Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Halton 2215/12 Date: 2013-05-27 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Isaac Lucas

Before: Justice L.M. Baldwin

Heard on: February 13, 2013, March 20, 2013, and May 21, 2013

Reasons for Judgment released on: May 27, 2013

Counsel:

• Ms. M. Ward, counsel for the Crown
• Ms. J. Stephenson, counsel for the defendant Isaac Lucas

BALDWIN J.:

Charges and Pleas

[1] Mr. Lucas was arraigned on eight counts. The Crown proceeded by Indictment.

[2] Guilty pleas were entered at the outset of trial to Counts #2, 3, 4 as follows:

Count #2 – that on or about the 27th day of June, 2012 at the City of Burlington in the Central West Region, he did commit mischief by wilfully damaging without legal justification or excuse and without colour of right property, to wit: the glass break sensor, the property of The Burlington Professional Center Healthcare Facility (located at 3155 Harvester Road Burlington) with a value which did not exceed five thousand dollars contrary to Section 430(4) of the Criminal Code;

Count #3 – that on or about the 27th day of June, 2012 at the City of Burlington in the said Region, did while bound by a Probation Order made by the Ontario Court of Justice in Hamilton on July 7th, 2009, he failed without reasonable excuse to comply with such order, to wit: to keep the peace and be of good behaviour contrary to Section 733.1 of the Criminal Code;

Count #4 – on or about the 27th day of June, 2012, at the City of Burlington in the said Region, did while bound by a Probation Order made by the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton on November 12th, 2010, he failed without reasonable excuse to comply with such order, to wit: keep the peace and be of good behaviour contrary to Section 733.1 of the Criminal Code.

[3] Mr. Lucas pled not guilty to 5 counts as follows:

Count #1 – that on or about the 27th day of June, 2012, at the City of Burlington in the said Region he attempted to break and enter a certain place to wit: the medical building situated at 3155 Harvester Road Burlington, with intent to commit an indictable offence contrary to Section 348(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;

Count #5 – on or about the 22nd day of July 2012, at the City of Burlington in the said Region, he did break and enter a certain place to wit: a business situated at 960 Cumberland Avenue, Burlington and did commit therein the indictable offence of theft contrary to Section 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code;

Count #6 – that on or about the 22nd day of July, 2012, at the City of Burlington in the said Region, he did while bound by a Probation Order made by the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton on November 12th, 2012, fail without reasonable excuse to comply with that order, to wit: keep the peace and be of good behaviour contrary to Section 733.1 of the Criminal Code;

Count #7 – on or about the 22nd day of July, 2012, at the City of Burlington in the said Region, he did without lawful excuse have in his possession instruments suitable for the purpose of breaking into a place, to wit: a hand held grinder under circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable inference that the said instrument(s) had been used for such purpose contrary to Section 351(1) of the Criminal Code;

Count #8 – that on or about the 22nd day of July, 2012, at the City of Burlington in the said Region, he did while bound by a Probation Order made by the Ontario Court of Justice in Milton on November 12th, 2010, fail without reasonable excuse to comply with such order, to wit: keep the peace and be of good behaviour contrary to Section 733.1 of the Criminal Code.

Evidence on Count #1

Summary of the Evidence of Officer Paul Kapshey – HRPS

[4] Officer Kapshey became involved in this investigation on July 5, 2012, when he obtained a video showing Mr. Lucas breaking and removing the glass sensor of the medical building located at 3155 Harvester Road.

[5] In the video taken on June 27, 2012, starting at 3:21 p.m., Mr. Lucas is seen to be walking back and forth on the main floor of the building which contains an ATM machine, before entering the west side vestibule with glass entry doors to the building. He is seen to hoist himself up on a radiator and pull the glass door break sensor out of the wall. He is seen to exit the building and return within a short period of time. He is seen to climb up on the radiator again and use what appear to be wire cutters to snip the cord off of the sensor. He is seen to stuff the remaining wires back up into the ceiling to conceal his work and he pockets the glass break sensor into his jeans and exits the building.

[6] Officer Kapshey explained that a glass break sensor is an audible sensor that detects high frequencies such as glass breaking. They are used for security purposes in areas with glass door/windows.

[7] Earlier in the video, just prior to Mr. Lucas entering the building, you see "a light coloured, greyish colour – what appears to be a Cadillac Escalade drive by the entrance to the building…approximately 30 seconds or so later, you see the accused enter the south doors right at Harvester." (Transcript Feb. 13/13 p. 19)

[8] Mr. Lucas was identified to be the man on the video on July 11th, 2012.

[9] Officer Kapshey testified that once Mr. Lucas was identified as the person in the video, he learned that the woman Mr. Lucas was living with at 121 Millen Road in Stoney Creek, named Stacey Crawford, owns a 2000 (light grey coloured) Cadillac Escalade "which I believe to be this vehicle in the video". (p. 27)

[10] Officer Kapshey testified that there was no subsequent break and enter into this medical building. Police were contacted about the broken/stolen glass break sensor by the building manager.

[11] A search warrant was executed on July 23, 2012, and clothing Mr. Lucas wore on June 27, 2012, was seized from the bedroom he occupied in the house. (note: Identification is not in issue on this Count)

[12] In cross-examination, Officer Kapshey testified that the value of any copper in the glass sensor unit, if there was any copper in the wires, would be less than ten dollars. (p. 64)

[13] Officer Kapshey testified that he could not see any emblems of the vehicle in the video, nor could he see a licence plate.

[14] Officer Kapshey agreed that a Yukon Denali SUV and the Cadillac Escalade SUV look very similar.

Position of the Parties

Position of the Crown

[15] The Crown submits that the offence captured on the video tape is an attempt to commit the offence of a break and enter into the medical building.

[16] The Crown submits that Mr. Lucas' actions in disabling and stealing the glass break sensor go beyond mere preparation to commit that offence.

[17] The Crown submits that there is no other rational explanation for Mr. Lucas to disarm the security system into the building, other than he intended to break into the building at a later time.

[18] The Crown relies upon the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Root, 2008 ONCA 869 which sets out the principles which govern an attempt to commit an offence.

Position of the Defence

[19] The defence position is that the breaking of the glass sensor was no more than mere preparation and does not constitute an attempt in law.

[20] The defence submits that another explanation can be inferred from the evidence. that inference being that Mr. Lucas took the glass sensor for the value of the copper wiring which may have been in its wires.

[21] The defence submits that Mr. Lucas did not destroy the security camera that was visible to him and captured his image.

[22] The defence submits that the Crown has not proven the mens rea required for an attempt break and enter in law.

Law and Analysis on Count #1

[23] Section 24 of the Criminal Code sets out the offence of Attempts as follows:

24. (1) Everyone who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence, whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

(2) The question whether an act or omission by a person who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere preparation to commit the offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit the offence, is a question of law.

[24] The governing principles of the offence are articulated in the R. v. Root case, supra, from pages 16 through to 19.

[25] "Attempts are preliminary or inchoate crimes. That it is not possible to commit the substantive offence attempted is of no legal moment. United States of America v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462 at para. 49; Criminal Code s. 24(1).

[26] Under s. 24(2) of the Criminal Code, whether conduct by a person who intends to commit a crime is mere preparation or has progressed beyond it to constitute an actus reus of an attempt is a question of law…In every case an attempt to commit an offence, the mens rea of the substantive offence will be present and complete. In every attempt, what is incomplete is the actus reus of the substantive offence. But incompleteness of the actus reus of the substantive offence will not bar a conviction of attempt, provided the actus reus is present in an incomplete, but more than preparatory way. Dynar at paras. 73 and 74.

[27] The actus reus may be but does not have to be a crime, tort or even a moral wrong. R. v. Cline, [1956] O.R. 539, at p. 550 (C.A.)

[28] The authorities have yet to develop a satisfactory general criterion to assist trial judges in making the crucial distinction between mere preparation, on the one hand, and an attempt on the other. We leave the determination of where on the continuum the conduct lies to the common sense judgment of trial judges. R. v. Deutsch, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 2 at pp. 22-23.

[29] The distinction between preparation and attempt is a qualitative one involving the relationship between the nature and quality of the act said to constitute the attempt and the nature of the substantive offence attempted in its complete form. Deutsch at p. 23.

[30] To determine on which side of the preparation/attempt divide an accused's conduct falls, a trial judge should consider the relative proximity of that conduct to the conduct required to amount to the complete substantive offence. Relevant factors would include time, location and acts under control of the accused yet to be accomplished. Deutsch at p. 23.

[31] Relative proximity may give an act, which might otherwise seem to be mere preparation, the quality of an attempt. Deutsch at p. 26; R. v. Henderson, [1948] S.C.R. 266 at p. 245. Further, an act (which is) on its face an act of commission does not lose its quality as the actus reus of an attempt simply because further acts are required, or because a significant period of time may elapse before the completion of the substantive offence. Henderson at p. 244; Deutsch at p. 26.

[32] To constitute the actus reus of an attempt, the act of an accused need not be the last act before the completion of the substantive offence. To constitute the actus reus of an attempt, an act must be sufficiently proximate to the intended crime to amount to more than mere preparation to commit it. This requirement of proximity, expressed in the divide between preparation and attempt, has to do with the sequence of events leading to the crime that an accused has in mind to commit. To be guilty of an attempt, an accused must have progressed a sufficient distance (beyond mere preparation) down the intended path. Williams, Criminal Law (The General Part), a p. 625. An act is proximate if it is the first of a series of similar or related acts intended to result cumulatively in a substantive crime."

The Principles Applied

[33] "The law of attempts becomes engaged only when the mens rea of the completed offence is present in its entirety and the actus reus of the completed offence is present in an incomplete but more-than-merely preparatory way. An attempt may be complete without the actual commission of any other offence and even without the performance of any act unlawful in itself." Root p. 19

[34] The completed offence here is a break and enter into the Harvester medical building with the intent to commit an indictable offence.

[35] The fact that there was no break and enter into this building proximate in time to the disabling and theft of the glass break sensor is of no import.

[36] I do not accept defence counsel's submission that Mr. Lucas may reasonably have disabled the sensor and stolen it because there was value in the copper wires that attached it to the ceiling.

[37] There was no evidence that the wires even had copper in them. Further, if they did, the value of same was minimal.

[38] Mr. Lucas has pled guilty to mischief with respect to the glass break sensor. On the video tape he is clearly seen not only disabling it, but stealing it. He is seen to clean up the mess made and to stuff the remaining wires back up into the ceiling to conceal what he has done.

[39] Prior to these offences, I conclude that he is casing-out the building as the video images capture him walking back and forth throughout the main floor and looking around to see if he is being watched. The main floor contains a Pharmacy with a stand-alone ATM.

[40] There was no evidence that he was there for a medical appointment or purpose.

[41] There is no other common sense conclusion to come to other than Mr. Lucas had the mens rea to commit the offence of break and enter into this building when the building was closed by breaking the glass doors without security detection.

[42] Mr. Lucas' actions go beyond mere preparation, such as merely casing-out the entrances and exits to the building. Mr. Lucas had begun the process of the actual break-in and he had already committed theft by stealing the glass break sensor.

Decision on Count #1

[43] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has established the essential elements of the offence of an attempt to commit a break and enter into the medical building on Harvester Road. Accordingly a finding of guilt is registered.

Kienapple Principle Applies to Count #2

[44] Counsel both agree that the Kienapple principle (R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, 15 CCC (2d) 524) applies with respect to the guilty plea entered on Count #2. Accordingly, a conditional stay shall be endorsed on that Count.

Evidence on Counts #5, #6, #7 and #8

Note: It is important to state at the outset of this part of the judgment, that the Crown did not bring a Similar Act Application in this case. It is impermissible for me to use any of the evidence referred to above in considering whether the Crown has established proof of the July 22nd, 2012, break and enter into the medical building located at 960 Cumberland Avenue in Burlington.

[45] The evidence with respect to this offence is circumstantial. Three officers testified for the Crown; Officers Kapshey, Lester and St. Denis (Exhibits Officer). No defence evidence was called.

Summary of the Evidence of Paul Kapshey

[46] On July 23, 2012, Officer Kapshey received information from Officer Lester about the break-in at 960 Cumberland Avenue and they shared information.

[47] At 10:15 a.m. that morning he drove by the 121 Millen Road residence and observed a Cadillac Escalade parked in the open garage. It appeared similar to him to the vehicle he had observed at the 960 Cumberland Avenue break-in.

[48] Officer Kapshey prepared a search warrant for the 121 Millen Road Stoney Creek address. He also arranged for Hamilton Officers to assist with the execution of the warrant.

[49] At 7:21 p.m., he drove by the residence and observed Mr. Lucas exit the front door.

[50] At 7:31 p.m., he observed the Escalade drive away from the residence and he followed it to a pioneer gas station on Highway 8 in Stoney Creek. The vehicle was pulled up to the gas pumps.

[51] Officer Kapshey saw Mr. Lucas driving the vehicle and he immediately arrested the accused when he approached the Escalade. Mr. Lucas was arrested for Break and Enter, Attempt Break and Enter and several Breach of Probation charges.

[52] At 7:35 p.m., Mr. Lucas was read rights to counsel, cautions and was searched.

[53] In Mr. Lucas' front right pocket, Officer Kapshey found a five dollar bill. In his front left pocket, Officer Kapshey found a large sum of $20 bills folded up. The money was later counted and added up to 17 hundred and 25 dollars ($1725.00).

[54] The Cadillac Escalade was seized and the residence was searched.

[55] Officer Kapshey located clothing in Mr. Lucas' bedroom (that pertain to the attempted break and enter into the Harvester Road premise).

[56] Officer Kapshey found red handled cutters under a corner section of a couch in the upper family room. They were not operable and they were not seized.

[57] A gym bag containing various tools was found in the front closet by the main entrance of the house.

[58] Officer Kapshey located a DeWalt grinder found on the upper family room couch along with grinder wheels in a case.

[59] The vehicle was searched and a spare set of licence plates and various papers were found.

[60] The back floor covers were sent to the CFS for testing as it appeared that metal shavings were on them and could be consistent from coming from a grinder used to break into the ATM at 960 Cumberland Avenue.

[61] Also seized from the Escalade and sent to the CFS for testing were the following: A pair of gloves located in the glove box; Floor mat from the passenger front seat; Floor mat from the driver's front seat; Tapings from the driver's seat; tapings from the rear driver's side seat; tapings from the rear hatch area; tapings from the rear passenger's side seat; tapings from the rear passenger side carpet (See Exhibit #4).

[62] In cross-examination, Officer Kapshey agreed that the SUV in the Cumberland Avenue video appears to be a Cadillac Escalade, but that SUV is virtually identical to a Yukon Denali. (p. 74)

Summary of the Evidence of Officer Robert Lester

[63] On Monday July 23rd, 2012, Officer Lester of the HRPS learned that a break and enter had occurred at 960 Cumberland Avenue in the City of Burlington. He attended at 9:25 a.m. and observed staff cleaning up broken glass from a window that joins the Cedar Springs Health and Racquet Club to a pharmacy.

[64] He observed an ATM in the hallway approximately 3 feet from the window with visible grind marks on the exterior steel door. The lower part of the door appeared to have been grinded and pried as part of the door was bent outwards. The cash cassette was left behind at the scene.

[65] Officer Lester obtained and viewed video surveillance that did not capture any suspects involved in the entry, but it did show glass breaking at 10:08 p.m. on July 22nd, 2012. That video was obtained from an interior camera that was pointed toward the hallway.

[66] He also viewed video from a camera that pointed out towards the parking lot at 960 Cumberland Avenue. At 9:57 p.m. a dark coloured vehicle, possibly a four-door Honda is seen southbound on Cumberland Avenue. This vehicle is seen again going northbound at 10:19 p.m. At the same time a male in dark clothing is seen walking on the street southbound with what appears to be a knapsack on his back.

[67] At 9:51 p.m., a light coloured SUV is seen travelling northbound. At 9:55 p.m., it is seen southbound. At 10 p.m., it is again seen southbound on Cumberland Avenue.

[68] Officer Lester believed that the SUV vehicle on the video was similar to a Cadillac Escalade.

[69] Information was obtained from Jason Handa, the owner of the ATM. (Filed as Exhibit #2)

[70] The ATM was placed for the convenience of all medical patrons at this location.

[71] "On Monday July 23, 2012, I received a call from my supervisor Joannah Nasseh that the ATM was broken into before she got there at 8 a.m. and all the money was taken out except $40.00. Upon looking at the bank statement it seems that approximately $2,500.00 was the amount that was stolen from the machine. All the money placed in the machine was in $20.00 denominations."

[72] Officer Kapshey obtained a search warrant for Mr. Lucas' residence located at 121 Millen Road in Stoney Creek.

[73] At 7:15 p.m., Officer Lester received information from Officer Kapshey that Mr. Lucas had been observed leaving 121 Millen Road and that Mr. Lucas was mobile and driving a Cadillac Escalade.

[74] At 7:33 p.m., Officer Lester followed the Cadillac Escalade into a Pioneer Gas Station on Queenston Road. The Escalade was stopped behind a gas pump when he pulled into the lot.

[75] Officer Lester approached the passenger's side of the Escalade and observed Mr. Lucas behind the driver's seat. He immediately recognized the female in the rear of the vehicle as Stacey Crawford, a person he has dealt with before. She was holding a small infant. He was also aware that Mr. Lucas was in a relationship with her.

[76] Mr. Lucas was arrested by other officers on scene and the vehicle was towed.

[77] Officer Lester then attended 121 Millen Road for the search of the residence.

[78] Stacey Crawford pointed out Mr. Lucas' bedroom and that is where clothing and two-way radios were seized.

[79] Officer Lester attended the garage and observed a cardboard box for a DeWalt grinder with a serial number 092057, which had the same number as the grinder that was seized by other officers in the residence.

[80] On July 26th, 2012, Officer Lester re-attended 960 Cumberland Road and cut two samples from the ATM metal door near the area where it had been grinded. These were turned over to the Identification Bureau and sent to the CFS for testing.

[81] In cross-examination, Officer Lester testified that one of the vehicles he observed on the video around the time of the 960 Cumberland Avenue break-in appeared to be a lighter coloured SUV which he believed to be similar to a Cadillac Escalade. Officer Lester agreed that a Yukon Denali of the same vintage would look similar, if not almost identical to a Cadillac Escalade. (Transcript March 20, 2013 p. 15)

[82] Officer Lester testified that other than Stacey Crawford, he did not know who else lived at the Millen Road house. (Earlier testimony revealed that 3 other civilian persons were present at the residence during the search. They were dealt with by Hamilton officers who assisted in the search. They were never identified in the evidence.)

CFS Test Results – Exhibit #4

[83] "Numerous tiny metallic beads composed of oxidized steel were identified on a pair of gloves and from the interior of the Escalade vehicle.

[84] Numerous tiny metallic beads composed of oxidized steel were also observed on the tapings from the ATM.

[85] The beads on the gloves and in the vehicle may have come from the same source as the beads on the ATM but they may have also originated from any other item composed of a similar steel which has been cut using a welding torch or a grinding tool.

[86] Steel with a composition similar to that observed in this case is common to encounter in a wide range of household and industrial applications."

Exhibit No. 14 Series

[87] The Crown entered Photographs of the vehicle Mr. Lucas was driving upon his arrest and items found in the vehicle.

[88] Items included a receipt dated July 9th, 2012 from Cash Money in Stoney Creek made out to Stacey Lucas (aka Crawford) for $6,607.00 in the rear driver's side pouch. (Ex. #15 A,B,C)

[89] A letter was found in the same location addressed to Ms. Stacey Lucas, 121 Millen Road, Stoney Creek, saying "Re: Your motor vehicle accident claim. We've now settled your accident benefit claim and enclosed is a cheque for $6,814.36," from Alexanian Benjamin Lawyers. (Transcript p. 22)

Positions of the Parties

Position of the Crown

[90] The Crown submits that the circumstantial evidence in this case has established that Mr. Lucas committed the break-in at the Cumberland Avenue medical building.

[91] Counsel highlights that just 22 hours after this break-in was committed, Mr. Lucas is seen driving a SUV similar in shape to the SUV seen on the video at the time of the break-in.

[92] Crown counsel submits that it is significant that Mr. Lucas has a large amount of $20.00 bills in his pocket when he is arrested. Crown counsel is not relying on the doctrine of recent possession as the stolen ATM money was not marked in any way. (R. v. Van Beest, [1988] B.C.J. No. 792 B.C.C.A.)

[93] "Now, I anticipate that my friend will suggest to Your Honour that the cash receipt and a letter from the lawyer in the vehicle show that Stacey Lucas had come into a significant amount of cash…on July 9th…The Crown's submission would be that we don't have any evidence to suggest that Stacey Lucas gave any money to the accused…even if she had given it to him, which is speculation in the Crown's view, why would he have it on his person two weeks later?" (p. 29)

[94] The Crown submits that a grinder was used to break open the ATM machine at 960 Cumberland Avenue. A grinder was found at the accused's house the next day. The Crown acknowledges that they have not proven how many people lived at this house.

[95] The Crown submits that further circumstantial evidence is found in the Escalade; shavings in the vehicle that are found on the front driver's and passenger front seat, a pair of gloves that are in the vehicle, and the single bead found on the rear passenger's seat. Based on the CFS Report, the Crown does not submit that the grinding substance found in the vehicle is unique and an exact match to the ATM, however, the Crown submits this is another strong piece of circumstantial evidence to consider.

[96] The Crown also made submissions as to how the attempted break and enter into the Harvester Road medical building could be used to inform the identity of the person who broke into the Cumberland Avenue medical building. There was no Similar Act Application brought in this case and it is not necessary for me to review those submissions as I cannot consider the evidence on Count #1 in determining the identity issue on Count #5.

Position of the Defence

[97] The Defence submits that the identity of the person who broke into the ATM machine at the Cumberland Avenue building has not been proven by the Crown.

[98] The defence submits that the light coloured SUV seen on the video has no distinctive or identifiable marks that establish it was the Escalade Mr. Lucas was driving at the time of his arrest. Both Officers Kapshey and Lester agreed that the SUV in the video could have been a Yukon Denali. Further, a black Honda Civic was also captured on video at the time of this break-in and there is no evidence to link Mr. Lucas to that vehicle.

[99] The Defence submits that there is no forensic evidence that links Mr. Lucas to this break-in. There were no prints found at the scene and no DNA evidence.

[100] The grinder found at the 121 Millen Road residence had "no metallic debris" on it when it was examined by the CFS. This is significant given that the grinder was located the day after someone broke into the Cumberland Avenue ATM. (There was nothing in the evidence to explain why there was no debris on this grinder if it had been used to break-into the ATM the day before.)

[101] Defence counsel highlighted the conclusions contained in the CFS Report with respect to the metallic beading found in the vehicle and submits that that they could have come from almost anywhere.

[102] The Defence submits that the grinder was located in a common area of the house and the Crown has not established who else lived in this house.

[103] The Defence submits that the cash found on Mr. Lucas upon arrest was not the same amount of cash taken from the ATM. Exhibit #14 shows cash receipts for a large amount of cash received by Stacey Lucas taken around the same time period which can explain why Mr. Lucas had a large amount of cash on his person.

[104] Defence counsel relied upon the following cases in support of the submissions that the Crown has not proven possession, control and knowledge with respect to the grinder: R. v. Gray, [1996] O.J. No. 1106; R. v. Anderson-Williams, 2010 ONSC 489, [2010] O.J. No. 377; R. v. Terrence (1980 decision of the OCA).

Decision on Counts #5, #6, #7, #8

[105] I have carefully reviewed the circumstantial trail of evidence with respect to count #5 and I have concluded, that given the absence of a Similar Act Ruling that would have permitted inferences to be drawn from the Attempted break and enter on Count #1, that identity has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[106] Given the fact that the grinder was found in a common area of the house, with evidence that indicated that people other than Mr. Lucas also lived in this house, the possession of break-in tools has also not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

[107] It was clear throughout the police officers' testimony that they viewed the attempted break and enter into the Harvester Road medical building to be connected to the break and enter into the Cumberland Avenue medical building. It is unfortunate that the Crown did not present this evidence in a way that this Court could have assessed the evidence in a similar way. I conclude that the Crowns' failure to bring what should have been an obvious evidentiary application in this case, is due to the crush of cases that are presently before the trial Courts in Halton, where the Justice system is under-resourced in every way. When systems are under enormous pressure, mistakes will be made.

Endorsements

Count #1 – Guilty

Count #2 – Conditionally Stayed

Count #3 – Guilty

Count #4 – Guilty

Count #5 – Not Guilty

Count #6 – Not Guilty

Count #7 – Not Guilty

Count #8 – Not Guilty

Sufficiency of Reasons for Judgment

During the course of this split-up trial, all of the witnesses' evidence, Exhibits filed, and submissions made, have been carefully reviewed and assessed. It is not necessary or reasonable for me to review all of the evidence in any more detail than I have in these focused reasons for judgment. It must be understood that busy trial court Judges must deliver both oral and written reasons in hundreds of trial matters every year and we are required to do so in a timely fashion, especially when an accused person is in-custody as in this case. Judgment writing time is not factored into trial time estimates. The OCJ Judges do not get judgment writing weeks like the SCJ Judges have. In Halton, the fastest growing Region in Canada, judgment time is being eroded by the increasing trial case load and the pile up of long, split-up trial continuations.

This Court is aware of appellant authority governing the sufficiency of reasons by trial Courts and has been guided accordingly. See R. v. S. (T.), [2012] ONCA 289; R. v. H. (J.M.), 2011 SCC 45, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197; R. v. Drabinsky, [2011] 107 O.R. 93; R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Walker, 2008 SCC 34, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245; R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; R. v. Braich, 2002 SCC 27, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869.

Released: May 27, 2013

Signed: "Justice L.M. BALDWIN"