ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-01-14
COURT FILE No.: 22-50003958
Toronto Region
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Jameel VANDERHYDEN-STEAMAN
Before Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria
Heard on July 26, 2023 and December 13, 2024
Reasons for Sentence released on January 14, 2025
Daniel DeSantis — counsel for the Crown
Robert Chartier — counsel for the accused Jameel VANDERHYDEN-STEAMAN
Faria, J.:
[1] Jameel Vanderhyden-Steaman pled guilty on July 26, 2023, before me, to having been in possession of an unloaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition on September 2, 2022, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.
[2] Sentencing was adjourned for an Impact of Race and Culture Report (IRCR), also known as a Morris R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 Report to be prepared. Though there was a delay in applying for the Report, by February 2023 there was still no author assigned to the task.
[3] As a result, an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (an EPSR) was ordered instead, that addressed the role of race in the offender’s life written by a probation officer. This report was received in April 2024. As a result of scheduling difficulties, submissions were not heard until December 13, 2024, on which date I reserved my decision.
[4] These are my reasons for sentence.
I. Facts
[5] On the 2nd day of September 2022, Police Constable Caringi and Police Constable Chimiski of the Toronto OPP were conducting general patrol northbound on Weston Road at Finch Avenue in the City of Toronto.
[6] PC Caringi observed a blue Honda Civic at the Weston Road and Finch Avenue intersection. He ran a CPIC query of the Honda and learned that one of the two registered owners had an outstanding warrant.
[7] The Officer followed the Honda Civic and saw it go through a red-light at Finch Avenue and Arrow Road and then merge onto Highway 400. He ran a licence plate check to confirm the CPIC return and then stopped the Honda on Highway 400 northbound to investigate.
[8] Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman identified himself with his driver’s licence and the officers arrested him as the wanted male at 3:37 a.m.
[9] At this time, Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman told the officers he had a firearm in the back of the vehicle. The officers saw a black bag on the floor behind the front passenger seat. Inside the bag was a clear plastic bag with 7 red coloured 12-gauge shotgun ammunition, and a Cooey, sawed-off shotgun. Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman was then arrested for possession of a prohibited firearm.
II. Circumstances of Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman
[10] Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman who was 24 years old at the time of the offence is now a 26-year-old man who works as a forklift associate and lives with his mother, his grandmother, and his older brother in Alliston Ontario. He has a long-term girlfriend of over 7 years.
[11] Pursuant to his Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) [Exhibit 1: Pre-Sentence Report, Jameel Vanderhyden-Steaman, April 9, 2024], Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman did not complete high school. He was diagnosed as a child with mild Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) and prescribed medication according to his mother, though he does not recall taking medication. He did not receive any supports to enable him to succeed academically, failed most of his grade 9 classes and was unable to catch up. He eventually left school in grade 11. He recalls being suspended for fighting about 5 times. He witnessed racism but stated he did not personally feel he experienced it while in school.
[12] He is good with his hands; his mother described him as handy with a good work ethic and has always worked, even at jobs he did not like. He has done warehouse jobs, road maintenance, general labour, and mechanics apprenticeships. He has been working as a forklift driver for a major automotive manufacturer for over 3 years. [Exhibit 3: Letter dated May 28, 2024, Simcoe Parts Service Inc.] He feels he has not experienced racism in his work life.
[13] He has no medical issues, nor difficulty with alcohol, though he smokes cannabis 3 times a day which he finds assists with his ADHD.
[14] He has always lived with his mother. He is close to her, close to his grandmother and his older brother.
[15] His father was involved in the criminal justice system, and erratically involved in his life until he was 6 years old. His father was then deported to his country of origin. Though he has spoken to his father since, he has no relationship with him. Unfortunately, this left Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman with no male role models, other than basketball players and musicians, as he explained to the author of the EPSR. This left him vulnerable to the pull of peers who demanded loyalty as the cultural expectation of the neighbourhood. This placed him in precarious positions.
[16] It was in this environment that Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman disclosed to the EPSR author that he experienced racism. From the age of 6 to 19, he lived at Dufferin and Eglington which he named as a “red flag” community with a high crime rate. There, he witnessed violence and a consistent police presence “along with stereotyping and discrimination”. He recalled being stopped by police between the ages of 14 and 17 while on his way home from school and felt interrogated. He believes he was racially targeted. He recalls being followed by police and found it frightening. He was around firearms incidents and recalls running for cover which made him feel “paranoid in public and crowded places.”
[17] It was this “paranoia” and fear of gun violence which, ironically, he explains is the reason he possessed the very weapon that caused his fear.
[18] Fortunately, Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s grandmother moved to Alliston and the family moved with her. He finds this suburban environment to be a more positive one for him.
III. Positions of the Parties
[19] The Crown submits the appropriate sentence is one of 3 years in the penitentiary minus PSC which in this case is 14 days enhanced to 21 days as Summers R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 credit. He recommends several ancillary orders and the forfeiture of the seized firearm and ammunition.
[20] The Crown submits the guiding principles are denunciation and deterrence. He emphasizes the aggravating factors and the evils associated with the possession of firearms in Toronto which courts have repeatedly decided warrant significant penal sanctions. In his submission, his position already accounts for consideration of the EPSR Morris factors and the strict conditions of his release pursuant to Downes R. v. Downes, 2006 ONCA 3957.
[21] The Defence submits this is an appropriate sentence for a conditional sentence. He argues the principles of denunciation and deterrence are reduced by virtue of Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s personal circumstances, the circumstances of his arrest, his rehabilitation efforts. He emphasizes the more numerous mitigating factors and that the impact of a conditional sentence on Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman would be denunciatory and specifically deter him. He takes no issue with the ancillary orders recommended by the Crown.
IV. Legal Principles
[22] Sentencing is meant to reflect and reinforce the basic values of our society. Accordingly, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing just sanctions.
[23] The sanction that the court imposes should have one or more of the following objectives (s. 718):
- to denounce unlawful conduct
- to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences
- to separate offenders from society, where necessary
- to assist in rehabilitating offenders
- to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community
- to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[24] The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender (s. 718.1).
[25] In addition, the codified principles of parity (s. 718.2(b)), that an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate in the circumstances (s. 718.2(d)), and all applicable aggravating and mitigating factors must be considered (s. 718.2(a)).
V. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
i. Aggravating
[26] I must consider two serious aggravating factors:
i. Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman was in possession of the firearm and the ammunition in a motor vehicle while on a public roadway in Toronto.
ii. Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman was wanted by the police. He had not surrendered to police in regard to that other matter.
ii. Mitigating
[27] There are many more mitigating factors to consider, and they are as follows:
i. Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman pled guilty. His plea demonstrates remorse and accountability. His intention to plead was made clear to the court early via a Judicial Pre-Trial and preparation for trial was never commenced. He was particularly transparent about taking responsibility at his allocution. He apologized, referenced his mother and grandmother, the way he was raised, and his intention to teach the children he hopes to have to follow the law. His plea also saved resources at a time they are limited, and obviated witnesses from having to come to court to testify and be taken from their other public service duties protecting the public.
ii. He forewent triable issues, particularly a s. 9 Charter challenge as to whether racial profiling was at play in his detention.
iii. He was 24 at the time of the offence, and 26 years old now. He is still a youthful offender.
iv. He has no criminal record. This is significant given he grew up in an area where temptation to becoming involved in criminal conduct was likely frequent.
v. He has a solid employment history and is currently well employed. He is committed to productivity, even when the work was unpleasant as his mother noted. He has been able to use his skills and jobs, rather than lament his limited education with laziness. His work ethic is commendable.
vi. He has significant family support. His mother, his grandmother, and his girlfriend were present in court, and they provide him with positive role models and an environment conducive to success.
[28] These factors all bode well for Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s rehabilitative potential.
iii. Downes Consideration
[29] Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman has been on release since September 15, 2022, a period of 2 years and 4 months. He filed an affidavit [Exhibit 2: Affidavit Jameel Vanderhyden-Steaman, November 24, 2024] describing his life while he was on house arrest for 10 months from September 15, 2022 to July 26, 2023.
[30] The only exceptions to his house arrest were to attend his employment and while he was in the direct presence of his surety. His shift work which changed every two weeks was either from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or from 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. He was offered over-time on many occasions, either to come early, or to stay late. However, as he needed his surety to take him to work, and they were not prepared to leave at 4:00 or 5:00 a.m., nor pick him up at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. he experienced financial loss.
[31] Prior to the house arrest, Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman deposed he worked out regularly at a gym and played recreational basketball. He was not permitted to do either during his house arrest which negatively affected his physical health, and his mental well-being.
[32] His long-term girlfriend lives in Toronto and does not drive. He deposed seeing her was dependant on her ability to get a ride to Alliston which was not often. When he did see her, he could not go out with her. This strained their relationship.
[33] Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s bail conditions were varied to a 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. curfew except for employment in July 2023. He was honest that this curfew was difficult but paled in comparison to his house arrest.
[34] The impact of the 10 months Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman spent on house arrest had a significant and pervasive impact on him financially, physically, mentally, and on his personal relationship therefore warrants reduction of sentence consideration.
iv. Morris Consideration
[35] I must also consider the fact Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman is a young Black man who grew up in Toronto.
[36] It is concerning Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman was unable to obtain an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA) Report by The Sentencing and Parole Project (SPP), the experts in this field. The wait time for the Report was just too long.
[37] Though the EPSR author, Vermont Gilkes, did a commendable job in his attempt to explore, identify and document Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s experience of racism and its role in his offending, he did not have access to the research and expertise required to relate Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s experience to the reality and impact of anti-Black racism on him. Research and expertise SPP has.
[38] The absence of the specialized training and knowledge, research, and expertise of an IRCA Report, in this case, left the court with gaps. For instance, although Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman spoke of being diagnosed with ADHD, he did not seem to have an Independent Education Plan (IEP) that would have assisted him at school. There is research that provides context to systemic educational limitations experienced by Black students which would provide context to his academic record, context the SPP would likely have provided.
[39] Although Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman said he was expelled numerous times from school and did not think race was an issue, there were no statistics provided which document the systemic differing discipline sanctions between Black students and other students in educational institutions in Toronto for similar conduct. Again, context the SPP would likely have provided.
[40] The point is that IRCA Reports are a critically important tool to courts in the determination of a fit sentence of Black individuals in Toronto for whom anti-Black racism may have played a role in their offending. I take judicial notice of anti-Black racism in Toronto, but that is not quite sufficient when an IRCA Report would have provided more substantial context to Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s personal experience. Long wait times and lack of SPP funding, what appear to be the impediments to the obtaining of an IRCA Report in this case is a worrisome circumstance.
[41] Turning to what is known, Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman disclosed having been questioned by police when walking home from school as an adolescent because he is Black and lived in a neighbourhood with considerable police focus. His mother confirmed his perception that there were “racist undertones” to the manner he was stopped and questioned, making him fearful of getting off the school bus.
[42] The violence in his community, and his experience as a “target” for racial reasons contributed to his perception of vulnerability. In addition, there is a well-documented history of racial profiling by the Toronto Police Service.
[43] Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman chose not to pursue the issue of racial profiling via a s. 9 Charter challenge. He could have challenged whether the officers involved in this case make vehicular inquiries of every vehicle stopped at an intersection, or just blue Hondas, at every intersection, or just those in some neighbourhoods. Notably Weston Road and Finch is a well-known location of both police focus and a large, racialized community.
[44] Although seriously misguided, Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s decision to possess a firearm was impacted by the anti-Black racism in the community he grew up in and played a role in his offending conduct.
[45] This does not diminish the gravity of the offence, but it is a mitigating factor and somewhat attenuates his moral culpability.
VI. Analysis
[46] “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” stated the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 58. Such is the case in every sentencing, and it is no different here.
[47] Firearms are a social evil. They are manufactured for one purpose: to kill. In an urban setting, on a public roadway, while driving a vehicle, the possession of a firearm is a decision to be part of gun violence and gun culture that causes carnage and devastation to countless families and undermines the core of our communal sense of safety.
[48] The Supreme Court of Canada, and every level of court has repeatedly stated that denunciation and deterrence are the primary guiding principles in cases of possessing firearms with ammunition. “Gun-related crime poses grave danger to Canadians”, R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15 at para 1.
[49] Justice Doherty specifically stated at para. 206:
“[i]ndividuals who have loaded restricted or prohibited firearms that they have no business possessing anywhere or at any time, and who are engaged in criminal conduct or conduct that poses a danger to others should continue to receive exemplary sentences that will emphasize deterrence and denunciation.”
and McLachlin C.J. underscored, at para. 120 that:
“[i]t remains appropriate for judges to continue to impose weighty sentences" in appropriate circumstances.”
[50] Usually, anything less than a penitentiary sentence fails to meet the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation.
[51] The Crown relies on R. v. Kabanga-Muanza, 2019 ONSC 1161, R. v. Kawal, 2018 ONSC 7531, R. v. Mohiadin, 2021 ONCA 122, R. v. St. Clair, 2018 ONSC 7028, R. v. Thavakularatnam, 2018 ONSC 2380 and R. v. Mahamet-Zene, 2018 ONSC 1050 to support his position that Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman must be sentenced to a penitentiary sentence, and that it be for 3 years as he recommends.
[52] Granted each of these offenders was also young (but for Mr. St. Clair), racialized, and from compromised backgrounds, they also possessed a loaded firearm in far different circumstances than those before me.
[53] Mr. Kabanga-Muanza, Mr. Kawal, Mr. St. Clair, and Mr. Mahamet-Zene all went to trial. All but for Mr. Thavakaluratnam and Mr. Mahamet-Zene had criminal records. All these offenders were involved in altercations, or the firearm was discharged, the firearm was on their person or close by and loaded, ready to fire.
[54] The distinguishing features between these offenders and Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman are the actual circumstances of the offence. For instance:
i. The firearm was not on Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s person, nor in a satchel on his body.
ii. Though it was in the vehicle in public, it was not easily accessible to him in the driver’s seat as it was behind him, in a bag, on the floor.
iii. Though the ammunition was in a clear bag with the firearm, the firearm was not actually loaded.
iv. There were no other circumstances of criminality associated with the possession of the firearm such as brandishing it, pointing it, discharging it, drugs, or drug paraphernalia.
v. There was no altercation with anyone, and no one was in the vicinity at the time of its seizure from the back seat of the vehicle.
vi. The actual firearm itself was a sawed off-shot gun not a semi-automatic or automatic handgun.
[55] Finally, it is noteworthy, that upon arrest for something unrelated, Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman was co-operative and made an immediate inculpatory statement. He voluntarily informed the police that he was in possession of the rifle and informed them of where it was. This frankness is unusual in these circumstances.
[56] These features, in their totality merit consideration that Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman is not at the “true crime” end of the gun possession spectrum requiring an exemplary sentence.
[57] Possession of a firearm with ammunition is a grave offence no matter the circumstances, but not all circumstances are the same. Denunciation and deterrence are the guiding principles but are not the only applicable principles.
[58] Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s specific circumstances and those of the offence merit consideration of the Defence position that a conditional sentence may be appropriate in this case.
[59] The Defence provided 19 cases [R. v. Desmund-Robinson, 2022 ONCA 369; R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680; R. v. Gill, 2024 ONSC 3194; R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2024 ONSC 2906; R. v. Stewart, 2024 ONSC 281; R. v. Osman, 2024 O.J. No. 735; R. v. Marier, 2023 ONSC 5194; R. v. Yogo, 2023 ONSC 4144; R. v. Edwards, 2023 ONCJ 53; R. v. Roberts, 2023 ONCJ 226; R. v. Gurley, 2023 SCJ; R. v. Stewart, 2022 ONSC 6997; R. v. Lewis, 2022 ONSC 1260; R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4370; R. v. Jeffery, 2022 ONSC 3628; R. v. Moses, 2022 ONSC 332; R. v. McLarty-Mathieu, 2022 ONCJ 498; R. v. Goodridge, 2022 ONCJ 139] decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal, or the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, or the Ontario Court of Justice, after the Supreme Court of Canada’s Nur 2015 SCC 15 decision, that either sentenced an offender to a conditional sentence for a s.95 offence or stated that such a sentence is available for a gun possession offence.
[60] The Ontario Court of Appeal made clear in Desmund-Robinson 2022 ONCA 369 that conditional sentences “may well be appropriate” in gun offence cases. It went on to find a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day for a first time, young offender with strong demonstrated rehabilitation prospects to be a fit sentence.
[61] I reviewed all the Defence cases but will not refer to them all. In numerous cases, similar offenders who committed a similar offence in a similar circumstance received a conditional sentence, even after trial.
[62] Of note, is that several offenders whose circumstances were more aggravating than those in the case at bar were still sentenced to a conditional sentence. To name a few:
- Mr. Beharry R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4370 was convicted after trial of possessing a loaded handgun in his fanny pack in the back seat of the car. He was 32 years old.
- Mr. Lewis R. v. Lewis, 2022 ONSC 1260 was also in possession of cocaine at the time he was in possession of his firearm.
- Mr. Collins R. v. Collins, 2023 ONSC 5768 was also in contravention of a prohibition order, possessed the proceeds of crime, and trafficked drugs but had made great steps towards rehabilitation when he was sentenced to a conditional sentence for his possession of a loaded firearm.
- Mr. Gill R. v. Gill, 2024 ONSC 3194 flushed cocaine down the kitchen sink when police entered the premises before a loaded Glock that he jointly possessed with a co-accused was located.
- Mr. Burke-Whittaker R. v. Burke-Whittaker, 2024 ONSC 2906 fired a shot in the general direction of an unknown vehicle that had opened fire outside a funeral.
- Mr. Stewart R. v. Stewart, 2022 ONSC 6997 was in possession of an over-capacity magazine.
[63] In each case, the jurist found there were circumstances about the offender that enabled a conditional sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
[64] Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code provides for a conditional sentence if 5 prerequisites are met:
i. There is no minimum term of imprisonment.
ii. The offence is not one of the enumerated excluded offences.
iii. The court is satisfied the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.
iv. The court imposes a sentence of less than two years.
v. The conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
[65] As noted earlier, a conditional sentence is available for a s.95(1) offence as there is no minimum term of imprisonment, and it is not an excluded offence.
[66] As Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman has no criminal record, abided by his strict house arrest conditions, and his curfew during the entirety of his Release with no issues, has long term employment, a supportive family, and the EPSR provided no history of violence, or risk of dangerousness, I am satisfied that if Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman were to serve a sentence in the community he would not endanger that community.
[67] The issue is whether in this case, a sentence of less than 2 years is appropriate, and if it is, whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose of sentencing and appropriate pursuant to the two-stage analysis in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5.
[68] First, I exclude a probationary term as an obviously inappropriate sanction in this case. Second, given the specific circumstances of both the offence and the numerous mitigating factors, particularly Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s youthfulness, lack of a criminal record, Downes experience during the house arrest portion of his release, and the Morris factors of in his environment, and his rehabilitation efforts, I find a penitentiary sentence is not required in this case.
[69] Turning to whether a conditional sentence is consistent to the fundamental principles of sentencing, although I recognize the Crown’s concern that the dilution of sanctions for firearms offences could contribute to the further proliferation of these gun possession offences, I also agree with Counsel that there is a spectrum to everything, even the possession of a firearm with ammunition in a vehicle in Toronto.
[70] For this reason, it is trite to repeat that sentencing is an art and not a formulaic calculation. It is one of the more demanding tasks of a jurist, and one that attempts to ultimately balance principles, factors, and the reality of the unique human being before the court.
[71] In this case, this sentence must reflect the guiding principles of denunciation and deterrence, but also the principles of parity and restraint.
[72] I have listed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and on balance, in this case, Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman’s industriousness, family support, growing maturity, and the fact he moved away from the environment that contributed to his perceptions and paranoia demonstrate strong rehabilitation efforts and potential. His offence was committed in isolation rather than in conjunction with other criminality. I therefore find that a conditional sentence is consistent with all the principles of sentencing in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
Sentence
[73] Mr. Vanderhyden-Steaman, I sentence you to 2 years less a day, minus 14 days enhanced to 21 days PSC to be served in the community as a Conditional Sentence under house arrest, for which the terms, after submissions, will be appended to these reasons after submissions.
[74] I also order that you be on probation order for a period of 2 years. The terms, after submissions, will also be appended to my reasons.
[75] You will also:
(1) Provide a sample of your DNA today pursuant to s.487.04(a)
(2) Be prohibited from possessing weapons for life pursuant to s. 109.
(3) Pay the $200 victim fine surcharge within 6 months.
(4) Forfeit the seized items pursuant to s.490(1).
[76] I thank both counsel for their helpful submissions.
Released: January 14, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
APPENDIX A: Jameel Vanderhyden-Steaman
Conditional Sentence Order Terms
You are sentenced to a 2 year less a day minus 21 days Conditional Sentence Order [365 days x 2 = 730 days – 1 day = 729 days. 729 days – (14d x 1.5 = 21days) = 708 days to serve]. The terms are that you will:
i. Report within 24 hours of this Order in person or by telephone to a Conditional Sentence Supervisor (CSS) and thereafter as directed by your CSS.
ii. You will co-operate with your CSS and sign all releases to permit your CSS to monitor your compliance with all terms of this CSO.
iii. You will reside with your mother at her residence in Alliston Ontario.
iv. You will remain in Ontario during the period of your CSO.
v. You will remain on the property of your residence during the duration of your CSO except:
a. From 12 noon to 5 pm on Saturday and Sunday for the necessaries of life.
b. When travelling directly to, from and while you:
i. Are at your place of employment. (Employment confirmed by CSS)
ii. Are at pre-scheduled medical, counselling, dental, legal, court, and religious commitments.
iii. Are at a gym, or recreational centre for physical activity purposes.
iv. Are in the direct presence of your mother Natalie Vanderhyden, your grandmother Beverley Steaman, or your girlfriend Lache Beard.
v. Have the prior written approval of your CSS on your person.
vi. You will possess no weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.
Probation Order Terms
You will serve a 2 year Probation Order. In addition to the statutory terms, you will:
i. Report within 48 hours of the completion of your Conditional Sentence Order to your Probation Officer and thereafter as required by your Probation Officer.
ii. Possess no weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.