REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Ontario Court of Justice

Her Majesty the Queen Against Rusty Pearce Joseph Greer

Given by the Honourable Mr. Justice K. Phillips On April 7, 2014 At Brockville, Ontario

APPEARANCES

• C. Flanagan – Counsel for the Crown
• M. O'Shaughnessy – Counsel for R. Pearce
• F. Tippins – Counsel for J. Greer

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

PHILLIPS, J. (Orally):

Rusty Pearce and Joseph Greer have pleaded guilty to several criminal offences arising from the way they conducted themselves after their involvement in the accidental death of Aaron Stevenson on September 1, 2013.

This is a very sad case involving, as it does, the tragic death of a talented 16-year-old boy who was well loved, popular and possessed of a promising future.

PART I – THE FACTS

Highway 2 runs east and west through the City of Brockville, essentially parallel to the St. Lawrence River to the south and the much busier Highway 401 to the north. East of Brockville Highway 2 is a sparsely populated roadway with one driving lane in each direction. The speed limit is 80 kilometres an hour. There is no artificial lighting. The highway is somewhat undulating and only lightly used. Unfortunately, to a fun loving teenage boy it is a perfect route upon which to skateboard.

August 31, 2013 was a Saturday. After playing road hockey during the day, Aaron Stevenson went to a house party to celebrate the start of a new school year with his peers. During the evening, Aaron and his friend drank some beer and smoked some marijuana. While the level of alcohol and THC discovered in Aaron's blood post-mortem would fall well short of intoxication, it would likely have been at least disinhibiting and judgment clouding. This is perhaps borne out by the decision Aaron made with his friend at about 11:30 p.m. to skateboard up Highway 2 to visit another friend and then to come back the same way.

The night was a dark one as the sky was moonless. Aaron and his friend were dressed in dark clothing with nothing on that would be reflective of light.

Not surprisingly, the presence of two boys skateboarding on the unlit highway at that hour attracted some attention from passing motorists. Indeed, witnesses reported later that at least one of the boys, almost certainly Aaron, was skateboarding right in the middle of the road. One witness recalled driving on the highway at around midnight and being so startled by the boys' presence that she contemplated pulling over to tell them that they needed reflectors because she could not see them. Similarly, comments were made within another passing car about how dangerous it was because the skateboarders could not be seen until the car was almost on top of them. A passenger in yet another car was prompted to remark "somebody is going to get killed".

Rusty Pearce, then aged 21, and Joseph Greer, then aged 23, are friends from work. They also went out to a party on that Saturday night, albeit at a different location in Brockville: 130 Church Street. By 7:30 p.m. Joseph Greer was highly intoxicated and he stayed that way throughout the night. Mr. Pearce consumed some beer and snorted some cocaine while at the party but reportedly never became compromised like his friend. Indeed, Mr. Pearce became the pair's designated driver when they left at around 11 p.m. in Mr. Greer's pickup truck to go home to get ready to go out to the bars.

So it was that shortly after midnight on September 1, 2013 Rusty Pearce was driving Joseph Greer's Dodge Dakota pickup truck westbound on Highway 2 toward Brockville. Due to the effects of alcohol, Mr. Greer was asleep in the passenger seat. Witnesses would later report that Mr. Pearce was driving appropriately within his lane and at the speed limit of 80 kilometres an hour when he came upon Aaron Stevenson who was skateboarding westbound in the centre of the westbound lane. The centre of the truck hit Aaron and caused him to rotate backward such that his head hit the part of the vehicle where the hood meets the windshield.

I pause to note here that if there can be any consolation found in this case, it is in the fact that Aaron Stevenson died instantly. He sustained a catastrophic head injury that would have caused an immediate loss of consciousness and would have been un-survivable.

In any event, the physics involved in the collision caused Aaron's body to vertically rotate up and over the cab of the truck and he landed in the truck's cargo bed. Importantly, I should note that the truck's bed is not right behind the driver and passenger seats, that model of the Dodge Dakota has an area of rear passenger seating. I should also note that the evidence is clear that at no time did Mr. Pearce apply his brake or slow the truck in any way as he drove away from the collision scene.

Immediately after hitting Aaron Stevenson, Rusty Pearce woke Joseph Greer up by yelling some expletives and then told him that he had hit someone. Mr. Greer could not believe it so Mr. Pearce pointed to the damage to the windshield. Mr. Pearce continued driving, stopping only once back in Brockville on Oxford Avenue for several minutes to smoke a cigarette with Mr. Greer to apparently put their heads together to figure out what to do. Mr. Pearce then drove north on Oxford and cut through the Wal-Mart parking lot to access Parkedale Avenue before continuing west to arrive back at the location of the house party at 130 Church Street. It is relevant to note that this route took them right by the always-open Brockville police station.

Once at 130 Church Street Mr. Pearce drove the truck all the way up the driveway and into the back yard of the residence well away from the road. The pair exited the vehicle to observe the damage done. It was at that point that they discovered the body of Aaron Stevenson in the bed of the truck. They then stood there and talked about what they should do for approximately 20 minutes. In words attributed to Rusty Pearce, the pair decided "we've got to get rid of it". "It", of course, was Aaron Stevenson.

Mr. Pearce proposed and Mr. Greer agreed that what they would do was take Aaron Stevenson's body to a nearby skateboard park and dump him there to make it look like he had had a skateboarding accident. After first going in to 130 Church Street to get a pair of oven mitts to wear while touching Aaron's body, the pair set off for the skateboard park on George Street. Once there, they took Aaron Stevenson from the back of the truck and left him on the side of the road.

Mr. Greer then took his truck back from Mr. Pearce and drove it away, yelling "I love you man" or words to that effect. Mr. Pearce then called 911 using a cell phone he had had all along, telling the 911 operator that he had been walking home and just noticed a guy lying on the road. Mr. Pearce said that he had checked for a pulse but could not find one. He elaborated that he did not know if the male had been drinking and was possibly passed out. The 911 operator asked if he would attempt CPR. Mr. Pearce declined to do so, saying that he did not know how long the body had been there.

Mr. Greer returned with the truck but Mr. Pearce waved him off choosing to walk instead back to nearby 130 Church Street. Mr. Greer then drove away and was stopped by police nearby and arrested for driving while impaired. Eventual investigation would reveal that his blood alcohol concentration was 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, twice the legal limit to drive.

Immediately upon his arrest, Joseph Greer confessed to police about the events of the night. Police began looking for Mr. Pearce. For some reason, they initially thought Mr. Pearce's first name was Ryan. Police attended at 130 Church Street. Mr. Pearce answered the door to a uniformed police Constable who indicated that he was looking for a Ryan Pearce. Rusty Pearce responded that there was no Ryan Pearce there. Police left, as did Rusty Pearce soon afterward at about 1:30 a.m.

Mr. Pearce went to his sister's residence. Many people knew by that point that police were looking for him and he was urged by friends to turn himself in. He chose not to and it was not until about 7 a.m. that police caught up to him at his sister's.

PART II - LEGAL PRINCIPLES

It might be best for all concerned to begin a discussion of the legal principles at play by first speaking to what this sentencing is not about. The loss of the victim is undoubtedly a tragedy. I heard a lot about him from the many who read victim impact statements and it is clear to me that he was a wonderful young man and that his death has filled his family, his many friends and indeed this entire community with tremendous sorrow. I want to make clear however, that this sentence to be imposed today is not a reflection of the value of his life. No sentence could possibly capture the worth of a human being.

I also want to make clear the fact that the victim's death was not caused by a criminal act and that this sentencing will not endeavour to punish in that regard. The evidence was clear that the victim would not have been visible to any driver until it would have been too late for anyone to avoid hitting him. That has not to do with anything particular to Rusty Pearce but with what is scientifically known about night time driving visibility and the time it takes the human brain to process information, all coupled with the distance required to bring a motor vehicle to a stop from highway speed. This collision was unavoidable. It was not caused by any illegal driving on the part of Mr. Pearce. I point this out not to insult the memory of the young victim but simply to focus this sentencing on the proven facts.

That said, the conduct of both Rusty Pearce and Joseph Greer from the moment that the victim was struck onward, was both criminal and morally reprehensible.

The principles of sentencing are set out by Parliament in section 718 of the Criminal Code wherein, as an overarching theme, it is outlined that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. The imposition of just sanctions requires that I consider the sentencing objectives delineated in this section, which include denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence of the offender and other persons from committing offences, separating offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation of offenders, providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community, promoting a sense of responsibility among offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims in the community. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Ultimately, sentencing is a balancing exercise, an evaluation of the offence and its circumstances, and any factors that are either mitigating or aggravating.

Speaking specifically to the count that relates only to Rusty Pearce, I note that the offence of fail to remain is a serious one. Parliament has even amended the penalty provisions of section 252 creating the offence under section 252(1.3) for which an accused could be subject to a possible maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Ontario Court of Appeal has clearly stated in R. v. Ramdass, [1982] O.J. No. 177 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Gummer, [1983] O.J. No. 181 (Ont. C.A.) that the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation are of paramount importance in sentencing in a case like this even where there is no driving offence related to the collision.

It is true that the victim was killed instantly as a result of the collision and that nothing could have been done to help him. However, Rusty Pearce would not have known that. He knew only that he had hit someone while driving at highway speed. He did not so much as slow his vehicle, let alone stop to inquire about the results. For all he knew, as he drove away keeping his cell phone in his pocket, a fellow man lay merely injured by the side of the dark sparsely used highway, a fellow man who could very well have been in dire need of assistance. His act of leaving the scene therefore was not only contrary to the Criminal Code but contrary to any standard of decency and humanity. He simply preferred his own interests over those of another. The words of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Ramdass, quoting from another case called R. v. Roussy are apt:

"…in a crime of this type, the deterrent quality of the sentence must be given paramount consideration, and here I am using the term "deterrent" in its widest sense.

The sentence, by emphasizing community disapproval of an act and branding it reprehensible has a moral or educative effect, and thereby affects the attitude of the public. One then hopes that a person with an attitude thus conditioned to regard conduct as reprehensible, will not likely commit such an act".

Both men are charged with an offence arising out of how they treated the victim's dead body, contrary to section 182(b) of the Criminal Code. What they did is offensive because to a large degree the way we treat the dead demonstrates the value we place upon life. A life having come to an end is a momentous event deserving of pause and respect. It is also true that mistreatment of someone's remains is an affront to their surviving loved ones. It causes them a form of extra grief. This sort of thing transcends the Criminal Code. We all just know this, almost as if by instinct. I was struck by the behaviour of Ms. Gloria Height who called 911 that night after finding the victim on the road after Mr. Pearce had walked away. Once through on the phone, she went outside and stayed with the victim until the emergency people arrived. She did that not because she was contemplating section 182(b) of the Criminal Code but rather, because she just knew it was the right thing to do. I find that similar to the leaving the scene misconduct discussed already, the paramount sentencing objectives with respect to the interference to the victim's dead body are also denunciation and deterrence.

Both men are also facing an offence arising out of their attempt to deceive the authorities about the manner of the victim's death. The jurisprudence relating to obstruct justice makes clear that the principles of denunciation and deterrence are paramount. As an example I cite, R. v. Tapaquon, [2009] S.J. No. 2012, where Justice Whitmore quoted the BCCA in R. v. Hall, 2001 BCCA 74, [2001] B.C.J. No. 560 at paragraph 32 as follows:

Obstruction of justice or attempting to obstruct justice strikes at our system of a lawful society. The message must be clear that this type of interference with the community system for handling criminal offences will not be tolerated. It is for this reason that the courts must act firmly to express society's disapproval and denunciation of such conduct.

I agree with that sentiment entirely.

The plan to leave the victim near the skateboard park was an effort to make it look like he had died by way of a skateboarding accident. While not a sophisticated plan, it nonetheless discloses a degree of contemplation. Whatever panic may have animated the decision-making in the early goings was long gone by then. The attempt to make it appear as though the victim had died in a way different than he actually did shows that neither Mr. Pearce nor Mr. Greer cared whether the victim's loved ones would know the true circumstances of his death. It also shows that neither cared about the consequences of misleading the authorities. Knowingly sending the police on an investigation founded on falsehood is a wilful interference with the community's mechanism for lawfully handling potential criminal matters. It is an effort to defeat the truth-seeking function of the legal system. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated in any community.

Finally, speaking only now about Joseph Greer, the offences of driving with an illegal blood alcohol concentration, and failing to comply with conditions of an undertaking, also bring the sentencing principle of deterrence to primary importance. Mr. Greer in fact has a prior drinking and driving conviction in 2009. It would appear that he was not effectively deterred by way of the monetary penalty imposed then. And, the judicial system must make clear to all that release conditions are meant to be followed.

Having set out my view that the principal sentencing objectives here are those of denunciation and deterrence, I do not wish to be understood as saying that those are the only objectives to be considered. Certainly, both Mr. Pearce and Mr. Greer are still young men. While they both have criminal records, they are by no means incorrigible. I do, therefore, give serious consideration to the principle of rehabilitation.

PART III – THE OFFENDERS

With respect to Rusty Pearce I have learned from the pre-sentence report that he was raised primarily by his mother and older sister. Diagnosed with ADHD while in public school, he was apparently able to maintain average grades until the age of about 15 when he began associating with a negative peer group who were experimenting with both alcohol and drugs. He was expelled from regular school after grade 11 for skipping and behavioural issues and then attended an alternative school on a part-time basis ultimately falling short of a grade 12 diploma. Beginning in approximately 2008 Mr. Pearce worked sporadically at various local factories. Things began to look up in May 2013 when he found employment with a local construction company as a labourer. He was laid off on August 29, 2013, just when it seemed to those who know him that he was taking on a more mature and adult approach to life. Although Mr. Pearce uses both alcohol and illicit drugs he apparently does not have any addictions. Similarly, while presently experiencing depression requiring some undisclosed treatment, he does not have any long-standing mental health issues. Finally, of great relevance on any assessment of rehabilitation prospects, I accept that Mr. Pearce feels tremendous remorse for what he has done. I have read a letter of apology he wrote to the victim's family. I also listened to him as he was given an opportunity to speak prior to sentencing, a speech he used as another chance to apologize and which he was forced to give before a packed courtroom. I accept that he genuinely feels the way he says he does, that is, that he is tremendously sorry for the pain he has caused and takes full responsibility for his actions.

Turning to Joseph Greer, I note that he has had significant difficulties in life. Born in Russia, his mother died in childbirth and his father abandoned him soon afterward. He spent his first five years in an orphanage where he was reportedly both physically and sexually abused and to this day he suffers the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder. After being adopted and brought to grow up in the Brockville area, he struggled in school due to both language difficulties and the fact that he suffers the permanent effects of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder. He has also struggled with significant mental health issues in addition to the PTSD, including bulimia and suicidal ideation. To his credit, showing a remarkable degree of resilience, Mr. Greer succeeded in achieving his high school diploma. After high school Mr. Greer has had difficulty finding his way. He worked in his father's business for a few years but ultimately parted ways with him. At the time of this offence Mr. Greer was working as a labourer at a local construction company. On the subject of substance abuse, I note that Mr. Greer self-reports as a binge drinker, and a regular smoker of marijuana, as well as an infrequent user of cocaine. Similar to Mr. Pearce, I accept that Mr. Greer feels tremendous remorse for what he has done. I have read a letter of apology that he wrote to the victim's family and I listened to him as he expressed remorse in open court. I accept that his words and emotions are genuine. I accept that he is very sorry for what his actions have brought about and he takes full responsibility for them.

In sum, I find that both men have good rehabilitation prospects.

PART IV - THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS

I must weigh both the mitigating and aggravating factors relating to each man's conduct. Since sentencing is an individualized process I will set out those factors for each separately.

Mitigating Factors – Rusty Pearce

(a) Mr. Pearce has pleaded guilty, sparing the victim's family and the community the ordeal of a trial.

(b) Mr. Pearce has expressed remorse in a genuine way.

(c) Mr. Pearce is a youthful offender with good rehabilitation prospects. While he has a criminal record, misbehaviour of this magnitude is out of character for him.

Aggravating Factors – Rusty Pearce

(a) Mr. Pearce made multiple decisions over an extended period of time preferring his interests over those of the victim. While I accept that there was some panic animating his behaviour initially, that panic would only have been transitory. Certainly, by the time the pair had finished their post collision cigarette, panic would no longer have been acute enough to be an excuse. In any event, any driver who hits anyone would feel panic or other significant emotion. No one would be calm and collected in such a circumstance but everyone is expected to stop their car. The obligation to stop after a collision to inquire about whether assistance is needed is not an onerous one and can (and must) be accomplished while in the throes of the emotions inherent in any unexpected accident.

(b) Mr. Pearce demonstrated a woeful lack of sensitivity with respect to the victim's body. Mr. Pearce's words "we've got to get rid of it" discloses an utter disregard for the dignity of the deceased and the significance of his death.

(c) Mr. Pearce was the leader as between he and Mr. Greer. It was Mr. Pearce who felt himself to be in jeopardy and he enlisted his friend to commit criminal acts to help extract him from that jeopardy.

(d) Mr. Pearce had been drinking and had ingested some cocaine that night. While that did not impair his ability to operate the motor vehicle, it is a relevant consideration with respect to why he felt so disinclined to call the police after the collision. Clearly, in the circumstances, he did not want to interact with the police with both alcohol and cocaine in his system. His alcohol and illegal drug consumption therefore informed his criminal misconduct.

(e) Not only did Mr. Pearce fail to call the authorities, he took active steps to avoid being caught. He parked the truck deep into the rear yard at 130 Church Street. Oven mitts were used, presumably to prevent the transfer of blood or fingerprints or the like. When the police arrived later asking about Ryan Pearce he sent them on their way knowing full well who they were looking for.

(f) Mr. Pearce made the rather convincing 911 call. He was obviously well in control of his emotions and quite calculating in his deceit.

Mitigating Factors – Joseph Greer

(a) Mr. Greer has pleaded guilty, sparing the victim's family and the community the ordeal of the trial.

(b) He has meaningfully expressed remorse.

(c) At the material time, Mr. Greer was significantly under the influence of alcohol. While that does not excuse his conduct, it is relevant as I assess his moral culpability. His decisions were made that night while his judgment was clouded by an intoxicant.

(d) Mr. Greer is a youthful offender possessed of a relevant personal history with respect to a diminished intellectual ability and compromised mental health. Those characteristics make him more of a follower than a leader.

(e) While Mr. Greer clearly went along with everything, and was in all respects an active and willing participant in the misdeeds of that night, he was not the one calling the shots.

(f) Upon being caught by the police driving the truck away from the skateboard park, Mr. Greer immediately confessed.

(g) Mr. Greer has good rehabilitation prospects.

Aggravating Factors – Joseph Greer

(a) As already touched upon, the facts of the offences before this court are disgraceful. For an extended period of time Mr. Greer shared in decisions and actions intended to put his friend's interests above the moral obligation they both had to show basic respect to the victim.

(b) Mr. Greer has a recent criminal conviction for a drinking and driving offence.

(c) At the material time, Mr. Greer was subject to an undertaking obliging him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

(d) Mr. Greer agreed to drive the involved pickup truck away from the scene of a crime, intending obviously to keep that evidence from being discovered by the authorities. I find that he was very much in agreement with the plan to stage the skateboarding accident, including the intention to call it in as such to 911 (that's why he and Mr. Pearce parted ways).

(e) While he was driving within the community, Mr. Greer's blood alcohol concentration was twice the legal limit.

PART VI - SENTENCE

Mr. Pearce, Mr. Greer, on the night of August 31, 2013 you conducted yourselves in a manner that was shameful. What you did that night has shocked your community. That said, although you committed a bad act, I do not think either of you are fundamentally bad men. You each now have a significant penalty to serve, but I believe that once you have paid your debt, both of you have the ability to regain your community's esteem. You have done what you can thus far by pleading guilty and showing true remorse. What you can do from here is show that you have learned from your mistake by pledging to live lawfully and productively.

Sentence – Rusty Pearce

Mr. Pearce, I sentence you to two years less one day in jail. While cognizant of the principle of totality, I break the sentence down as follows:

• On the leaving the scene of the collision count: 8 months
• On the improper interference with the human remains: 10 months less one day
• On the obstruct justice count: 6 months

All of these sentences are consecutive to one another. While there is some overlap I am satisfied that each sentence relates to a separate delict.

You have been in custody since September 1, 2013 and I am satisfied that you pled guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. Your criminal record, though, replete as it is with multiple examples of failing to comply with various forms of court orders, arguably speaks against any assumption that you would receive earned remission on any jail sentence. Section 719(3.1) of the Code permits a judge to credit pre-sentence custody up to a maximum of 1.5 to one for each day in pre-sentence custody, where in considering all relevant circumstances, "enhanced credit" is necessary to achieve a fair and just sanction. I note that I have not been advised that the reason for your detention was stated in the record under subsection 515(9.1) or that you were detained under subsection 524(4) or (8). I come to the conclusion that you have conducted yourself since these charges in a way that earned remission and/or parole would likely occur. You have not delayed the proceedings, or exhibited any disinclination to participate in treatment programs, nor have you misconducted yourself in any way while in custody. I frankly do not know what you could have done more than what you have done since these charges were laid. I exercise my discretion in favour of awarding you enhanced credit as I am satisfied that "the circumstances justify it" as that concept has been explained in R. v. Summers, 2013 ONCA 147, [2013] O.J. No. 1068 (Ont. C.A.). I therefore credit you with 10 months and three-quarters of pre-sentence custody. Accordingly, you have 13 and a quarter months left to serve.

Following this period of custody I place you on probation for a period of 24 months. In addition to the statutory probation terms you are to report as directed to the probation office, you are to attend for any assessment and/or counselling as may be recommended and sign any releases as may be necessary to monitor your compliance with such counselling. In particular, I ask that the probation office assess and if necessary address any issues relating to substance abuse.

In addition, I hereby suspend your driving privileges for a period of five years. During that period you are not to operate a motor vehicle on any road or highway anywhere in Canada.

Finally, I make an order that you provide a sample of your DNA for inclusion into the national DNA databank.

Mr. Pearce that completes my sentence.

Sentence – Joseph Greer

Mr. Greer, as you know, you are before me today for sentencing on another matter as well as this one. I intend to release written reasons with respect to the other matter later today. I have considered the totality principle and I have endeavoured to craft a global sentence for you on both the events of August 31, 2013 and the charges relating to you as a young offender.

Dealing then with the charges arising out of the death of the victim, I sentence you to 18 months in jail. That sentence breaks down as follows:

• On the count of interference with the victim's body: 9 months
• On the count of driving with excessive blood alcohol: 3 months
• With respect to the failing to comply with the undertaking: 1 month
• On the count relating to the attempt to obstruct the course of justice: 5 months

All of these sentences are consecutive to one another.

You have also been in custody since your arrest on September 1, 2013 and you too have pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity. You were arrested while out on an undertaking. Conducting yourself as you did while out on a release causes me concern with respect to assuming that you would get earned remission. However, I note that your criminal record has only the one entry. I have not been advised of any successful application by the Crown pursuant to section 524 of the Criminal Code. I conclude therefore on the information before me that you would be a likely candidate for earned remission and/or parole. Accordingly, I give you credit for your pre-sentence custody at a ratio of 1.5 to one, which shall result in a credit of ten and three-quarter months. On these charges therefore you have seven and one-quarter months left to serve.

I will tell you now Mr. Greer that on the other charges you will be receiving a jail sentence of 12 months, and pursuant to the operation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act you will serve two thirds of that in a custodial facility.

In aggregate then, you have 15 and a quarter months left to serve in custody from today. It will be my recommendation that you be allowed to serve some or all of your sentence at the St. Lawrence Valley Treatment facility in accordance with the recommendation in that regard of Dr. John Bradford of the Royal.

In addition to this period of custody I sentence you to 24 months of probation. Along with the statutory terms, you are to report as directed to the probation office and you are to attend for any assessment and/or counselling as may be recommended by the probation office. This shall include signing any releases that may be necessary to monitor your compliance with any such treatment.

Furthermore, I hereby suspend your driving licence for a period of three years. During the next 36 months you are not to operate a motor vehicle on any road or highway anywhere in Canada.

Finally, I have signed the forfeiture order jointly presented to me by counsel pursuant to section 490.1 of the Criminal Code and thereby order that the Dodge Dakota pickup truck used in the commission of the offence be forfeited to Her Majesty to be disposed of as the Attorney General for Ontario directs.

In light of the lengthy custody facing both men which will eliminate their ability to earn income I exercise my discretion in favour of waiving the applicable victim fine surcharges.

MR. FLANAGAN: Excuse me Your Honour.

THE COURT: Sorry.

MR. FLANAGAN: You didn't address the DNA order with respect to Mr. Greer was that…

THE COURT: I intend to.

CLERK OF THE COURT: And the remaining counts on the adult matters that have not been dealt with, can they be withdrawn today?

MR. FLANAGAN: They are stayed today.

CLERK OF THE COURT: Thank you.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE foregoing is a true and accurate transcription from my recordings made herein, to the best of my skill and ability.

Kimberley J. Davy Court Reporter