ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. White, 2026 ONCJ 27

DATE: 2026 01 12

COURT FILE No.: NEWMARKET

23-91107117-00

B E T W E E N :

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND — ADAM WHITE

Reasons for Judgment

Before Justice S. Bacchus

Oral Reasons for Judgment released on December 1, 2025

Written Reasons released on January 12, 2026

N. DE MONTIGNY............................................................................... counsel for the Crown

The defendant Adam WHITE.................................................................... on his own behalf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.. 2

OVERVIEW... 2

The Christie Matter 3

Andrew Christie. 3

Jessica DiFederico. 7

The Kuehl matter 9

Brian Kuehl 9

Sylvia Desjardins. 15

Annette Nyland. 16

Abba Katz. 19

ADMISSIBILITY ISSUE #1: RULING ON THE VOIR DIRE.. 20

Fayorn John. 20

Evidence on the Voir Dire. 22

Analysis. 23

The Defence Evidence. 25

Adam White. 26

ADMISSIBILITY ISSUE #2 – EXPERT EVIDENCE RULING.. 31

Brandie Stevenson. 31

The Test 31

Relevance and Necessity. 32

Properly Qualified Expert/ Limitations of Ms. Stevenson’s Expertise. 32

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE.. 37

Adam White. 37

Andrew Christie. 41

Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins. 43

DiFederico/Katz/Nyland. 43

Fayorn John. 44

FINDINGS.. 45

Has the Crown Proven the Case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?. 45

Fraud over: Count 1 (Kuehl); Count 4: (Christie) 45

Utter Forged Documents: Counts 2 and 5. 47

Obstruct Justice: Count 3 (Kuehl and Desjardins); Count 6 (Christie) 49

CONCLUSION.. 50

BACCHUS J.:

INTRODUCTION

1Mr. White is charged with six Criminal Code offences: two counts of Fraud Over contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; two counts of Uttering Forged Documents contrary to s. 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; two counts of Attempting to Obstruct Justice contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

2Mr. White is presumed innocent, and the Crown is required to prove the essential elements of each offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is logically derived from the evidence and based in reason and common sense. A reasonable doubt does not arise on the basis of sympathy or prejudice. R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, at para. 39.

3In analyzing the evidence and assessing the credibility and reliability of a witness’ testimony, the test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v W(D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, is to be applied: if I accept the evidence of the accused, I must acquit; if I do not accept the evidence of the accused, but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit; and, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I must ask myself whether on the basis of the evidence that I do accept if I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

OVERVIEW

4At the material times set out in the information, Mr. White was a lawyer in private practice, accredited by the Law Society of Ontario. Andrew Christie and Brian Kuehl were clients of Mr. White. Sometime in 2014, Mr. Christie retained Mr. White to represent him as a plaintiff in a civil matter. In May or June 2020, Brian Kuehl retained Mr. White to represent him in a family law proceeding as he pursued custody and access of his young children. Bryan Kuehl’s mother, Sylvia Desjardins, paid the retainer and other fees to secure Mr. White’s ongoing legal representation of her son.

5Mr. White initiated court proceedings with respect to both matters as instructed by his clients. It is alleged, however, that Mr. White misrepresented the status of the proceedings to his respective clients while still collecting payment for legal fees from them. It is alleged that in aid of this ongoing misrepresentation, Mr. White provided Mr. Christie, Mr. Kuehl, and Sylvia Desjardins (Mr. Kuehl’s mother), what appeared to be signed endorsements from judges who purportedly presided over their cases and provided rulings/directions. It is also alleged that Mr. White provided Mr. Christie with a fraudulent letter purportedly sent by Jessica DiFederico, who was opposing counsel in the civil action brought by Mr. Christie.

6The Crown alleges that the endorsements provided by Mr. White to his clients and the letter signed by Ms. DiFederico, are forgeries and that those proceedings reflected by the endorsements and referred to in the DiFederico letter, never occurred.

The Christie Matter

(Witnesses: Andrew Christie, Jessica DiFederico)

Andrew Christie

7Andrew Christie is a civil engineer who has worked as a building inspector for about 39 years. Mr. Christie met Mr. White met approximately 15 years ago. Over the years, Mr. Christie retained Mr. White to represent him on a number of legal matters.

8In and around 2014, Mr. Christie retained Mr. White to represent him as the plaintiff in wrongful dismissal claims against David Cook and the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors (hereinafter OAHI).

9Mr. Christie testified that he initially retained Mr. White for the OAHI matter in 2014. to initiate this claim. He testified that a year or so later, Mr. White advised him that the lawyer he had hired to file the claim had not done so. Mr. Christie testified that Mr. White apologized, and Mr. Christie decided to continue having Mr. White represent him. On January 8, 2016, Mr. White filed a Statement of Claim on Mr. Christie’s behalf in the Barrie Superior Court, seeking general damages in the amount of $100,000.00 and special damages in the amount of $250,000.00. The court file number assigned to the proceeding was 16-0046 (Exhibit 1).

10A Statement of Defence was served on the plaintiff and filed on April 21, 2016. Jessica DiFederico was counsel for the respondent (Exhibit 10a and 10b).

11In August 2017, examinations for discovery took place. Mr. White and Mr. Christie were present for the discovery along with Mr. Cook, and Ms. DiFederico. The discovery process took place over a two-day period.

12On June 18, 2019, Mr. Christie’s civil suit was dismissed with an Order of Costs against the plaintiff in the amount of $8,000 (Exhibit 2 – Order of Justice Casulla dated June 18, 2019).

13In February 2019, prior to the dismissal order, Mr. Bruekleman, a colleague of Ms DiFederico’s, brought a motion to compel undertakings from the plaintiff, as instructed by Ms. DiFederico. As a result, the plaintiff was ordered to provide responses within 30 days of the motion.

14On June 18, 2019, Mr. Christie’s civil suit was dismissed by order of Justice Casullo. The order states in part: “...nobody else having attended, despite being properly served with the defendant’s motion materials.” No one from the plaintiff’s side (Mr. Christie or Mr. White) attended court to address the motion to dismiss the claim on June 18, 2019 (Exhibit 2).

15Mr. Christie testified that he was unaware of the court orders made on February 2019 and on June 18, 2019. He testified that he only learned of the order dismissing the lawsuit when he attended the Barrie courthouse in person in March 2023, and inquired of court services about the status of the case. He testified that he asked to see a copy of the court file and saw the order of the court dismissing the lawsuit in 2019. Mr. Christie testified that he also learned at that time that there was an outstanding cost award ordered against him in the amount of $8,000 (Exhibit 2).

16Mr. Christie testified that his communication with Mr. White regarding the litigation became sporadic and that he had great difficulty getting in touch with Mr. White. He testified that Mr. White would often go “in communicado”.

17Mr. Christie testified that between August 2019 and November 28, 2022, Mr. White sent him a series of emails which purported to be Mr. White’s correspondence with Ms. DiFederico, regarding the lawsuit. A chart outlining this correspondence is set out at Appendix A.

18The subject matter of the emails Mr. Christie received from Mr. White pertained to a purported offer from the respondents to settle the OAHI litigation as well as a counter offer supposedly made by Mr. White to the respondents. The communications also referred to scheduling mediation (Exhibits 3a to 3d).

19Exhibit 3b is an email dated September 20, 2019, sent to jdefredarico@bsleagl.ca and copying Mr. Christie at his Safe Homes Canada email address from Adam White, awhite@yorklawchambers.com. The email attaches a letter signed by Adam White and appearing on Mr. White’s letterhead, which was purportedly sent to Ms. DiFederico. In the letter, Mr. White advises Ms. DiFederico that the respondent’s Offer to Settle is rejected and Mr. White proposes a counteroffer. A copy of the letter is reproduced at Appendix B.

20Exhibit 3c is an email dated December 16, 2019, sent from awhite@yorklawchambers.com to Mr. Christie. The email states: “Hi Andy: I have attached her correspondence. It is not what I had hoped.” Attached to the email is a letter dated December 16, 2019, addressed to Adam C. White purportedly from Jessica DiFederico. The letter bears Ms. DiFederico’s law firm’s logo and a signature that purports to be that of Ms. DiFederico’s. The letter refers to conversations that supposedly took place between Mr. White and Ms. DiFederico on December 12, 2019, and December 16, 2019, about the OAHI litigation. A copy of the letter is reproduced at Appendix C.

21Mr. Christie testified that he had suspicions about these emails because of the noticeable misspellings in the email addresses. He testified that he questioned Mr. White about these errors and that Mr. White told him that there was a special computer software program that flagged and fixed the spelling errors and then redirected the emails to the correct address (Exhibit 3d dated December 12, 2019).

22Mr. Christie testified that he continued to receive email correspondence from Mr. White throughout 2020 and into 2021, the substance of which led him to believe that his civil suit was still before the court and was going to trial.

23On July 27, 2020, Mr. Christie received an email from Mr. White attaching the latest directive regarding civil trials. The email to Mr. Christie states: “Here is the latest directive received on civil trials. Looks like the back log is going to go on for some time. They have now cancelled the November 2020 trial sittings for civil matters”. (Exhibit 3e).

24On September 18, 2020, Mr. Christie testified that he received an email from Mr. White indicating that he had missed the deadline for YRDS services regarding filing the Trial Record. The email from Mr. White states in part: “I’m assured it will be filed Monday. I’m sorry. I was drafting earlier, but it will leave here today.” (Exhibit 3f)

25On October 6, 2020, Mr. Christie testified that he received an email with attachment from Mr. White again about the litigation. The subject line of the email states: “Trial record Backpages with Stamp.” The email simply states: “Hey Andy find attached.” Attached to the email is a copy of what appears to be the back page of a trial record. The document bears the following: a symbol that appears to be a coat of arms; a court file number “CV-16-0046”, the phrase “the matter of Andrew Christie and David Cook et al”; and the words ‘Trial Record (Volume 1)”. Mr. White’s law chambers’ address and phone number, and a reference to Adam White as solicitor for the Plaintiff also appear on the document. The email and attachment are reproduced at Appendix D. (Exhibit 3G)

26Mr. Christie testified that on December 4, 2020, he received an email from Mr. White forwarding an email dated December 4, 2020. The forwarded email thread includes two emails purportedly from Mr. White to Ms. DiFederico dated December 4, 2020, and October 23, 2020, wherein Mr. White states that the trial record is filed with the court and his client was looking to at least set a JPT (judicial pretrial) or pretrial motion dates. Mr. White indicates in these emails that Ms. DiFederico has not been responsive about availability and that the parties have been provided dates between March 29, 2021, and April 22, 2021, for a pre-trial (Exhibit 3H).

27Mr. Christie testified that on February 12, 2021, Mr. White sent him an email. Ms. DiFederico’s legal assistant, purports to appear as a recipient at the email address, masayoa@bslegal,ca. Also listed as recipients on this email are: Linda Hatch-Reevie, trial coordinator at the Barrie Superior Court of Justice at Hatch-reevie@ontario.ca, and Keisha Wilson (MAG) at Wilson.k@ontario.com. In the email, Mr. White seeks to confirm the April 15, 2021, pre-trial date. This email also appears to forward an email purportedly from Raqul Nsayoa, Ms. DiFederico’s legal assistant. The forwarding email address is rnasayoa@bslegal.ca. The forwarded email confirms counsel’s availability for a pre-trial on April 15, 2021. (Exhibit 3I)

[28] Mr. Christie testified that on February 19, 2021, Mr. White again forwarded him email correspondence between the trial coordinator and Ms. DiFederico’s assistant, confirming April 15, 2021, 3:30pm docket. The confirmation email is from Hatch-Reevie, Linda (MAG). The subject line is Re: Civil Pre-trials Barrie. Ms. DiFederico’s assistant is also emailed at masayoa@bslegal.ca. There is no reference to the Cook v. OAHI case in the email from the trial coordinator to the parties. The originating email from Mr. White purportedly to the trial coordinator requesting that the pre-trial be scheduled is sent to Mr. Christie’s correctly identified email address but also to: amsayoa@bslegal.ca; Hatch- reevie@ontario.com; Wilson.k@Ontario.com. (These email addresses are identified in evidence of Ms. DiFederico and Fayorn John as erroneous). This originating email from Mr. White to this group of addresses includes the name of the case, Cook v. OAHI, and the court file number in the subject line (Exhibit 3j).

29Mr. Christie testified that he also received from Mr. White, what appeared to him to be an endorsement dated August 10, 2021, signed by Justice Himel. He testified that he discussed the contents of the endorsement with Mr. White as he wanted to know what the judge meant by the terms “rule of law” and “issues of natural justice” (Exhibit 3L).

30Exhibit 3L is an 11-paragraph document. It bears the names of the parties, Andrew Christie and OAHI, the names of counsel, Adam C. White and Jessica DiFederico, the proper court file number for the OAHI matter, 16-0046-00, consistent with the file number on the Statement of Claim and Statement of Defence properly filed with the court, an apparent coat of arms symbol with the word ‘Justicia’ below the symbol, the date August 10, 2021, and the document is titled: ‘Superior Court of Justice Endorsement’. The name Justice Himel is printed at the conclusion of the document; a signature that reads Andrea Himel, appears above the printed name. A copy of the endorsement is reproduced at Appendix E.

31Mr. Christie testified that the endorsement was a formal looking document, and it appeared to be official. He testified that he believed it was a valid endorsement from the court.

32Mr. Christie testified that around June 30, 2022, he discussed with Mr. White the possibility of increasing the amount of damages he was seeking in the law suit.

33Mr. Christie testified that his desire to increase his claim was driven in part by his belief that the respondent had offered to settle the matter. In addition, Mr. Christie testified that the endorsements from the court sent to him by Mr. White, added to his sense of confidence in the decision to increase the amount of his damages claim.

34Mr. Christie testified that he authorized Mr. White to proceed with filing the amended Statement of Claim increasing the special damages he was seeking to $650,000.00. He testified that he believed that Mr. White had in fact filed the amended Statement of Claim with the court. Exhibit 4 is a Notice of Motion dated October 19, 2022, with the OAHI court file number and names of the parties. It bears a signature that says Adam White and contains a back page with Mr. White’s firm’s address and contact details. Exhibit 5 is an amended Statement of Claim which is not dated and not signed.

35Mr. Christie testified that he received an email from Mr. White dated November 28, 2022. The email to Mr. Christie from Mr. White states: “The endorsement is in. See attached.” Attached to this email is a document bearing court file number 16-0046-00 titled “endorsement” (Exhibit 3K).

36The endorsement attachment is in the same format bearing the same markings as the purported endorsement Exhibit 3l. It is again an 11-paragraph document. The attached endorsement is signed by Andrea Himel. The signature appears over the printed name Justice A. Himel. The endorsement states in part:

Since this matter cannot practically be heard during the November 2022, Trial Sittings, I repeat my direction (now adjusted for appropriate timing) that this matter is to be given priority on the May, 2023 Trial sittings and shall be marked peremptory to be heard at that time. In the circumstances of the Covid- 19 emergency, this Endorsement is deemed to be an Order of the Court that is operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered formal typed Order. Approval of this Order is dispensed with: either party may submit a formal Order for signing before me. (para. 10, 11)

A copy of the endorsement is reproduced at Appendix F

37Mr. Christie testified that he paid Mr. White approximately $15,000–$20,000, in respect of the OAHI matter.

38Mr. Christie testified that he made the following payments to Mr. White in relation this litigation: a retainer fee $1,000; that he paid for the discovery in advance (unsure of the year) and that he made payments to Mr. White in 2019, 2020 and 2021 and 2022 including and up to August 17, 2022, and October 1, 2022. (Mr. Christie testified that he believed but was not sure if he made a payment to Mr. White in 2023). Seven thousand dollars was paid to Mr. White by him unknowingly after the case was dismissed in June 2019.

39Mr. Christie testified that he reviewed his own records and wrote down all the payments he made to Mr. White in relation to the Cook OAHI litigation and kept a log of the payments. Mr. Christie testified that Mr. White never sent him an invoice for work he was doing.

40In cross-examination, Mr. Christie agreed that he retained Mr. White on some, but not all of the other items and requests for assistance he made of Mr. White. Some of these arose during the period of time he still believed Mr. White was working for him on OAHI.

41Mr. Christie maintained that in a few of the instances when he asked Mr. White for help, Mr. White offered his assistance as a friend and never billed him or asked for any renumeration. Mr. Christie maintained that anytime payment was expected or required he paid all funds to Mr. White before Mr. White would begin working on a new matter.

Jessica DiFederico

42Jessica DiFederico was called to the bar in the Province of Ontario in 2010. At the time of these events, Ms. DiFederico was an associate with the law firm Stieber Berlach practicing in the area of civil litigation with a focus on insurance defence cases. Ms. DiFederico represented the respondents, David Cook and OAHI, in the civil suit filed by Mr. White on behalf of Mr. Christie.

43Ms. DiFederico testified that her email address is jdifederico@sblegal.ca. Ms. DiFederico testified that the format of her email address was common throughout the firm: first initial, last name, and domain initials of the firm, S.B. She testified that everyone in the firm follows the same format.

44Ms. DiFederico testified that following the examination for discoveries in the OAHI matter in August 2017, she exchanged correspondence with Mr. White wherein she requested further responses from Mr. White in relation to the claim. She testified that she provided Mr. White with a list in writing of the undertakings which she believed had not been fulfilled and that she advised Mr. White that she would bring a motion to compel undertakings. (Transcript of the Proceedings page 7 line 15 - page 8 line 10)

45Ms. DiFederico testified that, because Mr. White took the position that all undertakings had been fulfilled, she determined it necessary to bring a motion to compel further responses from the plaintiff. She testified that in the days leading up to the date of this motion, Mr. White provided some responses, but others remained outstanding.

46Ms. DiFederico testified that her colleague, Christian Breukleman, attended the motion on her behalf on February 12, 2019. The order sought by the respondent was obtained.

47Ms. DiFederico testified that after the date of this motion she did not receive any further documents or responses from Mr. White:

“... I felt like I was writing to him, and it was going into a black hole. Like I- I didn’t get anything back.”

(Transcript of the Proceedings dated December 6, 2024, p.11 line 32-p.12, line 2).

48As a result, Ms. DiFederico decided to proceed with a motion to dismiss the claim in its entirety. She testified that her colleague again attended on the motion to dismiss on her behalf. On June 18, 2019, Mr. Christie’s civil action against Cook and OAHI was dismissed by the court with costs. Ms. DiFederico testified that the matter was no longer before the court after that day. Ms. DiFederico testified that she sent a copy of the order dismissing the suit to Mr. White either by email or fax (Exhibit 2).

49Ms. DiFederico testified that she never received any response from Mr. White after she sent the order. She testified in cross-examination that she found Mr. White’s lack of response unprofessional but not surprising,

“It certainly has happened with counsel in the past, it’s not unsurprising but…” (Transcript of the Proceedings dated December 6, 2024, p. 50 line 26 – 29)

50Ms. DiFederico reviewed Exhibits 3A, 3B, 3I, 3J, 3K, 3lL She testified that she did not receive any of these emails, messages or attachments purportedly addressed to her from Mr. White or attributed to her as the sender. She testified that these emails contained errors in the spelling of her name and/or the domain name for the firm, and/or the spelling of her assistant’s name.

51With respect to Exhibit 3A, Ms. DiFederico testified that her email address is incorrect, and her name is misspelled. In Exhibit 3B, Ms. DiFederico testified that her name is again misspelled and the firm’s initials in the domain name are reversed.

52With respect to Exhibit 3C, Ms. DiFederico testified that she did not write the letter attached to the email correspondence bearing her name and signature. Ms. DiFederico testified that she never sent an Offer to Settle to the plaintiffs, never received an Offer to Settle from the plaintiff, and that she had no correspondence from or with Mr. White in December 2019. She testified that she had no reason to make an offer as the matter had already been dismissed by December 2019 and was no longer before the court. Ms. DiFederico testified that the signature on the letter included in Exhibit 3C looks like her signature, but that she did not draft or sign this document or authorize anyone at the firm to sign this document on her behalf.

53Ms. DiFederico testified that, with respect to Exhibit 3D, her email address is incorrect, and her name is misspelled. She testified that she did not receive an email from Mr. White in November 2019 and did not have any meetings with Mr. White, contrary to what is stated in the email.

54With respect to Exhibit 3iI there are a series of emails forwarded from Mr. White to Mr. Christie that appear to copy Ms. DiFederico’s legal assistant, and the trial coordinator for the Barrie Superior Court and a Wilson, K. Ms. DiFederico testified that the email address for her former legal assistant on this email is spelled incorrectly and the domain for the firm is also incorrect.

55In summary, Ms. DiFederico’s evidence is that the content of this email is a fabrication. Specifically, Ms. DiFederico never discussed conducting a pre-trial with Mr. White in April 2021, and she never communicated to Mr. White (or the trial coordinator), via her assistant Ms. Nasayoa, her availability on April 15, 2021, at 3:30pm, to participate in a pre-trial in the OAHI matter. Ms. DiFederico testified that she did not and could not have sent this email or caused it to be sent as she was on a maternity leave at this time. Further, Raquel Nasayoa was no longer her assistant and was no longer with the firm at this time.

56Ms. DiFederico testified that she did not provide legal services on this matter in November 2022, that the matter was never scheduled for trial, and that she never received this endorsement, Exhibit 3K, dated November 28, 2022.

57Ms. DiFederico testified that the parties were never before Himel, J., on August 10, 2021, and the matter was never scheduled for a pre-trial. Ms. DiFederico testified that by August 10, 2021, this matter had been closed and was never re-opened. Ms. DiFederico testified that the signature appearing on the endorsement dated November 28, 2022, Exhibit 3K, could not be Justice Himel’s signature:

Q: Okay, You have no personal knowledge if that is or is not Justice Himel’s signature?

A: Well, it couldn’t be Justice Himel’s signature because there – we weren’t before her on August 10, 2021.

Q: I’m going to suggest to you, the question was you have no personal knowledge of whether it is or is not her signature. Is that correct?

A: I would disagree with you. I know that this is not something Justice Himel signed, so that is not her signature. She did not place her signature on this endorsement because we were not before her on that day...”

(Transcript of the Proceedings dated December 6, 2024, p. 48 line 22-p. 49 line 1)

The Kuehl matter

(Witnesses: Brian Kuehl, Syvlie Desjardins, Abba Katz, Annette Nyland)

Brian Kuehl

58Brian Kuehl lives in Orillia and has been employed as a heavy equipment operator for over 20 years. Up until late May 2020, Mr. Kuehl was living with his two young children and his spouse Tamara Macdonald in the family home. In late May 2020, Ms. Macdonald moved out of the home with their young children. Mr. Kuehl testified that he had been away for the weekend and returned home to find that his family was gone. Mr. Kuehl testified that, shortly after his wife’s departure, he received a letter from his wife’s lawyer Abba Katz advising him that he should retain a lawyer.

59Mr. Kuehl retained Mr. White. He testified that he had never retained a lawyer in the past. He testified that he picked Mr. White based on Google reviews and someone’s recommendation. Mr. Kuehl testified that his goal was to get custody of his children.

60Mr. Kuehl testified that retainer was discussed at his first meeting with Mr. White. He recalled that Mr. White required $5,500 as a retainer fee. Mr. Kuehl’s mother, Sylvia Desjardins, paid his legal costs. He testified that Mr. White also required that he provide three years of taxes. Mr. Kuehl testified that he did so within two weeks of Mr. White’s request. He testified that Mr. White pumped him up and said they would take his ex- spouse to trial over the issue. Mr. Kuehl testified that his plan was to take four days a week off work to have more time with his kids. He testified that he felt fired up after meeting Mr. White and believed that Mr. White would save his life.

61In late July or early August 2020, Mr. Kuehl began to see his children via video conference every other day for one hour. This arrangement has continued up to the present day.

62Mr. Kuehl testified that, in December 2020, he was allowed a two-hour hotel visit with his children, followed by a three hour visit at his house two days before Christmas, and then a six hour visit on Christmas day. These visits were the first time Mr. Kuehl had had in person contact with his children since May 2020.

63The Christmas access visits transpired after a video court appearance with Justice P. Sutherland. Mr. Kuehl testified that he was with Mr. White in his office for this video appearance and that Ms. Macdonald’s counsel, Abba Katz, appeared also by video. His former spouse was not present.

64Mr. Kuehl testified that before making the order that allowed for these visits, the judge asked if Mr. Kuehl’s mother could be contacted as someone was needed to supervise the visits with the children. Mr. Kuehl testified that he contacted Ms. Desjardins by phone and that the judge, Justice Sutherland, spoke with her over the phone. Mr. Kuehl testified that after this appearance in December 2020, the Christmas access visits described above occurred. Mr. Kuehl testified that he was able to see his children in person for the first time in 8 months. Mr. Kuehl testified that there were no more court appearances after the video court appearance before Justice Sutherland either by video or in person. (Transcript of the Proceedings December 11, 2024 p.138 lines 4 - 15).

65To this point in time, Mr. Kuehl testified that he had primarily been communicating with Mr. White by email or phone. He testified that he and Mr. White had some in-office meetings in early December prior to the court appearance before Justice Sutherland. Mr. Kuehl testified that he was completely satisfied with Mr. White as his counsel at this point.

66However, starting in 2021 things changed significantly with Mr. White. Mr. Kuehl testified that Mr. White’s response time went from days, to weeks, and nothing was happening with respect to increasing his access to his children.

67He testified that he attended Mr. White’s office in person wanting to know why things were taking so long, when he was getting his kids, and what was the fastest way to get them. He testified that he asked Mr. White what was happening on multiple occasions and that he began to question a lot of things. Mr. Kuehl testified that Mr. White told him that this was just how it goes, we are going to get somewhere and not to worry. (Transcript of the Proceedings dated December 11, 2024, p. 140 lines 11 - 13).

68Mr. Kuehl testified that because he was living in Orillia and working in Toronto, he had limited time. He testified that he asked his mom a few times to go to Mr. White’s office on his behalf to find out what was going on when Mr. White appeared to be ‘ducking calls’.

69Mr. Kuehl testified that he was increasingly frustrated with Mr. White and wanted to look for another lawyer. He testified that he would send Mr. White boiling point emails and that suddenly he would receive a communication from Mr. White. Mr. White would essentially talk him down from his frustration with assurances that this was how the system worked. He testified that he just decided to grit his teeth and stay with Mr. White as his counsel although he was not satisfied.

70Mr. Kuehl testified that Mr. White told him that he was supposed to do a parenting course ordered by the judge, and that he was supposed to find the course himself. Mr. Kuehl testified that, as a result, he and his mother together contacted approximately 35 therapists trying to find this course:

Q: And did you speak to Mr. White about the taking of a parental course?

A: Yes, yeah, in fact it was not – it wasn’t his idea, but it was thrown out by the judge that I need to do this, and then when I finally came to my wits end about the search, because we’ve called, between my other and myself, again, she did a lot more work than I did in the matter, she called probably, oh, I would say 20, 25 therapists, and I called maybe 10, to try to find this course.. so I had mentioned to him that it was, I’m on a wild goose chase, I can’t seem to find this. He said in a text message something to the terms of, okay, I’ll look into this, and we’ll get you something.

(Transcript of the Proceedings December 11, 2024, p. 140, line 25 to p. 141, line 10)

71Mr. Kuehl testified that between January and June 2021, aside from video chats, he had no other access to his children. Mr. Kuehl testified that in 2021, Mr. White handed him three documents from judges. He testified that those documents included Exhibit 12, which Mr. White handed to him while in his office on August 10, 2021.

72Exhibit 12 is a seven-paragraph document bearing court file number ‘FC-20-00178-00’. The document is titled “Superior Court of Justice Endorsement”. It bears what appears to be a coat of arms with scales of justice. The word ‘Justicia’ appears below the symbol. The document contains the names of the parties, Bryan Kuehl and Tamara Macdonald, and the names of their respective lawyers, Adam C. White and Abba Katz, and the date August 10, 2021. The end of the document bears the printed name A. Himel” with a signature that appears to be Andrea Himel on the line above the name.

73Mr. Keuhl testified that he and Mr. White discussed this document, specifically paragraph 6. He testified that Mr. White explained to him that the judge was saying that one judge should take care of the whole case. He testified that he remembers it well. (Exhibit 12)

74Mr. Kuehl testified that on October 14, 2021, Mr. White gave him a document from the court (Exhibit 11A).

75Exhibit 11A is an authentic court document. It bears court file number FC-20-178-00. It is an order of the court dated October 14, 2021, of Justice S. Jain signed by Her Honour. The order continues residency of the children with the respondent mother and orders that the respondent father provide benefits through his employer to the respondent with respect to the children, and that the applicant maintain a life insurance policy in the minimum amount of $500,000.00. The order requires the applicant to provide his 2020 Notice of Assessment and pay stubs, pay retroactive child support, and pay the respondent $1000 in costs. The order continues the applicant’s video access arrangement with his children of every second day.

76Mr. Kuehl testified that he recalls discussing the life insurance part of the order with Mr. White but did not discuss and was not aware of paragraph 9 regarding costs of $1,000 to be paid to his ex-spouse.

77Mr. Kuehl testified that he did not see or discuss with Mr. White Exhibit 11B or Exhibit 11C.

78Exhibit 11B is a copy of an order of Justice Jain dated October 17, 2021, transferring the matter from Orillia to Superior Court of Justice – Family Court in Newmarket: “on a date to be set through the trial coordinator”. This order dated October 14, 2021, states at paragraph 4: “Mr. White and Mr. Katz provided theirs and their client’s consent to the above orders in writing on the record in Zoom virtual court”. Exhibit 11C dated April 5, 2022, is also an order of Justice S. Jain, that states:

“No one appearing, 14B motion… The order of Justice Jain of October 14, 2021, is amended such that the file is hereby ordered to be transferred to The Superior Court of Justice – Family Court, Newmarket, Ontario.”

79Mr. Kuehl testified that his ex-spouse and children moved into temporary housing after they left the family home before eventually settling in Aurora. He testified that he asked Mr. White how they could get his family back to Orillia, so that things could be 50- 50 in terms of his access to his children, and that he believed that in October 2021, Mr. White was fighting on his behalf to get his family back to Orillia.

80Mr. Kuehl testified that, as a result of his increasing frustration with Mr. White, he sent Mr. White a “boiling point” email on January 11, 2022, and copied his mother (Exhibit 27). He testified that he felt that he was not getting anywhere regarding access, and it felt like he did not have a lawyer. Mr. Kuehl testified that by this time. he was trying at least twice a week to meet Mr. White in person.

81Mr. Kuehl testified that thereafter he received the endorsement dated February 14, 2022, from Mr. White while they were in Mr. White’s office and that Mr. White provided this endorsement to him by hand. He testified that he and Mr. White discussed how positive it seemed and that the judge appeared to be favouring his side. He testified that Mr. White told him that Justice Sutherland was adamant about Mr. Kuehl having a parental assessment. (Exhibit 13)

82Exhibit 13 is a twelve-paragraph document bearing court file number ‘FC -20- 00178-00’. The document is titled “Superior Court of Justice Endorsement”. It bears what appears to be a coat of arms with scales of justice. The word ‘Justicia’ appears below the symbol. The document contains the names of the parties Bryan Kuehl and Tamara Macdonald and the names of their respective lawyers, Adam C. White and Abba Katz and the date February 14, 2022. The end of the document bears the printed name ‘Justice Phillip W. Sutherland” with a signature on the line above the name.

83Mr. Kuehl testified that he received Exhibit 14 in March 2022 from Mr. White but he did not recall how he received it. Mr. Kuehl recognized this document as a requirement that the children’s lawyer needed to be involved in the case. Mr. Kuehl testified that he discussed the content of the document with Mr. White.

84Exhibit 14 is a four-paragraph document bearing court file number ‘FC-20-00178- 00’. The document is titled “Superior Court of Justice Endorsement”. It bears what appears to be a coat of arms with scales of justice. The word ‘Justicia’ appears below the symbol. The document contains the names of the parties, Bryan Kuehl and Tamara Macdonald, and the names of their respective lawyers, Adam C. White and Abba Katz, and the date March 14, 2022. The end of the document bears the printed name ‘Justice Phillip W. Sutherland” with a signature on the line above the name.

85Mr. Kuehl testified that he and his mother were in Mr. White’s office on two occasions in 2022, supposedly to attend video court. He testified that they waited all day, but court did not happen and then midway through the day, Mr. White presented them with an endorsement. (Transcript of the Proceedings December 11, 2024, p..160 line 7 - 12).

86Mr. Kuehl testified that he received Exhibit 15 directly from Mr. White and that this document made him feel good. He testified that Mr. White handed it to him and that the two of them discussed it. He testified that Mr. White told him that the judge was fed up with his “ex-wife’s shit”.

87Exhibit 15 appears to be a photograph of a document. It is an eleven-paragraph document bearing court file number ‘FC-20-00178-00’. The document is titled “Superior Court of Justice Endorsement”. It bears what appears to be a coat of arms with scales of justice. The word ‘Justicia’ appears below the symbol. The document contains the names of the parties, Bryan Kuehl and Tamara Macdonald, and the names of their respective lawyers, Adam C. White and Abba Katz, and the date June 7, 2022. The end of the document bears the printed name ‘Justice Phillip W. Sutherland” with a signature on the line above the name.

88Mr. Kuehl testified that he received Exhibit 16 from Mr. White again when Mr. White handed it to him when they were in his office. He testified that he was there all day because Mr. White told him that they were supposed to go to video court. He testified that around 3:00pm Mr. White excused himself and left the room. He testified that when Mr. White returned, he told him that there was a big mess, and they were not getting reached. Mr. Kuehl testified that he believed that Mr. White had been in touch with the court clerk.

89Exhibit 16 appears to be a photograph of a an eleven-paragraph document bearing court file number ‘FC-20-00178-00’. The document is titled “Superior Court of Justice Endorsement”. It bears what appears to be a coat of arms with scales of justice. The word ‘Justicia’ appears below the symbol. The document contains the names of the parties, Bryan Kuehl and Tamara Macdonald, and the names of their respective lawyers, Adam White and Abba Katz and the date June 7, 2022. The end of the document bears the printed name ‘Justice Phillip W. Sutherland” with a signature on the line above the name.

90In cross-examination, Mr. Kuehl acknowledged that the parties appear to be reversed on exhibit 16; Ms. Macdonald appears as the applicant and Mr. Kuehl as the respondent.

91The “endorsement” indicates that the respondent has brought a s. 14B motion as a follow up to the judges June 7, 2022, endorsement. The judge purportedly states dissatisfaction with the way the matter has progressed and indicates that the respondent father has been before “me” several times as he struggles to regain personal access to his two young children. The endorsement reiterates the court’s previous endorsement requiring the respondent father to seek a parenting assessment by a qualified child psychologist. The court appears to comment on the difficulty obtaining a lawyer through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) and criticizes the OCL for not taking up the request sooner.

92Mr. Kuehl testified that Mr. White stated that he was shocked that the OCL had not taken the case.

93Mr. Kuehl testified that at this time he was still trying to find a therapist to conduct the parental assessment presumably ordered by the court.

94Mr. Kuehl testified that his professional relationship with Mr. White ended in October 2022, after he was personally served with a contempt motion by his ex-wife’s lawyer, Mr. Katz.

95Mr. Kuehl testified that the summons material said that he had missed a court date. Mr. Kuehl testified that he had no knowledge of any court date. He testified that he then became aware of the order wherein Mr. White consented to him paying $1,000 in costs to the respondent (Exhibit 11A).

96Mr. Kuehl testified that he had no knowledge of this order and never consented to a cost award against him. Mr. Kuehl testified that he advised Mr. White he was no longer in need of his services.

97Mr. Kuehl testified that he went to Mr. White’s office a couple of days after he was served with the motion to pick up his recording device. (Mr. Kuehl testified that he had been recording his video chats with his ex-wife in order to help his case for custody and greater access to his children and left it with Mr. White).

98Mr. Kuehl testified that Mr. White seemed dumbfounded by the contempt motion and was fumbling with documents. He testified that a few days later, Mr. White contacted him and offered to work in the background to clear all of this up. Mr. Kuehl declined Mr. White’s offer.

99Mr. Kuehl testified that he was not a tech savvy person. He testified that he copied his mother on the emails he sent to Mr. White and that after he discharged Mr. White, he sent his new lawyer, Annette Nyland, all the text messages and email correspondence that he had in his possession between himself and Mr. White.

100In cross-examination, Mr. Kuehl was asked about attending a case conference in Mr. White’s office in April 2021. Initially, Mr. Kuehl agreed that he attended a case conference and agreed with the suggestion that Justice McDermot was present. Subsequently, Mr. Kuehl testified that he did not recall a case conference before a judge or Mr. Katz and Ms. Macdonald being there.

101Mr. Kuehl testified that he retained Annette Nyland. He testified that within three months of retaining Ms. Nyland, he had access to his children in person at a visitation centre with his mom and dad as supervisors. This would be his first in-person contact with his children since the December 2020, Christmas visits, a period of over two years.

Sylvia Desjardins

102Sylvia Desjardins is Bryan Kuehl’s mother. Ms. Desjardins recalled first meeting Mr. White around July 2020. She testified that her role was financial in that she was making payments to Mr. White for her son’s legal representation. Ms. Desjardins testified that she personally made payments to Mr. White for legal services in respect of her son’s matter on the following dates and in the following amounts: June 2, 2020, $3,000; June 3, 2020, $2,625; December 15, 2020, $2,825 and June 10, 2022, $2,825. She testified that in addition to these payments she paid Mr. White an initial retainer fee of $5,000.

103Ms. Desjardins testified that she was working as a school bus driver at this time and that she lived approximately 3.5 hours away from Mr. White’s office in Keswick. She testified that she communicated with Mr. White mostly by telephone but also by email and in person. She testified that she went to Mr. White’s office on multiple occasions to find out what was going on with the case when he was not replying to the emails, texts or phone calls, either she or her son sent to Mr. White. Ms. Desjardins testified that Mr. White was not always there when she went.

104Ms. Desjardins testified that on one occasion, she waited for Mr. White in the parking lot and observed Mr. White arrive in his vehicle. When Mr. White got out of his vehicle, she testified that she approached him and asked him why he was not responding to her messages or her son’s.

105She testified that on other occasions, Mr. White met her at the door of his office and told her he was working on it. However, on more than one occasion when she went to Mr. White’s office, she testified that he would come out of his office and say, “it’s good news,” and then hand her and her son a document.

106Ms. Desjardins testified that she received the document identified as Exhibit 12 from Mr. White but was not sure if she received it in person or by email. Ms. Desjardins testified that she shared the document with her son but that he already had a copy. Ms. Desjardins testified that she believed that she received this document in July 2021 but was not sure. In cross-examination, she confirmed that she did not recall and acknowledged that the date of the document post-dates July 2021.

107Ms. Desjardins testified that she recognized Exhibit 13 and that they had received it from Mr. White in his office. Ms. Desjardins was unclear on when this occurred. Initially, she testified that it may have been before or after Christmas 2021. In cross-examination, she acknowledged that the document is dated February 14, 2022, so that it could not have been provided to her before Christmas 2021. (Transcript of the Proceedings December 10, 2024, p. 13 lines 15 -25; p. 52 line 19-26).

108Ms. Desjardins testified that she recognized Exhibit 14 and that it contained an order from the judge. Ms. Desjardins testified that based on this document she understood that the matter was scheduled to go back to court.

109Exhibit 17 is an email from Mr. White to Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardin dated March 14, 2022, with the subject line “endorsement” and an attachment titled ‘Endorsement- 14- Mar-2022’. The attached endorsement is marked as Exhibit 14. Ms. Desjardins testified that Exhibit 17 is the email that she received from Mr. White that was attached to Exhibit 14. She testified that when she received these documents, she read them. Further, she believed that Exhibit 17 attached the endorsement of Exhibit 14 because of what is written in Exhibit 14 and that Exhibit 14 is the same date as the email Exhibit 17.

110Exhibit 17 is an email from awhite@yorklawchambers.com dated March 14, 2022, with a time noted in the sent line of 12:30. The email is addressed to Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardin and the subject line reads, 'Endorsement' and refers to 'Attachments' identified as: “Endorsement-14-Mar-2022 - FC20-00178-00 KUEHL v. MACDONALD.pdf. The email states:

“Hi Bryan: Kindly find attached the Endorsement of Justice Sutherland. As I read it, we are allowed to schedule this back with him once we receive news either way but, please remember I am away next week and find it unlikely we will hear from them before I leave. Adam”.

111Ms. Desjardins testified that she received Exhibit 15 from Mr. White on June 7, 2022. She testified that Mr. White gave the document to her and her son saying it was from Justice Sutherland. Ms. Desjardins testified that she believed that it was supposed to be a cancelled court appearance.

112With regards to Exhibit 16, a purported endorsement signed by Justice Sutherland dated August 8, 2022, Ms. Desjardins testified that she received it from Mr. White close to the middle of August 2022.

113In June 2022, Ms. Desjardins testified that she received an email from Mr. White asking for further funds in the amount of $2,825.00 for future actions. She testified that it was her understanding that there were further court appearances in her son’s matter because that is what Mr. White told her. She testified that Mr. White advised her that he had appeared on multiple appearances and that he needed more money for further action.

114Exhibit 18 is an email dated June 10, 2022, from awhite@yorklawchambers.com to sylviadesjardins19@gmail.com, requesting additional funds from Ms. Desjardins. The email bears the name Adam C. White and logo and address of Mr. White’s law office. The email states: “Hi Sylvia; Further to our telephone call, I have used the funds previously received and applied them to the multiple appearances since February 2022. I ask that you please provide further funds in the amount of $2,825.00 for future actions. In the meantime, I will follow up with Barbara Browne about seeing Bryan quickly”.

115Ms. Desjardins testified that she took photos of every document that she received from Mr. White. She identified Exhibit 15 and 16 and testified that she believed she took pictures of these documents which are still in her phone. She testified, however, that she later delivered the documents themselves to Annette Nyland, who was the lawyer that her son retained for this matter after Mr. White was discharged.

Annette Nyland

116Annette Nyland has been a lawyer in the Province of Ontario since June 2007, practicing in the area of family law. Between July 2019 and May 1, 2023, Ms. Nyland was employed at a firm called Gelman and Associates. Ms. Nyland testified that she was retained by Mr. Kuehl on October 14, 2022, after he terminated his retainer with Mr. White. Ms. Nyland confirmed that at the time she came on to the file, Mr. Kuehl had not had parenting time with his two minor children, or even supervised in person access since December 2020. She testified that in her experience as a family law practitioner, this was very unusual.

117She testified that a contempt motion had been brought against Mr. Kuehl and was scheduled for hearing on October 26, 2022. She testified that she needed to review Mr. Kuehl’s complete file in order to argue the motion. Ms. Nyland testified that she reached out to Mr. White by phone and email on several occasions but never received a response.

118Ms. Nyland asked Mr. Kuehl to email her what he had in his possession. She testified that she received from Mr. Kuehl endorsements that appeared to be signed by Justice Sutherland and Justice Himel as well as email communications between Mr. Kuehl and Mr. White. She testified that she also received a stack of printed documents from Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins.

119Ms. Nyland testified that upon reviewing the materials she realized that there were items that Mr. Katz was requesting that she could easily obtain from Mr. Kuehl. She testified that she reached a consent agreement with Mr. Katz that eventually obviated the need for contempt proceedings.

120Ms. Nyland testified that in January of 2023, she sent Mr. Katz correspondence wherein she quoted from the endorsement of Justice Sutherland dated June 7, 2022 (Exhibit 15) which she had received from her client. Ms. Nyland testified that this endorsement referred to Ms. Macdonald as not cooperating with Mr. Kuehl’s video parenting time.

121She testified that she advised Mr. Katz, in writing, that his client’s conduct was unacceptable and that his client was to adhere to the judge’s direction as per this endorsement. Ms. Nyland testified that in her communication with Mr. Katz, she quoted from paragraph 4 of the endorsement. She testified that she was going to see if she could arrange for the parenting assessment. She testified that she believed that because of the way the endorsement was worded, her hands were tied on this issue and that she could not even get the matter back before the court without this assessment. (Transcript of the Proceedings December 9, 2024, p. 13 line 1-5).

122She testified that Mr. Katz asked her to send him a copy of the endorsement she was referring to. Eventually, Ms. Nyland sent Mr. Katz all six endorsements that had been provided to her by Mr. Kuehl or Ms. Desjardins.

123Ms. Nyland could not recall if she received the endorsements in screenshot format, or not. She testified that Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins did not appear to be sophisticated with technology and that she received a lot of documents from them in the form of screen shots. She testified that Mr. Kuehl also emailed her documents and Ms. Desjardins handed her a stack of papers.

124However, Ms. Nyland identified Exhibits 12, 13 and 14 as documents that were not screen shots and were handed to her by Mr. Kuehl and/or Ms. Desjardins. She testified that Exhibits 15 and 16 were provided to her as screenshots.

125Ms. Nyland testified that the documents she received from Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins were scanned by staff in her office and kept electronically. She testified that she retained the original documents she received and provided them both electronically and by hand to the York Region police, Detectives Derrick McName and Detective Michael Stesco. She testified that the documents she provided to the police included four endorsements of Justice Sutherland and one endorsement of Justice Himel.

126Ms. Nyland testified that she felt that there was something strange about these endorsements (Exhibits 12 to 16) in a multiplicity of ways.

127Ms. Nyland testified that she noticed that the style of cause was incorrect on some as the parties were reversed; Mr. Kuehl was in fact the applicant, not the respondent as stated in Exhibits 15 and 16.

128Ms. Nyland testified that on some of the endorsements, the court file numbers appeared to be incorrect, affixing a number in her experience consistent with the Orillia court location even though the matter had been transferred to Newmarket.

129Ms. Nyland testified that she found the content of these endorsements highly unusual and inconsistent with her experience as a family law lawyer in the region. For example, with respect to Exhibit 13 she found it highly unusual that the judge ordered the OCL to investigate this case, but did not order some sort of parenting time

130With respect to Exhibit 14, Ms. Nyland testified that, in her view, the judge’s comments were again unusual. She testified that, in her experience, it was not automatic that the OCL accept the case. Further, the protocol in her experience is that the OCL corresponds with counsel and not the judge, inconsistent in her view with what is outlined in this endorsement.

131Ms. Nyland testified that, with respect to Exhibit 15, the style of cause is incorrect. Further, Ms. Nyland testified that she found the following to be huge red flags that there was something amiss: that the court was requiring Mr. Kuehl to seek a parenting assessment on his own; that the court stated that there would be no further motions or argument in this matter; and that the court stated that the: “opinion of the professional shall reign supreme”, language which Ms. Nyland perceived to be inconsistent with what a judge would say. (Transcript of the Proceedings December 9, 2024, p. 12 line 8–27)

132Ms. Nyland testified that there were very few professionals in her experience that administered the type of ‘reunification’ therapy that the court had ordered. She testified that, in her experience, this form of therapy required both parties to be in person. In Mr. Kuehl’s case, the fact that both parties lived in different jurisdictions would make it difficult to participate in this form of therapy.

133With respect to Exhibit 16, Ms. Nyland testified that the style of cause is incorrect. Furthermore, Ms. Nyland testified that the content of the endorsement did not make sense in her experience. According to Ms. Nyland, it was highly unusual for the court to direct that they receive a proposal through the judge’s judicial assistant instead of by way of a motion before the court. Ms. Nyland testified that she had never had such an experience in a family law case.

134Ms. Nyland testified that Mr. Kuehl was desperate to see his children. She understood that there had been an approximate two-year gap since Mr. Kuehl last saw his children in person. Mr. Kuehl did not see one of his daughters in person from age 1 to 3 and his second daughter from age 3 to 5. Ms. Nyland testified that, because of this gap, she and Mr. Katz developed a gradual reintroduction schedule for Mr. Kuehl on consent. It began with 8 supervised access visits, graduating to overnight access by August 2023, and then alternate weekends beginning in September 2023. She testified that parenting time started on March 5, 2023, approximately twenty-seven months since Mr. Kuehl last saw his children in person.

Abba Katz

135Abba Katz has been a lawyer for approximately 34 years, practicing primarily in the area of family and criminal law. He testified that he practiced family law for 32 of his 34 years at the bar. Mr. Katz testified that he knew Mr. White professionally as he and Mr. White had worked as co-counsel on a youth trial. Mr. Katz testified that he thought Mr. White did an impressive job and that he later referred a few family and criminal files his way. He testified that he and Mr. White also had a friendly, social relationship.

136Mr. Katz began representing Tamara MacDonald in May 2020. He testified that Mr. Kuehl was the applicant in the matter represented by Mr. White and Ms. Macdonald, his client, the respondent. Mr. Katz testified that the proceedings commenced in Orillia. Mr. Katz testified that his involvement in the case ended in July or August of 2023. Mr. Katz testified that throughout his involvement in this case he attended all court appearances.

137Mr. Katz testified that there was a court proceeding in December 2020 before Justice Sutherland with respect to Christmas access. As the court proceeding occurred during the pandemic, the court appearance was virtual. The proceedings commenced in Orillia. Mr. Katz testified that Justice Sutherland ordered Christmas access for the applicant with various supervisors.

138Mr. Katz testified that a case conference in the matter had been scheduled. Mr. White missed the appearance and told him that he mis-diarized. The matter was ultimately adjourned to March 2022.

139Mr. Katz testified that in October 2021, the parties were in court before Justice Jain in Orillia on the issue of residence and financial disclosure. The appearance was virtual. Mr. Katz testified that Mr. Kuehl was not at the hearing. Mr. Katz testified that the court ordered that Mr. Kuehl provide his 2020 notice of assessment and his statement of income within 30 days. Retroactive child support was ordered.

140Mr. Katz testified that he and Mr. White discussed the issue of costs. Mr. Katz testified that although the initial cost order was $500, Mr. White volunteered that his client would pay $1,000, and the order went on consent (Exhibit 11a).

141Mr. Katz testified that the court also ordered on consent that the file be transferred from Orillia to the Newmarket Superior Court, the jurisdiction where his client and the children were now residing (Exhibit 11a and 11b).

142Mr. Katz testified that at some point he was not getting any response from Mr. White. He testified that he was sending Mr. White letters asking that Mr. Kuehl comply with the order of October 2021 (Exhibit 11a) and received no reply.

143Mr. Katz testified that a case conference had been scheduled to occur in March 2022. However, the file had not been transferred to Newmarket by that time as previously ordered by Justice Jain. On April 5, 2022, Justice Jain amended the order of October 14, 2021, and the file was transferred to Newmarket.

144Mr. Katz testified that he became concerned about whether Mr. Kuehl was being apprised of his letters. He testified that he felt his only remedy was to bring a motion for contempt which had to be served personally on Mr. Kuehl. Mr. Katz testified that there were some procedural compliance issues with respect to the timing of the service of the motion and the date scheduled for hearing. As such the court delisted the original motion dated October 24, 2022 (Exhibit 11d).

145Mr. Katz testified that there were no court appearances in this matter between October 2021 and the initial date scheduled for the contempt motion in October 2022.

146Mr. Katz testified that in October 2022, after he had served Mr. Kuehl with the motion for contempt, he was contacted by Ms. Nyland who advised that she was representing Mr. Kuehl.

147Mr. Katz testified that in January 2023, Ms. Nyland sent him court orders and other documents that she advised she had received from her client in relation to this litigation.

148Mr. Katz testified that he became very concerned upon reviewing the endorsements initially fearing that he himself had missed something and had not fulfilled his duty. He testified that he had no recollection of the court proceedings referred to in the orders sent to him. He testified that because of his concern, he went to the Newmarket courthouse to check the court file, and he sent a letter to Justice Sutherland’s assistant.

149Mr. Katz testified that the only time Justice Sutherland dealt with this case was in December 2020. He testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the matter never returned before Justice Sutherland for a status update in February, March or June 2022. He testified that he had attended every court appearance in this matter. He testified that the OCL was never involved in this matter (Exhibit 13, Exhibit 15, Exhibit 16).

150Mr. Katz testified that the parties were never before Justice Himel in this case. He testified that he specifically would have remembered any appearance before Justice Himel, who he described as having a big personality in the courtroom (Exhibit 12).

151He testified that had the court ordered a parental assessment, he would have been trying to find people to do the assessment in order to assist, because that is what lawyers do in relation to such orders: “I would have been right on it had I known about it.” (Transcript of the Proceedings December 9, 2024, p. 40 line 18 – 24).

152Mr. Katz testified that had the OCL been appointed for this matter, he would have been aware as there were steps that had to be taken by the parties when these appointments occur such as completing intake forms.

153Mr. Katz testified that when he received the purported endorsements from Ms. Nyland, he tried to contact Mr. White by calling him and sending a letter. He testified that he only heard back from Mr. White many months later. He testified that Mr. White said to him that he was sorry. He testified that he told Mr. White that if he had reached out, his colleagues would have helped him. He testified that Mr. White ended the call quickly.

ADMISSIBILITY ISSUE #1: RULING ON THE VOIR DIRE

Fayorn John

154Fayorn John became the supervisor of court operations for the Newmarket Superior Court of Justice in September 2021 and held that position during the relevant times of these allegations. In her capacity as supervisor, Ms. John oversaw the civil, family, small claims, finance enforcement, and business and estates files for the Newmarket Superior Court. In addition, Ms. John oversaw a staff of approximately 48 people working in courts administration.

155Ms. John was sworn in on the trial proper. Ms. John provided an overview with respect to the nature of the court file and the official record as well as the process by which documents find their way to the court file/ official record and the process by which the public can access or view the court file.

156Ms. John testified that prior to COVID, there was only a paper record which constituted the official court record. However, as of the time of these allegations the court file was comprised three document sources: a paper record, documents uploaded to an electronic document filing system called ‘FRANK,’ and documents uploaded to a local P: Drive.

157Ms. John testified that when exhibits are submitted to the court in person, or when they are filed through the online justice service portal, the documents are uploaded to the document digital tab to the platform called ‘FRANK’ by court services staff. If there appears to be duplication in the file, court services staff do not have authority or permission to remove documents from the file.

158Ms. John testified that draft orders and judicial endorsements are distinct from each other. Parties to the action can submit draft orders to the judge’s assistant; endorsements are received in completed form from the jurist. She testified that if any modification to the endorsement is required, the endorsement would be returned to the judge and the judge would add an addendum to the original endorsement.

159Ms. John testified that members of the public can view the court file, subject to sealing orders, and other restrictions placed on the file with respect to access. If a restriction exists on the file, the party seeking access would need to bring a motion in order to obtain access to the file. Ms. John testified that in any other case, members of the public seeking to view the court file would do so at the court services area in the courthouse in front of her. Members of the public are not left alone with the court file and the individual reviewing the file is not allowed to remove it.

160Ms. John testified that the civil matter of OAHI and the family case of Macdonald and Kuehl both appeared in the Newmarket Superior Court files.

161Ms. John testified that the OAHI civil matter commenced on January 13, 2016, and was dismissed on June 18, 2019, by order of Justice Casullo. She testified that there was an order on a motion dated February 12, 2019, signed by Justice Healey in that court file. She testified that the court file number for this matter was 6 zeros and then 46.

162Ms. John testified that there were no endorsements or judgments from Justice Himel in the court file pertaining to the OAHI matter.

163Ms. John testified that the matter of Macdonald and Kuehl was a family file that had been transferred from Orillia to Newmarket. She testified that the Orillia file number was 21-78 and that once transferred, the Newmarket file number becameb22-686. Ms. John testified that family files were supposed to have 8 numbers in total starting with the letters ‘FC’.

164Ms. John testified that she received a number of documents from Officer Stesco. Ms. John described these documents as having a Superior Court logo, the name and signature of particular judges, and that they appeared to be endorsements. Ms. John testified that these endorsements were not in the OAHI or Macdonald v. Kuehl court file.

165Ms. John also testified that a judicial assistant brought an email to her attention in January 2020, with one endorsement pertaining to the civil matter. Ms. John testified that this same endorsement was also a part of the group of documents she received from Detective Stesco.

166The Crown sought to introduce through Ms. John each of the endorsements that Ms. John had received from Detective Stesco. Mr. White submitted that he had concerns with respect to the admissibility of these documents through Ms. John and their hearsay nature.

167The endorsements that Ms. John reviewed were marked as lettered items subject to further argument or authentication.

168There were continued objections raised by Mr. White about the hearsay nature of Ms. John’s testimony and requests that the Crown identify the route to admissibility of the documents, and further that Ms. John was not an expert in document analysis. The court opted to have Ms. John, who was the first witness called in the trial, re-sworn on a voir dire to allow for the evidence to be heard and for full argument on the issue of admissibility at a later time:

THE COURT: I want to tread very carefully because Mr. White has very much flagged concerns about, you know, admissibility and – and so I am not so much concerned with the witness refreshing her memory and reading out dates. It is this route of admissibility that is the bigger concern. So, what I’m – what I propose to do is have Ms. John re-sworn on a voir dire. I would permit on the voir dire the evidence about the dates, subject to argument about admissibility when we get to that in terms of the court file, how this evidence is coming before me and whether I can rely on it for the truth or not. I think that is the cautious approach that I would like to take with respect to this evidence.

(Transcript of the Proceedings dated December 2, 2024, page 55 line 25 - p. 56 line 7)

169The Crown indicated that they would seek to admit the entire court file through Ms. John pursuant to the judicial documents rule.

Evidence on the Voir Dire

170Ms. John was re-sworn on a voir dire given the admissibility issue that had arisen. Ms. John testified that although the order of Justice Jain transferring the OAHI file from Orillia to Newmarket was in the court file, the endorsements she received from Detective Stesco were not in the court file. Specifically, Ms. John testified that the endorsements dated August 10, 2021, and November 28, 2022, with the Superior Court logo and the name Justice Himel were not in the OAHI court file.

171Ms. John testified that although the Macdonald v. Kuehl court file contained orders/endorsements of Justice Sutherland dated December 18, 2020, Justice McDermot dated April 14, 2021, September 15, 2021, and March 9, 2022, and an order of Justice Jain dated October 14, 2021, and April 5 2022, there were no endorsements of Justice Phillip Sutherland dated February 14, 2022, March 14 2022, June 7, 2022, August 8, 2022, and no endorsement of Justice Himel dated August 10, 2021, in the Macdonald v. Kuehl court file, which was still an active file.

172Ms. John testified that none of the court orders in the court file for the OAHI matter or the Macdonald v. Kuehl matter, corresponded with the endorsements she received from Detective Stesco. She testified that, based on her review, she concluded that the endorsements she received were not part of the court record and that they did not exist in the court record.

173Ms. John testified that she received and reviewed a certified copy of the Barrie court file, as well as the Newmarket court file, in arriving at her determination that the endorsements in question were not in the actual court file. Ms. John testified that she reviewed the FRANK files, the case management files and the actual physical files.

174Ms. John conceded in cross examination that there have been times when the system has glitched and created duplication and there have been occasions when the paper file has been misplaced in the Newmarket courthouse, although typically found later. As well Ms. John could not speak to the entire number of court services staff who might have security clearance and access to the court file.

175In addition, Ms. John conducted her review of the court file by way of random sampling and audit of the court file and not by looking at each and every document.

Analysis

176In this case, Ms. John was initially sworn on the trial proper. Mr. White raised objection to Ms. John’s evidence on the basis that it was hearsay, and that Ms. John was not an expert in document analysis. The Crown made general submissions about how the evidence might be admissible. The court opted to have Ms. John re-sworn on a voir dire. The voir dire in this case served as both a gatekeeping function with respect to the controversial areas pertaining to admissibility, and a trial management function in order to hear the evidence and allow for more fulsome argument at a later time.

177Ultimately, the itemized endorsements which were tendered as lettered exhibits during Ms. John’s testimony were later identified by witnesses with first-hand knowledge. Also, the Crown abandoned its request to admit the court file. Both these circumstances rendered the necessity for an admissibility ruling moot:

N. DE MONTIGNY: And that’s going to be that the Crown, I guess, will abandon its request or its position that the - the court’s in - you know, able to look at the contents of the physical file. The Crown will not be asking the court to do that. Rather, the Crown will just rely on the testimony of Ms. John (ph) as to the contents of the court file, firstly. Secondly, the evidence presented in this case regarding judicial documents that have been made exhibits, for example, the order to dismiss in Exhibit 2, the Notice of Motion in Exhibit 4, and Exhibits I believe it was 11 from this morning, A through E. THE COURT: Can you just name - go through that list of…

(Transcript of the Proceedings dated December 9, 2024 p.64 line 10p. 70 line 12)

178Mr. White submits that Ms. John’s evidence cannot be admitted because there is no express consent that the evidence admitted on the voir dire apply to the trial proper. Alternatively, the issue raised is a technical one: Ms. John was not re-sworn again on the trial proper.

179I disagree.

180With the authentication of the endorsements by other first party witness’ and the Crown abandoning its request to admit the court file, there were no other admissibility issues at play which would necessitate a voir dire. Ms. John had been initially sworn on the trial proper and in this circumstance, there was no need to re-swear her once the need for the voir dire was obviated. The fact that Ms. John was not re-sworn on the trial proper did not result in an unfairness to Mr. White, as I determined on the day the issue was litigated, after Ms. John’s evidence concluded:

N. DE MONTIGNY: And that’s going to be that the Crown, I guess, will abandon its request or its position that the - the court’s in - you know, able to look at the contents of the physical file. The Crown will not be asking the court to do that. Rather, the Crown will just rely on the testimony of Ms. John (ph) as to the contents of the court file, firstly. Secondly, the evidence presented in this case regarding judicial documents that have been made exhibits, for example, the order to dismiss in Exhibit 2, the Notice of Motion in Exhibit 4, and Exhibits - I believe it was 11 from this morning, A through E.

THE COURT: Can you just name - go through that list of...

N. DE MONTIGNY: Yes.

THE COURT: ...documents again?

N. DE MONTIGNY: Firstly, Exhibit 2, being the order to dismiss.

THE COURT: Yes.

N. DE MONTIGNY: The Notice of Motion, Exhibit 4. And I just want to make sure I have the numbers right for the other ones. Exhibits 11A through E- A through C.

THE COURT: Yes.

N. DE MONTIGNY: And Your Honour, this - this position’s also arrived at based on what I understand to be Mr. White’s concession that the endorsements currently marked 3K, 3L, as well as 12 through 16 do not form part of the official court files in - in their respective matters.

THE COURT: And I don’t want you to be misled in that I appreciate Mr. White has made concessions, but as he is representing himself, despite his clear legal experience, I may not be relying on concessions made and will put the Crown to...

N. DE MONTIGNY: Understood... THE COURT: ...to proof of...

N. DE MONTIGNY: ...Your Honour, and... THE COURT: ...every aspect of the case.

N. DE MONTIGNY: ...if - if I may say, this - this is a circumstantial case...

THE COURT: Right.

N. DE MONTIGNY: ...in many ways, and the Crown’s relying on several pieces of evidence as well - you know, as well as the viva voce testimony, working together to - to meet the elements of the offences. So, I do believe that would - well, I’ll let - I’ll Mr. - Mr. White say his piece, but unless the court has any questions, that’s how the Crown intends to proceed with this case….

THE COURT: All right. All right. Mr. White, do you have any comments or any questions?......

(discussion about exhibits and numbering)

ADAM WHITE: And then, Your Honour, as to the substance of my friend’s position, obviously, I’m not going to take issue with anything the Crown seeks to abandon, period. Having said that, in discussions with the Crown, and again, raising it purely as a fairness aspect, he may have come to the position he’s at based on conversations I had with him, which indicated that - that I would be conceding the absence of Exhibits - well, substantially 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and the others that my friend had indicated. I have heard Your Honour’s position on being a self-represented individual, and I thank the court for that simply because that has been a running problem, where even though I have legal training, I am still self-represented, and being held to a different standard has been a bit of a thorny issue thus far. So, I thank the court for that acknowledgment. I’m - I’m only raising it because I want to make sure that the court’s aware that the Crown may have reached that position based on conversations. So....

THE COURT: I hear what you’re saying, Mr. White. It’s - and I appreciate you’re trying to be fair to the process, you know, given your former lens, but I’ve put the Crown on notice that, if at the end of the day, there are gaps in the case, I’m not going to be looking back at concessions that you may or may not have made to fill any gaps. So, Mr...

ADAM WHITE: Understood.

THE COURT: ...de Montigny is aware, and he’s shaking his head, and he has to make...

N. DE MONTIGNY: Thank you.

THE COURT: ...the decisions with that in mind. All right.

ADAM WHITE: If that, then, Your Honour, disposes with the issue of the judicial records submissions, that does leave a substantial amount of time available to us to raise another issue that …

THE COURT: All right. So, just before we go there, though, I just want to - because Ms. John was sworn on a - affirmed on a voir dire, and that was only in relation to the admissibility of the court records. Otherwise, her evidence is evidence properly before this court, and the Crown has abandoned its position about admitting the entirety of the court record, at least the paper file. So I, just want to...

N. DE MONTIGNY: Correct, Your Honour. Thank you. THE COURT: So, that closes off that point.

(Transcript of the Proceedings December 9, 2024 p. 4 Line 10 - p. 70 Line 20

181Mr. White had a clear understanding that the Crown was seeking admission of all of Ms. John’s testimony. He had full opportunity to cross-examine Ms. John and make argument with respect to the credibility and reliability of Ms. John’s account.

182The only issues with respect to Ms. John’s evidence pertain to a fact-based credibility and reliability analysis of Ms. John’s testimony: Was Ms. John in a position to provide the evidence she did in relation to the court record? What weight, if any, should be given to Ms. John’s evidence that the endorsements she received from Detective Stesco were not in the court record? Is Ms. John’s testimony reliable in this regard?

183There is no unfairness to Mr. White. The entirety of Ms. John’s evidence is admissible and the issues to be determined go to the weight of her evidence.

The Defence Evidence

(Adam White, Brandie Stevenson)

Adam White

184Mr. White was a lawyer in the Province of Ontario. He practiced for approximately 14 years and was in private practice at the time of these events. He testified that he practiced mostly in criminal but also did family and civil work. In addition to a law degree Mr. White testified that he has a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy and a certificate as an advanced court tribunal agent from Seneca College. In 2011, Mr. White joined the York Region Law Association. He testified that he held the position of treasurer, vice president, and eventually president between 2018 and early 2019. He testified that he was asked to step down from this position in July 2020, when other members learned that he had been reprimanded by the law society. He testified that he was suspended from the practice of law on February 17, 2023.

185Mr. White testified that he began doing work for Mr. Christie in 2014. He testified that over the years he assisted Mr. Christie on fifteen different files in total including the civil suit involving OAHI. Mr. White testified during the time he was working on OAHI for Mr. Christie, he was also working on three or four other files for Mr. Christie.

186Mr. White acknowledged that he filed a statement of claim on Mr. Christie’s behalf; that a statement of defence was received and filed in this matter; and that discoveries were scheduled and conducted. Mr. White testified that Ms. DiFederico requested further disclosure in the matter. Mr. White testified that Mr. Christie provided him with 10 years of tax returns. Mr. White testified, however, that he did not know if his law clerk provided these documents to Ms. DiFederico.

187Mr. White admits that by June 2019, he knew that Mr. Christie’s civil claim had been dismissed. He said he was aware of this because Ms. DiFederico had advised him that she was bringing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and he in turn, did nothing in response. He testified that he did not recall advising Mr. Christie that the case had been dismissed.

188Regarding the series of documents identified by Mr. Christie, Mr. White’s evidence is as follows.

189With respect to Exhibit 3A dated August 21, 2019, in response to the Crown’s suggestion that Ms. DiFederico’s name was deliberately misspelled, Mr. White testified:

“there is no way I would know the answer to that. I hear your suggestion, but I can’t acknowledge.”

(Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025 p. 53 line 8).

190Mr. White further denied deliberately misspelling names in order to falsely convey that work was being done on the matter.

191Mr. White agrees that he had a conversation with Mr. Christie regarding the misspellings that appeared in the email addresses but testified that Mr. Christie misunderstood his explanation about a computer program that detects, corrects and resends emails with spelling errors in the address. Mr. White testified as follows on this issue:

A: Yes. I agree with that. I also in the page 2 explain that he’s misunderstanding my explanation. I never said it was a program that corrects. I can tell Your Honour that I own 49 URLs, or domain names. They – just the ones I own for York Law Chambers are yorklawchamber.com, yorklawchambers.com, dot net, dot ca, dot org, so that if anybody screws up and they all have emails that are forwarded to my regular email which is awhite@yorklawchambers.com. The reason I do that – and – and equally in the – in page 2 here you’ll see that I identify that I have multiple emails that misspell my own name in case someone screws up and they’re reported to my – it’s not a program – and I tried to explain that to Mr. Christie at the time, and I'm explaining it to the court now. It’s not a program that – that – you know, collects emails from the ether and – and funnels them. It’s a deliberate setup. I have that setup, and I'm a single practitioner in Kewsick, Ontario. So I have to imagine somebody at Stieber Berlach has thought of something similar in their I.T. department. I'm – I'm by no means a computer genius.

Q: So, Mr. White, is your evidence that the emails that you send may contain misspellings? Sorry, I’ll – I’ll rephrase that. Is it your evidence that the emails that you send may have misspellings in order to hide the true email address of the recipient?

A: No.

Q: Okay.

A.: I mean, again, parsing out what you just asked me was, would you have sent emails with misspellings in them in order to hide. And the answer to that is no.. (Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025 p. 58 line 1 – line 27)

192With respect to Exhibit 3B, Mr. White identified his digital signature and agreed he sent the document. He testified that his signature was saved on both his and his law clerk’s computers. Mr. White denied that he sent the document because he wanted to make it seem like there was progress in the file.

193With respect to Exhibit 3C, Mr. White testified that he wrote the letter to make the problem go away but denies that he created Ms. DiFederico’s signature.

194Mr. White acknowledged that Exhibit 3E contained his correct logo. He agrees he sent the direction regarding civil trials to Mr. Christie in July 2020. He testified that the statements in his email are the truth.

195With respect to Exhibit 3F, Mr. White was critical of the way the email looked and the formatting, although he acknowledged that the email had his name and email address on it. He testified that this is not what his emails look like. When asked in cross- examination if he denies sending the email, Mr. White testified that he could not deny it because his brain was foggy at the time, but he could not “authenticate” the email for the Crown. He testified that he could not lawfully deny it either. Mr. White denied any suggestions of a motivation on his part to make it seem to Mr. Christie that the case was still ongoing. (Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025 p 68 line 29 to p. 69 line 3).

196With respect to Exhibit 3G, Mr. White testified that his brain was not functioning at the time and that he cannot legally and lawfully deny sending this email. Mr. White again denied any motivation on his part to make it seem as if the case was progressing.

197Mr. White acknowledged that: awhite@yorklawchambers.ca, which appears on the ‘From’ line of the document, was his email address at this time. He testified that Ms. Hatch-Reevie was the trial coordinator for the Superior Court in Newmarket for almost his entire career and that he knew her well. Mr. White agreed that he knew from his experience that the email addresses for members of the Ministry of the Attorney General is typically “@ontario.ca”. With respect to Exhibit 3I, Mr. White testified that he did not recall sending this email dated November 10, 2020, to Linda Hatch-Reevie, although he could not legally deny it. He testified that his brain was not functioning properly.

198Mr. White testified that he would continue to repeat this response to the suggestion that he sent documents to Mr. Christie to make it appear that Mr. Christie’s case was still progressing through the courts:

…I cannot tell you my purpose of the singular day, but I can tell you that that is – falls directly within the timeframe of when I was well into my spiraling mental health problems, and my daily goal that day was to survive the day..

(Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025 p. 74 line 19 - 23).

199Mr. White agreed that he never reached out to Ms. DiFederico for her availability for a pre-trial, contrary to the content of this email thread. Mr. White acknowledges that the OAHI matter had been dismissed by the date of this email. Mr. White testified that he did not recall receiving this correspondence from Ms. DiFederico’s legal assistant and testified that, as he had indicated multiple times, his memory was impaired. Mr. White did not acknowledge that he engaged in this email stream. The Crown put to Mr. White that he sent the email so that Mr. Christie believed that his case was still ongoing. Mr. White testified that he could neither confirm nor deny sending the email:

“Same question – same suggestion, and the answer is the same. I can neither confirm or

deny, cause I just don’t have the capacity to do so, the first half or you suggestion, I deny the second half.”

(Transcript of the Proceedings February 14, 2025, p. 80 line 15 -18).

200With respect to Exhibit 3J, Mr. White again, spontaneously remarked on the abnormalities in the document. He testified that the ‘From’ line had his email address but not his name and the ‘To’ line had a name but no email address. He testified that the email did not have his firm logo on page 3 or page 6. When questioned about whether this was an email chain between Ms. DiFederico’s legal assistant and the trial coordinators at the Barrie courthouse, Mr. White denied it. He testified that that was because Linda Hatch-Reevie was the trial coordinator in Newmarket.

201With respect to Exhibit 3K, Mr. White agreed that his name, Adam C, White, appears on the judicial endorsement as counsel for the applicant. Mr. White testified that he does not recall sending the document but cannot legally deny it. Mr. White agreed that Mr. Christie’s matter was never set down for trial.

202Mr. White did not deny sending this email to Mr. Christie, but he did deny writing it.

203With respect to Exhibit 3L, Mr. White spontaneously admitted that he has appeared before Justice Himel and he has endorsements from Justice Himel and that the signature that appears on 3L is Justice Himel’s signature:

“...you pull up any of Justice Himel’s endorsements, that’s her signature.” (Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025, p. 88 line 20 - 21)

204However, Mr. White denies putting Justice Himel’s signature on the document. He testified that he does not recall sending the endorsement to Mr. Christie, but he does not deny it. In further cross-examination, Mr. White testified that he believed that he provided the document to Mr. Christie.

205Mr. White testified that after June 2019, he discussed with Mr. Christie about filing an amended Statement of Claim to increase damages being sought. Mr. White denies charging Mr. Christie for this work.

206Mr. White initially denied that Mr. Christie sent him money in 2021 but subsequently admitted that he received one e-transfer from Mr. Christie in 2020. (Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025, p. 91 line 5 – 13).

207Mr. White admits that in 2021, he was lying to Mr. Christie about the status of his case.

208Mr. White acknowledges that Mr. Christie sent him money in 2022. However, Mr. White testified that these funds were in relation to money owed to him by Mr. Christie for work he had done for Mr. Christie on other files. Mr. White testified that he did not tell Mr. Christie that he was applying funds received for other matters and he agrees that he never told him that the OAHI matter had concluded. Mr. White testified that he cannot admit or deny that he kept sending Mr. Christie emails about the OAHI litigation.

209Mr. White testified that payments for the other work he had done for Mr. Christie remained outstanding. when he received funds from Mr. Christie after the OAHI matter was dismissed in 2019, and that the funds were for money owed for other matters he had assisted Mr. Christie on.

210With respect to Exhibit 4, a Notice of Motion in the OAHI matter that purports to amend the Statement of Claim, Mr. White testified that he recognized his digital signature on this document:

It could have been drafted by my office... I don’t’ deny it”. Mr. White noted the spelling mistake on the first page: “PROPOED”

(Transcript of the proceedings dated February 20, 2025 page 4 and 5).

211Mr. White admits to lying to Mr. Christie and not meeting his professional obligations with respect to Mr. Christie but denies that he defrauded him. Mr. White maintains that he received money from Mr. Christie in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, but only in relation to other files he was working on for Mr. Christie and not OAHI.

212Mr. White admits that he was missing in action for long stretches and that he was aware that Mr. Kuehl and/or his mother were trying to contact him. He testified that he was not in contact with them for most of 2021.

213Mr. White agreed that Exhibit 17 appears to be an email he sent to Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins and that the date of this email March 14, 2022, is the same date as the apparent endorsement of Justice Sutherland (Exhibit 14).

214Mr. White agreed that he was not aware of a court appearance on March 14, 2022, and that he never appeared in court on that date. He identified his firm’s logo on the document and his usual signature on the document.

215In response to the question of whether he sent these endorsements to his client, Mr. White testified, repeatedly, that if he received an endorsement, he was obligated to pass it on to his client.

216Mr. White remarked on the discrepancy in the appearance of his name in the ‘endorsements,’ Exhibits 15 and 16. He observed that Exhibit 15 has his name as ‘Adam White’ and on Exhibit 16 his name appeared as ‘Adam C. White’. He testified that he typically uses his middle initial to differentiate himself from other Adam Whites.

217Regarding Exhibit 16, Mr. White testified that if there was a court appearance in relation to this endorsement, he did not appear.

218Mr. White admits that he sent Exhibit 18, to Ms. Desjardins. Exhibit 18 is an email dated June 10, 2022, subject line, “Further Trust Funds”. The email reads:

“Hi Sylvia: Further to our telephone call, I have used the funds previously received and applied them to the multiple appearances since February 2022. I ask that you please provide further fund in the amount of $2,825.00 for future actions...”

219Mr. White acknowledged that Exhibit 18 dated June 10, 2022, has his signature. He testified that he accepts that Ms. Desjardins sent him $2,825 but testified that he does not recall requesting it. He testified that he does not recall what further actions he took on the Kuehl matter after receiving the money, but that Mr. Kuehl was continuing to text him and send him messages. He testified that, although he did not attend any court appearances, there was more work to a file than a court appearance.

220In addition, Mr. White testified that the email, labelled Exhibit 18, means that he had applied all the funds that he received from Ms. Desjardins since 2022. He testified that the major court appearances in Mr. Kuehl’s matter between May 2020 and April 2021, would have cost $10,000.

221Mr. White admits that he did not bring a s. 14B motion in the Kuehl matter as stated in the purported endorsement dated August 8, 2022 (Exhibit 16).

222Mr. White testified that he had no ability to form a criminal intent to defraud Mr. Christie or Mr. Kuehl due to his mental health struggles at the time he was acting as their respective counsel.

223Mr. White declined to detail his mental health during his testimony. He testified that he experienced a panic attack just before the OAHI file was dismissed. He testified that in September 2019, he became a full-time care giver to someone close to him who ultimately passed away in October 2019. He testified that he was ignoring calls, emails and messages, missing deadlines and experiencing suicidal thoughts. He testified that, as a result of this, he neglected his professional responsibilities. He testified that he was reprimanded by The Law Society of Ontario in May 2020, and ordered to pay costs of $4,000, and to engage in a counselling program. He testified that in July 2020 he was asked to step down as president of the York Region Law Association.

224Mr. White testified that he did pursue counselling through the members assistance program of the Law Society. At some point. the counselling sessions dropped off. Thereafter, Mr. White testified that he experienced suicidal thoughts in 2021 and 2022. On April 14, 2022, Mr. White testified that he wrote a suicide note and showed it to his spouse who became alarmed and wanted to take him to the hospital or a doctor. Mr. White testified that he refused this form of medical attention but did re-engage with intense counselling for a period of 16 months. Mr. White testified that the counselling and medication he has been prescribed, he has found to be beneficial.

ADMISSIBILITY ISSUE #2 – EXPERT EVIDENCE RULING

Brandie Stevenson

225Mr. White seeks to qualify Ms. Stevenson as an expert in the area of clinical and forensic psychology, qualified to provide an opinion with respect to the identification and diagnosis of Mr. White with persistent depressive disorder and the symptoms of the disorder including when they would have existed, and to provide an opinion with respect to how this disorder impacted Mr. White’s ability to make life-style choices, his decision making, his judgment, and his ability to form the specific intent to commit the offences before the court.

226Mr. White submits that Ms. Stevenson is also qualified to offer an opinion with respect to what constitutes normal human behaviour. Ms. Stevenson’s evidence with respect to her qualifications and the nature of the opinion were heard on a voir dire.

227For the reasons to follow, I find that the proffered expert opinion evidence of Ms. Stevenson is not admissible and does not meet the threshold requirements for admissibility of expert opinion evidence.

The Test

228The law governing the admissibility of expert opinion evidence is well established. The four-criteria threshold test for admissibility is set out in R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9. The proposed expert opinion evidence must be:

a. logically relevant;

b. necessary to assist the trier of fact;

c. not subject to an exclusionary rule;

d. and the expert properly qualified to give the evidence, which includes the requirement that the expert be willing to fulfill their duty to the court to give evidence that is impartial, independent, and unbiased.

229If the stage one criteria are met, then the court must, as a gatekeeper, determine if the benefits of admitting the evidence outweigh its potential risks. The second stage analysis requires a continued consideration of the threshold criteria set out in step one and includes finding: an absence of bias in the proposed evidence, that the benefit to admission outweigh the costs, and that there is no concern that admission of the evidence will confuse rather than assist the trier of fact. Mohan, supra; White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 S.C.R 182; R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624 (”Abbey 1”); R. v. Abbey, 2017 ONCA 640 (”Abbey 2”); and R. v. McRae, 2018 ONSC 3694.

230Having considered the evidence called on this voir dire and the submissions of the parties, I find that Ms. Stevenson’s evidence is inadmissible at stage one. I find further that, even if the opinion evidence were to be admitted at stage one, that in exercising my gatekeeper role, the opinion evidence would be excluded at stage two.

Relevance and Necessity

231The evidence of Mr. White’s mental health condition at the time of these allegations is logically relevant to issues at trial. Issues such as narrative and context; and potentially the reliability of his account.

232The relevancy basis is narrow.

233Evidence from a mental health expert would be necessary to provide the court with an accurate understanding of the disorder and its symptomology.

Properly Qualified Expert/ Limitations of Ms. Stevenson’s Expertise

234Ms. Stevenson is a qualified clinical and forensic psychologist. She has an undergraduate degree in psychology and sociology and a master’s degree in forensic applied psychology. Ms. Stevenson is registered as a board psychologist with the College of Psychologists of Ontario and the Board of Psychology for Labrador and Newfoundland, as well as a number of other professional associations. Ms. Stevenson was approved by the province to run a graduate program in forensic psychology, the first of its kind in the province. In addition to teaching and training in her area of study, Ms. Stevenson has co-authored, publications and published articles in the area for forensic psychology. She has conducted thousands of risk assessments for the court, Corrections Canada, and defence counsel and has over 27 years of experience conducting psychological, forensic and threat assessments. Ms. Stevenson has been qualified as an expert in several court proceedings primarily providing an opinion in the area of risk assessment. (Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025, p. 32 line 5 -12)

235Ms. Stevenson is not a psychiatrist. Ms. Stevenson readily admits that she is not qualified to do capacity or fitness assessments and is not qualified to diagnose or determine if an individual is unable to appreciate the nature and quality of their acts as a result of a mental health disorder. (Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025, p. 110 line 5 – 30)

236In late 2024 or early 2025, Ms. Stevenson commenced a diagnostic assessment with respect to Mr. White. In doing so, Ms. Stevenson with the assistance of a PhD student, conducted five psychometric tests on Mr. White. In addition, Ms. Stevenson reviewed Mr. White’s extensive journal. She met with Mr. White once on her own and then a second time with his wife at which time they were both interviewed together. She also reviewed the witness statements and investigative file pertaining to the nature of the allegations Mr. White faces.

237Based on her testing results, Ms. Stevenson diagnosed Mr. White with persistent depressive disorder (PDD) in the moderate to severe category. She testified that individuals with PDD may exhibit impaired executive functioning, relevant to decision- making. She testified that individuals suffering from PDD may not be able to explain or recall behaviour they have engaged in and may display impaired decision-making ability.

238She testified that the symptoms may wax or wane over a period of time and that the symptomology of PDD can be triggered by stressors.

239There was evidence adduced in this voir dire which highlights the limits of Ms. Stevenson’s expertise and the limits to the extent of the expert opinion she can provide in this case. Although Ms. Stevenson has been qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the past, she has never been qualified to provide an opinion where PDD was the sole diagnosis as is this case.

240Ms. Stevenson testified that she did not review any past therapy reports. She did not reach out to Mr. White’s past therapist(s), or Mr. White’s family doctor, and did not seek to obtain any counselling session notes. Ms. Stevenson testified that she did not seek out past counselling records because, in her opinion, the records would not have been of assistance and “extra information would not have changed the diagnosis”.

241Ms. Stevenson agreed in re-examination that Mr. White offered her his past counsellor’s contact information and also offered to make his mother available for the assessment. Ms. Stevenson testified that she declined this offer.

242I am unclear about why Ms. Stevenson would not seek out non-self-report information proximate to the commission of the alleged offences in formulating her diagnosis. Her explanation for not doing so was vague. Her evidence that she did not feel she needed this information seems counter-intuitive to arriving at the most reliable diagnosis particularly, given the breadth of her opinion about the extent to which Mr. White’s executive function would have been or was impaired at relevant times.

243Ms. Stevenson testified that the nature of PDD is that the symptomology waxes and wanes over time. However, she testified that in her opinion Mr. White’s symptoms escalated from 2014 and were acute throughout the time the offences were committed. Ms. Stevenson could not reliably explain, in my view, her basis for this aspect of her opinion. It appears her opinion in this regard is based largely, if not entirely, on the self- report of Mr. White.

244In addition, I found that there was a tendency for Ms. Stevenson to stray from the boundaries of her expertise by adopting language more appropriate to describing mental capacity and an appreciation of the nature and consequences of one’s actions when she described the impact of PDD on executive function and decision making.

245I found her evidence lacked clarity and precision in this respect, and this is of concern.

246Ms. Stevenson included some conclusions about Mr. White’s character in her report that are more consistent with advocacy, in my view, and seemingly not squarely relevant to Ms. Stevenson’s assessment, diagnosis and her opinion about the presence of the disorder:

Q. And just turning to the very top of the last page of page 19, you indicate in the first paragraph:

[As Read] To Mr. White's credit, he has spent his career and life with a primary

goal to help others who he believed needed a chance. He worked toward better — he worked toward better the....

Q. Sorry. He worked toward — yes. All right.

A. Sorry.

Q. [As Read]

He worked toward better the field in his work and dedication to law students. He was an active and committed member of the Law Society. Mr. White took on legal cases where he knew he would not receive payment. Mr. White sought a sense of gratification and pride by watching others succeed and celebrate their success.

Q. What — what's the basis for this statement?

A. It's really just to — to highlight that Mr. White has taken his career seriously, that he's worked really hard in achieving the goals and — and the success that he has achieved, and that he's not — he doesn't present as somebody who is selfish, let's say, or out to exploit others. Rather, he wants to better the field and better his students and takes pride in watching and seeing others succeed based on his support.

Q. And is that from firsthand personal observation of Mr. White?

A. That would be through self-reports and his acknowledgments through his achievements with the — is it the law — is it the Law Society? The law....

Q. Thank you. And what's the diagnostic or clinical significance of — of that paragraph that I just read to you?

A. It's certainly intended to point out that Mr. White is not anybody who meets any sort of threshold or criteria as far as having any antisocial traits or — or diagnoses that would suggest that perhaps he was callous or unempathetic towards others or engaged in kind of malicious behaviours intentionally to harm others.

Q. Okay. And that kind of dovetails with my next point. So, in — on page 18...

A. Mm-hmm.

Q sorry to go back one page, the second to last paragraph, I'm going to start with, "Mr. White's actions were careless and irresponsible. " the third to last line:

[As Read] Mr. White's actions were careless and irresponsible. However, I do not believe there was an overt attempt to cause harm. In my opinion, his actions were a culmination of his self-destruction – self-destructive means of coping with a significant mental health condition.

THE COURT: Sorry, could you just — where is this? On....

N. DE MONTIGNY: Sorry.

THE COURT: It's on page 18?

N. DE MONTIGNY: Page 18, the second to last paragraph.

THE COURT: Go ahead, please.

N. DE MONTIGNY: And I started at "Mr. White's actions "

N. DE MONTIGNY: Q. So, what I just read out, Ms. Stevenson, what's your basis for concluding that Mr. White's actions were not an attempt to cause harm?

A. It's based on his motivation, motivation around why he engaged in the behaviours that he engaged in. As I mentioned in the — in the previous statement around his personality construct, his psychological being, that he is a — a — a very empathetic man who takes pride in the work of the – he takes pride in the law and bettering the field and helping those that need help.

Q. And again, that is based off – what — what source of information do you have to come to that conclusion?

A. That would be based off Mr. White's description of his involvement with teaching students and going to — like teaching them and going to those mock trials, and information obtained from Ms. Cunningham to support that.

Q. Okay. And does persistent depressive disorder impact someone's ability to tell the truth?

A. I think that would be – it — it would impact their decision making perhaps around how they tend to — or proceed with moving forward. So, will it — will executive functioning deficits impede their ability to tell the truth? I'm not sure I can answer that because I don't know that there is an answer to that. I – it — it would be a matter of are they able to understand and process what's being asked of them to fully appreciate what response is required.

Q. And just turning to the very top of the last page of page 19, you indicate in the first paragraph:

[As Read] To Mr. White's credit, he has spent his career and life with a primary goal to help others who he believed needed a chance. He worked toward better — he worked toward better the....

Q. Sorry. He worked toward — yes. All right.

A. Sorry.

Q. [As Read]

He worked toward better the field in his work and dedication to law students. He was an active and committed member of the Law Society. Mr. White took on legal cases where he knew he would not receive payment. Mr. White sought a sense of gratification and pride by watching others succeed and celebrate their success.

Q. What — what's the basis for this statement?

A. It's really just to — to highlight that Mr. White has taken his career seriously, that he's worked really hard in achieving the goals and — and the success that he has achieved, and that he's not — he doesn't present as somebody who is selfish, let's say, or out to exploit others. Rather, he wants to better the field and better his students and takes pride in watching and seeing others succeed based on his support.

Q. And is that from firsthand personal observation of Mr. White?

A. That would be through self-reports and his acknowledgments through his achievements with the — is it the law — is it the Law Society? The law....

Q. Thank you. And what's the diagnostic or clinical significance of — of that paragraph that I just read to you?

A. It's certainly intended to point out that Mr. White is not anybody who meets any sort of threshold or criteria as far as having any antisocial traits or — or diagnoses that would suggest that perhaps he was callous or unempathetic towards others or engaged in kind of malicious behaviours intentionally to harm others.

Q. Okay. And that kind of dovetails with my next point. So, in — on page 18...

A. Mm-hmm.

Q sorry to go back one page, the second to last paragraph, I'm going to start with, "Mr. White's actions were careless and irresponsible. " the third to last line:

[As Read] Mr. White's actions were careless and irresponsible. However, I do not believe there was an overt attempt to cause harm. In my opinion, his actions were a culmination of his self-destruction – self-destructive means of coping with a significant mental health condition.

THE COURT: Sorry, could you just — where is this? On....

N. DE MONTIGNY: Sorry.

THE COURT: It's on page 18?

N. DE MONTIGNY: Page 18, the second to last paragraph.

THE COURT: Go ahead, please.

N. DE MONTIGNY: And I started at "Mr. White's actions "

N. DE MONTIGNY: Q. So, what I just read out, Ms. Stevenson, what's your basis for concluding that Mr. White's actions were not an attempt to cause harm?

A. It's based on his motivation, motivation around why he engaged in the behaviours that he engaged in. As I mentioned in the — in the previous statement around his personality construct, his psychological being, that he is a — a — a very empathetic man who takes pride in the work of the – he takes pride in the law and bettering the field and helping those that need help.

Q. And again, that is based off – what — what source of information do you have to come to that conclusion?

A. That would be based off Mr. White's description of his involvement with teaching students and going to — like teaching them and going to those mock trials, and information obtained from Ms. Cunningham to support that.

Q. Okay. And does persistent depressive disorder impact someone's ability to tell the truth?

A. I think that would be – it — it would impact their decision making perhaps around how they tend to — or proceed with moving forward. So, will it — will executive functioning deficits impede their ability to tell the truth? I'm not sure I can answer that because I don't know that there is an answer to that. I – it — it would be a matter of are they able to understand and process what's being asked of them to fully appreciate what response is required.

(Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025 p. 111 line 3 to p. 114 line 3)

247Impartiality is the cornerstone of reliable expert opinion evidence.

248Ms. Stevenson did not meet Mr. White clinically prior to 2024. Given the passage of time between the date of the allegations and the assessment, the potential availability of other sources of information, as well as the other frailties I have noted with respect to this evidence, I find that there is an air of reality to the concern that the diagnostic process was not sufficiently comprehensive or reliable to support the breadth of the opinion evidence sought to be proffered in this case.

249For these reasons, I find that Ms. Stevenson is not properly qualified to render an opinion beyond her diagnosis of Mr. White with PDD and the general symptoms of that disorder. Ms. Stevenson is not qualified to provide an opinion about the impact of this diagnosis on Mr. White’s ability to make life-style choices, his decision making, his judgment, and his ability to form the specific intent to commit the offences before the court. Ms. Stevenson’s evidence is not admissible in this regard.

250On a stage two analysis, I would find that the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighs its probative value. The nature of the evidence is such that it risks conflating issues around capacity and criminal responsibility which are not issues in this case. If this were not a judge-alone trial, at stage two, the entirety of Ms. Stevenson’s opinion evidence would be inadmissible for this reason and taking into consideration the other concerns I have raised.

251I have decided instead to admit Ms. Stevenson’s opinion only with respect to her assessment and diagnosis of Mr. White and the symptoms of PDD, although the evidence is only marginally relevant to the issues at trial.

ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

Adam White

252Mr. White testified in an incredible and unreliable fashion. Mr. White made convenient admissions where the evidence against him was irrefutable, and calculated denials and professed memory loss where there was opportunity to do so.

253I find that Mr. White testified in a deliberately evasive and vague manner and that his evidence lacked forthrightness, highlighted by the nature of his responses when faced with direct questions. For example, when asked if he sent a particular email, his consistent response was that he could not confirm but he also could not lawfully or legally deny. When asked if he gave his client one of the impugned ‘endorsements’ he testified that, ‘if he received an endorsement, he was obligated to provide it to his client’. He did not answer the question. When asked if he sent emails with misspellings so that the recipients did not actually receive the message, Mr. White testified that he did not know how to answer the question. When asked if he reassured Mr. Christie that the emails with misspellings would get to their intended recipients, Mr. White responded that he was not sure how to answer. (Transcript of the Proceedings February 20, 2025, p. 50 line 6 – 15.)

254This pattern of response I find inconsistent with a forthright account.

255It defies credulity that Mr. White did not provide the emails and endorsements identified in these proceedings to his respective clients or does not recall doing so. The direct evidence of Mr. Christie, Ms. Desjardins and Mr. Kuehl is that the purported ‘endorsements’ were either handed to them by Mr. White while they were in his office or sent to them by email from Mr. White. The endorsement attachments were typically accompanied by a forwarding email from Mr. White to “Andy” or “Brian”, confirming for the recipient that the ‘endorsement’, email communication or thread from opposing counsel, or their assistant, or the trial coordinator, all of which have been identified as false, was attached. (Exhibit 3a to 3k, Exhibit 12 to Exhibit 17)

256Each of the impugned documents, be it emails, endorsements, false court documents that were never filed, has Mr. White’s name on it and other unassailable identifiers such as his firm address and email address and some bear Mr. White’s Law Society number. These identifiers were either confirmed by Mr. White as his own or not challenged by him, other than noting discrepancies such as his middle initial appearing on some purported ‘endorsements,’ and not in others.

257Mr. White’s testimony that he did not know or remember sending the emails and his denials or lack of knowledge about the purported endorsements, defies credulity.

258Firstly, the content of the communications, particularly the endorsements Mr. White handed to his respective clients, is entirely responsive to the issues and concerns that Mr. Christie and Mr. Kuehl had about their respective cases. Issues and concerns about the apparent delay in the progress of their matters that they discussed with Mr. White and that he was supposed to be acting on for them.

259The email messages and endorsements sent by Mr. White to Mr. Christie were crafted to respond to their issues and their concerns. They created the appearance that the matters were moving ahead while also setting up what appeared to be barriers imposed by the court because of COVID, or specific judges because of court orders, that impeded the progress of the matter.

260Thirdly, there is unchallenged direct evidence that Mr. White discussed the content of the emails and endorsements with his clients. Mr. Christie instructed Mr. White to increase the claim for damages based on what he felt was positive feedback from the court in his case, as well as the opposing sides offer to settle. Mr. Kuehl testified that he asked Mr. White specifically about phrases in the endorsements and the judge’s meaning.

261The fact that Mr. White had discussions with Mr. Christie, Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins about the emails and the endorsements undermines Mr. White’s testimony about having no knowledge or memory of certain emails, documents or endorsements.

262It defies logic and common sense given the plethora of false communications that I find that Mr. White provided to both these clients, over a period of years, and the tailored nature of the messaging, and the intricate way in which each proceeding appeared to be rerouted, delayed, and taken off course, that Mr. White, with his knowledge of court process and his knowledge of the respective files, did not know or recall what he provided to his clients.

263Mr. White testified that he did not recall what emails he may have sent in March 2022 because of his law clerk who had been serving as his “guardian”, his “gatekeeper”.; “the person that everyone had to get by in order to get to him”. (Transcript of Evidence February 20, 2025 p. 13 line 20 – line 31)

264His suggestion that his law clerk somehow blocked his messages, or acted without his instructions, or was principally involved in passing off these false documents to Mr. Christie and Mr. Kuehl without his knowledge, has no basis in reality and defies common sense. In fact, Mr. White spoke in positive terms about his former clerk and the way in which she supported him. There is no air of reality to a suggestion that she had somehow gone rogue in her zeal to protect him.

265Mr. White denied that he was communicating with Mr. Christie in order to make Mr. Christie believe that the OAHI matter was ongoing. However, every communication sent to Mr. Christie by Mr. White after 2019, in evidence at this trial, I find can only logically and reasonably be interpreted as an effort to convince Mr. Christie that the lawsuit was still before the court. Not only is this the only reasonable conclusion based on the content of these messages, but also by the very fact that Mr. White sent these emails, including apparent back pages of a trial record, to Mr. Christie, after he knew that Mr. Christie’s case has been dismissed years prior.

266In relation to the numerous apparent spelling errors in the email messages purported to involve Ms. DiFederico, Mr. White’s evidence was materially inconsistent, illogical, and defied common sense. He testified that Mr. Christie misunderstood that he was referring to a computer program that addresses these errors and redirects emails to their intended recipient. At trial, Mr. White testified that what he meant and what he told Mr. Christie was that he had a system of 49 URLs in place with respect to his own name as a failsafe for not missing emails. He testified that he expected that a firm as big as Ms. DiFederico’s would have something similar in place.

267Mr. White’s testimony was materially inconsistent, evasive and nonresponsive to the issue. His explanation I find convenient, contrived and not believable.

268Other material inconsistencies in Mr. White’s account involved his evidence about what was owed to him by Mr. Christie and Mr. Kuehl in their respective cases.

269Mr. White testified that he performed about $36,000 in legal work for Mr. Christie between 2014 and 2023. He testified that Mr. Christie paid him a total of $19,850.00. He testified that Mr. Christie owed him $16,000. Mr. White testified that he worked on 14 cases for Mr. Christie over the years, four of which he was working on during the OAHI matter. He testified that Mr. Christie owed him money for these other cases and the money Mr. Christie paid him in 2022 was for his work on these other cases and not the OAHI litigation.

270Mr. Christie agreed that he asked Mr. White to assist him on the other matters between 2019 and 2022. Specifically, Mr. Christie agreed that in 2019, he called Mr. White from the police detachment when he was arrested for impaired driving. He agreed that he asked Mr. White to proofread two articles he had written in 2022. He also agreed that in August 2022, he reached out to Mr. White to review a letter that he had received from a professional organization. However, Mr. Christie testified that Mr. White did these tasks for him as a friend and asked for no payment.

271Mr. Christie testified that that he and Mr. White specifically discussed the fact that Mr. Christie owed money for OAHI for trial preparation: “I was told I owed for certain work, the preparation and putting aside. I believe I still owed $1,000. We had discussed a total amount of money had to be paid for putting time aside for trial.” Mr. Christie testified that this discussion with Mr. White took place in April or May 2022. He testified that Mr. White did request payment for the Notice of Motion that Mr. White said he was filing.

272Mr. White’s testimony about the money owed by Mr. Christie for other matters is incredible and unreliable.

273Firstly, Mr. White testified that he did not docket, do reporting letters, or statements of account. He described himself as a bad administrator. He did not provide invoices to Mr. Christie. Mr. White testified that he was relying on notes he had made the weekend before he testified at trial to refresh his memory about what was owed to him and the cases he had worked on for Mr. Christie between 2014 and 2023, as well as a list he had made of accounts and credits to himself for things paid by cheque.

274Mr. White’s reliance on notes created by him the weekend before he testified in order to refresh his memory and not contemporaneous with events that happened years before undermines his version of events. This fact is compounded by Mr. White’s admissions about his poor bookkeeping practices and his testimony, if to be believed, that he has experienced brain fog and memory loss about the events. (Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025 p. 25 lines 1 – 23).

275Mr. Christie’s evidence that he and Mr. White discussed payment in relation to trial preparation for OAHI and the notice of motion to be filed is not challenged.

276Mr. White admits he did not invoice Mr. Christie or ask for payment in relation to these other matters.

277There is an absence of any reference in the email communication between Mr. White and Mr. Christie during the time of the OAHI litigation, to other cases requiring payment, inconsistent with Mr. White’s account.

278Regarding the Kuehl matter, Mr. White initially testified that he did not recall sending an email to Ms. Desjardins on June 18, 2022, requesting $2,850 in “Further Funds” for Mr. Kuehl’s case (Exhibit 18). Mr. White testified that what the email really meant is that he had applied all the funds he had received since 2022, from Ms. Desjardins to Mr. Kuehl’s case and was now requesting future funds.

279By Mr. White’s own admission, there were no court appearances that he attended on Mr. Kuehl’s behalf in 2021 and 2022 that could possibly legitimately justify this request for funds. There were no court appearances scheduled in the future by Mr. White for Mr. Kuehl’s matter. Mr. White admits that he did not file a s. 14B motion in the Kuehl matter following this request for payment or at anytime. It is uncontroverted that Mr. White did not appear in court proceedings in Mr. Kuehl’s matter during this timeframe.

280Mr. White seeks to justify his request for and receipt of these funds by testifying that there was more to a file than court appearances and that Mr. Kuehl continued to send messages that required some action or response.

281Mr. White testified that in 2020, he was experiencing a downward spiral in his mental health such that he was unable to function and could not form a proper ability to act. He testified that everything he was doing, ignoring calls, emails etc. that his only drive and only motivation was the preservation of his own life and that he had no other intention at any other time in by his actions. (Transcript of the Proceedings February 19, 2025 p. 40 line 10 – 16)

282Mr. White testified that looking at the date March 14, 2022, the date that the purported endorsement of Justice Sutherland was given to Mr. Kuehl and/or Ms. Desjardins, he could not recall passing this document because he was at the peak of his illness

283There is extrinsic evidence consistent with Mr. White’s account of a change in his mood or mental health. Mr. Christie, Mr. Katz, Mr. Kuehl, Ms. Desjardin and Ms. DiFederico all testified about the change they experienced in communications with Mr. White. Each witness testified that Mr. White was, at times, unreachable. The non-lawyer witnesses described showing up at Mr. White’s office and waiting for him in the parking lot. Mr. Christie recalled doing so on three occasions and that on two out of the three occasions Mr. White would unlock the door and let him in.

284Mr. Katz testified that his experience with Mr. White before the Kuehl matter was positive, professional and social and that he regarded Mr. White at that time to be a competent, capable counsel. Clearly that all changed. Mr. Katz brought the contempt motion because he was concerned that Mr. Kuehl was not receiving messages. Ms. Federico testified that her messages to Mr. White felt like they were going in a black hole. She testified that she found Mr. White’s lack of responsiveness to her emails and messages about OAHI unprofessional.

285I take into account, and I accept the evidence, that Mr. White was suffering from mental health difficulties in the form of persistent depressive disorder. Even so, the picture Mr. White paints of not being able to function at all, not knowing or remembering what he was doing or how documents came about because of his deteriorated mental state, and acting with only a singular motivation and intention to survive is not credible.

286Mr. White’s actions belie his evidence that his mental health was so impaired as to impact his abilities and his mental state to this degree.

287Mr. White created, or caused to be created, endorsements and communications that were false. Mr. White maintained an elaborate web of lies for years with Mr. Christie, Ms. DiFederico, Mr. Kuehl, Ms. Desjardins, Mr. Katz.

288Both Mr. Christie and Mr. Kuehl repeatedly expressed their frustration to Mr. White about the pace of their respective litigation and frustrations with him as counsel. Mr. White, instead of giving up their cases, or reaching out for help, or not responding at all to them and letting them find other counsel, used false email communications, documents and endorsements to invent a different version of the events, effectively keeping them engaged with him. Mr. White’s actions in this respect are wholly inconsistent with an individual acting with the sole motivation only to survive as he has testified.

289Mr. White did not just send Mr. Christie and Mr. Kuehl documents, he engaged with them about their cases. He answered questions and represented to them that he was engaged in their cases; and he took their money.

290I do not believe Mr. White’s account and I do not find his testimony to be capable of raising a reasonable doubt.

291Mr. White testified about his travails with the Law Society of Ontario including the proceedings he faced, the discipline meted out in 2020, and his ultimate suspension in 2023. Although relevant to narrative and to Mr. White’s evidence with respect to his mental health struggles, it is important to note that this evidence has not, in any way, factored into my credibility and reliability findings in respect of Mr. White.

Andrew Christie

292Mr. Christie testified in a highly emotional manner. He was angry when responding to Mr. White and admitted that he was not willing to accept any suggestions put to him by Mr. White. Mr. Christie’s emotional response to Mr. White is understandable given the allegations and given that Mr. Christie felt betrayed on a personal level, as he viewed Mr. White as a friend as well as his counsel.

293Had I only Mr. Christie’s emotional reaction to Mr. White to consider, I may well have concluded that his evidence is untrustworthy. However, on all material issues, I find that Mr. Christie testified in a consistent credible manner. I found his account of what occurred including the money he paid to Mr. White from 2019 to 2022, after the OAHI suit was dismissed, and his basis for believing that he was paying funds for OAHI only, to be careful and measured evidence.

294Mr. Christie’s initial reluctance to agree with Mr. White’s suggestions to be consistent with his stated lack of trust in Mr. White, as well as some issues with his recall. I do not find it to be consistent with a lack of forthrightness on Mr. Christie’s part.

295Mr. Christie testified that he initiated the police investigation against Mr. White when he found out his civil suit had been dismissed. Mr. Christie testified that he pulled together e-transfer receipts and documents that would be needed to investigate Mr. White. He testified that he made lists and /notes of what transpired with Mr. White based on reviewing emails and bank transactions and that he provided that information to the investigating officers. Mr. Christie testified in a consistent forthright matter. I accept that he was trying to be as accurate as possible in reporting conversations he had with Mr. White at the relevant time and amounts paid to Mr. White after 2019.

296Mr. Christie had difficulty recalling dates and amounts and relied on his notes to refresh his memory. His memory issues do not detract from the credibility and reliability of his evidence. His evidence is consistent, it was forthright, and Mr. Christie was diligent in collecting and preserving information. I found that in relaying the direct evidence about amounts and dates Mr. Christie was attempting to testify in a careful, considered fashion. Ultimately Mr. Christie’s evidence about the dates upon which he made the payments and regarding the amounts he paid Mr. White is not challenged.

297Mr. Christie testified that the money he paid to Mr. White after 2019 was for the OAHI litigation. He initially denied that Mr. White was working on any other matters for him at this time and he denied that he owed Mr. White money for previous cases:

“all I know is you were paid for everything you did, and the new case was the new case. The OAHI case was a new one that you got paid for, so you’re paid for everything.”

(Transcript of the Proceedings December 5, 2024 p. 150 line 17 – 21)

298However, when confronted directly about the specific matters Mr. White assisted him on, Mr. Christie, although initially argumentative, agreed that Mr. White assisted him with many of these cases. Mr. Christie, when his recall was prompted spontaneously, provided his recall of the matters and their status and Mr. White’s involvement, if any. I found he did so in a frank forthright manner.

299Mr. Christie’s evidence that he believed that he was only paying for OAHI when he gave Mr. White money between 2019 and 2022 is logical, externally and internally consistent, and it accords with common sense.

300There is external evidence in the forms of false emails and false endorsements that Mr. Christie’s payment of funds accorded with the next steps in the OAHI litigation. Mr. Christie testified that Mr. White discussed with him in April and May 2022 what he was owed for OAHI. Mr. Christie had a specific recall of being told by Mr. White that he owed money for trial preparation and putting aside the trial time. Mr. Christie recalled specifically that Mr. White charged him $1,250 for the Notice of Motion. He testified that he made a payment on October 16, 2022, and that he sent in $500 on November 8, 2022, and Mr. White accepted the payment.

301There is no evidence that the nature of the other matters Mr. Christie asked Mr White to help him out on involved ongoing litigation, like OAHI.

302The nature of the email discussion between Mr. Christie and Mr. White, that is Exhibit 37, though admittedly about a past case in 2014, is externally consistent with Mr. Christie’s position that he was paying for OAHI.

303Exhibit 37, though dated, is consistent with Mr. White having set up a practice based on block fees, as he testified, and requiring payment for each step of the litigation. Mr. Christie’s testimony about the frequency and timing of paying Mr. White in relation to what he believed was happening in court on the OAHI matter, based on the false information he received is consistent with the framework set out by Mr. White to him early on in their relationship.

Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins

304Both Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins testified in a straightforward, consistent manner. Their evidence was not materially challenged; their account of what occurred was not refuted in any meaningful way.

305Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins were not sophisticated or tech savvy. Yet, they were consistent in testifying how they retained documents received from Mr. White, and how and to whom they distributed the documents after Mr. White was discharged. Their evidence about the flow of documents they received from Mr. White to their counsel Ms. Nyland and to Detective Stesco is credible and reliable.

306Their consistent evidence, in which they identify the endorsements and the screenshot of the endorsements which they testified they received from Mr. White, is compelling.

307This matter was serious and could not have been more significant for Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins. They testified in a manner consistent with having a keen recall of conversations with Mr. White about the case, and a keen recall of the purported directions of the court. Their evidence is credible, reliable and compelling in all respects.

308Mr. Kuehl was forthright about the exasperation and anger he felt because of the delay in the proceedings and candidly admitted that he would send Mr. White “boiling point” emails.

309Both Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins clearly believed Mr. White and they believed the endorsements they received were genuine. They both clearly relied on his integrity and presumed honesty as counsel, dutifully searching out numerous therapists to better the case for Mr. Kuehl and comply with an order that did not exist.

DiFederico/Katz/Nyland

310All three lawyers who testified in this case are conscientious counsel who were on top of their respective files. The evidence of Ms. DiFederico and Mr. Katz that the proceedings which purport to relate to Exhibits 12-17 could not have happened is compelling, overwhelming evidence that no such proceedings occurred.

311The endorsements contained in Exhibits 12-16 are forgeries. Mr. Katz was unchallenged in his testimony that he was counsel throughout the course of the file, and that there were never any appearances on August 10, 2021, or February 14, March 14, June 7, or August 8 of 2022.

312Their evidence that these proceedings did not occur is externally consistent with the evidence of Mr. Christie and Mr. Kuehl that each of them did not attend court or appear before a judge on the dates of the endorsement.

313Mr. Katz testified that he attended all court proceedings in the Kuehl matter. Ms. DiFederico testified that they were never before Justice Himel, as did Mr. Katz.

314Ms. DiFederico testified that the civil suit was dismissed in 2019. As such, any endorsements received by Mr. Christie after that date must be false.

315Ms. Nyland testified with respect to her observations about irregularities in the endorsements including wrong court file numbers, and errors in the style of cause where the parties were reversed. Ms. Nyland testified about the actions she took in sending Mr. Katz an endorsement that it appeared his client was not complying with. Ms. Nyland testified about her perception, based on her experience as a family practitioner, that the logistics of the parenting assessment order were problematic given that the parties lived in different jurisdictions. Even so, Ms. Nyland testified that she took steps to try and assist her client to comply with the order.

316Ms. Nyland also testified about how, in her view, a judge may or may not word an endorsement and the tone a judge may or may not adopt in their ruling. In this respect, I found this aspect of Ms. Nyland’s evidence to be speculative in nature and I do not rely on this aspect of her testimony.

Fayorn John

317In my view, Ms. John performed as comprehensive a physical review of the court file as reasonably possible. Her evidence was delivered in a methodical, consistent fashion.

318Ms. John fairly conceded that there have been times when the system has glitched and created duplication. There have been occasions when the paper file has been misplaced in the Newmarket courthouse, although typically found later. As well, Ms. John could not speak to the entire number of court services staff who might have security clearance and access to the court file. I find, however, that there is no basis or air of reality that the court file was tampered with or deficient in any way and that these possible concerns are too remote and speculative and do not impact the reliability of Ms. John’s account.

319Although Ms. John’s review was comprehensive, it was conducted by way of sampling and random audits of the court file and not looking at each and every document. This approach, though reasonable, could leave room for the remote possibility that something was missed.

320However, Ms. John’s evidence is externally consistent with Ms. DiFederico in relation to the Christie file and Mr. Katz in relation to the Macdonald v. Kuehl file that the proceedings reflected in the endorsements did not occur.

FINDINGS

321I make the following findings:

322The court proceedings referred to and reflected in the purported endorsements Exhibits 3K, 3L, 12 to 16, never occurred.

323These endorsements are false.

324The signatures of the judges that appear on these false endorsements are fraudulent in that the justice named on the endorsement did not preside over the matter on the day reflected in the endorsement and did not sign the false endorsement.

325The letter with Ms. DiFederico’s signature forwarded by Mr. White to Mr. Christie is false (Exhibit 3C). Ms. DiFederico did not sign the letter, or direct anyone to sign it on her behalf. The content of the letter is false in that the events described in the letter never occurred.

326Mr. White gave the false endorsements and the false letter to his respective clients as they testified.

327Mr. White had subjective knowledge of the contents of the false endorsements and the false letter.

328Mr. White took money from Mr. Christie from 2019 to 2022 in excess of $5,000, after the OAHI case was dismissed, on the pretense that the case was ongoing and that he was working on the case for Mr. Christie.

329Mr. White requested and received funds from Ms. Desjardins for the Kuehl matter in an amount not exceeding $5,000, in 2022. The money paid by Ms. Desjardins to Mr. White in 2022 was not a debt owed to Mr. White and was received by Mr. White for court proceedings that had not occurred and were not scheduled in 2022.

Has the Crown Proven the Case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

Fraud over: Count 1 (Kuehl); Count 4: (Christie)

330The essential elements of the offence of Fraud include: an act of deceit, falsehood, or some other fraudulent conduct; deprivation or risk of deprivation to another caused by the prohibited act; subjective knowledge of the prohibited act; subjective knowledge that the prohibited act could cause deprivation or risk of deprivation to another. R v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5.

331The Crown must prove each essential element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown must prove that the accused was aware of the prohibited act. It is not enough for the Crown to prove that the accused person ought to have known. The Crown must also prove that the accused knew of or was reckless to the possibility of economic harm to the victim. The Crown is not required to prove that the accused had any specific intention to cause harm.

332The direct evidence that Mr. White gave these documents to his clients is credible, reliable, largely unchallenged and irrefutable. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that the content of the email messages, the letter of Ms. DiFederico, and the endorsements Mr. White provided to his clients are false. There is both direct and circumstantial evidence that Mr. White had subjective knowledge about the fraud that includes evidence about his knowledge of the contents of the false letter and the false endorsements. The evidence from which Mr. White’s subjective knowledge is inferred is overwhelming.

333Mr. White discussed the content of the emails and endorsements, explaining and advising his respective clients about the state of court proceedings reflected in the endorsements. This is unchallenged direct evidence of Mr. White’s knowledge. There is also circumstantial evidence of Mr. White’s actions, consistent with and in furtherance of the content of these false documents, which is also overwhelming evidence consistent with his subjective knowledge.

334In Mr. Christie’s case, Mr. White drafted and sent a Notice of Motion and an amended Statement of Claim to Mr. Christie, consistent with Mr. Christie’s instructions to increase the amount of damages he was seeking, and consistent with the content of the endorsements that the matter had been scheduled for trial and then adjourned. He sent Mr. Christie a copy of back pages of a trial record that he pretended to have filed with the court knowing that the matter had been dismissed years prior.

335The entirety of the content of the emails (Exhibits 3A-3J), the false letter with Ms. DiFederico’s name on it, and the false endorsements that Mr. White provided to Mr. Christie are all responsive to issues and concerns that Mr. Christie raised with Mr. White about the issues in the case and the delay in the proceedings. These documents were provided by Mr. White to Mr. Christie at critical junctures when Mr. Christie was questioning what was happening. The misspellings in the emails were done deliberately. The number of misspellings is inconsistent with an innocent error, particularly since there appeared to have been no issue with email communication between Ms. DiFederico and Mr. White, aside from Mr. White’s dwindling response prior to the actual date of the dismissal of the case. Further, Ms. DiFederico testified that her email address remained unchanged. The only reasonable inference given the timing of the messages, the varied ways in which the recipient’s names or other aspects of the email address were incorrect, the multiplicity of errors, is that the intention of the sender, namely Mr. White, was that these email messages not reach the named recipients other than Mr. Christie.

336Many of the documents themselves disclose Mr. White’s subjective knowledge: “the endorsement is in”; “see endorsement attached”. (Exhibit 3K).

337Providing the false email messages, false letter with Ms. DiFederico’s signature, and deliberately misspelling the names or permitting the emails to be composed with misspelled names of intended recipients are actions overwhelmingly consistent with the reasonable inference that Mr. White intended for these false communications to remain undetectable, all of which are deceitful acts committed by Mr. White and reflect subjective knowledge. Actual deprivation occurred when Mr. White asked for and received money from Mr. Christie in relation to OAHI after the matter was dismissed by the court, and knowing it had been dismissed.

338Regarding Mr. Kuehl’s matter, Mr. White spoke to Mr. Kuehl about the content of the false endorsements he provided to Mr. Kuehl consistent with his subjective knowledge. He spoke with Mr. Kuehl directly about parenting assessments and the involvement of OCL in this case. He told Mr. Kuehl that he was surprised that the court had not appointed counsel from the OCL. He spoke with Mr. Kuehl about the judge appearing to favour his side. Mr. White provided Ms. Desjardins with an endorsement while in his office and told her it was “good news”. In Exhibit 18, Mr. White, after asking for payment from Ms. Desjardins, wrote that he would contact a local therapist to assist "Bryan" (Mr. Kuehl). He testified that he knew this therapist and had worked with her in the past on other cases.

339This direct and unchallenged evidence of discussions Mr. White had with Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins, pertaining to the substance of the false endorsements, is evidence that is overwhelmingly consistent with his subjective knowledge of the fraud. Providing them with the false endorsements, discussing the contents with them, instructing them to take certain steps based on the false content, are all deceitful acts Mr. White committed with subjective knowledge. Actual deprivation occurred when Mr. White asked for and received funds from Ms. Desjardins in aid of the fraud.

Utter Forged Documents: Counts 2 and 5

340The four elements of the offence of uttering a forged document as prescribed by s. 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code are as follows:

That the document was forged;

That the accused knew or believed that the document was forged;

That the accused dealt with the document; and

That the accused represented the document as genuine:

341Count two of the information alleges that Mr. White dealt with, or acted on as if genuine, judicial endorsements using the forged signatures of two judges between August 10, 2021, and August 8, 2022. Count five alleges that Mr. White dealt with, acted on, or used fraudulent endorsements created with forged signatures of Justice A. Himel and a letter using defence counsel Jessica DiFederico’s signature.

342For the reasons stated in my earlier analysis of the evidence in this case, I find that there is overwhelming evidence that Mr. White dealt with these endorsements by passing them off to his respective clients and by his words and actions represented to Mr. Christie and Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins that the false endorsements and the false letter from Ms. DiFederico in Mr. Christie’s case, were genuine.

343With respect to count 5 the evidence is that Mr. White provided Mr. Christie with two purported endorsements in August 2021 and November 2022 years after the case was dismissed in 2019 (Exhibit 3k and 3L).

344These endorsements are false. The parties never appeared before Himel J and the matter had never been set for trial or delisted from a trial list. These endorsements were sent by Mr. White to Mr. Christie following a series of fabricated correspondence (Exhibits 3A-J) about the Christie matter and scheduling it for a pre-trial and Offers of Settlement, long after the case had been dismissed. The email addresses of multiple parties in this email string were identified as incorrect. Ms. DiFederico testified that she was not even working during the timeframe of this string of emails as she was on maternity leave. Further, the emails involving her assistant were fake as the addresses were wrong and her assistant was no longer working at the firm during this time frame. Ms. DiFederico’s letter appearing in this thread, Exhibit 3C, is a false document.

345The direct evidence from Ms. DiFederico is that, although it appears to be her signature on the letter, she did not, could not and would not have affixed it to this letter or even sent this letter.

346The endorsements are false in that the judge could not have endorsed the document because the proceedings did not exist. The judge whose signature appears on the endorsements could not have affixed their signature to it. The case had been dismissed two years prior and was no longer before the court.

347The endorsements are false documents and therefore a forgery as is the judicial signature on the endorsement in that the signatures have been falsely applied to the document, consistent with being a forgery: “Any document that is false in some material particular is a false document.” Gaysek v R, [1971] S.C.R. 888.

348There is no merit to Mr. White’s submission that the Crown’s case must fail with respect to count 5 because 2 of the 5 endorsements have been identified as photographs of endorsements and possibly photographs of photocopies of the endorsements and are not the endorsements.

349Ms. Desjardins, Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Nyland testified consistently, credibly and reliably about the continuity of documents received from Mr. White, including the form in which they were received, as well as Ms. Desjardins methodology of photographing the documents she received from Mr. White. The consistent and unchallenged evidence is that the endorsements received from Mr. White were provided to Ms. Nyland, to Mr. Katz and to various bodies investigating the events. There were a number of ways the documents were saved and shared. Both Ms. Desjardins and Mr. Kuehl testified in a consistent and credible way that they received Exhibits 15 and 16 from Mr. White. The evidence reasonably explains why Exhibits 15 and 16 appear in that format and does not detract from the overwhelming, circumstantial evidence that Mr. White provided them with these false endorsements.

350Mr. White also raises an issue about the jurisdiction of the court. He argues that the information alleges offences that occurred in the Town of Newmarket when the evidence discloses that his office was actually in Keswick.

351The jurisdictional argument is without merit on two fronts.

352With respect to Mr. Kuehl’s matter, there is a nexus to the Town of Newmarket. Mr. Kuehl’s matter was transferred to the Newmarket courthouse, there were false endorsements from the Superior Court signed by judges after the date of the transfer, Mr. Katz testified that he went to the Newmarket Superior Court on January 23, 2023, in order to check the court file to see if the endorsement Ms. Nyland sent to him, which she received from Mr. Kuehl, was actually in the file.

353With respect to Mr. Christie’s matter, there is arguably a slim connection. Fayorn John testified that she checked both the Barrie and Newmarket Superior Court records to confirm the endorsements she received from Detective Stesco, which included endorsements received in the Christie matter, were not in the court file. Further, the name Linda Hatch-Reevie and emails purportedly from Ms. Hatch-Reevie are contained in the series of email communications with false content forwarded by Mr. White to Mr. Christie. Although the emails identify Ms. Hatch- Reevie as the trial coordinator for the Superior Court of Justice in Barrie, Mr. White testified that he knew Ms. Hatch-Reevie very well in her role as the trial coordinator for the Superior Court in Newmarket, a role which he testified that Ms. Hatch-Reevie held for 14 years up until his legal career ended in 2023.

354Even without a nexus to the Town of Newmarket, Mr. White’s jurisdictional argument fails. Jurisdiction is not an essential element of the offence. There is no issue that these offences were committed in the territorial jurisdiction of the court (s. 470 of the Criminal Code).

Obstruct Justice: Count 3 (Kuehl and Desjardins); Count 6 (Christie)

355With respect to this offence, the Crown must prove that Mr. White committed the act as particularized in the count and that in doing so, his conduct had the tendency or potential to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice – regardless of whether it did or could materialize – and that Mr. White specifically intended for the conduct to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice. A simple error in judgment or an act in good faith is not sufficient to prove the offence.

356There are difficulties with proof in terms of these two counts.

357With respect to count 3, the information as framed outlines a narrow basis for the commission of this offence. The Crown must prove the count in the way it is particularized. The count is particularized that the obstruct is committed by providing the five endorsements to Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins. This is what the Crown must prove: that by giving these individuals these false endorsements, Mr. White obstructed justice.

358The difficulty is as follows. Defeating, perverting, or obstructing the course of justice refers to the impact of the accused person’s actions on a court proceeding, or disciplinary proceeding, or an investigation. There is no doubt that Mr. White’s actions impeded Mr. Kuehl’s access to justice. He impeded Mr. Kuehl from really knowing the status of his case. Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins were gravely misled about the status of the case. The false endorsements gave them hope and lead them to believe things were moving ahead, thwarting their ability to access justice and proper representation in the case.

359However, there is no evidence that these false endorsements were provided by Mr. White to the court, or the opposing party, or anyone else connected to the proceeding or an investigation.

360Counsel may have acted on the endorsements when they subsequently became aware of them, but that is not evidence that rises to establishing Mr. White’s specific intent to obstruct justice in this case. The evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt either in act or intent as particularized in the count.

361There is doubt on the evidence that the course of justice – that is, the actual proceedings themselves – was obstructed solely as a result of Mr. White providing these five endorsements to Mr. Kuehl and Ms. Desjardins, and also that Mr. White specifically intended to do so.

362Regarding Count 6, Mr. White sent false endorsements to Mr. Christie after the OAHI proceedings had already been dismissed. There is no evidence that, in doing so, Mr. White caused the proceeding to be dismissed; no evidence that the false endorsements were provided to, misled, or influenced anyone involved in the civil court proceedings.

363I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proven these offences as particularized. Mr. White is found not guilty on count 3 and count 6

CONCLUSION

364I have considered the totality of the evidence and whether, despite rejecting Mr. White’s evidence, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. White’s guilt on the remaining counts.

365I find that I am satisfied on the following counts and my verdicts are as follows: Count 1 guilty to the included offence of Fraud under;

Count 2 guilty as charged; Count 4 guilty as charged; Count 5 guilty as charged.