Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: December 2, 2019

Court File No.: Newmarket 17 01586

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Christine-Elena Tascione

Before: Justice David S. Rose

Heard on: March 28, 29, November 25, 2019

Reasons for Judgment released on: December 2, 2019

Counsel

Mr. P. Hsiung — counsel for the Crown

Mr. S. Price — counsel for the defendant Christine-Elena Tascione

Reasons for Judgment

Rose J.:

[1] Introduction

Ms. Tascione pleaded not guilty to the charge of Over 80 Operation. The trial raised a variety of issues, namely Charter issues as well as "soon as practicable" under section 258 of the Criminal Code. Most of the key portions of the investigation were recorded on video, first from a police dash camera, and later by a video recorder system in the police station. They were of real value in determining the case, even if the police video system relied on a microphone in the breath room which was some distance from the front booking area where important events took place.

Evidence

[2] Initial Traffic Stop

PC Allison, a York Regional Police officer, was on general patrol on February 13, 2017 in the area of Steeles Avenue and Scholes Avenue. At 2:52 am he was in the area of the Cameo Lounge, which he described as a known licenced establishment. He saw a vehicle leave the area of the bar going westbound on Steeles Avenue. It had a licence validation sticker which was good to December 21 of 2016, and was therefore expired.

[3] Driving Observations

PC Allison followed the vehicle as it turned from Steeles Avenue to northbound Pine Valley Drive. It swerved out of its lane, and then entered Highway 407 going eastbound. It was swerving within its lane and travelling at inconsistent speeds. The car left Highway 407 at Dufferin Street and went southbound. It was 3:01 am at that point and PC Allison stopped the car with his emergency equipment.

[4] Vehicle Stop

The vehicle, a Mercedes SUV, stopped in the center lane and activated its 4-way hazard lights. Allison approached the car and found two occupants, Ms. Tascione the driver and a female passenger. He told Ms. Tascione that he stopped the car because of an expired validation sticker. He told her to move the Mercedes to the outside lane.

[5] Odour of Alcohol Detected

He approached the car a second time and noticed an odour of an alcoholic beverage coming from the interior of the vehicle. He told Ms. Tascione that he could detect that odour and asked for the usual documents. Ms. Tascione gave PC Allison the permit and insurance card from the front seat but said that her driver's licence was in the back seat. She exited the SUV to get it and caught her shoe on the floor of the car, nearly falling. She was wearing high heels.

[6] Roadside Breath Demand

Ms. Tascione gave PC Allison her library card first and then a valid Ontario driver's licence. At that point Allison said that he would be demanding a roadside breath sample. Ms. Tascione initially said that she would not take the test, and PC Allison explained the consequences of a refusal. That conversation provided PC Allison with confirmation that the odour of an alcoholic beverage was coming from her. It was at that point 3:05 am. He made a formal demand at 3:07 am. PC Allison did a self test on the ASD and registered a zero.

[7] ASD Sample and Arrest

Ms. Tascione had issues with the nature of the traffic stop and insisted on speaking with her uncle Enzo. At 3:10 she used her cell phone to make that call, and then agreed to provide the ASD sample. On the second attempt she registered a fail. She was then arrested for Over 80. It was 3:11.

[8] Rights to Counsel at Roadside

Ms. Tascione was lodged into the rear of PC Allison's police car. At 3:16 PC Allison read Ms. Tascione her rights to counsel. She said that she understood and when asked if she wanted to call a lawyer said that her lawyer will be called. PC Allison proceeded to read a standard caution but Ms. Tascione interrupted him. She asked again why she was pulled over. PC Allison told her that she would be charged with Over 80. At 3:19 a breath demand was read. Ms. Tascione said that she was overwhelmed and asked to be just left alone. PC Allison reads another Approved Instrument demand and Ms. Tascione replied that she didn't know what he was saying.

[9] Communication with Uncle at Roadside

By that point the passenger from the Mercedes was at the rear window beside Ms. Tascione. The rear window was open and the police video recorder captured the passenger making numerous telephone calls, none of which connected. Eventually the call connected and the passenger from the Mercedes put the cell phone on speaker and has Ms. Tascione speak with her uncle Enzo through the open window of the police car. PC Allison can be heard asking to speak with Ms. Tascione's uncle and he did, explaining that she was stopped because her car had an invalid licence sticker, she failed a roadside breath test and has been arrested for Over 80. PC Allison can be heard saying that he is leaving for the police station but she will be released after breath testing. PC Allison had Ms. Tascione's uncle's phone number by that time, namely 3:20 am, and knew that the uncle was going to be arranging Ms. Tascione's lawyer. Ms. Tascione repeated that when she was lodged in her cell after being booked into 4 District.

[10] Further Approved Instrument Demand

PC Allison read another Approved Instrument demand to Ms. Tascione, who replied "yeah, whatever", and complains that PC Allison was picking on her. PC Allison can be heard denying that.

[11] Transport to Police Station

The car left the roadside at 3:26 am, arriving at 4 District police station at 3:33 am. At 3:36 Ms. Tascione was removed from the police car and taken to the booking hall. Booking was complete by 3:46 am, and at 4 am PC Allison placed a call to Ms. Tascione's counsel of choice Domenic Basile. That name and phone number had been provided by Ms. Tascione's uncle Enzo, who was by then at 4 District. At some point between 3:46 and 4 am PC Allison saw Enzo at the front desk to get Mr. Basile's phone number. PC Allison could not say when that happened, although he was candid that he could have called Mr. Basile closer to 3:46.

[12] Booking Procedures

After Ms. Tascione was booked into her holding cell PC Allison walked back to the booking desk and assisted the booking sergeant deal with her property. He then walked back to her cell to write her information on the cell. PC Skanes, the breath technician then spoke with him and received PC Allison's grounds. At 3:52 PC Allison went back to his police car which was still in the sally port of the station and moved it out. At 3:54 he came back into the station and spoke again with the booking sergeant. At 3:55 he was paged to the front desk of the station.

[13] Phone Booth Access to Counsel

At 4:05 am PC Allison removed Ms. Tascione from her cell and put her in the telephone booth across the hall from her cell to speak with her lawyer. In his evidence he said that he told her to knock on the door when she was done with the call. He also testified that he told her that the room was private or words to that effect.

[14] Officers Present During Phone Call

The station video system recorded the time when Ms. Tascione was in the phone booth. Once she enters four police officers stood just outside the room at the booking officers desk. When pressed about whether he could hear Ms. Tascione crying in the phone booth PC Allison said that he could not distinguish a sound coming from the phone booth from sounds coming from the nearby holding cells.

[15] PC Allison Entering Phone Booth

Allison can be seen on the station video standing across the hall from the telephone room and going to the door and opening it. He testified that he did that when she approached the door from inside and knocked on it. Although he had no memory of going in, the video is clear that he does that. When pressed about why he entered the phone booth at 4:08 he testified that he couldn't hear a knock on the phone booth door on the video. He was adamant, however, that even if the station video didn't pick up the knock on the door he heard it when he was standing near the phone booth. He would never have gone into the phone booth unless he was prompted to. As he put it, there was "No chance" that he went into the phone booth unprompted. He denied that he went into the phone booth simply because Ms. Tascione was crying.

[16] Conversation with Lawyer

When PC Allison went into the phone booth he spoke with the lawyer who was still on the phone.

[17] Breath Technician Qualifications and Setup

PC Skanes was the qualified breath technician who took breath samples from Ms. Tascione. He had been so designated since March of 2011, and continued to be a Qualified Breath Technician in February of 2017. On February 13, 2017 at 3:14 am he had been notified that he was required for an investigation at 4 District. He arrived at the station at 3:33 am. An approved instrument was set up there. It was an Intoxilyzer 8000C. He took the usual steps to ready the instrument, including a diagnostic check a calibration check and then a self test later. He testified that the alcohol standard solution was valid and within its certification had not expired.

[18] Breath Samples

He took custody of Ms. Tascione at 4:10 am. At 4:14 he read her another breath demand. At 4:22 Ms. Tascione provided a first sample of her breath directly into the Intoxilyzer, which registered a value of 191 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The Approved instrument did a system check again at 4:41 am, and at 4:44 am Ms. Tascione provided a second sample of her breath directly into the Approved Instrument. It registered 185 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

[19] Breath Technician Observations

PC Skanes testified that Ms. Tascione was upset that night, and quite emotional. He could hear her banging on her cell door. She asked to speak with her uncle at 4:02 am and PC Skanes told her that she couldn't.

Defence Evidence

[20] Accused's Testimony — General

Ms. Tascione testified in her own defence both for purposes of the Charter motion and the trial proper. She admitted that on the night she was arrested she had been drinking. She was driving a friend home from work when she was stopped by PC Allison. She testified to being anxious, stunned and scared after she was arrested. She admitted to speaking with her uncle Enzo at the police station. She admitted that she had been read her rights to counsel at the roadside but that they were generic.

[21] Accused's Testimony — Phone Booth Conversation

Ms. Tascione admitted to being upset at the police station. She was anxious and crying loudly. Eventually PC Allison directed her to a room with a lawyer on the phone. Her uncle Enzo had given PC Allison the name of the lawyer. She testified that while she was on the phone with the lawyer she could hear people talking around her. This made her feel uncomfortable. At that point she was more sobbing and anxious rather than understanding what was going on. She believed that if she could hear the people talking they could hear her. PC Allison had told her that the conversation was to be private. The call with the lawyer ended when PC Allison walked in, and she passed the phone to him. She hadn't really finished her conversation with the lawyer. As she said in chief "We didn't really get anywhere". She said that she gave PC Allison the lawyer because she thought he had a right to speak to the lawyer and didn't insist on speaking more with the lawyer because PC Allison was coming into the room. It didn't seem like an option. Ms. Tascione testified that she didn't signal PC Allison to come in. She didn't look at the door until he came in. PC Allison never asked her if she was satisfied with the conversation.

[22] Accused's Testimony — Cross-Examination on Memory

In cross-examination Ms. Tascione was asked about her memory of the events. She said that she remembered picking up a friend and had some drinks but couldn't remember much more than that. She was drinking wine, but couldn't say how much. As she said, it was scattered. When pressed about her ability to remember the details of the night she said that she could remember everything from the night except how much she was drinking.

[23] Accused's Testimony — Demeanour at Roadside

Ms. Tascione agreed in her evidence that she wasn't intimidated in her dealings with PC Allison. At the roadside she asked a lot of question of PC Allison, challenging him on the basis for the traffic stop. She agreed that PC Allison was civil, and nice in his attitude to her.

[24] Accused's Testimony — Further Cross-Examination

In cross-examination she also clarified that PC Allison told her that she would speak to the lawyer in the booth. It was insinuated that the call would be private, but she wasn't sure if he said that. Ms. Tascione testified that when she was speaking to her lawyer she was crying throughout the call. That muffled the sound of people outside the phone booth. She was intent on speaking with her lawyer, but was also beset by her emotions and crying. Ms. Tascione was adamant that PC Allison walked in on her phone call without her signalling that the call had ended.

[25] Uncle's Testimony

Ms. Tascione's uncle Enzo Commisso also testified. He said that he got a call from his niece Ms. Tascione the night of her arrest. He headed over to the police station right away. He spoke with a criminal lawyer Domenic Basile on the way to the police station. When he got to 4 District he waited for about 20 minutes and then gave the phone number for Mr. Basile to the officer on duty at the front desk of the station.

Issues

[26] Issues Identified

Given the admissions, the evidence raises the following issues:

1. Were the breath tests taken as soon as practicable insofar as the period from 3:46 to 4:00 am is concerned?

2. Was there a reasonable suspicion sufficient to permit PC Allison to demand an ASD sample?

3. Was there a violation under section 10(b) of the Charter insofar as PC Allison called counsel for Ms. Tascione at 4:00 am, and not sooner?

4. Was there a section 10(b) violation insofar as PC Allison went into the phone room while Ms. Tascione still had her lawyer on the phone?

Analysis

Were the Breath Tests Taken as Soon as Practicable?

[27] Narrowed Argument

In submissions Mr. Price narrowed this argument down to the period from 3:46 am to 4 am.

[28] Legal Test

The legal test for whether the Crown has proven that the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable under section 258 of the Criminal Code comes from R. v. Vanderbruggen, 208 O.A.C. 379 (C.A.). As soon as practicable does not mean as soon as possible. It simply means that the tests should be administered within a reasonably prompt time in all the circumstances. In R. v. Singh, 2014 ONCA 293 Jurianz JA reiterated that:

...the Crown is not required to call evidence to provide a detailed explanation of what occurred during every minute that the accused is in custody. These provisions of the Criminal Code were enacted to expedite the trial process by facilitating the introduction of reliable evidence to prove an accused's blood-alcohol level. Interpreting these provisions to require an exact accounting of every moment in the chronology from the time of the offence to the second test runs counter to their purpose. As Rosenberg J.A. said in Vanderbruggen, at para. 12, "The touchstone for determining whether the tests were taken as soon as practicable is whether the police acted reasonably."

[29] Application to Facts

With that in mind I find that in the period from 3:46 am to 4 am the following events occurred. Ms. Tascione was lodged in a cell across from the breath room waiting for breath testing to commence. She was also waiting to speak with her lawyer. At around 3:50 PC Allison spoke with the Breath Technician PC Skanes about the investigation and provided him with his grounds. He then went to move his police car from the sally port, where he had parked it when he brought Ms. Tascione into the station. He then went to the front desk, where he received the phone number for Ms. Tascione's lawyer. At 4:00 am he called her lawyer.

[30] Conclusion on "As Soon as Practicable"

I am sure that things could have moved marginally faster in this period, but that is not the test. In the impugned period PC Allison was doing necessary tasks connected to or arising from Ms. Tascione's investigation: speaking with PC Skanes; moving his car out of the sallyport; and obtaining the phone number for Ms. Tascione's lawyer. The police acted reasonably in bringing Ms. Tascione to the station, and then obtaining her breath samples as soon as practicable. The Crown has proven that the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable. The first breath sample was taken one hour and 21 minutes from the time Ms. Tascione's vehicle was first stopped. There was a delay at the roadside, but that is attributable to Ms. Tascione's initial reluctance to supply an ASD sample and the time taken to speak to her uncle while in custody.

Was There Reasonable Suspicion for ASD Demand?

[31] Reasonable Suspicion Analysis

This argument is fairly easy to deal with. By the time PC Allison made the ASD demand he had the following: some marginally bad driving, an odour of alcohol on Ms. Tascione, and some coordination problems on her part. She initially provided her library card, when asked for her drivers licence and almost tripped getting out of her car. This easily passed the threshold for a reasonable suspicion. When he made the ASD demand PC Allison had good reason to suspect that she had alcohol in her system at the time he stopped her car. He could smell alcohol on her, he noted some coordination problems which might be consistent with alcohol consumption and he witnessed some driving which could be consistent with alcohol impairment. All of that combined to properly found a reasonable suspicion.

Section 10(b) Issues

Delay in Implementing Rights to Counsel

[32] Factual Background

I find that Ms. Tascione advised PC Allison upon her arrest that she wanted to speak to a lawyer and that her uncle Enzo was going to provide the name of her counsel of choice. PC Allison admitted that he had Enzo's phone number when they left the roadside to go to 4 District. This argument therefore hinges on the time frame when Ms. Tascione left the 4 District booking hall at 3:46 until the time that he called Mr. Basile at 4 am. This is a period of 14 minutes during which there were no investigative steps taken which directly involved Ms. Tascione. She was brought to the breath room at 4:10 after she left the phone booth. The defence argument is that PC Allison had Enzo's phone number at 3:46 and should have called him then to get Mr. Basile's phone number at that time, and not waited until about 10 minutes later when he got the phone number from the 4 District reception area, where Mr. Commisso testified, he gave it to the officer at the reception desk.

[33] Legal Principles

The Right to Counsel must be provided upon being requested. That is clear on the language of section 10(b) of the Charter. The framers of the Constitution could have drafted section 10(b) in less than absolute language, but instead chose to say that arrestees have the right "to retain and instruct counsel without delay". The informational component of section 10(b) is engaged immediately upon detention or arrest, and the duty to facilitate access to counsel arises immediately upon that request being made, see R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 460, R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310. The burden is on the Crown to show that the delay is reasonable in the circumstances, which is a factual inquiry, see R. v. Taylor, 2014 SCC 50, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 495. The timeliness standard applicable when implementing Rights to Counsel is different than the timeliness standard in section 258. In the section 10(b) context, "The duty of the police is to provide access to counsel at the earliest practical opportunity", see Taylor (supra) at par. 32. As discussed above, the as soon as practicable standard in section 258 is different. When the arrestee asserts the right to speak with a lawyer, that process takes priority to taking breath tests by necessity.

[34] Finding of Violation

There is no reason why, on the evidence, PC Allison did not call Mr. Commisso and ask who Ms. Tascione's lawyer was immediately after the booking procedure. He had other things going on at the time, which I have already found were logically connected to the investigation. He spoke with PC Skanes, he moved his patrol car out of the sally port. He ended up getting the number which Mr. Commisso had provided at approximately 10:54 upon going to the front desk of 4 District. That is an 8 minute delay. This is a close case. The time frame is admittedly brief, but the Supreme Court of Canada has long pronounced that immediate facilitation of rights to counsel means just that. PC Allison prioritized other steps in the investigation before rights to counsel. There is no reason on the evidence why rights to counsel did not prevail over moving his police car or speaking with PC Skanes. I therefore find that Ms. Tascione's rights to counsel were violated when PC Allison waited before obtaining the name of Ms. Tascione's lawyer from Mr. Commisso.

Section 10(b) Privacy

[35] Privacy Principle

An arrestee speaking with counsel is entitled to privacy in that communication. This is axiomatic, see R. v. McKane (1987), 21 O.A.C. 73 (C.A.), R. v. Cairns (2004), 182 O.A.C. 181 (C.A.). Even if there is no actual privacy violation, if the arrestee reasonably believes that his lawyer client conversation is being listened to and restricts his conversation with counsel there will be a section 10(b) breach, see R. v. Playford (1987), 40 C.C.C. (3d) 142 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Burley (2004), 182 O.A.C. 395 (C.A.).

[36] Credibility Assessment

PC Allison denied that he entered the phone booth unprompted, and Ms. Tascione testified that he did just that. I have significant concerns with Ms. Tascione's credibility. When pressed about her memory of this investigation she testified that she remembers everything except how much she drank the night of her arrest. This is a significant inconsistency. Her BAC was quite high – over double the legal limit. That is the essence of the charge against her. Her answer that she remembers everything except the pivotal issue, namely her alcohol consumption is unbelievable. I find that her answer that she remembers everything except how much she drank to be an attempt to make me believe her on the issues relevant to her Charter application which were not captured by the video recording.

[37] Further Credibility Issues

It is also an inconsistency for her to assert to PC Allison when under arrest that she just wanted be left alone, and yet testify as she did that when she was alone with her lawyer she failed to say that. This is of less significance because it is clear from the video that at the roadside Ms. Tascione was somewhat defiant, but by the time she was in custody at the police station she was not so much defiant as upset.

[38] Privacy Representation Inconsistency

It is also a testimonial inconsistency for her to testify that PC Allison advised her that the phone call would be in private, but in cross-examination clarified that PC Allison told her that she would speak to the lawyer in the booth, and it was only insinuated that the call would be private, and she wasn't sure if he said that. Privacy of the phone call is an important issue on the Charter Application and this is more than a minimal inconsistency. It is also a frailty in Ms. Tascione's evidence that while she was on the phone call with her lawyer she was, as she put it "sobbing, and into my emotions". To be fair, she also said that she was otherwise involved in the phone call with her lawyer, but she was in an emotional state at the time. This can be seen on the station video.

[39] PC Allison's Credibility

By comparison, PC Allison was careful to say what he did and didn't do. He admitted in cross-examination that he didn't recall how many times Ms. Tascione swerved in and out of the lane. He made no attempt to exaggerate the degree of bad driving. He easily admitted that her driving wasn't "overly alarming". He admitted that she may have caught her heel on the floor of the car when she got out. He admitted that he could have called Ms. Tascione's uncle closer to 3:46. He admitted that he could hear sounds when Ms. Tascione was in the phone booth but couldn't say if they were from her or another prisoner in a cell. Significantly, he admitted that he had no memory of going into the breath room at the end of the call. There were no material inconsistencies in his evidence. Nothing about his evidence was illogical or at odds with the evidence I have accepted. Almost all of his evidence was confirmed by the in car camera and station video. I therefore find him to be generally credible.

[40] Video Evidence Analysis

The station video recorded PC Skane going to Ms. Tascione's cell at 4:02 and speaking to her through the door. Muffled crying sounds can be heard, as well as Skanes saying that she can't speak with her uncle because she is under arrest. At 4:03 PC Allison completed a conversation with an officer at the booking desk, opens the door to the phone booth and removes Ms. Tascione from the cell. PC Allison escorts her about 20 feet to the phone booth. When he opened the cell door he told her that her lawyer is on the phone. They have a conversation which is only partly heard on the video, but includes Allison telling her to pick up the phone, knock when you are done, "he's at the front desk" and "don't hang up until you are done". He closes the door behind her.

[41] Video Timeline

PC Allison then moves to the booking hall desk and has a conversation with PC Skanes and one other officer. PC Allison is seen writing in his police notebook. The officers can be heard speaking but what they say is inaudible. At 4:06 PC Skanes walks back to the breath room. PC Allison walks to the breath room and then back to position himself in the hallway across from the phone booth. He moves a few feet in many directions but he stays in the vicinity of the breath room. At 4:08:32 he enters the phone booth. The video records him changing his attitude from one of passively waiting to deliberately going to the phone booth.

[42] Audio Quality Assessment

Having reviewed the station video recording a number of times, I could not hear a sound which was consistent with a knock on the door. The sound recording is consistent with a microphone in a room down the hall, in a building which is composed of brick and metal. To be fair, many of the sounds which I would expect to hear from that time frame are not picked up on the microphone if the sound were recorded in close proximity to the source. PC Allison's foot movements, and body movements are not recorded.

[43] Finding on Privacy Breach

I have difficulty with Ms. Tascione's evidence. For the reasons outlined, I do not accept her evidence. She bears the onus on the Charter Application and I do not accept her evidence on a balance of probabilities that her phone call with her lawyer was interrupted by either the persons outside the room or PC Allison interrupting the phone call with counsel. I accept PC Allison's evidence that he entered the phone booth upon hearing a knock signalling that she wanted him to open the door. For these reasons the section 10(b) privacy breach allegation is dismissed.

Section 10(b) Violation Summary

[44] Violation Found

I have found that Ms. Tascione's rights under section 10(b) were violated when PC Allison did not provide her access to her lawyer without delay. The call to her lawyer should have been placed closer to 3:46 am as opposed to 4:00 am. The difference is some 14 minutes.

Admissibility of Evidence – Section 24(2)

[45] Seriousness of Charter Violation

Turning to the three part test from R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 I find that the Charter violation is not serious. PC Allison was candid in his evidence that he should have provided access to counsel earlier. His evidence was trustworthy. There was no attempt to mislead the Court. The delay in providing access to counsel was brief, less than 15 minutes, and in that time period PC Allison was doing other things connected with the investigation. I also take into account that PC Allison was polite and professional throughout his dealings with Ms. Tascione. At the roadside he went beyond what was required to speak with Ms. Tascione's uncle to explain the situation. On the video this appears to have some effect of reducing Ms. Tascione's anxiety. I would describe the 14 minute delay in calling Ms. Tascione's counsel as a technical violation of section 10(b). The first part of the Grant test strongly favours admission of the evidence.

[46] Effect on Charter Protected Interests

The affect on Ms. Tascione's Charter protected interests was minimal at best. She spoke to her lawyer prior to providing breath samples. She made no complaint about the adequacy of her call. There was no attempt to take evidence from her prior to the phone call. In short, she spoke with her lawyer of choice when she needed to. The second prong of Grant (supra) also favours admission of the evidence.

[47] Societal Interest in Adjudication

Lastly, society always has an interest in adjudication of criminal trials on their merits. The question is by how much? In this case the evidence is BAC readings drawn from breath samples. The evidence is highly reliable, and the readings are quite high. There is a problem with drinking and driving in York Region. In sum, society has a very strong interest in adjudication of this trial on its merits. The last prong of Grant (supra) test also favours admission of the evidence.

[48] Conclusion

In the result, the breath tests are admitted into evidence and Ms. Tascione is convicted of the offence.

Released: December 2, 2019

Signed: Justice David S. Rose