addiction as demonstrated by her considerable period of sobriety before this event took place. In her words to the Court, it is clear that Ms. Eidt intends to continue her battle with addiction and considers her success on that journey to be a marker that Amelia's death will not be in vain. Ms. Eidt is also a youthful offender with much support in the community, thus the principle of restraint must also be a factor in the sentence imposed.

[28] In considering the case law provided, there is no single case where the facts approach much similarity with the facts before this Court. The analysis of the law as submitted by Ms. Salih does demonstrate some consistency in approach depending upon the form of negligence, level of moral culpability and past conduct of the offender. Clearly, Ms. Eidt's actions were not the product of a momentary lapse of attention as indicated at the lowest range of the case law. Ms. Salih submits that Ms. Eidt's conduct falls within the second category of case law representing a discrete negligent act resulting in death, but the negligence arises from an ongoing issue that the accused is aware of but fails to take the necessary precautions. Generally speaking, the cases submitted to this Court that fall within that category have attracted sentences in the range of 9 months to 3 years in jail, in many cases with a conditional sentence being imposed.

[29] I find instructive the comment by the British Columbia Supreme Court in Condon, supra that "cases of clear and immediate endangerment…generally attract heavier sentences". The Court referenced activities such as street racing or firearms types of offences in contrast to the facts in that case of a driving offence which represented a deadly result from an otherwise normal activity.

[30] The defence seeks to distinguish Ms. Eidt's case from the next series of cases on the spectrum that tend to represent ongoing prolonged neglect of a child leading to death. It is submitted that to attract a sentence above the reformatory level, the conduct must demonstrate that the child was abused or neglected for a period of time, such as by failing to obtain medical treatment or leaving the child unattended for lengthy periods of time. In cases attracting the higher end of the range, such as that proposed by the Crown, the defence submits that the conduct as reflected in the case law requires deliberate misconduct, often involving violence, which led to the death of the child.

[31] In my view, Ms. Salih has effectively placed the case law along a continuum that permits some meaningful analysis by the Court. However, I disagree to some extent with how she places the conduct and underlying facts involving Ms. Eidt's situation within that continuum. I agree that Ms. Eidt's conduct was not the product of deliberate misconduct or violent actions causing the death of Amelia. However, I also disagree that the facts fit necessarily within the category of a discrete negligent act resulting in death but the result of an ongoing issue of which the accused knew but failed to take precautions. Ms. Eidt was living in a room with no crib and with drugs present throughout the room including some residue in tinfoil in the cup holder of Amelia's car seat. Ms. Eidt had been using drugs daily for a number of weeks. The drug of choice for Ms. Eidt was a powerful opiate, fentanyl, and she was actually in possession of the most powerful and deadly of that category of drugs, carfentanil. In these circumstances, and in this living environment, Ms. Eidt chose to care alone for Amelia despite the support she had in the community from Amelia's grandparents and Family and Children's Services, an agency that she had voluntarily engaged in the past to ensure her successful parenting. Quite plainly, that factual matrix represented an environment of abuse that was simply ripe for disaster. To add to that mix, on the date of Amelia's death, Ms. Eidt chose to use the powerful opiate in her possession twice, once at 2:00 a.m. while Amelia slept and once at 10:00 a.m. Knowing Amelia was awake and unattended, Ms. Eidt fell asleep with the deadly poison in her pocket, accessible to Amelia whom she knew to enjoy playing with zippers. The tragic outcome of that factual background ended the life of a joyful, innocent child.

[32] In my view, while Amelia was not physically abused by Ms. Eidt for a period of time which appears to represent the facts in a number of cases provided to the Court, the circumstances outlined above under which Ms. Eidt was caring for Amelia represented a situation of neglect fraught with intolerable risk culminating in the tragic circumstance of Amelia's death. This was a case of "clear and immediate endangerment" as recognized in Condon, supra, as attracting sentences in a higher range than simply a deadly result from an otherwise normal activity. The nature of the opiate in Ms. Eidt's possession, and which she was knowingly using repeatedly while being the sole caregiver for Amelia, represents a feature of this case that significantly increases her moral culpability and the appropriate sentence.

[33] In a case such as this with unique factual underpinnings, there is no established range of sentence. On this issue, I find instructive the following comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paragraph 58:

There will always be situations that call for a sentence outside a particular range: although ensuring parity in sentencing is in itself a desirable objective, the fact that each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile cannot be disregarded. The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision. This is why it may happen that a sentence that, on its face, falls outside a particular range, and that may never have been imposed in the past for a similar crime, is not demonstrably unfit. Once again, everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the specific circumstances of each case. LeBel J. commented as follows on this subject:

A judge can order a sentence outside that range as long as it is in accordance with the principles and objectives of sentencing. Thus, a sentence falling outside the regular range of appropriate sentences is not necessarily unfit. Regard must be had to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and to the needs of the community in which the offence occurred. ( Nasogaluak , at para. 44)

[34] In my view, the appropriate sentence in this matter, to reflect the aggravating features and recognize that an innocent child died in circumstances of negligence involving a deadly narcotic, is one of 4 years in custody less the pre-sentence custody that Ms. Eidt has already served. As outlined above, I have given consideration to the principles of rehabilitation and restraint, and I have considered the case law provided. However, in my view this situation is entirely unique and no case provided definitively assists the Court with the sentence to be imposed. Our community is in the midst of an opiate crisis, and in many ways, through her addiction Ms. Eidt is a victim of that crisis. However, the situation of risk and ultimate harm that Ms. Eidt created for her innocent child require that denunciation and general deterrence be emphasized to some degree and I consider that a sentence of 4 years achieves all sentencing objectives.

[35] Accordingly, the information will reflect the pre-sentence custody of 294 days enhanced to 441 days. The remainder of the sentence to be served is therefore 1,019 days or 2 years and 289 days.

[36] In addition to the sentence, there will be an order under section 109 which prohibits Ms. Eidt from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm and any cross bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years and any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life. The offence is a secondary designated offence under the DNA legislation thus a DNA Order will issue which authorizes the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

Released: December 11, 2019

Signed: Justice M. A. Sopinka