ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2022 01 10 COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4817-998-20-75005555
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
ALEXANDER STEVENSON
Before Justice André Chamberlain
Heard on September 3, and November 5, 2021 Oral Reasons for Judgment given November 5, 2021 Written Reasons for Judgment released on January 10, 2022
Counsel: Amandeep Nagra, for the Applicant/Crown Raphael Fernandes, for the respondent Alexander Stevenson
Chamberlain J.:
[1] This is a hearing brought by the crown pursuant to section 117.05 of the Criminal Code for an order disposing of weapons seized by the Toronto Police Service pursuant to section 117.04 (2), and an order prohibiting the possession of any weapons for a period of 5 years pursuant to section 117.05 (4)(a) & (b). Alexander Stevenson, the respondent in this application, seeks the return of the seized items, and argues the Crown has not met its burden to satisfy this court that an order of prohibition should be made.
The Relevant Legislation
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) (C.C.)
[2] The following legislation is applicable for the purposes of this hearing:
117.04 (2) Where, with respect to any person, a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or any other person, for the person to possess any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (1) exist but, by reason of a possible danger to the safety of that person or any other person, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.
(3) A peace officer who executes a warrant referred to in subsection (1) or who conducts a search without a warrant under subsection (2) shall forthwith make a return to the justice who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing
(b) in the case of a search conducted without a warrant, the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents, if any, seized.
117.05 (1) Where any thing or document has been seized under subsection 117.04(1) or (2), the justice who issued the warrant authorizing the seizure or, if no warrant was issued, a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, shall, on application for an order for the disposition of the thing or document so seized made by a peace officer within thirty days after the date of execution of the warrant or of the seizure without a warrant, as the case may be, fix a date for the hearing of the application and direct that notice of the hearing be given to such persons or in such manner as the justice may specify.
(3) At the hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the justice shall hear all relevant evidence, including evidence respecting the value of the thing in respect of which the application was made.
(4) Where, following the hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the justice finds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person from whom the thing was seized or of any other person that the person should possess any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or any such thing, the justice shall
(a) order that any thing seized be forfeited to Her Majesty or be otherwise disposed of; and
(b) where the justice is satisfied that the circumstances warrant such an action, order that the possession by that person of any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or of any such thing, be prohibited during any period, not exceeding five years, that is specified in the order, beginning on the making of the order.
(5) Where a justice does not make an order under subsection (4), or where a justice does make such an order but does not prohibit the possession of all of the things referred to in that subsection, the justice shall include in the record a statement of the justice’s reasons.
Firearms Act (S.C. 1995, c. 39)
5 (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.
(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person
(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person;
(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person;
(f) for any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.
Facts Not in Dispute
[3] Alexander Stevenson, a young man in his mid 20’s, was facing a mental health crisis that seriously concerned his family. On November 29, 2019, Mr. Stevenson came home at about 8:45 in the morning after having been out all night. His mother, Susan Stevenson, told Alexander Stevenson to get ready to work. Susan Stevenson testified at this hearing and stated that even though he was working in the family business, she wanted to make sure that he continue to be responsible in his obligations to attend work. Alex told her that he would not be able to go to work that day because he'd been up all night. They argued and the conversation became quite heated.
[4] While they were in his room arguing, Susan Stevenson saw her son Alex’s phone light up, and a text message was displayed on the screen suggesting to her that her son was now involved in illicit drug use: the message made reference to needing to get “glass”, a term often associated to the street drug known more generally as crystal methamphetamine.
[5] At that moment, Susan Stevenson felt the urgency of the situation, and was on the verge of panicking. She was quite concerned for her son’s safety. Upon seeing that his mother had seen the phone message, and her reaction, Mr. Stevenson became very defensive; the argument they were having became more heated. In her estimation, Alex appeared to be panicking because she had discovered that he was taking drugs. She described Alex as having become more aggressive, but when asked to explain, she stated that he was just yelling and that they had both raised voices. She specifically noted that his aggressive behaviour and tone were not physically threatening to her, but, what I would describe as emotionally jarring.
[6] Ms. Stevenson also described that his behaviour, above and beyond the arguing, was also part of the reasons she was concerned and on the verge of panicking. She testified that Alex was not the way he normally acted: his words were slurred, he was saying things that did not make sense to her, and from her perspective, this was very unusual behavior for her son. The argument moved out of the bedroom, and Mr. Stevenson took his phone, and said: “I'm leaving, and you never have to see me again”.
[7] Ms. Stevenson ran outside, and she called the police. She testified that she was frightened for herself but mostly for her son. She never elaborated on her own fear and was never asked about it, but ultimately, she testified repeatedly that her concern was never that Alex would be physically dangerous to her or anyone else. She asked Alex to stay inside the house, she locked the door in the hopes that it would prevent him from leaving. The police and paramedics arrived.
[8] Susan Stevenson described her interactions with officials in this fashion: they talked and I listened. As the officers began to walk towards the house, Ms. Stevenson tried to describe her concerns to them. She testified that Alex was behaving in an obnoxious manner to the police, but that he was not physically aggressive.
[9] When she asked the officers and paramedics what was going to happen as they were taking her son away, she was told that they would be taking him to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health [CAMH], and that CAMH would call the family with an update.
[10] CAMH did call later and said they would keep Mr. Stevenson in the hospital that night in order for him to withdraw from any substances he’d ingested, and presumably, to continue to evaluate and monitor. The next day, CAMH called back and informed Ms. Stevenson that they were prepared to discharge Alexander Stevenson to his home but that they wanted her to remove the guns from their home. They did not provide any information with respect to their reasoning for the removal of guns from the home. The crown called no evidence on that issue.
[11] Not knowing where to turn to or what the consequences would be for the long term, Susan Stevenson called the police to come and remove the guns from the home as requested by CAMH. PC Jean Pierre Samaan was one of the responders on that call. He reviewed that text of the dispatch call from the day before, noting it was listed as a call in relation to a “threat of suicide.”
[12] PC Samaan spoke to Ms. Stevenson about her son’s deteriorating mental health including his past depressive episode following the end of Mr. Stevenson’s relationship, that he was highly agitated, irritated over small matters. She had also made reference to Alex’s use of alcohol in the presence of weapons. Much of this information was confirmed to the officer by Mr. Stevenson’s sister as well. PC Samaan also understood, based only on Susan Stevenson’s report, that the only thing keeping Alexander Stevenson at CAMH was the removal of the weapons from the home.
[13] PC Samaan determined he had the reasonable grounds to believe that Alexander Stevenson’s weapons collection could pose a risk, in these circumstances, to either himself or others. He made the decision to seize the weapons without a warrant pursuant to section 117.04(2) of the Criminal Code. He seized the following:
(1) Alexander Stevenson’s firearms license; (2) Ammunition and arrows; (3) A BB rifle with magazine; (4) A Remington rifle; (5) A Tapco rifle; (6) A Beretta rifle with four magazines; (7) An Optima rifle; and (8) A Micro by Excalibur crossbow.
[14] When Susan Stevenson went to pick up Alexander Stevenson at CAMH, she spoke to the nurse who told her that Mr. Stevenson was ready to go home. Susan Stevenson tried to convince them to keep her son because she was concerned whether they would be able to manage him at home. The nurse replied that he was ready and he came home. Her concerns for the family’s ability to manage Alex on his return from CAMH was not because of concerns for personal safety or public safety, but because the current crisis had caused a rift in the family and she was concerned about the family’s ability to manage.
[15] Following this incident in November of 2019, there were other similar incidents of use and conflict within the home with at least one other time where police were called to the home to assist. Ms. Stevenson testified that on that occasion, her son was taken to Sunnybrook and given fluids for dehydration but was not formed or admitted to hospital.
[16] Ultimately, Mr. Stevenson was referred to various mental health specialists and was diagnosed in February of 2020 with a bipolar disorder. He had previously been diagnosed as a youth with an attention deficit disorder. Mention was also made of a period of depression following the break up with a girlfriend in 2018, though it is not clear on the evidence that I heard that there was any specific diagnosis of depression, or whether that may have been situational given the grief involved in the loss of a serious relationship.
[17] Though the bipolar disorder was a new diagnosis, he had been previously involved with psychiatrists who had been working with him on his attention deficit disorder a number of years before. To his credit, Mr. Stevenson also confessed to his mother, eventually, that his unusual behaviour those last few weeks had been drug related and that, in fact, he had been consuming crystal methamphetamine and cocaine along with alcohol.
[18] When asked for further details about the weapons and their storage, Ms. Stevenson acknowledged and identified the collection of weapons and items shown in exhibit “1” of this hearing which was a series of seven photographs of the seized items which included his firearm licence, crossbow, ammunition for firearm and crossbow, but she was not familiar enough with the weapons to describe them specifically, nor did she give any details of their monetary value. In fact, when shown the weapons in photos 5, 6 and 7 of exhibit “1,” her response was: “I assume they were his but I'm not familiar with his collection and my husband was dealing with this.” She was able to identify them because she was present when the police seized them and were taking pictures of them. She remembered the photographs.
[19] Susan Stevenson also testified about her son Alex’s practice in the care and storage of his weapons: she described how he was always very careful and took very good care of his weapons. He would clean them regularly and make sure to always keep them stored safely in the locked gun cabinet in the basement of their home. He used them regularly for duck and deer hunting, an activity he really cherished and shared with his grandfather. From her perspective, he always took the use of his guns and the safety surrounding them very seriously. She described a time when she had seen beer cans, perhaps in a photograph from a hunting event he had participated in and asked him if he had been drinking while using his guns. Alexander Stevenson assured her that this had been a group of clients, and that he himself did not drink at that time. She testified that she believed and trusted her son Alex and has always felt he was responsible in the use, care, and storage of his weapons.
Legal Principles:
[20] In R. v. Dagenais, 2009 SKPC 113, Justice D.E. Labach explains that the process, although legislated by the Criminal Code, relies on the applicant, in this case, the Crown, to prove, only on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Stevenson poses a risk, and that it is “not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person from whom the thing was seized or of any other person that the person should possess any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or any such thing.” This means that in the context of the criminal courts, where we have become accustomed to making findings beyond a reasonable doubt, in this case, I must only be satisfied that on balance, in weighing all the evidence before me that is admissible and presented at this hearing, that the risk to Mr. Stevenson or the public in possessing these or similar items is more likely than not to be present. If I make such a finding, then I am obligated to make an order up to and including perhaps the forfeiture of the items seized and perhaps prohibiting Mr. Stevenson from possessing such items for up to 5 years.
[21] The legislative provisions are pretty detailed and specific on the preconditions and types of evidence required by the applicant to be successful in the application. The pre-conditions that must be met to give the court the jurisdiction to hear the application as it applies to the facts of this case are that:
(1) A peace officer must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or any other person, for the person to possess any weapon and that it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant; (s. 117.04 (2) C.C.)
(2) The peace officer who conducts a search without a warrant shall forthwith make a return to the justice who issued the warrant or, if no warrant was issued, to a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, showing the grounds on which it was concluded that the peace officer was entitled to conduct the search, and the things or documents seized; (117.04 (3) C.C.)
[22] Once a hearing has been set having met the pre-conditions, the following statutory burden, on these facts, falls on the applicant to comply with 117.05 which requires:
(1) A justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, shall, on application for an order for the disposition of the thing and document so seized made by a peace officer within thirty days after the date of the seizure without a warrant, to fix a date for the hearing of the application; (117.05(1) (b) C.C.)
(2) The justice to hear all relevant evidence, including evidence respecting the value of the items seized and subject of the application; (117.05 (3) C.C.) and;
(3) Following the hearing on the application, should the Justice find that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person from whom the items were seized or of any other person, that the person should possess any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or any such thing, the justice shall
(a) order that any items seized be forfeited to Her Majesty or be otherwise disposed of; and
(b) where the justice is satisfied that the circumstances warrant forfeiture, order that the possession by that person of any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or of any such thing, be prohibited during any period, not exceeding five years, that is specified in the order, beginning on the making of the order. (117.05 (4) (a) & (b) C.C.)
[23] I am also guided through counsel submissions to the decision of R. v. Roman, [218] O.J. No. 2690, citing the Ontario Court of Appeal, noting that the Firearms Act, sections (5)(2)(b), in the context of an application to hold a licence to possess a firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition, can provide a framework for my analysis of the risk to Mr. Stevenson and the public, should he be permitted to possess the seized items or any others listed. There are a number of factors to consider where within the past 5 years the respondent has (as it applies to the facts of this case as submitted by the Crown):
(1) Been treated for a mental illness that was associated with violence, or threatened or attempted violence, on the part of the person against any person; or,
(2) Has history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of the person against any person; or
(3) For any other reason, poses a risk of harm to any person.
[24] The Crown takes the position that it has met its burden to establish that Mr. Alexander Stevenson, given his current state of mind and circumstances, is more likely than not, a person who lacks responsibility and discipline required of a gun owner. However, I can find no basis in the evidence before me that there is any proof that Alexander Stevenson poses any such risk to either himself or to any other person.
[25] With respect to the guiding principles in the Firearms Act, section 5(2)(b) and the enumerated considerations that guide me in my review of these facts, I make the following findings: it is undeniable and admitted that Alexander Stevenson has been diagnosed with a mental illness. The Crown argued that the decision by CAMH to keep Mr. Stevenson until the guns were removed is proof enough to convince me of the risk involved in his possession of the items. Susan Stevenson testified that CAMH would not release Alexander Stevenson unless they could remove the guns from the house. No witnesses or documents were submitted as evidence to suggest this was anything more than a precaution. There was no indication that this was meant to be permanent or long term, for that matter. No one seemed to indicate to Ms. Stevenson that he should never have guns again or be prevented from having his guns returned to him at some point when the crisis was over. To suggest otherwise is to speculate, and as a court of record, speculation about the meaning of such a crucial factor cannot suffice.
[26] Having previously been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, he was diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder in February of 2020 and spent time in a drug and alcohol treatment centre being treated for his addiction as well. Neither of these conditions should be taken lightly, they are serious conditions that when left untreated and unmanaged, can lead to more serious trouble and risk, especially to the individual.
[27] I see the ravages and impact of mental health in our courts every day where I would argue that an overly large number of the people before the courts have serious underlying mental health conditions. But it is a serious mistake to assume that the mental health status of an individual makes them prone to violence. The combination of untreated mental health conditions, coupled with the lack of community and mental health resources, poverty, discrimination, biases and oppression, lead too often to these folks coming in conflict with the law, and because of a lack of supports and treatment, often find them in escalating trouble leading, in some cases, but by no means all cases, to violent behaviour or actions that can result in risk to themselves or others.
[28] This is not the case with Mr. Stevenson. I hope he appreciates how the love and support of his family, and in particular, his own determination to face his condition honestly and openly, has probably prevented what might have been a spiral into a drug fueled lifestyle, perhaps devolving into criminal activity, and could have placed him at possible risk to himself and others.
[29] These past two years have been a challenge, but Mr. Stevenson faced them head on; there were stumbles, but he managed to get back on track and do the work he needed to do and is now on the road to recovery. Recovery is never a straight line, and I will have more to say about this a little later.
[30] With respect to the second ground raised by the Crown, I can find no factual basis in any of the evidence I heard in this hearing about the “history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence or threatening conduct on the part of” Alexander Stevenson, against any person. The Crown argued that the aggressive behaviour, belligerence, and loud argument rose to a level that should make this a factor in my review. I would respectfully disagree.
[31] To enlarge the definition of violence, threats, or attempted violence to include loud aggressive voices being raised, and obnoxious/belligerent behaviour, would lead to very few firearm licenses being issued. Parliament cannot have meant to have such a broad definition of violence. I am not satisfied there is any merit in this argument.
[32] As to the final factor being argued, a broadly worded catchall phrase citing any other reason that poses a risk of harm to any person: nothing I have heard in this hearing gives me reason to consider Alexander Stevenson a risk to himself or others should he be permitted the return of his license and/or weapons. The burden on the Crown is indeed reduced in these cases to convincing me only on a balance of probabilities. But with the factual foundation presented to me in this hearing, I can make no such finding favouring the Crown’s position. In fact, I find it hard to understand why the case continued following the very compelling testimony of Susan Stevenson.
[33] Mr. Fernandes also argues that the Crown’s applications must fail for want of jurisdiction because PC Jean Pierre Samaan did not have the requisite grounds to execute a warrantless search: he suggests that because Alexander Stevenson was being held on a form 1 in a psychiatric facility, there was no urgency for the officer to seize the items. He also argues that the officer did not have enough information to have the requisite grounds as there was no evidence of the risk posed by Alexander Stevenson. Mr. Fernandes suggests that PC Samaan should have got his information about the risk directly from the hospital.
[34] On these points I would disagree with counsel for the respondent for the following reasons: The officer is not expected to form his grounds based on the same standard of evidence as is expected of this court in a full hearing with witnesses being called and evidence being presented. PC Samaan only needed to have “reasonable grounds” to believe that it would not be in the interest of Alexander Stevenson or any other person for him to possess the stated weapons.
[35] PC Samaan who was dispatched to the Stevenson home the next day, testified that he reviewed the text of the initial call where Mr. Stevenson was taken to CAMH, where it had indicated that the call was in relation to a “threat of suicide.” He spoke to Ms. Stevenson who reported she was concerned about her son’s deteriorating mental health. She reported to him about the past depressive episode following the end of Mr. Stevenson’s relationship, that he was lately often highly agitated and irritated over small matters. She had also made reference to the use of alcohol in the presence of his weapons. Much of this information was confirmed by Mr. Stevenson’s sister as well.
[36] PC Samaan also understood, based only on Susan Stevenson’s report, that the only thing keeping Alexander Stevenson at CAMH was the removal of the weapons from the home. This was already the day after Mr. Stevenson’s admission to CAMH, which had indicated Mr. Stevenson was cleared for release. I find that these factors provided enough urgency to seize the weapons given the requisite grounds, and that it would not have been practicable to further delay by obtaining a search warrant. Based on all of this information, PC Samaan believed he had the requisite “reasonable grounds” to seize the items and I tend to agree. I am also not satisfied that the hospital would have been able to confirm to police the presence or absence of risk absent the informed consent of the individual.
[37] Ultimately, the other preconditions were met, with respect to the filing of the Notice of Hearing and the Return to Justice, and though it is unfortunate that the Return was not disclosed to the Respondent until it was mentioned in the hearing, in submissions and after cross-examination of the officer. I need not comment on that implication at this juncture.
[38] Similarly, the Crown failed, in my view, to meet the condition of the hearing noting the monetary value of the items seized, given the statutory requirement as noted in 117.05(3). Having dismissed the application, I will not make a ruling on these facts with respect to the remedy for such an oversight.
[39] So for all the reasons stated above, I dismiss the Crown’s application to forfeit the weapons and items seized on November 30, 2019 by the Toronto Police, and I dismiss the application for an order prohibiting Alexander Stevenson from possessing any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or of any such thing.
Some Further Commentary:
[40] I recognized the difficult emotions this whole episode, from crisis to hearing, has created for this family. I heard about Mr. Stevenson’s resentment towards his mother for her decision to involve the police. Susan Stevenson was presented with few options that day, and Alexander Stevenson, through no fault of his own, placed her in that position to have to make a quick judgement call. Susan Stevenson had probably as much access to legal resources and an understanding of the forfeiture provisions in the criminal code and their significant consequences as any other member of the public. We’ve seen in this hearing alone, experienced counsel and a judge, take time to review and argue about the meaning and impact of the legislation, and we have all been trained to read and analyse criminal statutes. Were there other options? Had a friend or relative agreed to safeguard the weapons and keep them safe and away from Alexander Stevenson, would things have unfolded differently? I don’t really know. It may well be, if I allow myself to speculate, that the result would have been the same. Susan Stevenson should not be faulted for the decision she made, under pressure, while fearful for her son’s safety and security, fearful of the connections he was making, and of his downward spiral into addiction, and unbeknownst to her at the time, a significant mental health crisis.
[41] She was brave to make the call, the best call she could make at the time. I honour her for that and I hope you, Mr. Stevenson, can find it in your heart to understand. I see the two of you as powerful allies in your recovery. You’ve shown that in your openness and honesty, and it is reflected in the success you’ve had in your recovery.
[42] I also want to say a few words to you directly, Mr. Stevenson, if you’ll allow. I mentioned earlier that recovery is not a straight line. I have worked and lived with addicts for a significant part of my life, even before I even became a lawyer and judge. I have seen people have tremendous success in recovery from mental health and addiction. I have seen emotional, psychological, physical improvements and success lead to very positive steps with self-esteem, family and personal relationships, career, education, sports and lifestyle. I have also seen tremendous struggles, leading even at times to death and serious impairment with emotional, psychological, and physical health. I’ve seen it all fall apart when things go wrong and people don’t get back on the path to recovery.
[43] I wish I could tell you what the formula for success is. I don’t know it, and I suspect no one solution or approach is the answer. But I think one area that gives you better odds of success is having people around you who care and support you. Sometimes it’s counsellors and therapists, family, friends, 12 step programs, . . . the possibilities can be endless. Likewise, there are many people who can be a barrier to recovery and enable us to continue with our addiction and mental health problems.
[44] I appreciate and honour your dedication to hunting, and the care and responsible attitude your mother tells me you have towards the sport, and the care and discipline you show in the maintenance of your weapons and accessories. But it’s possible that you will have another crisis in your lifetime. It may never come, but if it does, I want you to appreciate that your choice to be engaged in a sport or lifestyle that gives you access to weapons that can and have been used, in the wrong hands, for serious violence and harm, places you in a more perilous situation.
[45] I liken your situation to commercial pilots: when an airline learns of an addiction and mental health crisis, they spring into action. They will suspend the pilot, and if the addictive behaviour is related to their time on the job, they could lose their licence immediately. If the airline learns of the addiction or mental health issue and no one has been placed at risk as a result, they will work hard to get the pilot all the support they need to get well, and if possible, to get them back into the air. But they watch, and they monitor. They cannot afford to take risks with the multiple lives at risk if they don’t get it right.
[46] So long as you chose to continue to honour the hunt and the traditions your grandfather passed on to you, you now have an extra burden to be vigilant about your recovery. And the best way to do that, is to trust and keep those supports around you, those people who love and trust you, who want what’s best for you, who will be honest with you about what they see. Keep them close and listen if they are worried about you. Keep an open mind.
[47] Isolation is a terrible thing for those who suffer from addiction and mental health issues. Those conditions want to drive us to doubt our own reality and our own perception of who we are and what we are capable of. We’ve all seen that drunk who thinks there is nothing he can’t do when he’s full of the sauce. Likewise, mental health and addiction relapses can fool us into believing everything is fine. Keep your people close to you, and your chances of continued success and recovery will improve greatly, and the risk you might lose your cherished collection in the future will be greatly reduced.
Released: January 10, 2022 Signed: Justice André Chamberlain