SECTIONS IN THE CRIMINAL CODE OF 1969 DEALING WITH THE PROBATION ORDER ARE INTENDED TO ESTABLISH THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF PROBATION AS THE REHABILITATION OF THE OFFENDER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURT AND THE PROBATION OFFICERS. PROBATION IS ALLOWED FOR AN OFFENSE WITH NO MINIMUM PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WHEN THE ACCUSED IS FINED OR SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING 2 YEARS, AND WHEN THE ACCUSED RECEIVES AN INTERMITTENT SENTENCE OF 90 DAYS OR LESS. CASE LAW ON CONDITIONS FOR PROBATION IS IDENTIFIED AND DISCUSSED. THREE TYPES OF PROBATION ORDERS CONSIDERED PROBLEMATIC ARE THOSE WITH CLERICAL ERRORS, THOSE WITH ILLEGAL OR IRREGULAR CONDITIONS, AND FAULTY ORDERS. CLERICAL ERRORS MAY BE IGNORED OR RECTIFIED BY THE CLERK, THE JUDGE, OR BY THE PROBATION OFFICER ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE JUDGE. WHILE THE TERMS OF THE PROBATION ORDER CANNOT BE ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, OR IMPOSSIBLE, IT IS ALSO ADVISED THAT OTHER QUESTIONABLE CONDITIONS MAY ALSO BE CHALLENGED ON THE BASIS OF UNREASONABLENESS. EXAMPLES OF SUCH CASES ARE PROVIDED. EXAMPLES OF PROBATION ORDERS INHERENTLY ILLEGAL ARE POSTDATED ORDERS, CONSECUTIVE ORDERS, RETROACTIVE PROBATION, DEFERRED PROBATION ORDERS ALONG WITH INTERMITTENT SENTENCES, AND ANY OTHER ORDERS WHICH ARE AT VARIANCE WITH THE CODE. IN SUCH CASES OF ILLEGALITY, THE PROBATION OFFICER IS ADVISED TO INFORM THE COURT AND THE CROWN PROSECUTOR. (RCB)