Citation: ☼ R. v.

Haq
2023 BCPC 159
Date: ☼20230705
File Nos: 33598-1, 263902-1,
264176-1, 261864-2,
261864-3-A, 66275-1

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

Registries: Vancouver, Richmond

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

File Nos: 335981-1, 263902-1, 264176-1

261864-2, 261864-3-A
Registry: Vancouver

REX

v.

MUHAMMAD ZAIN HAQ

File No: 66275-1

Registry: Richmond

REX

v.

MUHAMMAD ZAIN HAQ

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE R.P. HARRIS

Counsel for the Crown: E. Leno

Counsel for the Defendant: J. Phillips, K.C., B. Isitt, F. Yu
Place of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.
Date of Hearing: March 9, 2023
Date of Judgment: July 5, 2023
R. v. Haq Page 1

INTRODUCTION

[1] Mr. Haq pled guilty to five counts of mischief and one count of breaching an
Undertaking. These offences involve Mr. Haq’s actions in relation to environmental
protests wherein he participated in blocking roadways. A sentencing hearing was held

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

and the court has had the benefit of a pre-sentence report, related authorities, character
letters, and submissions of counsel. This court is tasked with imposing a reasoned, fair,
and proportional sentence.

BACKGROUND

[2] Extinction Rebellion is an environmental organization originating in Europe with

branches throughout the world including Vancouver. The Vancouver branch, Extinction
Rebellion Vancouver, organized and conducted a number of environmental protests
where they would block roadways and bridges. The protests were conducted with the
objective of forcing immediate government action on matters negatively impacting the
climate.

MR. HAQ’S INVOLVEMENT

Information 261864-2

[3] On Saturday, March 27, 2021, 100 – 150 persons gathered at City Hall to
participate in a protest organized by Extinction Rebellion Vancouver. Police liaison
officers attended and they spoke with Mr. Haq who advised that the group planned to
march to West Broadway where they would stage a “die in” for several minutes
following which they would march onto the Cambie Street Bridge where they would
protest. He also advised the police that a few people were prepared to be arrested.

[4] At 1:00 p.m., the group marched from City Hall to the intersection of Cambie
Street and West Broadway where they laid on the roadway for several minutes. The
group then marched north on Cambie Street and onto the Cambie Street Bridge.
R. v. Haq Page 2

[5] Once on the bridge, the group stopped mid span where they displayed banners
and hung Extinction Rebellion flags from the side of the bridge. Speeches were given,
music was played and people danced in the roadway.

[6] By 3:22 p.m., the police broadcasted a series of warnings to the protestors. They

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

informed the protestors that they had to allow access for emergency vehicles or they
would be arrested for mischief. They also asked the group to leave and they told them
that they were free to go.

[7] At 3:28 p.m., the police gave a further warning. They advised the group that they
had five minutes to clear the roadway or they would be arrested. Ultimately, a final
warning was given and a number of protesters cleared from the roadway. Six persons,
including Mr. Haq, remained on the roadway.

[8] The police approached Mr. Haq and informed him that his actions were unlawful
and that he could be charged. They asked him if he would leave and if there was
anything that they could say or do to get him to leave. Mr. Haq responded “no.” The
police then informed him that he was under arrest.

[9] Once informed that he was under arrest, Mr. Haq told the police that he would go
limp and that they would have to lift him. Ultimately, Mr. Haq was placed on a stretcher
and carried to a police wagon. He was then processed and released on an Undertaking
prohibiting him from being on the Cambie Street Bridge.

[10] The above protest stopped traffic for 3 hours. Approximately 14,000 vehicles
were impacted. Importantly, the Cambie Street Bridge is critical to the efficient
movement of traffic in and out of the downtown core.

Information 263902-1

[11] On May 2, 2021, the police learned of a planned protest involving the Granville
Street Bridge. With this in mind, they spoke with Mr. Haq who advised them that the
group would start marching at approximately 12:30 or 1:00 p.m. and that they would
proceed along Granville Street and onto the bridge where they intended to occupy the
R. v. Haq Page 3

roadway for a significant period of time. The police informed Mr. Haq that they would
stop the group from occupying the main portion of the bridge and that they could protest
only at the north end.

[12] Extinction Rebellion Vancouver members then gathered at the Vancouver Art

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

Gallery and after a number of speeches approximately 50 protesters made their way to
the way to the north side of the Granville Street Bridge where they were stopped by a
police line.

[13] The police made several announcements asking the protestors to leave. The
police also issued warnings advising that the protestors were committing offences and
that they would be arrested if they did not clear. Eight protestors including Mr. Haq did
not clear and they sat in single file on the roadway.

[14] Eventually, Mr. Haq was arrested and walked to a police wagon. The protestors
were on the bridge for 3.5 hours. It is noteworthy that the Granville Street Bridge is of
significant importance to the efficient movement of traffic in and out of the downtown
core.

Information 264176-1

[15] Extinction Rebellion Vancouver advertised their intent to protest on the Burrard
Street Bridge and on knowing this the police became concerned about the impact that
this would have on those trying to access St. Paul’s Hospital. Therefore, the police
contacted Mr. Haq and informed him that the group would not be allowed access to the
bridge and they cautioned him that persons would be arrested if they blocked the
bridge.

[16] On July 24, 2021, protestors met at a park near the south end of the Burrard
Street Bridge. Various speeches with given and at the conclusion, the group started
marching north on Burrard Street toward the bridge. The police blocked the group from
entering the bridge and in response 70 – 80 protestors spread across the intersection of
Cornwall Street and Burrard Street where they held signs and sang songs.
R. v. Haq Page 4

[17] The police made several announcements advising the protestors that they had to
clear the roadway and warned that those who did not leave would be arrested. All
protestors cleared the roadway with the exception of Mr. Haq and 11 others. Mr. Haq
was eventually arrested and taken to the Vancouver jail where he was released on a

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

condition prohibiting him from entering the area.

[18] The protest interfered with emergency vehicles trying to access St. Paul’s
Hospital, it impacted traffic for several hours and it consumed significant police
resources.

Information 33598-1

[19] As part of the 14 Day Fall Rebellion, Extinction Rebellion Vancouver hosted a
protest on Saturday, October 16, 2021. In this regard, the group gathered in Nelson
Park where they stated their plan was to conduct a “mass die in” and take over an
intersection. Aware of this plan, the police informed Mr. Haq and others that they would
be given a little time to occupy the intersection after which the police would move in and
clear it.

[20] Approximately 50 protestors then marched to the intersection of West Georgia

Street and Burrard Street. Once there, they began protesting, and in doing so they
blocked traffic in all directions. This intersection is in the centre of the downtown core
with Burrard Street providing direct access to St. Paul’s Hospital.

[21] After approximately 30 minutes, the police began to broadcast asking the group
to leave and warning of possible arrests. The broadcasts were successful in getting the
majority of the protestors to leave; however, 4 remained including Mr. Haq.

[22] The police approached Mr. Haq and asked him to leave the roadway. Mr. Haq
indicated that he was not leaving and the police arrested him at which point he went
limp. The police then carried him to the police wagon where he was identified and
released.
R. v. Haq Page 5

[23] The intersection was blocked for approximately 45 minutes. The protest required
more than 18 police officers who monitored the event, directed traffic, made arrests and
processed persons.

Information 66275-1

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

[24] As part of the 14 Day Fall Rebellion, Extinction Rebellion Vancouver advertised a
planned blockade on the roadway leading to Vancouver International Airport, and on
October 25, 2021, protestors gathered at Miller Neighbourhood Park where Mr. Haq
made a speech. During his speech he informed the group that thousands of people
would be angry and that their protest would disrupt the Canadian public. Thereafter,
there were further addresses wherein the protestors were told about the arrest and
release process.

[25] After the speeches, approximately 60 protestors marched to the intersection of

Grant McConachie Way and Templeton Road where they spread out. They were
carrying signs and chanting and a group of individuals sat in the middle of the
intersection.

[26] Ultimately, the police issued warnings to the group wherein they were advised
that their actions were illegal and they were cautioned that they could be arrested and
charged. After a number of warnings, 18 protestors including Mr. Haq remained in the
intersection.

[27] Mr. Haq and the 17 others were ultimately arrested and transported to the police
station where they were released. Mr. Haq was released on an Undertaking prohibiting
him from attending Sea Island in Richmond.

[28] The above protest involved 29 police officers. The roadway was blocked for
approximately 2 hours. Where the protest occurred is critical for responding to
emergencies at the airport including; medical emergencies, calls for police assistance
and emergency landings.
R. v. Haq Page 6

[29] The impact of the protest was significant. In this regard, the Vancouver
International Airport is the second busiest airport in Canada. Many travellers were
delayed and traffic was stopped for more than an hour on the Arthur Laing Bridge which
is a bridge leading to the intersection where the protesters set up and it is critical to

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

accessing the airport.

Information 261864-3-A

[30] By August 2022, a group called “Stop Fracking Around” emerged and within the
group were persons from Save Old Growth and Extinction Rebellion. Mr. Haq was also
a member of this group and at times he was advertised as a spokesperson and co-
founder.

[31] On August 15, 2022, the group conducted a planned protest. In this regard, they
met at City Hall where Mr. Haq addressed the group. He told them that the plan was to
march onto the Cambie Street Bridge and continue on to the CBC building. He also
reminded the group about a civil resistance training session and he informed them they
had an obligation to engage in civil disobedience including being arrested.

[32] Mr. Haq and the group then marched onto the bridge and they stopped traffic for
20 minutes. Significantly, Mr. Haq entered onto the bridge in violation of his March 27,
2021 Undertaking prohibiting him from being on the bridge. His actions were also in
violation of his immigration release whereby he was prohibited from engaging in activity
that could lead to charges and convictions.

[33] Of note, when the protestors were on the bridge an emergency vehicle with lights
and siren activated was forced to slow while the group moved so it could pass.

[34] Lastly, and from the materials filed, it is clear that Mr. Haq’s role evolved to being
more than a protestor. In this regard, he liaised with the police, he gave speeches and
he encouraged others to participate in the blockades at the risk of being arrested.
R. v. Haq Page 7

PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

[35] Mr. Haq is 22, he was born and raised in Pakistan where he enjoyed a stable
positive upbringing. He came to Canada on a student visa in August 2019 and he
quickly connected with persons who are part of the “environmental movement”.

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

[36] As for his schooling, Mr. Haq completed high school in Pakistan and he reports
he was a good student. While in Canada, Mr. Haq studied at a local university with the
objective of obtaining a history degree. These plans are on hold because his criminal
charges have resulted in the revocation of his student visa, thereby preventing him from
attending university.

[37] When Mr. Haq’s visa was revoked, he was detained by the Canadian Border
Services Agency. He ultimately secured his release and since June 2022, he has been
reporting twice weekly. Currently, there is a removal order and it will be acted on once
his criminal matters are resolved.

[38] In terms of his offences, Mr. Haq acknowledges his involvement and states the
current climate crisis created a sense of desperation and motivated him to act.
Specifically, he advises he became aware of the global environmental crisis when he
learned of a heatwave in Pakistan resulting in the death of 20,000 people and of floods
that displaced millions.

[39] In terms of what Mr. Haq has learned from his involvement with the justice
system, Kim Kirby, writer of the pre-sentence report, observed:

Zain relates that although he continues to be passionate about the

“environmental movement” and “climate emergency” he now recognizes
that it is “not wise to be engaged in civil disobedience”. He conveys that
he lost sight of his academic pursuits and prioritized climate issues. Zain
states that his passion has not waned but the methods are changing. He
acknowledges that there are many ways to express one’s views without
breaking the law and that the primary catalyst for this attitude change was
his detention. Additionally he is now cognizant that such actions put
himself at risk as a non citizen.
R. v. Haq Page 8

[40] Although, Mr. Haq does not have a criminal record, his actions related to climate
change have resulted in him spending time in custody. In this regard, and as a result of
his breach, he spent a total of 9 days in custody and he is entitled to a credit of 14 days.

[41] Other matters of note are; he was issued a ticket by CN Police Service for an

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

anti-pipeline protest held on CN Rail property. Additionally, he was found to be in
criminal contempt of court for breaching a British Columbia Supreme Court injunction
and he was sentenced for his contempt on September 19, 2021. Then on September
24, 2021, Mr. Haq was arrested again for violating another Supreme Court injunction.
He ultimately received a 14 day jail sentence for his contempt.

[42] Mr. Haq recently married and he lives on Vancouver Island. Several letters were
filed on his behalf and a review of them satisfies me that Mr. Haq is an intelligent,
motivated young person who is a staunch protector of the environment. The letters also
satisfy me that Mr. Haq can, provided he does so through legitimate means, be a
catalyst for positive change.

SENTENCING POSITIONS

[43] The Crown urges the court to impose the following sentences:

a) 30 days jail for breaching an Undertaking on 261864-3-A

b) 60 days jail for the 5 mischief files; 264176-1, 33598-1, 66275-1,
261864-2, 263902-1
c) 18 months probation with various terms and conditions

[44] The Crown supports their position by arguing the number of offences and Mr.
Haq’s degree of involvement supports a heightened need for denunciation and
deterrence.

[45] Counsel for Mr. Haq, urges the court to impose a conditional discharge with 12
months probation with restrictive conditions including a curfew, community work service
and a prohibition against blocking or impeding roadways.
R. v. Haq Page 9

[46] In the alternative, counsel argues that a 30 day jail sentence served conditionally
in the community would be appropriate.

[47] In support, counsel for Mr. Haq points to his positive attributes, the support he
has in the community and his recognition that his climate goals must be achieved

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

through lawful measures. Finally, counsel points to potential immigration consequences
for Mr. Haq as a reason for exercising restraint.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

Purpose and principles of sentencing

[48] Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, provide
guidance with respect to purposes and principles of sentencing.

[49] As per s. 718 of the Criminal Code:

718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to

contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, 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:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or
to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing
offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the
community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and
acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

Fundamental principle of sentencing

[50] As per s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, proportionality is a fundamental principle of

sentencing and it demands that the sentence imposed be proportionate to the gravity of
the offence and the degree of offender responsibility. In R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64,
R. v. Haq Page 10

Justice Wagner, now Chief Justice, commented on the importance of proportional

sentences at paras. 128-129:

[128] The principle of proportionality has a long history as a guiding

principle in sentencing, and it has a constitutional dimension: R. v.

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at para. 41; R. v. M.
(C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 41. A person
cannot be made to suffer a disproportionate punishment simply to send a
message to discourage others from offending: Nur, at para. 45. As
Rosenberg J.A. wrote in R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA),
30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at pp. 546-47:
The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness
and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the
particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the
seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the
offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court
must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in
the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality
principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with
for the sake of the common good. [Footnote omitted.]
Although a court can, in pursuit of the objective of general deterrence,
impose a harsher sentence in order to send a message with a view to
deterring others, the offender must still deserve that sentence: R. v.
Paré, 2011 QCCA 2047; G. Renaud, The Sentencing Code of Canada:
Principles and Objectives (2009), at para. 3.13. If a judge fails to
individualize a sentence and to consider the relevant mitigating factors
while placing undue emphasis on the circumstances of the offence and
the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, all that is done is to punish
the crime: R. v. R. (M.), 2010 QCCA 16, 73 C.R. (6th) 136. Proportionality
requires that a sentence not exceed what is just and appropriate in light of
the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence.
From this perspective, it serves as a limiting principle: Nasogaluak, at
para. 42.

Other sentencing principles

[51] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out other sentencing principles that a
court shall take into consideration. Relevant to the instant matter are:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any

relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or
the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
…
R. v. Haq Page 11

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar

offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence
should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable
in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to
the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular
attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

APPLICATION

[52] Denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives for the
offence of mischief when committed in the context of civil disobedience: R. v.
Panganiban et al. (8 December 2021), Vancouver 32605-1/262312-1 (B.C.P.C.) at para
40.

[53] As for rehabilitation, I am satisfied that Mr. Haq’s experiences with the justice
system has served to assist in his rehabilitation and I conclude that it is unlikely that he
will commit similar offences.

[54] In terms of proportionality, I observe at first blush, Mr. Haq’s offences are at the
low end of the spectrum of seriousness, however, the impact of his offences serve to
slightly elevate their seriousness. Specifically, traffic on major roadways was impacted,
access to an international airport was denied, emergency traffic was impacted, and
significant police resources were consumed.

[55] As for Mr. Haq’s moral culpability, the evidence is clear, he knowingly and
deliberately broke the law and he did so fully aware of the consequences and the
impact that his actions would have on innocent parties. Mr. Haq’s laudable protection of
the environment does not reduce his culpability. Simply the rule of law must be obeyed
unless legal justification permits otherwise.
R. v. Haq Page 12

Aggravating and mitigating circumstances

[56] The number of offences before the court is aggravating. Mr. Haq’s conduct in
knowingly blocking traffic, annoying the public and interfering with their lawful use and
enjoyment of public roadways is aggravating. The significant number of police

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

resources consumed by Mr. Haq’s behavior is aggravating. The fact that he persisted in
his behaviour while knowing the consequences is aggravating as is his willingness to
involve and encourage others. Finally, I find it aggravating that Mr. Haq’s breach of his
release order was a flagrant disregard of terms designed to prevent further offences and
that he did so in the face of the authorities.

[57] Mr. Haq’s good character is mitigating, as is his community support. His guilty
pleas are generally mitigating and I use the term generally because one occurred on the
first day of trial while others occurred well before trial.

Similar sentences

[58] Counsel presented the court with numerous sentencing decisions. A review
discloses a range of sentences from a conditional discharge to a custodial sentence. I
am not going to describe all of the various circumstances and sentences because they
vary dramatically. This variance reflects the unique circumstances of each offender and
the many different ways in which the offence of mischief can be committed.

[59] I observe, typically those offenders involved in multiple files and without
particularly attenuating circumstances have received a suspended sentence or a
conditional sentence order. Factors that tip the scale include, the number of files, the
specific conduct, and the offender’s personal circumstances.

Least restrictive sanction

[60] Section 718.2(d) of the Criminal Code, directs that an offender should not be
deprived of their liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate. Lastly, s.
718.2(e) of the Criminal Code directs that all available sanctions, other than
R. v. Haq Page 13

imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm
done, should be considered for all offenders.

[61] The above sections are often referenced as codifying the “principle of restraint”.
This principle requires that a jail sentence be imposed only as a measure of last resort

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

and that the lightest jail term that is reasonable should be imposed. The Court of Appeal
in R. v. Bosco, 2016 BCCA 55, summarized the principle at para. 35:

Sections 718.2(d) and (e) reflect the restraint principle. This principle
encourages caution and moderation in the imposition of custodial
sentences. Pursuant to the principle of restraint, the sentencing judge
should treat imprisonment as a sanction of last resort and limit any
custodial period imposed to the lightest term reasonable in the
circumstances. The purpose of such restraint is to reduce Canada's
historically high incarceration rates and avoid sentences that are unduly
harsh: R. v. Proulx, [2000] 1 SCR 61 at paras.16-17.

ANALYSIS

Mischief offences

[62] In considering an appropriate sentence for the mischief matters, I am of a view

that the law and the circumstances justify a sentence that denounces and deters.
Simply, through the sentence imposed, this court must express societal condemnation
for Mr. Haq’s conduct. This is because Mr. Haq has shown disdain for the rule of law
and he has publicly encouraged others to break the law while publicly celebrating his
arrest. His conduct speaks to an arrogance of ideals at the expense of the democratic
process and pro-social dialogue.

[63] With the above in mind, the sentence must also send a message to others who
are inclined to engage in multiple criminal offences committed on the platform of change
and that such conduct will result in criminal consequences.

[64] As for proportionality, I find the conduct to be of a slightly elevated seriousness

given the interference with public movement and the flow of emergency vehicles. In my
R. v. Haq Page 14

view, there is no evidence justifying a conclusion that Mr. Haq’s moral culpability was
reduced.

[65] With the above in mind, I have considered a conditional discharge, and I
acknowledge that a discharge would be in Mr. Haq’s best interests, however, I am of the

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

opinion that such a result would not be in the public’s interest. Specifically, I conclude
that the requisite degree of general deterrence and denunciation required by the instant
matter would not be achieved. My conclusion is based on the locations of the protests,
the size of the protests, the deliberateness of the offences and the social media
publication pre and post arrest.

[66] After careful consideration, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence is justified. I

now turn to consider if the sentence should be served conditionally in the community.

Appropriateness of a conditional sentence order

[67] I begin by acknowledging that the length of the proposed sentence falls within the
permissible range for a conditional sentence order. I am also satisfied that Mr. Haq’s
time on bail, his conduct since his last arrest, and his expressed commitment to lawful
behavior justifies a conclusion that he is not a risk to the public.

[68] The vexing issue is whether a conditional sentence order would be consistent
with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. The Crown argues that a
conditional sentence order would fail because it would not adequately meet the requisite
degree of denunciation and deterrence. Defence counsel, argues Mr. Haq’s conviction
combined with terms and conditions that restrict his liberty will meet the requisite degree
of denunciation and deterrence: Proulx, supra.

[69] When I consider Mr. Haq’s offences, and his personal circumstances, combined
with the consequences he has suffered thus far, I am satisfied that restrictive terms will
sufficiently meet the requisite degree of denunciation and deterrence. I therefore impose
a conditional term of imprisonment for a period of 75 days; however, after considering
Mr. Haq’s pre-sentence custodial credit of 14 days, he has 61 days to serve on the
conditional sentence order. Thereafter he will be bound by probation for 12 months.
R. v. Haq Page 15

[70] In considering an appropriate sentence, I have considered potential immigration

consequences and in my view, to reduce the sentence would result in a sentence that
would be disproportionate. Additionally, and given the suggestion that Mr. Haq failed to
disclose that he was denied a US visa, the sentence imposed may be of no moment to

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

his immigration situation.

Breach of release order

[71] In my view, Mr. Haq’s conduct was serious and his degree of responsibility high.
The breach was not technical nor minor. Rather, Mr. Haq publicly, and in the face of the
police, flagrantly disregarded conditions of his release that were intended to prevent
further offences. As such, I am of the view that the need for denunciation and
deterrence is high. Persons need to know that conditions of release must be obeyed
and that the flagrant breach of protective conditions will result in consequences. This
approach not only protects the public, it also serves to maintain the public confidence in
the administration of justice.

[72] Recognizing the importance of restraint, I have considered the applicability of a

conditional sentence order and I conclude that such a result would be inconsistent with
the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. As such, I impose a custodial
sentence of seven days.

CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER TERMS

[73] Mr. Haq is to be bound by a conditional sentence order for 61 days. The terms
and conditions are as follows:

 You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

 You must appear before the court when required to do so by the
court.
 You must notify the court or your conditional sentence supervisor in
advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the
court or supervisor of any change in employment or occupation.
R. v. Haq Page 16

 You must remain in British Columbia unless you have prior written
permission from the court or your conditional sentence supervisor
to leave the province.
 Within 48 hours of your release from custody you must report in
person to a conditional sentence supervisor at 836 Courtney St.

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

Victoria, BC, and thereafter, you must report as directed by your
conditional sentence supervisor.
 When first reporting to your conditional sentence supervisor you
must provide them with your residential address and not change
that address without the prior written permission of your conditional
sentence supervisor.
 For the first 30 days of this order you must not be off the property of
your residence 24 hours per day except for:
Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
 For the remainder of this order you must not be off your property
between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. seven days per week.
 You must present yourself at the doorway of your residence to any
police officer, correctional officer or conditional sentence supervisor
who attends to ensure your compliance with your curfew.
 You must not block or impede any traffic or pedestrians on any
road, highway or public space in British Columbia.

PROBATION TERMS AND CONDITIONS

[74] The probation period of 12 months. The terms and conditions of his probation
order are as follows:

 You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

 You must appear before the Court when required to do so by the
Court.
 You must notify the Court or the Probation Officer in advance of
any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or
the Probation Officer of any change of employment or occupation.
 Within 48 hours of having completed your conditional sentence
order, you must report to a probation officer in Victoria, BC, and
thereafter as and when directed by the probation officer.
 At the direction of and to the satisfaction of your probation officer
you must complete 75 hours of community work service such
R. v. Haq Page 17

community work service must be completed on or before May 25,

2024.
 You must not block or impede any traffic or pedestrians on any
road, highway or public space in British Columbia.

2023 BCPC 159 (CanLII)

VICTIM FINE SURCHARGE

[75] Mr. Haq must pay the applicable victim fine surcharges on or before February 14,
2024.

_____________________________
The Honourable Judge R.P. Harris
Provincial Court of British Columbia