CITATION: R. v. Perez-Bernal, 2019 ONCJ 68
DATE: January 22, 2019
Provincial Offences #0201374F
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
DOMINGO PEREZ-BERNAL
P R O C E E D I N G S A T T R I A L
BEFORE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE W. ROJEK
on JANUARY 22, 2019, at GUELPH, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
P. Cassata Provincial Prosecutor
Domingo Perez-Bernal In Person
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
W I T N E S S E S
Examination Cross
WITNESSES in-Chief Examination
UNGER, Darry 3 5
PEREZ-BERNAL, Domingo 8 10
E X H I B I T S
EXHIBIT NUMBER ENTERED ON PAGE
1 Copy of R.R.O. 1990, 599 22
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. CASSATA 14
SUBMISSIONS BY MR. PEREZ-BERNAL 16
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 17
L E G E N D
[sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced
verbatim and is not a transcription error
(ph) - Indicates preceding word has been
spelled phonetically
Transcript Ordered: January 28, 2019
Transcript Completed: February 2, 2019
Notified: February 4, 2019
TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2019
MR. CASSATA: Number 41, Domingo Perez-Bernal.
THE COURT: Good afternoon, sir, could I have your name, please.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Good afternoon, my name is Domingo Perez-Bernal.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you.
MR. CASSATA: I’m ready to proceed to trial, Your Worship.
THE COURT: Sir, I understand that you are going to represent yourself?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: That’s right.
THE COURT: All right. What will happen now, that you will have the charge read to you and then you will be asked if you are pleading guilty or not guilty to that charge.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Would you please repeat that for me. I’m sorry, English is my second language, so it is really hard for me to...
THE COURT: All right. What language would you prefer to use in court?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: I’m fine with English, but could you just repeat the policy.
THE COURT: So what will happen now, we will read the charge to you and then we will be asking you if you are pleading guilty or not guilty to the charge.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: I plead not guilty to the charge.
THE COURT: If you are pleading not guilty to the charge, which is your constitutional right, and
nobody will blame you for that...
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Mr. Prosecutor will present me with his witness, or witnesses. After Mr. Prosecutor is done with examination of his witness or witnesses, you will have a chance to cross-examine them, which is to ask any questions about the case. So if there is anything you disagree with the officer, that will be the time to ask questions about that.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Thank you.
THE COURT: After this is done, you will have the option, you will have the right to give evidence in your case, but not an obligation. It’s your right. You don’t have to do it. If you decide to testify in your own defence and/or present this court with any other evidence, Mr. Prosecutor will have the chance to cross-examine you or anybody else you may call to testify. After I hear from both of you, and you both complete your cases, I will invite you to make submissions and hopefully I will render my decision right after. If you have any procedural questions, don’t hesitate to ask me and I will do my best to answer, but I cannot give you any legal advice. Any questions so far?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Ma’am.
COURT CLERK: Domingo Perez-Bernal, you are charged sir, on the 15th of October, 2018 at 2:37 p.m. at County 44 at Indian Trail in Guelph-
Eramosa Township with the offence of drive on closed highway contrary to the Highway Traffic Act under Section 134(3). How do you plead to this charge?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Not guilty.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Have a seat, sir, please, and I will hear the prosecutor’s case, first.
MR. CASSATA: Thank you, Your Worship. Before I call the officer, can you just confirm on the record that the defendant doesn’t require an interpreter. It bothers me when they say “it’s my second language”.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: I do not require any interpreter.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
MR. CASSATA: Thank you. Calling Officer Unger to the stand.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you.
DARRYL UNGER: SWORN
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. CASSATA:
Q. Officer, on October the 15th, 2018, who were you employed with and in what capacity?
A. The Ontario Provincial Police as a police officer.
Q. Did you investigate the matter before the court?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you make any notes?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you make those notes?
A. Directly after the traffic stop.
Q. Any additions, deletions or alterations?
A. No.
Q. Why do you require them?
A. Just to refresh my memory.
MR. CASSATA: Your Worship, with the leave of the court.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Sir, any objection that the officer will use his notes?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: No.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Constable you may use your notes.
MR. CASSATA: Q. When you’re ready officer.
A. On Monday, October 15th, 2018, I was working as a police officer; I was assisting with a collision investigation. At 2:30 p.m. I had closed Wellington Road 44 at Indian Trail, which is in Guelph-Eramosa Township, Wellington County. I closed this road northbound as there were officers ahead on Wellington Road 44 conducting a collision investigation. The road is one lane northbound, one lane southbound in a rural area, and the area where the officers were was an S bend on a hill, it’s a very bad spot. So at that time I closed Wellington Road 44 at Indian Trail by placing my unmarked Tahoe. I placed it at Indian Trail on Wellington Road 44 facing westbound across the northbound lanes so that there was room if anyone needed to come from the collision out, but any traffic proceeding northbound would have to turn left onto Indian Trail as it’s a T intersection at that location. I had my emergency lights activated the entire time.
At approximately 2:37 p.m. there was a vehicle that was travelling northbound on Wellington Road 44 approaching my location. As the motor vehicle approached my location it barely slowed down and veered left into the southbound lanes around my cruiser and proceeded northbound past my location on Wellington Road 44. At that time I had also activated my sirens, and at that time the vehicle did stop north of my location.
I approached the motor vehicle on foot from my location and made a demand on the driver for his driver’s license, ownership and insurance. The vehicle was a green Ford pickup truck bearing Ontario license plate CFHA 422, and the driver was identified with a valid photo Ontario driver’s license as - I’m just going to spell it - first name D-O-M-I-N-G-O, last name P-E-R-E-Z, space, B-E-R-N-A L with an address in Guelph. There was a photo on that driver’s license and I was satisfied that they were one in the same.
I issued the driver a Provincial Offence Notice for the offence of drive on closed highway contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, Section 134(3), and I told the driver to make a U-turn and then proceed down Indian Trail.
At that time, the roads were wet, it was daylight and the male driver was the only person in the motor vehicle.
MR. CASSATA: No further questions, Your Worship.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Sir, now if don’t mind stand up. Any questions to the officer about this case?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PEREZ-BERNAL:
Q. What were methods placed in the crossed road at that point? What methods do you, have been placed in order
for the highway, Wellington Road 44 and Indian Trail Road to be closed?
A. What method?
Q. Yes.
A. I was using my police cruiser to block the northbound lane, which was the only lane I was closing.
Q. How many traffic control devices did you have in place in order for that road to be closed and for me to understand?
A. Sorry, repeat that question please.
Q. How many controlled traffic, how many traffic control devices did you have in place in order for me to understand the road was closed?
A. I was only using my police cruiser, it was a large Tahoe, and it was able to block the entire northbound lane. If I needed to block multiple lanes I could have used something else, but I only needed to block the one lane. So that’s all I used.
Q. Could you please clarify for me today that your cruise[sic] is a traffic control device?
A. Sorry?
Q. Would you clarify, would you please tell me if your cruise[sic] is classified as a traffic control device?
A. My cruiser?
Q. Yes.
A. I was using it as a traffic control device to divert traffic left onto Indian Trail.
Q. How would I know in that case if that was a traffic control device?
MR. CASSATA: Sorry, Your Worship, I don’t know how the officer, can explain why someone can’t understand something that’s happening on the road.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Well, in this case I have a couple more questions for you, please.
Q. Okay, my next question is - was the county, was Wellington County and Guelph City informed about the closure of that road that day on the 15th October, Monday, October 15th at 2:37?
MR. CASSATA: Your Worship, what is the relevance of that?
THE COURT: I don’t know yet.
MR. CASSATA: Okay, it’s just I...
THE COURT: Let’s hope we find out. Officer.
A. No, it was a police closure, it was our decision to close the road, so it was only the police that were aware at that time.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Thank you so much.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: That’s it. I would like to defend my case.
THE COURT: Any other questions?
MR. CASSATA: No, Your Worship.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Officer you may step down.
MR. CASSATA: That’s the case for the prosecution.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Sir, do you wish to give evidence in this case?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Yes.
THE COURT: Very well, come over please, we will have you sworn or affirmed, whichever way you prefer.
DOMINGO PEREZ-BERNAL: SWORN
EVIDENCE IN-CHIEF:
THE COURT: Very well. Sir.
A. It was approximately 1:30...2:30, which he stated 2:37, in my clock on my dashboard it says 2:38. So pretty accurate.
I was coming towards the north to pick up my children from school at that time, and it was a very wet day. It was raining, a little cloudy, starting to clear up that day.
I acknowledge the emergency vehicle stopped with its red and blue internal lights flashing in the same direction as I was travelling. I reduce the speed down to zero of my vehicle. I stop not less than three seconds to proceed with caution. I based my action 100 percent according to the paragraph on the MTO driver’s handbook that says:
When approaching any emergency vehicle that is stopped with its amber lights, or red and blue lights flashing in the same direction of your travel, you are required to reduce your speed of your vehicle and proceed with caution. When reducing your speed you are required to assess the speed of the surrounding traffic and the condition of the roads and proceed.
When I approach the police officer’s vehicle in the intersection of Wellington Road 44 and Indian Trail in my vehicle, it was right in the direction which I was. I stop several seconds, I assess the surrounding traffic and the condition of the roads, as well as the addition of indications of traffic blocking on officer’s traffic signs. Clearly and honestly I do not see any apart from the cruiser. There were no additional directions, no hand gestures from the officer, not any supported traffic indicator, or indication that could tell me that the highway was closed. Therefore I proceeded on my way according to the handbook - the driver’s handbook.
As soon as I pass the emergency vehicle he put on his siren; I responded to his siren; I cooperated with all the documentation that he asked me to do. At the end he issued me with a charge under the Act, 134(3), which it states:
Driving on closed highway prohibited - where signs or traffic control devices have been posted or placed under subsection 2, no person shall drive or operate a vehicle on the closed highway or part thereof in intentional disobedience of the signs or traffic control devices.
I stand firmly on the truth that I did not disobey the traffic intentionally. And the fact of my question is - what methods were in place for me to understand that the highway was closed and he has his cruiser only, as you may notice.
According to the R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 599, Highway Closing, there are several devices and methods that can be in place. Some of them according to, there’s a couple - cones, barricades, do not enter signs, rectangular, all the shapes here that...I could provide you with a copy.
THE COURT: Can you provide copy to Mr. Cassata first.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Yes, please.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: A. Anyway, I continue reading
every single method, I don’t think I have the time, however, would you please take my consideration by reading it.
And I would like to close in saying that I am very respectful and honest, respectful to the law of this province. I have been here not more than four years. I love the city and I trust that our officers are doing their jobs and that they educate us continuously. I respect all police officers and the work they do. It is courageous. When I asked if any other administration, road administration were aware of closing the road, he said that the officers only knew.
I did my homework. On the 16th my wife help me to find the Wellington City, the Guelph City if the road was closed. Nobody had an idea that the road was closed. And my wife, Carol Perez, had the opportunity to talk to Officer Unger...
THE COURT: Very well, you really shouldn’t tell me what somebody else told you.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Excuse me?
THE COURT: You cannot tell me what somebody else told you.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Okay. But I will stand then that at that point I was surprised to get the ticket, and I feel not guilty at the point and that is my supporting statement.
THE COURT: Very well, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CASSATA:
Q. Sir, you made comments about how you are a good driver, correct, that you’ve followed the rules in the last four years of being here, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you not get a speeding ticket in 2016?
A. I paid on April 2016.
Q. All right. So did you intentionally mean to speed that day?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. No, I was coming out of an 80 in a curve and I did not make any intentional speed, no.
Q. Okay. So in this particular situation here, you saw an SUV...
A. Yes, I did.
Q. ...a Tahoe, a police cruiser blocking the road, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you thought it was okay to drive around this cruiser? You didn’t think that the truck enough was enough of an indicator that the road was closed? Forget about the signs and everything, answer that simple question, you saw a police cruiser...
A. Yes, I did.
Q. ...parked blocking a road, lights were on and you thought it was okay to drive around that cruiser? You can honestly say that you didn’t know that that road was closed?
A. I saw the cruiser and it is considered as an emergency vehicle according to what I have, as I said. I’ve been in this country, not a master in any law, but that’s my only immediate reaction at that point. Therefore, I was expecting, because I stopped right in front of the vehicle, at least a window down, and show me, hey, pointed at me. It was confused. So there was no sign, and that was, and then based on my knowledge of the MTO handbook I applied the paragraph that I could slow down, I stopped at zero speed and passed around, he put his siren, which he has the obvious right on; I stopped; I proceeded, and I provided all the [indiscernible] and respect, respectfully told me to turn around, I did.
Q. Let me ask you a question - you asked if the city knew about the road being closed.
A. Yes.
Q. What do you do every morning before you drive your car, you call the city and find out what roads are closed?
A. No, in the case that you are charged on something that you think is not right.
Q. So it doesn’t matter whether the city knew or not because you wouldn’t have known?
A. I need to know because I don’t come to court every day, this is my only, and I hope the last time.
Q. Why were you calling the city to find out, to see if the officer was lying of blocking the road? It doesn’t make sense, why does it matter if the city knows that the street is closed or not? No, it’s not in your papers, why did you call the city, why do you care if the city knows or not?
A. What I want in order to make the call, and punishing somebody, you’ve got to be supported with what they are doing. And at this point he said that he didn’t use any method. Why would he apply at 134(3) on me without even knowing that I was expecting farther...
Q. So you’re telling me you’re driving a car, you passed your driver’s test, you see a police cruiser blocking the road and you have to have a sign that says “don’t pass me”?
A. I’m not making it up, it’s the law, and I’m trying to follow it.
Q. No, no, so you think that these officers all carry these signs in the back of their truck, right, they can just open stuff up? Do you not think that things happen spontaneously?
A. There are some spontaneous things from his side, and I will say from my side too.
Q. Correct.
A. In that case I, based on the handbook, that’s the only...
Q. What’s spontaneous about your side? You’re driving, you see a cruiser blocking a road and you say, “I’m going to drive around this cruiser”, and you think it’s okay?
A. I don’t have, not any of it in my mind. I base my action on this, and part of questions in the order for me to investigate, I believe it’s my right, because I don’t want to come here blindly to say, hey...
Q. Why didn’t you stop and ask the officer, “Officer, can I go through?”
A. I talked to him. I talked to him.
Q. When did you talk to him?
A. And this is the thing...
Q. Before you passed him you talked to him?
A. ...do you want me to read my full statement?
Q. Well you had your chance to give evidence and you haven’t done it so...
A. Well, I can give you more details, I don’t want to judge his side, I’m just telling you my side.
Q. I’m asking you a simple question - you passed the officer, are you telling me that you didn’t know that that road was closed even after you spoke to the officer - was it not a simple thing
A. I did not pass. He stopped me, I stopped.
Q. After?
A. Absolutely because there is no condition for me to understand that the road was closed.
MR. CASSATA: No further questions, Your Worship.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Anything else?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: I want to state that, conclusion to say that I’m not coming here with any [indiscernible] or support because I believe that what I say is true. And again I respect the police officer and the work that he does and the courageous way he works. Being a member of this community for less than three years shows me that they care about us and they care about everything else. Consider my case, and thank you so much.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. You may now return to your seat. Sir, do you have anybody else you would like to call to testify in your defence?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: No.
THE COURT: Any reply evidence?
MR. CASSATA: No, Your Worship.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you. Mr. Cassata.
MR. CASSATA: Your Worship, the officer’s evidence is very clear and concise. He blocked the road because of a collision that occurred. He properly blocked it with his SUV. The defendant wants the court to believe that the way the officer blocked the road was inappropriate and it caused the defendant to be confused and not know that he couldn’t pass the roadway.
Your Worship the defendant passed the driver’s test in Ontario. Albeit it may not be the most difficult test in the world to pass, but a person can have judgment to realize, “Oh, there is a car blocking the road, maybe I shouldn’t go around it”, and not rely on the fact that there has to be a sign to say not to go around it.
First of all, he’s also clearly misinterpreted the section. It doesn’t pertain to that, it pertains to, just like the trial we had before where there is a vehicle on the side and you must make sure you can pass with caution.
This is a blatant disregard of the officer being there. It’s a mistake he made. He will not acknowledge that, but he should not have gone around this officer. The road was closed. So he drove on a closed highway. Seeking a conviction.
THE COURT: Can you comment on Regulation 1990-259, actually 599?
MR. CASSATA: Is that the one for signs? Yes, Your Worship, I can appreciate...
THE COURT: How do I relate that to the closed...
MR. CASSATA: Well, I can appreciate the fact that if there is a road that’s closed and it’s designated and there is an opportunity to set up the procedure to have the road closed, albeit, but yes, you have to have some signs set up. And I’m not saying that there aren’t signs that are required when a road is closed.
In this particular case Your Worship, it’s a spontaneous incident, there was a collision, the officer attended. Those signs are erected by Works and Transportation, not by police officers. So when there is a specific sign that’s closed, or a construction company per se, but police officers don’t carry these signs in their vehicles, two by sixes, and pop them out and close a road. They use the tools that they have available, in this particular case it was a police vehicle, lights were on and it was used as a tool to block the road. So Your Worship under perfect ideal situations when it’s a planned road closure, granted you have signs available. But when it’s a spontaneous incident, do you really expect the police to go and say “oh, hang on a second, I’ve got to go and get signs before we close the road”, “or we have to call Works and Transportation, and wait for them to bring the signs before we can close the road”.
Your Worship, the officer did everything he’s legally entitled to do, used the tools at hand and parked his truck, or SUV to block the road. You don’t need a sign to block a road. Those signs are there, the Regulation, to identify what type of signs to use, and when you use a sign.
THE COURT: Go ahead
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: I really, I would say to defend myself, is that I did not intentionally cross the road. I was rerouted, I turned to the direction I
was told. I was told to stop, I stopped and I did what I was told. I used all the respectful manners I used to provide the papers in legal places like up-to-date and I’m just very shocked that I can be charged on 134(3).
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
ROJEK, J.P. (Orally):
All right. The facts in this case are not contested, and clearly on the 15th day of - if you don’t mind, stand up, sir - on the 15th day of October 2018 in Wellington County on Wellington County 44, at the intersection with Indian Trail there was an accident. The accident happened past the hill and Officer Unger, a member of the Ontario Provincial Police who was operating a Chevrolet Tahoe, a marked police vehicle, but with emergency lights installed in it, decided to close the northbound lane of that highway to secure safety of investigating officer who was attending to the accident down the road.
The officer then placed his police vehicle across the north lane, activated his emergency lights and directed, basically forcing all the northbound traffic to turn onto the Indian Trail and allowing the southbound traffic to leave the scene of the accident if they passed it.
Around 2:38 to 2:37 p.m., the defendant who was operating a Ford pickup truck was approaching that scene of accident. The defendant observed that police motor vehicle with the lights activated. Initially he was unsure of what to do, so he stops, he observes, he doesn’t see any sign that the road is closed and paying attention and being careful drives around the police vehicle.
Officer Unger activated his sirens and the defendant complied with that signal and stopped. The officer approached the defendant, learned from the documentation provided properly to the officer, that it was Mr. Domingo Perez-Bernal, who was operating that Ford pickup truck. And after issuing Provincial Offence Notice for the offence under Section 134(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, the defendant was directed, and complied to effect U-turn and move on onto Indian Trail Road, like the other northbound traffic would.
The defendant tells me that he was travelling, he was on his way to pick up his children. He sees that police vehicle, he sees the lights activated, he stops and then he remembers that in his driver’s handbook when he was passing his driver’s examination to obtain his driver’s license, he was told to slow down and proceed with caution and this is what he did, and then he didn’t see any indication that the road was closed. He didn’t really understand, he didn’t really understand the purpose of the officer being on the road, wasn’t sure what it meant, didn’t come across to his mind it was a closed road, so he just went around the police officer’s cruiser and then when he was directed by the siren to stop, he immediately complied with it and then was surprised to receive a Certificate of the Offence for the offence of driving on closed highway.
The defendant brought to my attention Regulation under the Highway Traffic Act, R.R.O. 1990, 599. This regulation reads as follows:
For the purposes of Section 134 of the Act, a police officer may close a highway or any part thereof by either of the following methods:
- By,
i. posting or causing to be posted a Do Not Enter sign as prescribed in subsection 2(1) in such a manner that the sign faces approaching traffic and that the bottom edge of the side is not less than one meter above the roadway, and
ii. placing or causing to be placed not fewer than three traffic control devices of the type prescribed in clause 2(2)(a) or two traffic control devices of the type prescribed in clauses 2(2)(b) and (c) in such a manner that the control devices stand in a line at right angles to approaching traffic with not more than one meter separating each pair of control devices.
And then there is the section about the gate which is not applicable.
Then there is definition of what the barricade means and the barricade reads:
Not less than 100 centimetres in width and 100 centimetres in height and bear the markings and have the minimum dimensions as prescribed and illustrated in Figure 4.
And if you go to 4, it shows the typical, known to everyone, the barriers used to close roads.
So the real question before this court is not really a question about what really happened, because nobody is questioning what happened, is how do I legally interpret the situation, which was facing the defendant. This Regulation are public welfare Regulations, so I have to apply interpretation which would have in mind the spirit of the law. Closure of the road can appear, can happen in an emergency situation. I would not be able to rule that Regulation presented to the court is exhaustive. The wording is “the officer may close a Highway, or any part thereof by either of the following”, but it doesn’t say that it’s exclusive, that there is no other ways of blocking. To rule otherwise would actually defeat the purpose of emergency closure of the highway because obviously it would take quite a time to set the barricades or the proper cones with the dimension and all the requirements. If the situation is an emergency, officer can use other means to block the road.
So I am ruling that the officer is blocking the roadway with his vehicle, was properly acting under Section 134. I will follow the line of logic presented by Mr. Prosecutor that the Regulation 599 refers to more stable situation when there is official closure - let’s say a one day investigation and the road has to be closed for the longer period of time, but the initial closure has to be effected in a very simple manner.
Unfortunately, the defendant misinterpreted what was happening in front of him, but I’m still finding that the defence has not shown a defence to the charge, and that the Crown has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction will be registered.
Any submissions with respect to the fine?
MR. CASSATA: I’m seeking $85, no previous convictions.
THE COURT: Any comments?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Thank you.
THE COURT: Very well, thank you, the fine imposed
in the amount of $85, subject to an automatically added Victims Fine Surcharge and costs. How long time will you need to pay this fine?
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Immediately.
THE COURT: Thank you, there will be 15 days to pay.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: $85.
THE COURT: If you go to the office you can pay the fine now.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. And for the clarity of the record I will mark the Regulation - unless you want it back.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: No, I have a copy.
THE COURT: No. Exhibit Number 1. It’s probably late for that but it would be admissible anyway.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 1: Copy of R.R.O. 1990, 599 - produced and marked.
MR. PEREZ-BERNAL: Thank you, Your Worship.
THE COURT: Thank you.