R v Woods, 2019 NWTSC 16	S-1-CR-2017-000119

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

- v -

TRACEY BEATRICE WOODS
_________________________________________________________ Transcript of the Sentencing Hearing held before The Honourable Justice A.M. Mahar, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 25th day of March, 2019.
_________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

Mr. D. Praught:	Counsel for the Crown
Mr. T. Bock:	Counsel for the Accused

(Charges under s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act)

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO.	DEFINITION	PAGE	
1	PRESENTENCE REPORT	7	

THE COURT:	I have -- I have reviewed the
presentence report and the materials that are
filed on your behalf, Ms. Woods.	I would ask
that the Crown perhaps read in the agreed facts
again just so that we can have a transcript that
more accurately reflects today's proceedings, the
entirety.	Thank you.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Your Honour, the following
facts are agreed as proven without the necessity
of calling further evidence.
Tracey Beatrice Woods, the accused, was born
12	November 18th, 1972.	Between March 9th and 17,
2017, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
K Division Federal Investigation Unit conducted a
drug trafficking investigation in Yellowknife,
Northwest Territories called Project Glacier.
Project Glacier focussed primarily on suspected
dial-a-dope phone numbers.	A dial-a-dope phone
is simply a phone that receives calls from drug
users to purchase drugs.	When a call comes in,
the operator arranges a meeting place with the
caller, meets them at the chosen location, and
sells them drugs.
On March 13th, 2017, at 4:54 p.m., an
undercover officer, UC, called one of the
suspected dial-a-dope numbers, 445-2612, to
purchase cocaine.	The call went to voicemail.

At 5:41 p.m., the accused called the UC back from
445-2612.	That conversation led to the UCs
picking the accused up at her home at
56 Rycon Drive in Yellowknife and the accused
directing the UCs to the Independent Grocery
Store located at 49 Street in Yellowknife to
obtain cocaine.
At 8:10 p.m., the UCs arrived at the
Independent Grocery Store with the accused in
their vehicle and proceeded to park.	The accused
then asked for money, and a UC gave her $100.	At
the same time, the UC asked that the accused
leave her cell phone with them before leaving the
vehicle.	The accused then exited the vehicle and
entered the front passenger side of a white
four-door Toyota Echo with Northwest Territories
Licence Plate Number 326054 parked nearby.
The accused was in the Toyota Echo only a
short time and was back in the UC vehicle within
a minute.	Once back in the UC vehicle, the
accused handed a UC a plastic bag containing a
0.3-gram piece of crack cocaine.	The UCs then
drove the accused to her home at 56 Rycon Drive
in Yellowknife, arriving at 8:16 p.m.
On March 14th, 2017, at 4:37 p.m., a UC
called 445-2612 to purchase cocaine.	The accused
answered.	The UC indicated she wanted the same

thing as yesterday, and the accused said that she
would call the UC back.	At 4:48 p.m., the
accused called the UC back, and that conversation
led to the UCs picking the accused up at her home
at 56 Rycon Drive in Yellowknife and the accused
directing the UCs to 97 Niven Drive in
Yellowknife to obtain cocaine.
At 7:13 p.m., UCs arrived at 97 Niven Drive
with the accused in their vehicle, and the
accused directed the UCs to park at the far end
of the building by the side door.	The accused
then made a phone call.	A UC then gave the
accused $100, and the accused exited the vehicle,
leaving her cell phone with the UCs before doing
so.	The accused then went to the side door of
97 Niven Drive and was let into the building by
Lisa Schaeffer.
The accused remained inside the building for
approximately five seconds and then returned to
the UC vehicle.	Once back in the UC vehicle, the
accused handed a UC a plastic bag containing
0.3 gram -- a 0.3-gram piece of crack cocaine.
The UCs then drove the accused to her home at
56 Rycon Drive in Yellowknife, arriving at
25	5:21 p.m.
On March 15th, 2017, a UC contacted the
accused multiple times and was unable to reach

her.	At 4:48 p.m., the accused texted the UC
saying, "Just called.	No go with -- let you
know."	At 4:51 p.m., the UC responded by text
saying, "What?	Just call me."	The accused then
responded by text saying, "Yes."	At 7:14 p.m., a
UC called the accused, and they had a
conversation about obtaining more cocaine.	The
conversation ended with the accused indicating
she would call when she gets some.
On March 16, 2017, at 3:25 p.m., a UC called
445-2612 to purchase cocaine.	The accused
answered and said she would call the UC back.	At
3:48 p.m., the accused called the UC back, and
that conversation led to the UCs picking the
accused up at her home at 56 Rycon Drive in
Yellowknife and the accused directing the UCs to
McNiven Apartments located at 700 Gitzel Street
in Yellowknife to obtain cocaine.
At 4:13 p.m., the UCs arrived at
McNiven Apartments with the accused in their
vehicle, and the accused directed -- directed the
UCs to a -- to park at the rear of the building.
The accused then exited the vehicle and walked
towards the rear door of the building but didn't
go inside.	She then returned to the UC vehicle
and directed the UCs to exit to the left.	The
accused then told the UC to stop the vehicle in

the middle of the street, and they did so.	The
accused then exited the vehicle and walked
towards a woman on the stairs at the back of
1452 Gitzel Street.
The accused met with the woman briefly and
then returned to the UC vehicle.	Once back in
the UC vehicle, the accused handed a UC a plastic
bag containing a 0.4-gram piece of crack cocaine.
The UCs then drove the accused to her home at
56 Rycon Drive in Yellowknife, arriving at
11	4:26 p.m.
THE COURT:	Thank you, Mr. Praught.	The
facts have already been admitted, and I have
already made a finding of guilt.	What is your
position on sentence?
MR. PRAUGHT:	Your Honour, I note that a
presentence report has been filed.	I'd ask that
that be made the next exhibit on the sentencing
hearing.
THE COURT:	Exhibit 1.	I am providing
that to the clerk now.	The original is in
this -- thank you.	I have got the copies with me
to -- have that back just yet.
EXHIBIT 1:	PRESENTENCE REPORT
MR. PRAUGHT:	And, Your Honour, I note that
my friend has filed, I believe, two documents
with the Court.

1	THE	COURT:	Yes, that is this.	
2	MR.	PRAUGHT:	And the Crown has no objection	
3		to those being made exhibits on the sentencing	
4		hearing.	
5	THE	COURT:	Very good.	
6	MR.	PRAUGHT:	I -- I do note a couple of	
7		things that raise some questions for the Crown.	

The first was that there appear to be, perhaps,
some duplications of some of the certificates
that are in the first book.	And maybe that my
friend can speak to some subtleties that the
Crown didn't appreciate, but there appear that,
maybe, there are some duplicates.
And the second is that on a -- at tab 14 of
the first book, there are -- no, I apologize.
Oh, it's tab 2 of the first book, Your Honour.
There are two sheets of paper that indicate times
where counselling sessions took place.
THE COURT:	Yes.
MR. PRAUGHT:	And I may be reading this
wrong, but it appears that they go from
22	February 2016 to August 2017.	I just note in the
23	table of contents, my friend has December 5th.	I
24	may be reading that wrong, but are those the only
two things that the Crown noted that were perhaps
in error.
THE COURT:	Thank you, Mr. Praught.

MR. PRAUGHT:	But as I say, no objection to
these going -- being made exhibits, Your Honour.
THE COURT:	They have already been filed
as exhibits.	We can deal with that.	There is
a -- Defendant Sentencing Exhibits, 25 tabs, and
a further 7-tab sentencing -- Sentencing
Exhibits, part 2.	And those are before me, and I
have reviewed them.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Your Honour, I can advise the
Court that Ms. Woods does not have a
criminal record.	With respect to the presentence
report, it outlines that Ms. Woods is currently
46 years old.	She was 45 at the time of the
events.	She is a Chipewyan woman.	She was born
and raised in Yellowknife, although for a period
of time, she was with relatives in
British Columbia, I believe, between the ages of
18	8 and 11.
She did not know her biological father and
grew up with her mother and stepfather.	She
suffered abuse at the hands of her stepfather, it
would appear, physically, emotionally, mentally.
And also in her young years, around the age of 8,
there is a suggestion in the presentence report
that she was sexually abused.	It wasn't clear by
who to -- to me, but it appeared that it was on
more than one occasion that something in that

area happened.	So a very traumatic upbringing,
no doubt, for Ms. Woods, a difficult childhood
with her mother and her mother's partner and then
away from her mother.
And it appears that that strain took a toll
on her relationship with her mother.	And it was
severed for some time, that relationship, though
currently it appears that they've mended their
fences, and they now have a good relationship.
And there's, I think, a reference at one point in
the presentence report to her mother being one of
her best friends at this point in time.
THE COURT:	Yes.
MR. PRAUGHT:	She's had a difficult
childhood and apparently a difficult adult life
as well.	She has struggled with addiction issues
through her 20s and now into middle age, it would
appear.	She did attempt to address these issues
in the past on occasion.	The last time, it would
appear, was about 17 years -- 16 years -- 17
years ago when she attended Edgewood; almost
completed the program but didn't.	It would seem
that she was about 30 years old when that
occurred.
However, of -- of note and of importance is
the fact that Ms. Woods describes to the author
of the presentence report that she was clean and

sober at the time that these offences took place
and that she committed these crimes for the
money, little as it was, to assist her in
purchasing daily household items, essentially.
It appears that Ms. Woods has some support
outside of her mother.	She has support from her
connections and friends at the CFNF as well as
some support through the -- the educational
institutions that she's been attending in the
last year and a half or so.
Overall, it's -- it's a -- it's a
presentence report that indicates a difficult
life for Ms. Woods, a sincere attempt to really
change the direction of her life and better
herself, but it also, as the Crown has pointed
out, indicates that there's some troubling
aspects to the -- the acute circumstances around
the events herself -- themselves.
Your Honour, the Crown is recommending a
custodial sentence in the range of six to eight
months for this offence.	Taking in all of the
considerations; the predominantly positive
presentence report for Ms. Woods; all the steps
she has taken to better herself since the charges
were laid; the fact that she's pled guilty --
although the Crown would argue that should not be
considered an early guilty plea.	A hearing was

set for an entrapment hearing, and it was only on
the day of that hearing that Ms. Woods re-elected
and changed her plea.	Nonetheless, she has
spared the State the cost and resources of -- of
conducting that hearing and then the trial, but
it should not be considered an early guilty plea,
the Crown would submit -- and the -- the
circumstances of the offence itself, the Crown
submit six to eight months is a reasonable
position for this offence.
Just to address some ancillary orders before
getting into some other mitigating and
aggravating factors, Your Honour, a DNA order:
It's a secondary designated offence.	The Crown
would suggest that it's in the best
administration -- best interest of the
administration of justice to make that order in
this case given the nature of the offence,
specifically the origin of the investigation,
which was into dial-a-dope numbers in the city
that ultimately led to Ms. Woods.	A firearms
prohibition order is mandatory, and given the
recent jurisprudence, the Crown's not seeking a
victim-of-crime surcharge.
The Crown would submit that this
recommendation is on par with other similar
offenders in this jurisdiction, Your Honour, and

in support of that proposition, the Crown would
like to just file two cases.	I've informed my
friend of the cases that I intend -- I intend to
discuss.	The first is R v Tobac of the
Northwest Territories Supreme Court case in --
THE COURT:	Yes.
MR. PRAUGHT:	And -- and the second is
R v Grandjambe.
THE COURT:	Thank you.	I think it is fair
to say, Mr. Praught, that the Court has been
faced with a number of offenders in this type of
situation who have not only very limited or
nonexistent criminal records, but also extremely
sympathetic personal circumstances.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Yes.
THE COURT:	And the line of approximately
six month has -- has moved in that direction
largely as a result of the sympathetic
circumstances of the accused.	And I want to be
clear that that is not simply a question of the
Court moving in a -- in a lower direction from
the usual -- from the usual tariff for this sort
of offence, which is closer to a year.	So I take
the -- the Crown's suggestion with respect to
sentence to heart in that regard.	You certainly
have taken into account the -- the recent case
law coming out of the court.

MR. PRAUGHT:	And -- yes, and I just can
briefly touch on these cases, Your Honour,
because my friend may say they're
distinguishable, and they certainly are in many
respects.	Both Ms. -- excuse me.	Both Ms. Tobac
and Mr. Grandjambe had lengthy criminal records,
which is certainly distinguishable from
Ms. Woods.	However, the Crown would submit that
they ultimately were less morally culpable
because the facts in these two cases were that
they were really severely addicted to crack
cocaine at the time they committed the offences.
In Ms. Tobac's case, she was using crack
cocaine on a daily basis right up to the time of
the offence and her arrest when she was, in fact,
pregnant; and Mr. Grandjambe, on the occasions
that he essentially middled the deals for the
undercover officers, was attempting to use the
cocaine immediately upon exiting the residence
where the cocaine was obtained.
So there was clear signs of extreme
addiction for each of these individuals, which
the Crown submit, distinguishes them from
Ms. Woods in that, as I've already said,
Ms. Woods was, in her own words, clean and sober
at the time.	She was 45 years old.	She received
these calls on the phone and then would hang up;

do some work to -- to find out where to obtain
it; think about it; call them back; consciously
making a decision to profit, as little as it may
have been, by -- by performing these activities.
So the moral culpability, the Crown would submit,
is higher for Ms. Woods.
Yes, she has no record, and yes, she's taken
many, many steps to -- to move in the right
direction since committing these offences, but
there's a -- there's a balance that -- between
the moral culpability and the personal
circumstances that the Crown says puts these two
cases in -- in the ballpark of Ms. Woods and --
and Ms. Tobac.
Ms. Tobac ultimately received six months
custody and Mr. Grandjambe ten months custody,
Your Honour.	And I should say, just to complete
the submissions on -- on the recommendation, it's
not the Crown's position that the Maskell
three-year starting point is applicable.
Although money was exchanged and Ms. Woods did
profit, the Crown would submit that it's clearly
commercial.	We -- we're saying that it's not
more than a minimal scale, and therefore, the
three-year starting point --
THE COURT:	It is a street-level
trafficking as opposed to --

MR. PRAUGHT:	Yeah.
THE COURT:	-- a commercial trafficking.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Very minimal quantities
involved.
THE COURT:	Yes.	What does the Crown
say -- and I was -- if I can pull back for a
moment, I was, of course, aware of the original
application to have an entrapment hearing on
these matters.	When I was reading the
presentence report, what caught my attention was
the fact that the phone in question was actually
her ex-boyfriend's phone, who was in jail, I
believe, at the time that the -- these
transactions took place.	And I am assuming that
Mr. Bock is going to be telling me that Ms. Woods
simply gave in to the temptation to answer the
phone on the -- on the occasions in question and
make a small profit when she was not actually in
the business of dealing cocaine herself at that
point in time, which would also explain the steps
that she had to take in order to acquire the
cocaine.	Do you see that as mitigating under the
circumstances?
MR. PRAUGHT:	I -- I can offer this.	My
friend may take issue with some comments that
I'll make now, but I can offer this: Her
boyfriend, who had used that phone previously,

had been in custody for ten months at that point.
He was actually sentenced in February of 2017,
about a month prior to this offence.	But in
4	March of 2017, he had been in custody on remand
and then serving for about ten months.
THE COURT:	You anticipated my question.
MR. PRAUGHT:	And secondly, grounds were
obtained.	And I believe my friend ultimately,
although it was the day of entrapment hearing,
came to the same -- this conclusion that there
was a reasonable suspicion sufficient to inquire
into that call that were -- grounds that were
obtained post --
THE COURT:	Okay.
MR. PRAUGHT:	-- post-Mr. Hein being
incarcerated.	So in -- in other words, the
grounds were --
THE COURT:	I understand.
MR. PRAUGHT:	-- were -- were formed after
his arrest.
THE COURT:	Thank you.
MR. PRAUGHT:	But I take Your Honour's
point.	Although it was a dial-a-dope
investigation and contact with Ms. Woods was
initiated through a phone, at the end of the day,
it appeared she had to take some steps to obtain
the cocaine to provide to the UCs.	Now, we don't

know how much she may have obtained on each of
those interactions; that's speculation.	But she
certainly had to go somewhere and -- at least
that's what she led the UCs to believe.	And
those are the facts, so --
THE COURT:	Okay.
MR. PRAUGHT:	-- it's not -- on -- on its
face, it doesn't have the sophistication that a
typical dial-a-dope would appear to have.
THE COURT:	Okay.	It does appear that
she, sort of, fell into it after her boyfriend
was --
MR. PRAUGHT:	Yeah.
THE COURT:	-- taken into custody.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Perhaps it could be described
as a crime of opportunity in this case, which is
unusual for a dial-a-dope and usually the exact
opposite.	But in this case, it would appear that
she saw an opportunity to make some money and --
and took it.
THE COURT:	And was poor enough to give in
to temptation.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Yeah.
THE COURT:	Thank you.
MR. PRAUGHT:	So I -- I believe in my
submissions, I've addressed most of the
aggravating and mitigating factors already,

Your Honour.	There was financial motivation.
Obviously the prevalence of this type of crime in
our jurisdiction is always an important
consideration and -- and is aggravating.
As far as objectives of concern, the Crown
would submit that deterrence and denunciation
should be the primary sentencing considerations
today.	Rehabilitation is always a consideration,
and the sentence imposed, the Crown would
certainly hope, does not impede Ms. Woods'
progress to date.	We do know that there are
programs in custodial facilities to assist
offenders that are detained, and we would hope
that she would take -- if she is given a
custodial sentence here today, we hope she would
take advantage of all that those programs have to
offer and continue in the -- the route she's
going in now.	So we submit that six to eight
months with probation to assist in rehabilitation
is a reasonable recommendation and should be
followed.
Your Honour, in anticipation of my friend's
recommendation, because we have talked about this
a bit, I do have one more case that I -- I would
file, and this is the case of R v Joe from the
Northwest Territories Court of Appeal, and I did
inform my friend that I would file this.	And

this is simply to support the -- the proposition
that a suspended sentence is not an appropriate
or a legal sentence for this offence.
THE COURT:	I am certainly familiar with
the case.
MR. PRAUGHT:	And I would specifically refer
to paragraph 14 in this case -- or 18, I should
say.	The case didn't address that issue head on
in the appeal, but that's -- that paragraph
certainly would seem to -- seem to address it.
So that's the -- that's the Crown's position.
THE COURT:	Well, and this case is of
assistance in terms of laying out the landscape
that we work within, right?
MR. PRAUGHT:	That's right.
THE COURT:	Thank you.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Pending any questions
Your Honour may have, those are my submissions.
THE COURT:	Let me just double-check.
What -- what, in fact, was the sentenced imposed
in Joe?
MR. PRAUGHT:	At the end of the day, one
year, I believe, was the sentence.	And the
Court of Appeal declined to stay that sentence
because some time had passed, and Ms. Joe
ultimately served a year, I believe.
THE COURT:	Thank you.	Thank you,

Mr. Praught.	Mr. Bock.
Mr. Bock, I will just let you know my
thoughts before you begin.	I am certainly not
intending to go beyond the lesser of the two
numbers provided by the Crown of six months, so
your function is going to be to convince me that
six months is not required.	But I am not
planning on going above six months at this point.
MR. BOCK:	Your Honour, I would submit
that that is -- the case law, if you look in
Alberta and you look here, there are all kinds of
different examples.	I would submit that
certainly six months is probably an appropriate
sentence.	That's not what I'm advocating for.
I've got to know Tracey Woods over the past
couple of years, and we've talked a number of
times about her personal circumstances and just
how difficult they are.	And reading the
presentence report, reviewing it for my
submissions, I guess I was quite stunned, if
that's the word, or, kind of, in -- just in -- in
amazement, actually, with her past, how difficult
her past has been on all fronts.
This is -- this is really an exceptional
case, and I'm -- the theme of my presentation is
that this is an exceptional case and her
circumstances are very exceptional.	And I have

to say that in all of the clients I've ever dealt
with, I've never had anyone take the steps that
she has taken over the past two years.
THE COURT:	I was amazed by the exhibits
that you filed on this.
MR. BOCK:	And -- and she -- she provided
those to me.	And I've never -- I -- and perhaps
that clouds my judgment in terms of what I would
ask for on sentence, but I think it's only fair
in this case, because as I say, I've never, ever
had anyone that has taken the kind of steps to
use community supports, to take advantage of
people and resources as she has.	And I have --
and she didn't have to do it; these were all on
her own initiative.
So the theme that runs through my
submissions is -- is that this is an exceptional
case.	This is a case where there's a lot of
hope; where the client has made great, great
strides.	I want to point out that Lindsay Paul,
the service coordinator at the women's shelter,
is here; she did provide a letter.	As well as
Margaret Beauchamp is here, the director of the
Centre of Northern Families.	And -- and we
talked before court, and -- and, you know, the --
the theme of that was just that the change in
Ms. Woods is -- is unbelievable, and that's

positive; that's good for -- for society; it's
good for Ms. Woods.	She needs to continue that,
and she needs to encourage that, and that needs
to be encouraged.	So I want Ms. Woods to know
that whatever happens as a result of this --
these submissions and this hearing, she needs to
stay positive and focussed.
In the submissions -- in the documents that
I filed that I'm going to go through, there's a
lot of very positive -- positive words, positive
thoughts.	She's done a lot in the community.
I've never seen anyone who -- she's had her
picture in the paper.	She's -- she's done so
much, and what really is sad is that this is all
over what she -- a small profit of $100 that
she's -- she was in a relationship with someone
who got her into fentanyl.
I would describe her as, sort of, a
low-hanging target for their -- for the RCMP, and
I think that's why, at least in my heart, I was
very sympathetic to the idea of -- of the whole
issue of entrapment, and that's --
THE COURT:	Well, one of the -- one of the
interesting issues with respect to entrapment is
that nobody denies that the things took place,
right?
MR. BOCK:	Yes.

THE COURT:	It is simply a question of the
circumstances in which they engaged in it.
MR. BOCK:	Exactly.	So that was
something that, you know, in -- in looking at
Ms. Woods' circumstances, what she told me, that
that was -- that was, to me, a live issue.
So the defence position that I'm going to
put forth is a suspended sentence with 24 months
probation.	She currently has a room at the
Centre for Northern Families.	My submission
would be that she would remain there at the
Centre for Northern Families except for school
and for -- with permission of her bail
supervisor.	I understand her personal support
worker takes her on a daily basis, Monday to
Friday, to get her medication, and then on the
weekends, the medication is picked up for her.
And she takes it in the form of blister packs,
and she's quite good with taking her medication.
If Your Honour does not think that that --
and -- and to be honest with the Court, if there
is any case in the Northwest Territories where
that kind of sentence is -- it could be given,
it's just with everything that has been done
here.	And I will talk more how this is a very
exceptional case.
In the alternative, the defence is

suggesting that the sentence should be lower than
the six months, that it should be 89 days so that
she can serve the sentence intermittently so that
she can continue her programming, and that she
should continue to go to school.	Ms. Woods has
done so much; I don't want to see that
interrupted.	It's in no one's interest that that
be interrupted.	I know there is programming in a
custodial setting; however, Ms. Woods has shown
at her own initiative, she can take a number of
steps.
So in terms of background, we have the
presentence report.	The Crown has pointed to a
number of significant Gladue factors.	I also
provided a couple volumes of materials that
dismiss -- that Ms. Woods had provided me over
time.	There are a couple duplications and an
error in the date that is my oversight.
THE COURT:	The picture is still clear,
Mr. Bock.
MR. BOCK:	That -- there was so many
materials.
The presentence clearly recounts her
difficult upbringing.	It's an amazing story of
survival and resiliency.	She had a difficult
childhood in the presentence report, how she was
victimized since she was very little.	She was

exposed to substance abuse in her home at an
early age; she was exposed to various kinds of
physical and emotional abuse from her mother's
ex-spouse; there's some indication that she was
sexually assaulted.	And quite frankly, she's
been on the streets on her own since she --
THE COURT:	Since she was 14.
MR. BOCK:	-- was 14.	And she stands --
she's -- she's here today with no criminal
record, which is amazing.	She has been in
unhealthy, abusive relationships; they've been
plagued with addiction issues.	And it's
interesting -- the presentence report, I think,
sums it all up quite nicely -- that -- there's an
indication that Ms. Woods said that throughout
her life, she never felt loved or cared for.
On the other hand, today we're looking at
someone who has taken steps to change and to take
advantage of supports.	There is comments made by
Margaret Beauchamp in the letter: She's done
counselling; she's going to school; she's finding
housing; she does have a room now; she's dealing
with her addictions.	There's some medical
letters in there.	It seems that she may be able
to get part-time employment with the shelter.
She's engaged in volunteer activities; in fact,
she's helping others and seems to be a bit of a

role model.
Importantly, and it's what we all talk about
when we talk about wellness and addictions, that
she's reached the point where there is stability
in her life.	She has schooling, housing, and she
has her physical and psychiatric health.	And as
I said, the change is unbelievable.	She also has
the support of her mother.	And I've just
never -- again, I will say it if I have to say it
a hundred times, I've just never seen a client
that has gone through so much and made so much
change on her own behalf.
So just to summarize some of her personal
circumstances, Ms. Woods is 46 years old.	She
does have a half-sister and half-brother.
Ms. Woods is the eldest.	She has a Grade 8
education from Mildred Hall.	I understand in
speaking to her that she might have done some
further courses through the Pentecostal Church
School in Chilliwack.	She might have also spent
a little bit of time going back to school at
Sir John Franklin.	However, due to the
instability in her life, those efforts were not
successful.
She is of Chipewyan descent.	It says in the
presentence report that she didn't meet her
biological father, but I understand they met once

when she was 36.	She -- pretty much born and
raised in Yellowknife.	Her mother went to
residential school.	There's indication in the
presentence report that her mother was taken away
from her parents at an early age, that her mother
suffered her own trauma.	And Ms. Woods has, sort
of, connected the dots in her mind and believes
that perhaps her -- her mother's own experience
played a role in the dysfunctional, unloving way
that she was parented.
For some of her childhood, she spent time
with her mother and her mother's boyfriend; I'll
refer to him as George (phonetic).	They were
both alcoholics.	It was a very violent
household; she remembers her mother being beaten.
I understand that Tracey Woods would try to
protect her mother and that she would run away
from home.	She remembers being physically and
emotionally abused on a very -- on almost a daily
basis.	She remembers her stepfather saying that,
Tracey is not my child; I do not like her.	She
said she was treated as an outcast; that she was
called a bastard; and that perhaps due to her
mother's experience at residential school, she
lived under very strict conditions.
This is a case where Social Services was
involved.	She went to live with her aunt in

British Columbia when she was around 8 to 11
years old.	She then stayed with her mother and
then has been on her own since.	She told me that
she stayed with friends, that she couch-surfed,
and she also told me quite frankly that she
stayed in stairwells of buildings.
(Indiscernible) no, there was no place to go.
She struggled with staying in school.
She described that she had very few
relationships, and the ones that she had ended in
domestic abuse or infidelity.	Most of the
relationships that she fell into involved drug
abuse.	We talked a little bit about her -- her
own children.	She has four daughters; I
understand they were -- they reside with three
different fathers.
She's currently -- she currently has a -- a
room at the women's shelter.	She's picked
herself up, and I'm going to talk about this a
little more.	She's taking Office Administrations
and -- Office Administration and a trades program
at the Native Women's Centre.	She's working on
schooling.	I understand she's completed her
Grade 10, is working on Grade 11, and has a goal
of completing Grade 12 next year.	She is doing
counselling; she's seeing a doctor.	She's a
volunteer at the shelter; she helps with cooking

and cleaning.	She's doing counselling at the
Tree of Peace.
And she's been struggling with an opioid
addiction for some time, and according to the
letters on file, she is taking Suboxone and that
she seems to have been stabilized.	There is also
some indication of psychotic issues that -- but
her situation is --
THE COURT:	Well, that history would be
surprising if there were not.
MR. BOCK:	-- due -- but she seems to be
doing quite well at this point in her life.
So I provided a number of materials to the
Court, and I'm just going to go through them.
I'm going to start with the N volume first.	And
as Your Honour pointed out, it may paint a
picture and current background for Ms. Woods, and
again, I would say it's phenomenal.
The tab 1 is a letter from Lindsay Paul, the
service coordinator at the Yellowknife Women's
Shelter.	It's positive; it speaks to her keeping
appointments and fulfilling her obligations so
that her rent is paid on time.	There are some
positive comments, and I just want to quote:
(As Read)
I have witnessed Tracey really trying to make positive changes and
participate in any opportunity to do so, and I would suggest what runs

through the past year or so, couple years, has been that positive change,
different decisions, and taking advantage of absolutely everything
possible that's available.
Tabs 2 and 3 are letters from Dr. Harris.
One was written in November 2018, and the other
one is from the 14th of March.	Basically, the
letters talk about her doing Suboxone treatment
or therapy for a history of opioid use disorder,
that there's been a long-standing history of
psychosis; however, that has stabilized.	And
that -- the doctor notes that she has achieved
stability in a number of areas, and again, this
is on her own initiative.
Tab 4 is from the Native Women's Association
up in Northwest Territories.	This -- the
documents here speak to her education and her
goals, and it sums Tracey as someone who is
highly motivated.	And the documents outlines
what she is studying, the -- the modules.	And
more importantly, at the bottom of the first page
of that tab, that it states her goals.	And it's
worth putting on the record that she wants to get
her GED; she wants to get Grade 12, to have a
nice life, to get through these couple of months,
to find a new place, to have a better home, and
to learn Microsoft Office.	So those are all
building blocks of someone who wants to have a

positive future and -- and, quite frankly, to
make a difference.
Tab Number 5 is a certificate.	The
program -- program is Foundations for Success.
Tab Number 6 is a certificate from October 2018;
it's completing some business entrepreneurial
skills, training.	Tab Number 7 is useful because
it is her resumé, and it outlines -- highlights
her skills; it outlines -- it also outlines
her -- her work history, types of jobs that she's
had.	I guess in the more distant past, that
she's been a cook, a general helper; she's worked
as a cashier; she's worked as a chambermaid, and
she's worked as a waitress.
The next volume -- and these are just
documents that -- I encouraged Ms. Woods to get
some letters, but I also encouraged her to bring
in anything where she was involved.	So tab 1
is -- you'll notice that Tracey Woods is in the
picture.	It's taken from A Better Day.	She's
quoted in the article; it's where she received
her computer, and it's something that she said
that would -- would help her with her studies.
Tab 2 -- and I agree with the Crown that
there are some issues with the dates.	The
purpose of this -- Ms. Woods had given me her
schedule for counselling.	Tab Number 3 is,

again, showing that she's -- the programming,
schooling, education she's taking is -- is
helping her with her basic skills, and it's a
completion of a math -- math course, or most
improved in Math 120.	Tab Number 5 is the
completion of English 120.	Tab Number 6 is a
duplicate of tab 3; I apologize for that.
Tab Number 7 is the completion of the English 120
course.	Tab Number 8 is a duplicate.
Tab Number 9 is an attendance certificate.
Tab Number 10 is an award that -- or it's a
certificate for -- for beating an award.
Tab Numbers 11 and 12 are a little more
dated, the letters from Dr. Harris, but they do
speak and provide some more information on her
medical history.	I apologize, Tab Number 12 is
actually an application that she filled out for a
disability.	Tab Number 14 is another counselling
log.	Tab Number -- sorry, Tab Number 14 is a
letter from the Native Women's Association of the
Northwest Territories.	It's just confirming
enrollment in adult education programming.
Tab Number 15 is another newspaper article.
Tracey Woods is carrying the Native Women's
Association of the Northwest Territories in
banner -- banner.	It shows she is involved in
the community and she's involved with issues that

are important to her.	The next tab, tab 16, is a
participation in a Personality Dimensions
introductory session.	It appears to be something
to help promote self-help and self-awareness.
Tab 17 is a report card mid-term showing her
mark in sciences.	The next tab appears to be her
report card.	There are -- positive comment, and
again, stressing the positivity and drawing
that -- her instructor said:	(As Read)
She's always willing to try new ideas and works hard all the time.	This is
a formula for success.
Tab Number 19 is another letter from her
instructor; again, it is positive.
I really like the article at tab 20, and I
guess the headline really summarizes -- although
she didn't say it, she is quoted in the article.
It says, "Never give up and never be afraid to go
forward," and I really think that that summarizes
a lot of what Ms. Woods is all about.	You will
notice that her picture's in the -- in the bottom
receiving her award, and she is quoted -- it
talks a little bit about -- she says: (As Read)
"I feel thankful that I keep going and I keep pushing myself," she said,
wiping tears from her eyes.
I understand -- she had told me that she'd broken
her leg and that did interfere a little bit with
some of her schooling, but she got right back to

it; she wrote all her exams and she passed.	She
said, It was hard, but I still did it.	She said,
I'm proud of myself.	So it just speaks, again,
to the -- her resiliency and her being someone
who really, really tries to be a success and --
and move forward.
The next tab, tab 21, is -- and that's --
again, we -- we have a perseverance award for
her, and how much more appropriate could -- could
that be given her circumstances?	Tab Number 22
is a mathematics award.	The next tab, tab 23, is
a completion of science certificate.	Tab 24 is a
completion of an English course.
Tab 25 is another letter from Dr. Harris
from August 2018.	Indicates she is very
compliant with the treatments that she receives.
I like the last -- the last sentence, I think, is
appropriate.	The doctor, Dr. Harris, says:
(As Read)
I would suggest that Tracey would be stabilized outside of these hard-won
supports which have allowed her to move forward with her health and her
future.
Tab Number 26 is just an acceptance notice that
she received getting into the office training
program.
And finally, the last tab in this booklet is
a letter from Lindsay Paul from the

Yellowknife Women's Shelter.	It's an extremely
positive letter, and it really does -- it starts
off by saying:	(As Read)
This letter is to support
Tracey Woods, who has been making
positive strides within the community and with her life choices.
6
It talks about her positive attitude, her
positive behaviour.	She is paying her rent on
time; she's doing schooling; she wants to go to
Aurora College eventually; she's active in the
community; she encourages others to participate.
It talks about some of what she's interested and
how she enjoys cooking, that she will often
volunteer, helps enjoying others, and there's a
reference to the newspaper article for that
award.	So those paint a picture of someone who
is, in my view -- respectful submission,
extraordinary, and I don't think we see someone
like that with these charges -- with this charge
before the Court.
So what can be said about Tracey Woods?	So
she has made great strides in overcoming her
past.	As indicated, she's been living on her own
since she was 14; she's been exposed to the drug
trade and opiates through past relationships.
And Ms. Woods, in many respects, has been a
vulnerable participant in all of this.	The

documents speak to her own efforts and
motivation, and as I indicated, this motivation
comes from her.	It's not because of court orders
or probation.	So she's used practically
everything possible to put the pieces of her life
together that are available in the community.
So it's extraordinary that she's come this
far and continues showing stability in terms of
getting medical and psychological help.	The
updates from her doctor are very encouraging and
positive.	She's taken positive steps to deal
with addiction issues; she's pursuing education;
she's gaining life skills; she's motivated; she's
resilient; she shows perseverance; she works
hard; she's involved in the community and to some
extent, acts as a role model.
We all -- and I understand that recently,
there has been a drug treatment court for her
attempts to establish that.	I don't really know
too -- too much about it, but when we see someone
like Ms. Woods, that is really the outcome that
we would like to see from people who have been
dealing in many ways with their own trauma and
with their own addiction.	She's an example of
someone who's making a change in her life, and
she's making positive choices.	She's -- she's
gone from someone who has been an addicted

offender to someone who is undergoing ongoing
rehabilitation.
And I really believe that Ms. Woods can be
characterized -- or in the past could be
characterized as someone who is -- is vulnerable.
We all know the path to self-help is not a
straight one; it's a very curved one, and it's
because of various choices that we make.	And
defence submits that because of her relationship
with Mr. Hein, it was very difficult for her to
make those choices, and those -- that
relationship had a lasting effect on her.
She's learned from her past mistakes.	She
has a letter that she's going to read.	Defence
submits that sending her -- while the Court is
absolutely correct that in this jurisdiction,
sentences most likely range from 6 to 12 months
for this type of offence; however, defence
submits that this is someone that sending her
to -- for a period of custody would interrupt
that progress, that for Ms. Woods, it could even
be regressive.	I understand that sending her to
custody in something other than an intermittent
sentence would most likely cause her to lose
her -- her room, so there are consequences for
Ms. Woods there.
And defence submits that supervised

probation is a restriction of her freedom, that
suspended sentences, in the right circumstances,
can be deterrent.	Certainly a breach of a
suspended sentence can result in revocation of
the sentence and sentencing on the original
offence, and defence submits that this is
something that's -- in this case, is the -- in
the public interest.	It's really in the public
interest when someone who is dealing with drugs
appears to be -- have taken the steps to be
rehabilitated and to take those stops on her own.
And I wonder, Your Honour, what is it in the
public interest that a conventional sentence of
imprisonment would do that she hasn't already
done?
And everything that I have reviewed, that I
know about Ms. Woods -- the documents show that
she is exceptional.	In my view, a suspended
sentence is something that is there for the Court
to consider.	A conditional sentence order is an
illegal sentence or probation is an illegal
sentence.	But certainly, protecting the
public -- protecting the public is served in this
case by allowing Ms. Woods to continue down the
path that she started on her own initiative, and
I really applaud all of the people who have been
supporting her and all of the community helpers

that she has had; two of them are here.	And I
have to applaud Ms. Woods for -- for taking all
of the steps that -- that she has taken.
I do want to make a couple comments on the
cases.	I'm not going to say too much, because I
think they're fairly obvious.	Certainly in the
case of Tony Tobac, it seems to me -- I'm not
sure that she has the insight that Ms. Woods has.
I'm not sure that she had made the positive kinds
of changes that Ms. Woods has, and that Ms. Tobac
also had a criminal record.
I would suggest -- and the last case
comments I have are Melinda -- the Melinda Joe
case, and I -- I submit, Your Honour,
respectfully that the circumstances of
Melinda Joe are in no way comparable to those of
Ms. Woods.	The issue -- the amounts -- well, her
personal circumstances -- that when we come to
the actual facts of the trafficking and the
drugs, the amount of drugs was -- was much more,
and I would respectfully submit that the
sentencing judge was swept up in her personal
circumstances, and the sentence in itself was
illegal.	And at the outset, the defence and
Crown agreed that an appropriate sentence -- in
fact, I don't believe I was asking for a
suspended sentence with probation; I think I was

asking for something like six months in -- in
that case.
THE COURT:	You were Ms. Joe's counsel?
MR. BOCK:	Pardon?
THE COURT:	You were Ms. Joe's counsel?
MR. BOCK:	Yes, I was Ms. Joe's counsel.
And the issue, then, for the appeal -- because we
wanted to skirt around the issue of what was an
appropriate sentence.	The issue for the appeal
was -- she had been on probation for, I think,
six months at the time of the appeal, and the
real issue was whether or not she would qualify
for a stay of the custody and that she could
serve the remainder of the sentence on probation.
Certainly to be fair, the -- Ms. Joe's
behaviour on probation was lukewarm, that -- that
she was not -- she didn't take a lot of steps
to -- to -- to seek counselling and to do all of
the things that you would expect someone would be
taking.	So we didn't really -- we -- everyone
knew the sentence was illegal, and in her case,
we knew that the -- the sentence that she
received was not appropriate.	My submission was
that the year was appropriate; I believe that
that was Crown's submission as well.	And the
issue was simply whether she passed the tests of
the Court and done the correct -- done the

appropriate things in order for her to have a
stay of her period in custody.
To the best of my knowledge, there is --
there is still no case that -- that says that a
suspended sentence with probation is an illegal
sentence, but -- and I've done my best to
research cases in the Northwest Territories and
other jurisdictions, and all of the -- the cases
really seem to point to, there has to be
something really exceptional about this case in
order to even consider that.	Because we all know
that -- we know the effect of trafficking; we
know the effect -- whether it's the Yukon; there
are all kinds of cases that talk about the effect
of trafficking in the Yukon.	There are all kinds
of cases in the Northwest Territories that talk
to the devastating effect of trafficking in -- in
crack cocaine, other drugs in the
Northwest Territories, how it disrupts families,
how it disrupts communities.
Certainly Melinda Joe (sic) has insight and
knows how drugs can affect someone, and that this
is a case, Your Honour, in defence submission,
where the Court could consider possibly
suspending the passage of sentence with
probation.	As I said, the Crown's position --
and six months is reasonable.	I suggest that the

Court, given all of the circumstances and the
steps that Ms. Joe has -- has taken, consider
something certainly less, and that would allow
Ms. Joe to continue on with her progress.	I -- I
don't want to see that progress stopped or -- or
interfered with.
I know Ms. Joe has a letter -- a brief
letter that -- that she wrote, but unless there
are any questions, those are my submissions.
THE COURT:	Thank you, Mr. Bock.	Any
comments, Mr. Praught, before we move on to
Ms. Woods?
MR. PRAUGHT:	Just on the possibility of a
suspended sentence, Your Honour, I think
paragraph 18 in the Joe case is quite clear: The
Court does not say that the sentence of three
years probation is illegal because the passing of
that sentence was not suspended; it says it's
illegal since a conditional sentence order was
not available.	So I think that -- they provide
the reasons why they find that a probation is not
a legal sentence.	It's not because of what's
suspended; it's because the CSO was not
available, and that --
THE COURT:	But I -- but I take Joe to
mean -- meaning that I take from Joe in dealing
with, what was on its face, an illegal

sentence -- the impact of the decision is more
the primacy of deterrence and denunciation in
these sorts of -- these sorts of cases, right, in
terms of what the -- what the Court decided to do
with Ms. Joe in the end.	So that is the -- that
is the point that I take from it.	I mean,
clearly a suspended sentence is not an illegal
sentence, but case law would urge me to consider
something other than a suspended sentence.	Is
that a fair assessment?
MR. PRAUGHT:	The Crown would submit that a
suspended sentence, given the language in Joe,
would be -- would not be a legal sentence.
THE COURT:	Would not be a legal sentence?
MR. PRAUGHT:	A legal sentence.	And we
would also --
THE COURT:	Well, it would not be an
appropriate sentence as defined by Joe.	It would
be legal; in other words, it is supported by
the -- it is supported by the law.	You can get a
suspended sentence for manslaughter, but it would
not be one that would survive appellate scrutiny.
MR. PRAUGHT:	I'm just going by the language
in paragraph 18, Your Honour, where the Court
says that the probation was not -- was -- is
illegal, and the reason for that finding was that
the CSO was --

1	THE	COURT:				Yes.	
2	MR.	PRAUGHT:				-- not available.	So --	
3	THE	COURT:				But there is nothing in the	
4		Criminal	--	and	I	do not want to get into an --	
5	MR.	PRAUGHT:				Yeah, no.	
6	THE	COURT:				-- argument with you,	
7		Mr. Praught, but there is nothing in the	
8		Criminal Code that makes a suspended sentence --	
9	MR.	PRAUGHT:	Yeah.	
10	THE	COURT:	-- illegal, but I would take	
11		Joe as saying that a suspended sentence is not	

appropriate in a case like this.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Yeah, and -- and I appreciate
the distinction Your Honour is making, and I
just -- I -- I do -- I have the Geiger case as
well as reference in that same paragraph in the
Alberta Court of Appeal, which goes into the
rationale for probation, as it were, not being
appropriate.	The CSO is tantamount with, more or
less, the same thing in -- in the circumstances.
And I guess the Crown's submission at the end of
the day is that whether or not it's suspended
doesn't change that fact.
THE COURT:	Ms. Woods.
THE ACCUSED:	Your Honour, I am very sorry
for my wrong actions.	I know that drugs are bad
for people.	I have gained my lifestyle.	I have

been going to counselling, and I'm presently
going to the Native Women's School working
towards my GED.	I have been spending my weekends
with my family.	I know that these changes have
been made -- made a difference, and I am moving
towards -- oh, sorry, now I'm moving forward with
my life.	I just want to say I'm sorry.
THE COURT:	Okay.	Thank you.
I will order a transcript of today's
proceedings in their entirety.	The facts were
read in and the comments that were made by both
the Crown and the defence form an integral part
of the sentencing in this case, and I want the
transcript to accurately reflect that.
Mr. Bock, you did an exceptional job for
your client.
MR. BOCK:	Thank you, sir.
THE COURT:	I often struggle with the
distinction between rehabilitation, denunciation,
and deterrence, because we end up dealing with
individuals, people like yourself, Ms. Woods, who
have made extraordinary efforts to try to get
their lives together, and I give you full and
complete credit for that, as well as the people
who have assisted you.	It is important work.	It
is important work that you are doing for
yourself, and it is important work that has been

done to help you.
This case is exceptional in terms of the
history that you bring with you and the steps
that you have taken to try to overcome your past
and the handicaps that that past has burdened you
with.	You had a horrible childhood; you had a
horrible life as an adult; you lived an
out-of-control, vulnerable life from the time you
were a little child, and the Court cannot help
but be mindful of that.
One of the reasons why I have ordered that
the full transcript be prepared as opposed to
simply my reasons is that I do not believe that I
can do justice in short form to all of the work
that Mr. Bock has put into presenting your
situation to the Court.	The presentence report
is excellent in its description of your life and
the work that you have done.
The Court of Appeal has made it clear that I
must give great weight to denunciation and
deterrence, and that is general deterrence in
this case.	I believe that you are personally
deterred.	I do not believe you are going to do
this again.
THE ACCUSED:	No.
THE COURT:	And it is important that the
Court send a consistent message when dealing with

people that are facing the temptation to engage
in the drug trade.	And as Mr. Bock and
Mr. Praught have, either today or on other
occasions, clearly stated, it is a plague on our
communities; it is not a simple question of
recreation.	Hard drugs -- especially opioids, as
you well know, and crack cocaine -- cut a swath
through communities that does damage that, in
many cases, is almost irreparable.	People are
destroyed by it, and the Court has to recognize
that.
I am going to do the utmost that I believe I
can for you, bearing in mind the case law that
has to guide my actions.	I have dealt with the
case of a young man who was engaged in the
trafficking trade of cocaine who came before me
on a guilty plea having spent a year in in-house
treatment getting himself better.	I gave him a
six-month sentence.	It was the best I could do
under the circumstances.
Your circumstances are even more sympathetic
than his.	The life that you have suffered
through that put you in a position of
vulnerability where you gave in to this kind of
temptation is one that I must take into account
to a great extent.	We often hear of the Gladue
factors, the factors that we have to take into

account when dealing with Indigenous people.	But
those factors are broadly defined.	Your life
is -- is yours, and your particular life has been
particularly difficult, and I take that into full
account.
I do not believe that I can impose an
intermittent sentence.	I can go below what the
Crown is asking for.	I think that the lowest I
can possibly go in this exceptional case is four
months.	I am going to make a recommendation on
the Warrant of Committal that Ms. Paul be
contacted by Corrections in order to maintain
whatever education and programming that you are
currently engaged in.	I am going to make a
recommendation that you be considered for early
release, both for education and for treatment
reasons.
I will make a recommendation that --
Mr. Bock, perhaps you can -- are there any
further suggestions you can make in terms of the
strong recommendations that I can make at this
point in time?
MR. BOCK:	She was saying about getting
her things together, but perhaps one of her
supports that are here could assist her with
that.
THE ACCUSED:	Oh, sorry.

THE COURT:	I indicated at the beginning,
Ms. Woods, I am bound by the decisions of the
Court of Appeal, and I am bound by precedent,
meaning other cases that have come before and by
parity.	I do not think this Court has ever gone
below six months before, not that I know of.	So
four months is an exceptional sentence, and it
takes into account what I believe are truly
exceptional circumstances in your case, not just
the hard life that you had, but all the hard work
that you have done to get to this point.	It is
the lowest I think I can go.	I wish that I had
the option of a conditional sentence, because
that is what I would impose in this case.	I do
not have that option.	It would be an illegal
sentence.
Ancillary orders -- and, Mr. Bock, I was
going to ask you, is there anything else you

19		would like me to recommend in terms of the	
20		Warrant of Committal that may allow for further	
21		transition back?	
22	MR.	BOCK:	Perhaps the presentence report	
23		could be attached to the Warrant of Committal.	
24	THE	COURT:	I would have no problem with	
25		that.	Do you have a problem with it,	
26		Mr. Praught?	
27	MR.	PRAUGHT:	No, Your Honour.	

THE COURT:	The presentence report will be
attached to the Warrant of Committal.	Did you
want any of the exhibits attached as well?	What
I will make as a recommendation on the Warrant of
Committal is that the staff at Corrections review
the documents that you filed, Mr. Bock, with a
view to coming up with the most effective options
for Ms. Woods.
What I am worried about, and what I want to
strongly encourage Corrections, is that I want to
make sure that this sentence does not undue the
hard work that you made, Ms. Woods.	I want
Corrections to do everything that they can to
make sure that -- especially the treatment that
you have been taking and the education that you
have been working on is maintained.	I do not
know what they can do, but I know that there is a
lot of programming available at the institution
here.	And again, as I said, the temporary
absence and the early release is something they
should strongly consider.
Probation for two years: You will report
within three days after your release and after
that as directed; to take whatever treatment as
recommended for you by Probation Services.	You
are to reside as directed by your probation
officer, which I am hoping is back where you are

currently residing.	The most that you would
serve is two thirds of that, which is about two
and a half months.	I am hopeful that after that
two and a half months -- and I am hoping it is
going to be a little less than that, given my
recommendations here -- you can continue on with
the things that you are doing and get back on
track.	That is my sincere hope, and I wish you
the best on that.
With respect to the probation order, I do
not think anything beyond treatment and
counselling is appropriate, and all I can do is
wish you the best.
I will review that transcript prior to it
being published.	Thank you, Madam Clerk.	Is
there anything further, counsel?
MR. PRAUGHT:	Your Honour, the two -- the
ancillary orders, have we been --
THE COURT:	Section 109 firearms order.
Thank you, Mr. Praught.	Victims-of-crime
surcharge waived for reasons of hardship, and I
will make a DNA order under the circumstances,
given the nature of the offence and given the
fact that I do not expect your client to be
seriously disadvantaged by it.
Thank you again, Mr. Praught, Mr. Bock.
MR. PRAUGHT:	Thank you.

1	-----------------------------------------------------
2
3	CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT
4
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the
foregoing transcribed pages are a complete and
accurate transcript of the digitally recorded
proceedings taken herein to the best of my skill and
ability.
Dated at the City of Edmonton, Province of
Alberta, this 17th day of May, 2019.
12
Certified Pursuant to Rule 723
of the Rules of Court
15
16	__________________________
Jocelyn Horne, CSR(A)
Court Transcriber
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27