IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:	R. v. Gaudette,
	2017 BCSC 1773

Date: 20170907

Docket: 25469

Registry: Quesnel

Regina

v.

Travis James Gaudette and Darryl Arthur Gaudette

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Church

Oral Reasons for Sentence

Counsel for the Crown appearing by teleconference:	M.N. Wiancko
Counsel for the Accused, Travis Gaudette:	J.C. LeBlond
Counsel for the Accused, Darryl Gaudette:	C. Elden (J.C. LeBlond appearing as Agent)
Place and Dates of Hearing:	Prince George, B.C. January 23 & 24, 2017; June 15 & 16, 2017; September 7, 2017
Place and Date of Judgment:	Prince George, B.C. September 7, 2017

[1] THE COURT:  On April 4, 2016, Travis Gaudette pleaded guilty to Count 1 on the Indictment Number 25469-3 and thereby admitted that on or about June 20, 2013, he unlawfully possessed a controlled substance, namely, Butylone and Methylone, for the purpose of trafficking.  This offence occurred at or near the City of Quesnel, British Columbia.  The sentencing hearing began before me on January 24, 2017, and during the course of that hearing, it became apparent that Crown and defence counsel were at odds with respect to some of the circumstances of the offence for the purposes of sentencing and it was necessary to schedule a further two days for a sentencing hearing so that evidence could be called with respect to certain aspects of the offence.  That hearing took place before me on June 15 and 16, 2017, at the conclusion of which, I reserved my decision on sentence ultimately to today's date.

[2] In terms of the circumstances of the offence, not everything was disputed.  The Crown outlined the following facts which are admitted by Mr. Gaudette.  In June 2013, Canadian Border Services agents in Vancouver intercepted a package sent from Nanjing, China, containing 500 grams of the controlled substance, Butylone, which is an analog of MDMA or ecstasy.  Butylone has been a Schedule I controlled substance since 2012 and, prior to that, was a Schedule III controlled substance.  The package intercepted by Border agents was disguised as tea and was destined for a post office box in Quesnel, B.C., and addressed to a T. Johnson.  Checks revealed that the post office box was registered to three individuals including Travis Gaudette as well as Partyade.com.  Partyade.com was a website that offered for sale various substances as "safe alternatives to party drugs," and represented that those substances were legal.  The website offered 24 different substances for sale including Butylone and Methylone in various forms and for varying prices depending on quantity.

[3] On June 19, 2013, undercover officers arranged to buy party drugs from Partyade.com and received an invoice for the purchase of those drugs in the amount of $568.90.  Officers also obtained a general warrant and tracking warrant and arranged for a controlled delivery to the post office box in Quesnel.  They removed most of the drugs from the package that they had intercepted and installed a tracking device and alarm.  On June 20, 2013, Travis Gaudette attended at the post office box in Quesnel and claimed the intercepted package and he also mailed the package of party drugs to the undercover officer who had placed the order the day prior.  Travis Gaudette took the intercepted package back to his residence in Quesnel.  When he opened the package, the alarm failed to activate.  Officers arrested Travis Gaudette and his father, Darryl Gaudette, who was also present.  In addition to the 500 grams of drugs intercepted by Canadian Border Services, the RCMP also seized a further 500 grams of controlled substances including Methylone from Travis Gaudette's home upon his arrest together with two computers and an iPhone.

[4] There are two aspects of the offence which are disputed by Mr. Gaudette.  First, the Crown alleges that when police confronted Travis Gaudette to arrest him at his residence, he deliberately attempted to smash his iPhone and the Crown invites me to infer that this is evidence of efforts to hide his activities from authorities.  Mr. Gaudette says that he did not make any attempt to try to destroy his phone.

[5] Second, the Crown alleges that Mr. Gaudette had been put on notice about the questionable nature of selling these substances when he received a letter from Health Canada in April 2012 advising him that another package from China had been intercepted and seized by Health Canada for violations under the Food and Drug Act.  The Crown submits that Mr. Gaudette clearly knew about April 2012 that his sale of these substances through Partyade.com was illegal.  Travis Gaudette's position is that while he admits the elements of Count 2 and acknowledges that ignorance of the law is no excuse, he erroneously believed, based on his own Internet research and discussions with others, that the substances he was selling were not scheduled controlled substances and were therefore not illegal.  He submits that this amounts to a lack of due diligence and reduces his moral culpability for the offence.

[6] With respect to the first disputed fact, whether Mr. Gaudette deliberately attempted to destroy his iPhone at the time of his arrest, the Crown called Sergeant Jeff Ringelberg, the officer who arrested Travis Gaudette on June 20, 2013.  Sergeant Ringelberg testified that he observed Mr. Gaudette and his father in the back yard of the residence as he approached to effect an arrest.  Sergeant Ringelberg testified that he told Mr. Gaudette that he was under arrest and instructed him to put his hands up.  He said that he observed Mr. Gaudette look at him and spike something in his hand onto a concrete pad in the back yard before coming towards him with his hands up.

[7] After securing Mr. Gaudette's dogs and the residence, Sergeant Ringelberg retrieved the item he believed that Mr. Gaudette had thrown and found it to be an iPhone in a black OtterBox case.  Sergeant Ringelberg had a particular memory of this behaviour because he found it ironic that Mr. Gaudette had tried to destroy the iPhone when it was protected by an expensive cover which indeed ultimately protected the iPhone.  He also recalled the actions of Mr. Gaudette because of where he threw the phone.  Sergeant Ringelberg said that it was not unusual for suspects to throw items away from themselves on arrest, but in this case, he observed Mr. Gaudette throw the phone almost right behind him and directly onto the concrete pad with some force.  Under cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the iPhone was simply dropped when Mr. Gaudette put his hands up and said that it was obvious that Mr. Gaudette deliberately threw the iPhone.

[8] Mr. Gaudette testified that he did not throw or spike his iPhone and he did not recall making any motions at all with the phone.  All he remembered was grabbing his face or head and then putting his hands up when he was arrested.  He said that his immediate concern was the arresting officers might shoot his dogs and he was distraught to be confronted by officers pointing guns at him.

[9] With regard to the second disputed fact, Mr. Gaudette testified that he started Partyade.com in 2010 after seeing packages of party pills for sale in an adult store.  He testified that he looked at the cost of these items and saw that the profits were exceptional and he was led to believe that sale of these products was entirely legal.  He said that he spoke to other individuals in this line of business, did some research, and looked into the legality as much as he could on the Internet.  His research brought him into contact with Adam Wookey, the owner of Purepillz Canada, who initially became the main supplier for Partyade.com.  Mr. Gaudette relied a great deal on information provided to him by Mr. Wookey and borrowed heavily from the content of Mr. Wookey's own website.

[10] He testified at the sentencing hearing that he copied content from Mr. Wookey's website and other websites and pasted that content onto the website for Partyade.com.  This included a rather strange disclaimer that said:

Our products are not intended for human consumption.  This website is for informational purposes only.

[11] That disclaimer or variations of that disclaimer appeared numerous times throughout the Partyade.com website even after content that clearly contradicted the disclaimer.  For example, in Exhibit 4, the following sentence appears on the website:

Partyade party pills and powders are designed to mimic the effects of illegal drugs such as methamphetamine, speed, MDMA, ecstasy, and LSD acid, although without the addictive qualities and known negative health risks of illegal drugs.

The disclaimer follows immediately after this sentence.

[12] It was clear from Mr. Gaudette's testimony at the sentencing hearing that although his intention was that persons buying products from Partyade.com were doing so to consume them, he believed that the disclaimer was sufficient to protect him.  He eventually admitted under cross-examination that, regardless of the disclaimer, his intention was that people bought his products to consume them and that the disclaimer was something to "have out there" to prevent him from getting into trouble.  Mr. Gaudette testified that as far as he was aware the party pills that he was selling were not scheduled controlled substances and he believed that if they were not scheduled, they were not illegal.  He was aware that Adam Wookey had some legal problems such as the police raiding his warehouse, but believed that it was nothing that would lead to his arrest or jail time.

[13] Mr. Gaudette himself had some legal problems related to Partyade.com when in May 2011 he received the notification from Health Canada that the package from China that had been destined for him had been seized.  That letter dated May 25, 2011 was Exhibit 6 at the sentencing hearing.  Mr. Gaudette said that after he received that letter, he spoke to his friend and personal injury lawyer.  He received advice that caused him to conclude that, because of the disclaimer, he was not selling these substances for human consumption and therefore, he was not in contravention of the Food and Drug Act.  For all intents and purposes, Mr. Gaudette then simply ignored the letter from Health Canada and did nothing other than change his supply source back to Adam Wookey.  He said that he did not resume his drug imports from China until a few months prior to his arrest in June 2013.

[14] Mr. Gaudette maintained during his testimony that he believed that selling these products was legal as he could not find anywhere that these substances had been scheduled.  He acknowledged that he could have done more to find out, but that it was not his intention to be a drug dealer.  He suggested that he would not have been marketing these substances in this manner on a publicly accessible website if he believed that he was breaking the law. 

[15] In terms of Mr. Gaudette's personal circumstances, he is 32 years of age and he has a grade 11 education.  He was born in Abbotsford and grew up in the Lower Mainland.  According to the pre-sentence report prepared on August 30, 2016, Mr. Gaudette had a relatively stable upbringing.  In 2011, sometime after Mr. Gaudette's parents separated, Mr. Gaudette and his father relocated to Quesnel where Mr. Gaudette began selling real estate.  At the time of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Gaudette continued to reside in Quesnel with his father.  He has no criminal record.  Since his arrest in 2013, Mr. Gaudette has started two other business, one of which he sold in 2015 and he currently owns and operates Douisone Spices Inc. which imports spices and sells them to local businesses and restaurants.  Mr. Gaudette was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2008, as a result of which he could no longer work in his previous occupation.  It was sometime after these injuries that Mr. Gaudette looked into various business opportunities and ultimately began the Partyade.com business.  Other than taking prescribed drugs for his injuries, he does not partake in alcohol or illicit drugs.

[16] The pre-sentence report confirms much of this background information with respect to Mr. Gaudette and it is a generally positive report that describes Mr. Gaudette's expressions of remorse and shame over his conduct and his understanding that there must be consequences for his actions.

[17] The Crown submits that the appropriate sentence for this offence is a period of incarceration for 36 months.  Crown counsel submits that trafficking in Schedule I controlled substances are some of the most serious drug offences for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.  Some of the pertinent factors that the Crown urged me to consider on sentence include the large amount of the controlled substances seized from Mr. Gaudette, approximately 1,000 grams; the fact that he had imported the controlled substance from China on more than one occasion; and that he was selling the substance through his website as part of an ongoing operation which, by his own admission, had been carrying on business since approximately 2010.

[18] Crown counsel submitted that there are aggravating factors including that this was a sophisticated and ongoing business, that it started some years prior to Mr. Gaudette's arrest and was motivated entirely by profit, and the fact that Mr. Gaudette was the principal of the business and not simply an employee.  Crown counsel urged me to consider denunciation and deterrence as the key sentencing principles to consider and suggested that a strong message needs to be sent to like-minded persons who consider opening such a business that it will not be tolerated.  Crown counsel further submitted that the range of sentence for this type of offence is 24 to 48 months of incarceration and that a sentence of 36 months is appropriate for this offence after taking into account the mitigating factors such as Mr. Gaudette's guilty plea and his lack of a criminal record.

[19] Defence counsel submitted that Mr. Gaudette ought to receive a suspended sentence with a curfew or house arrest provision for the first year.  He submitted that there are particular factors in this case that cause it to be different from the case authorities.  In the alternative, defence counsel submitted that if the court determines that a custodial sentence is appropriate, any period of incarceration should be measured in months rather than years and should be followed by a lengthy period of probation.

[20] Mr. LeBlond pointed to the mitigating factors in this case including Mr. Gaudette's guilty plea, his expressions of remorse during his testimony at the sentencing hearing and as described in the pre-sentence report.  He further urged me to find that the circumstances in which the offence was committed was a situation of ignorance rather than deliberation and planning which, while not necessarily a mitigating factor, reduced Mr. Gaudette's moral culpability and provided a measure of context for the offence.  Defence counsel relied on the largely positive pre-sentence report and the letters of support in Exhibit 8 in support of his submissions.

[21] Although his principal submission was that the court ought to impose a sentence to be served in the community, towards the end of his submissions, defence counsel conceded that if this court does not find exceptional circumstances and concludes that a sentence in the federal range is appropriate that a sentence of two years plus a day would be a fit sentence in those circumstances.

[22] Dealing first with the disputed circumstances of the offence, I note that Mr. Gaudette's evidence was that he did not really recall doing anything with his iPhone on the date of his arrest and he was not even sure that he had the phone with him but he was sure that he did not throw or spike the phone.  Mr. Gaudette admitted that he was distraught at the time of his arrest, concerned about the safety of his dogs, and terrified at having an officer pointing a gun at him.  Sergeant Ringelberg's evidence, on the other hand, was that the incident with respect to the phone stood out in his mind because (a) the irony that Mr. Gaudette attempted to smash his phone after spending money to protect it with an OtterBox; and (b) Mr. Gaudette threw the phone on the ground right behind him rather than away from him which was unusual in Sergeant Ringelberg's experience.  In my view, the evidence of Sergeant Ringelberg is more reliable with respect to his observations of Mr. Gaudette's actions on arrest and I accept his evidence that he observed Mr. Gaudette throw his phone on the ground when he was arrested.

[23] Mr. Gaudette maintained during his testimony that his commission of this offence arose out of ignorance and that he was unaware that the substances that he was selling through his website were scheduled under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  He argued that he would not have marketed these substances openly on his website if he had known that they were scheduled and he did not think that he was breaking the law.

[24] I found Mr. Gaudette's testimony somewhat troubling in many respects.  Despite his guilty plea and expressions of remorse, he continued to maintain that he did not think he was breaking the law and that he did not see himself as a drug dealer.  He testified that he started his website and business because he saw the large potential profits in this business, but under cross-examination, he initially denied that he was selling the substances for consumption and relied on the disclaimer on his website.  He also suggested that because he was not selling the substances for consumption, he was not put on notice regarding the questionable nature of selling these substances when he received the letter from Health Canada.

[25] After some vigorous questioning by Crown counsel, he finally admitted that his intention was that people bought the substances from him to consume them, but then went on to suggest that he disclaimed to all of his clients and "told them not to take them."  This evidence is directly contradicted by the content of some of the text messages recovered from Mr. Gaudette's phone and entered into evidence as Exhibit 5.  There are a number of messages in which Mr. Gaudette discusses setting up tester parties, handing out samplers, and having people "doing half zips a day."

[26] The pre-sentence report notes that Mr. Gaudette was aware that he was "walking a grey area legally," and that he had made minimal efforts to investigate its legality.  Although Mr. Gaudette takes some issue with this, in my view, it is clear from Exhibit 5 that Mr. Gaudette was aware that there might be legal problems arising from his activity.  He testified that he was told that BZP was becoming illegal and he did not sell it after that.  However, in a text message from March 5, 2013, Mr. Gaudette specifically refers to the active ingredient in one of his products being illegal and that he cannot have "anything illegal" on him because the RCMP knew about his website.  He later says that it is hard because he cannot sell them online or "to people I don't know very well," but he would keep trying.  The inference that I draw from this message is that while the substance could not be marketed on the Partyade.com website or to people that he did not know well, Mr. Gaudette would sell the substance to people that he did know well and he would continue to assist in the efforts to sell the product to others despite the fact that it had become scheduled.

[27] Mr. Gaudette's testimony left me with the impression that, despite his guilty plea, he did not see himself as a drug dealer and he minimized the nature of his offence.  In my view, this is consistent with his attempts to distance himself from the consumption of his products by reliance upon the strange disclaimer when it was clearly his intention that the products he sold would be consumed by his customers.  I have reached the same conclusion as that set out in the pre-sentence report that Mr. Gaudette knew that he was engaged in an activity that was legally questionable.  While I accept that he may not have had direct knowledge that the substances he was selling were listed in Schedule I to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, he was fully aware that he was walking a grey area legally and he continued to do so because he was motivated by the prospect of large profits.  He chose not to make reasonable efforts to determine his legal status in relation to those substances even when the packages imported from China began arriving disguised as tea.  He knew that the RCMP were aware of his website and activities as set out in the text messages in Exhibit 5.  I find that this awareness and knowledge motivated him to throw his phone to the ground when he was arrested.

[28] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the 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 that have one or more of the following objectives:  denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences, separating offenders from society where necessary, assisting in rehabilitation of offenders, providing reparation for harm done to victims or the community, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledging harm done to the victims and the community.  In my view, denunciation and deterrence are the principal sentencing objectives in the circumstances of this case.  Although I have given primary consideration to those principles, I have also concluded that assisting in the rehabilitation of the offender and promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender are secondary objectives of sentencing Mr. Gaudette.

[29] Section 718.2(b) requires that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.  That is a difficult task because the facts in each case are generally unique to that case.  I have reviewed the cases provided by the Crown which included R. v. Deutch, a decision of Madam Justice Brown from April 3, 2009; R. v. Matwijec, a decision of Judge Milne of the B.C. Provincial Court from August 10, 2012; R. v. Dehal, 2016 BCSC 479; R. v. Prevost, 2013 BCSC 1974; and R. v. Hubek, a decision of Judge Burdett from the B.C. Provincial Court from April 19, 2016.  I have also reviewed the cases provided by defence counsel, which included, R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285; and R. v. Nyan, 2016 ONSC 3948.

[30] The only sentencing decisions before me that deal specifically with trafficking in a substance such as Methylone are the cases of R. v. Hubek and R. v. Nyan.  In the case of R. v. Hubek, Judge Burdett noted that Methylone was a relatively new drugs and its inclusion in Schedule 1 clearly indicated Parliament's intent that it be treated in the same manner as other serious drugs such as heroin and cocaine.  In that case, the offender imported three packages of Methylone from China disguised as salt and each package contained five kilograms of Methylone with a total value of approximately $1 million.  The court imposed a sentence of four years' incarceration in that case noting that the offender was a first-time offender, but she continued to deny her criminal conduct and expressed no remorse.  In the case of R. v. Nyan, the 24-year-old offender was a street to mid-level dealer of Methylone who was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and two years of probation.  The offender's age and lack of criminal record were mitigating factors in that case.

[31] I note that there were other cases provided to me by defence counsel which involved street-level dial-a-dope offenders and were not of assistance in determining the appropriate sentencing range in this case.

[32] Having reviewed the cases whose facts most closely resemble this case, which, in my view, are R. v. Hubek and R. v. Nyan, I agree with the Crown's submission that the range of sentences for these types of offences is two to four years' incarceration absent exceptional circumstances.

[33] The B.C. Court of Appeal in R. v. Voong has provided guidance to sentencing judges as what constitutes exceptional circumstances.  At para. 59 of the decision, Madam Justice Bennett said that:

Exceptional circumstances may include a combination of no criminal record, significant and objectively identifiable steps towards rehabilitation for the drug addict, gainful employment, remorse and acknowledgement of the harm done to society as a result of the offences, as opposed to harm done to the offender as a result of being caught. This is a non-exhaustive list, but at the end of the day, there must be circumstances that are above and beyond the norm to justify a non-custodial sentence. There must be something that would lead a sentencing judge to conclude that the offender had truly turned his or her life around, and that the protection of the public was subsequently better served by a non-custodial sentence. However, Parliament, while not removing a non-custodial sentence for this type of offence, has concluded that CSO sentences are not available. Thus, it will be the rare case where the standard of exceptional circumstances is met.

[34] That case involved an offender who suffered from addiction and was a dial-a-dope trafficker who was found in possession of scoresheets, 6.6 grams of cocaine, a small amount of heroin, and $680 in cash.  The normal range of sentence for first-time offenders in those circumstances would have been between six to 18 months' incarceration.  The court found that the offender presented with exceptional circumstances by his commitment to rehabilitation and his success to that point and upheld a suspended sentence with a lengthy period of probation.

[35] Defence counsel submits that the exceptional circumstances in this case are that Mr. Gaudette is a first-time offender, he is remorseful, and he has done well in the community since the date of his offence.  It is clear that Mr. Gaudette has support from his family and friends and I commend him for his efforts in starting two new business ventures since his arrest in 2013.  However, in my view, he does not present with exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from the sentencing range for this offence and these circumstances.  Mr. Gaudette was operating an ongoing drug-trafficking business as the principal and operating mind.  While I do not necessarily accept the Crown characterization that this was a "sophisticated business," Mr. Gaudette admitted that he had been operating the business since at least 2010.  He had imported these substances from China on more than one occasion as was evidenced by the letter from Health Canada at Exhibit 6.  By his own admission, he was motivated by profit rather than addiction.  He was trafficking in relatively large quantities and, approximately, one kilogram of controlled substances were seized from him on arrest.  In one of the text messages in Exhibit 5, Mr. Gaudette tells another individual in November 2011 that he has sold hundreds of "KGs" of Methylone with no issues.

[36] Mr. Gaudette has expressed remorse and has acknowledged the harm done to his reputation and to his family as a result of his arrest and conviction.  Despite his guilty plea and expressions of remorse, I am not sure that Mr. Gaudette truly acknowledges the harm done to society as a result of his offence.  His actions in trafficking what were essentially unknown and untested substances imported from an unknown source in China were not only highly irresponsible, but also had the very real potential to be fatal to the persons to whom the substances were trafficked.  In my view, this is not one of those rare cases where the standard of exceptional circumstances is met that would justify departing from the sentencing range.  As I have already indicated, the range of sentence for this type of offence and these circumstances is two to four years' incarceration.  While I have no doubt that Mr. Gaudette is no longer a danger to the community and is specifically deterred from committing such offences in the future, I agree with the Crown's submission that a sentence within the range is required to address general deterrence and denunciation.  The question is where in this range this offence falls.

[37] The sentence that I impose should be increased or reduced to account for aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender.  The aggravating factors in this case are that Mr. Gaudette was the principal of this enterprise rather than a street-level trafficker employee; that he was involved in importing controlled substances from China; the quantities involved were not insignificant; and that he was motivated entirely by profit.  The most significant mitigating factors in this case are that Mr. Gaudette pleaded guilty without the need for a trial, that he has no prior criminal record, that he has expressed some remorse, and that he is at low risk to the community.

[38] Sentencing is an individualized process and each case must be decided on its own unique circumstances.  Having considered the submissions of counsel, the seriousness of the offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors, I have concluded that a sentence at the lower end of this range would achieve the key principles of denunciation and deterrence, as well as the secondary sentencing objectives, and that, in the circumstances, two-and-a-half years' incarceration is a fit and appropriate sentence in this case.

[39] So, Mr. Gaudette, could you please stand.

[40] I will express the sentence in terms of months, and I take it, Ms. Wiancko, Mr. LeBlond, there is no issue with regard to pre-sentence custody or credit for such?

[41] MR. LEBLOND:  I do not believe there is any that has been recorded thus far, My Lady.

[42] THE COURT:  All right.

[43] MS. WIANCKO:  That is correct.

[44] THE COURT:  All right.

[45] Mr. Gaudette, I sentence you to 30 months of imprisonment.

[46] In addition, there will also be the following ancillary orders.  There is a mandatory s. 109 firearms prohibition with respect to this offence and I will make that order.

[47] This is a secondary designated offence pursuant to s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code.  While it is not mandatory, given the serious nature of this offence, I have concluded that it is appropriate to make an order for DNA testing and I will make that order.

[48] Finally, I will make the order for forfeiture of the items seized and return of the certain items as set out in the draft order provided by Crown.

[49] Ms. Wiancko, I have not signed the draft order that you previously provided because it is dated January 2017.  So if you wish to resubmit it, I will sign it.

[50] MS. WIANCKO:  Thank you, My Lady.

[51] THE COURT:  All right.  All right.  Good luck to you, Mr. Gaudette.

[52] MS. WIANCKO:  My Lady, there is just one more issue.  I think there is the victim fine surcharge that we have to address.

[53] THE COURT:  All right.

[DISCUSSION RE VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE]

[54] THE COURT:  This offence predates the amendments to the victim surcharge provisions in the Code.  In the circumstances, while I appreciate that Mr. Gaudette's incarceration is going to limit his involvement in his business, I do not think I can find hardship in these circumstances.  I am going to grant Mr. Gaudette an extension of the time to pay and I will give him one year from the time of his release from incarceration.

[55] MR. LEBLOND:  Thank you, My Lady. 

[56] THE COURT:  All right.  Anything else, Ms. Wiancko?

[57] MS. WIANCKO:  So is that -- that is $200, right?

[58] THE COURT:  I think it is only one count.

[59] MS. WIANCKO:  Yes, so I think that is $200 because it is indictable --

[60] THE COURT:  Ah.

[61] MS. WIANCKO:  -- and then the Crown will stay all the remaining counts against Darryl Gaudette and Travis Gaudette.

[62] THE COURT:  All right.

[63] THE CLERK:  The victim surcharge is $100 as the offence occurred prior to June 2014.

[64] MS. WIANCKO:  Oh, so it is $100.

[65] THE COURT:  All right.

[66] MR. LEBLOND:  And, My Lady, stay on Count 2 with regard to Darryl Gaudette, as well, I would imagine?

[67] THE COURT:  All right.  So, all of the charges against Darryl Gaudette, then, are stayed, Ms. Wiancko?

[68] MS. WIANCKO:  That is correct.

[69] THE COURT:  All right, and all of the remaining charges for Mr. Travis Gaudette, so Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and 11 are all stayed, Madam Clerk.

“The Honourable Madam Justice Church”