Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2013-05-30

Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Andre Lewis

Before: Justice D. P. Cole

Heard on: April 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30; May 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 2013

Reasons for Judgment released on: May 30, 2013

Counsel:

• C. Blondell, counsel for the Crown
• The accused Andre Lewis, on his own behalf

Judgment

COLE J.:

[1] 25 partial or full days of court time were occupied with the evidentiary portion of this preliminary inquiry.

[2] Crown counsel called 19 witnesses (10 of whom were civilian complainants) to establish her case, which was completed on May 6. In my judgment that case could have been completed much more expeditiously if Mr. Lewis had counsel to represent him. While in fairness to him I should say that he tried his best to be thorough yet economical, frankly his cross-examinations of many of the Crown witnesses were overly repetitive and largely unnecessary.

[3] Mr. Lewis then called 35 witnesses as part of his case. It must be said that he was right to call some of these witnesses for discovery purposes. For example, 11 of the witnesses he called were police officers who either participated in his arrest and the subsequent search of his office premises at 924 East Mall, or who were present in the police station when he was brought in. Assuming that Mr. Lewis intends at trial to challenge the issuance and execution of the search warrant as breaches of s. 8 of his Charter rights and the circumstances of his arrest as breaching his s. 10 rights, it was sensible for him to have called these police witnesses at this stage of the proceedings, rather than during a pre-trial motion in Superior Court. Though once again his examinations of these witnesses were far too long, very properly Crown counsel did not object to these witnesses being called.

[4] I have little idea why many of the remaining 24 defence witnesses were called. Perhaps Mr. Lewis judged that it was prudent for him to hear from them so that he might know what they would say at trial. In my judgment, however, many of these witnesses frankly did little more than buttress the Crown case against him. While I do not intend to go into their evidence in any detail, suffice it to say that many of them supplemented what the civilian witnesses called by the Crown had said. For example, many of them described that while they had loaned monies to or through one of his various companies, while they received interest payments for a time, those began to dry up, and then stopped entirely. When they tried to contact Mr. Lewis to inquire what was happening, they were met with constant evasions and excuses. The overall picture presented, which I am authorized to consider as part of the entire case, is that, while Mr. Lewis' business may at one time have been operated in an entirely legitimate and above board manner, it is clear that from some time late in 2010 on, Mr. Lewis was running out of money and was ever more frantically running to stay ahead of his obligations by attempting to involve new investors to cover his obligations. On the basis of what I have heard, for him to argue otherwise reminds me of the story of the couple who, watching their son march past in a military parade, remark that "everybody is out of step but our Johnny".

[5] Mr. Lewis wanted to call many other witnesses. He had an original list of some 79 lawyers he wanted to call as part of his case. When the investigating officer reported that many of these lawyers did not recognize Mr. Lewis' name (or that of his various companies), after some prodding by myself, he purported to reduce this list to 24. As far as I could determine (which was itself made difficult by the fact that Mr. Lewis resolutely refuses to disclose the basis of his defence), he wanted to call these lawyers to show that his business was not only thriving, but also that it was entirely kosher and above board. As I understand it, he wanted to call this evidence to establish that fraud could not have been committed here, either because these lawyers would not have agreed to act on his behalf if there was something fishy about these transactions, or if they were on the other side of a transaction they would have realized that something was up, and would have advised their clients not to do business with Mr. Lewis.

[6] I told Mr. Lewis that this evidence was not admissible at a preliminary inquiry, and I would not allow him to call these witnesses. I reminded him on numerous occasions that a preliminary inquiry is not the place to determine guilt or innocence. If Mr. Lewis wishes to call such evidence at trial, in my judgment he will have to demonstrate to the presiding judge that this evidence has relevance to some live issue in the case. From what I could see, it does not. For example, despite my ruling, he called a lawyer named Donna Mason, who said that she acted for him only once - in a 2004 transaction. How this can be said to have any relevance to these charges is beyond me. But I repeat that this is a matter for the trial judge to decide.

[7] Having considered all of this evidence, and given the limited test I am authorized to apply at the conclusion of a preliminary inquiry, I have absolutely no hesitation in concluding that on the basis of what I have heard, not only is there sufficient evidence to justify committing the accused for trial on the charge of defrauding the public, but that that evidence is extremely strong, if not overwhelming. If Mr. Lewis has a defence to these charges, he is simply not capable of presenting it. He is superficially quick and glib, but he is far from being as bright as he imagines himself to be. He definitely requires counsel to assist him. I should add that counsel he retains will presumably know that presenting a vigorous defence does not provide licence to be contumacious, as, unfortunately, Mr. Lewis has all too often been throughout this preliminary inquiry.

[8] Crown counsel also seeks committal for trial on a charge of money laundering. Here, I wish to refer briefly to the banking documents and evidence put in by the Crown witness Joyce Yeboah. In my judgment that evidence – particularly the relationship between exhibits 54 and 134, exhibits 61 and 143, and exhibit 153 by itself - amply establishes a prima facie case against Mr. Lewis on a charge of money laundering by converting monies received to his own purposes without authorization, so he will be committed for trial on that charge as well.

Released: May 30, 2013

Signed: Justice D. P. Cole