DATE: February 16, 2024 Information No. 2811-998-22-28103289-00
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
JEFF MCINTOSH
EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P.C. WEST
on February 16, 2024, at OSHAWA, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
N. Trbojevic Counsel for the Crown Jeff McIntosh Self-Represented
...EXCERPT PROCEEDINGS BEGIN
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
WEST, J. (Orally):
Jeff McIntosh was facing four charges on a trial that commenced on February 12th, 2024. The first charge relates to an offence contrary to Section 153(1) of the Criminal Code, and 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and that he did, by means of a telecommunication, communicate with a person, namely an undercover police officer who was or was believed to be under the age of 18 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offence under Section 153 and, ultimately, under 172.1(1)(a). He is also facing a charge of communicating with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 years, contrary to Section 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code. He was facing a charge, which alleged that he did, for a sexual purpose, invite a person believed to be under the age of 16 years, namely an undercover police officer, to directly or indirectly touch with a part of her body, the body of an undercover police officer contrary to Section 152 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The section itself was a little poorly worded, if I can put it that way, just the way it is worded, because it was to touch a part of her body, the body of the undercover police officer, but in any event, the Crown has asked me to dismiss that third charge, because there was really no evidence before the Court that he was actually inviting a person he believed to be under the age of 16 to touch a part of their body. He was asking to do a combination of things. He was asking to do things to that individual who he did not know was an undercover police officer, but in any event the Crown has asked that I dismiss that, and I already have dismissed it.
He is also facing a charge of attempting to wilfully obstruct Constable Allison, a Peace Officer in the execution of her duty, contrary to Section 129(a) of the Criminal Code Canada that relates to his providing a false name and birth date.
All of these offences were alleged to have been committed on April 25th, 2022.
Mr. McIntosh is unrepresented by counsel. He had this matter pre-tried before at least two judges, and ultimately set these dates for trial with or without counsel. He represented himself during the course of this trial.
The facts in this case are relatively simple. I am not going to go through each of the witnesses, as it will become clear, in my view, the issue in this case is identity. Who is the person who is communicating by text with the undercover police officer, who is Detective Constable Saedi Kendelati, who is in room 180 of Town's Place Suites Hotel, which is part of the Marriott chain in the City of Oshawa, located at 1011 Bloor Street East, in room 180. So in my view, the issue that has to be determined in this case, as I will go into greater detail, is who that individual is. That is based on the evidence of the police witnesses, and the tech person, if I can call him that, Mr. Phillips from Durham Regional Police, a civilian member who did the Cellebrite reports of Mr. McIntosh's cell phone, as well as the evidence of the various police officers, the SOCO officer, and so on and so forth.
Police created an ad in order to engage - this was the Human Trafficking Unit with Durham Regional Police, they created a project they call Project Firebird, and an ad was created by a Constable Brouwer, on LeoList, which advertised the services of an 18 year old young woman with some photos, showing that young woman in provocative images, but not naked, because apparently, LeoList does not allow naked photographs to be posted, with indications of "New in town, cum see me, girl next door ready to play", and with a bunch of emojis all around it. This had been posted, three hours apparently before it was responded to a phone number at 905-440-6873, which I think for the purposes of this trial is, accepted as being, Mr. McIntosh's cell phone. The number that the police were using where the texts are going to and then responses are being made is phone number 289-273-9559. Exhibit 2 is the LeoList advertisement that was filed during the trial.
Exhibit 3 is the list of telecommunications between those two phone numbers, but this is based on the police cell phone of 289-273-9559. As I will talk about, it shows incoming phone calls which were not answered, and a total of six phone calls were made at various times, but they were not answered by the police. It says in the ad, text to the 289 number, that is right in the absolute discharge, and so nobody picked up the line when it was phoned. But it was attempted to be called, throughout the entire period of time that Exhibit 3 covers which is between 5:54:58 p.m. all the way through to the final text at 8:58:14.
Exhibit 3, can be compared to Exhibit 6, which is the Cellebrite report that was prepared by Mr. Phillips, Fraiser Phillips, who works with Durham Regional Police, and this comes directly off of what is Mr. McIntosh's cell phone, which is the phone number 905-440-6873, and it also runs between 5:54:23 and 5:58:15.
I will have more to say about the messages and the telecommunication later.
I think it is important to keep in mind the times when things occurred, during the two periods of time that I have indicated in both Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 6. Three telephone calls, start, both of those exhibits, at those times of 5:54, 5:59, and 6:07, and they are calls from 905-440-6873 to 289-2739-559. Those three calls, as I have said, were not answered. The next, activity is not until 6:55, almost a full hour after the first call was made that was not answered. The contact appears to be from the 905 number. I am going to refer to Mr. McIntosh's phone as the 905 phone. I am going to refer to the police undercover officer's phone is 289, rather than saying all of the digits.
The first question that is raised by 905 is"how much for HH", which I heard evidence stood for half hour. And then, at 7:01, that call, as I said, comes in at 6:55, and then at 7:01, 289 responds"150". There is no response from 905 until 7:29, and the question that is asked at that point is"Where location", that is one text, and the second text is"How old are u". 289 responds a minute later at 7:30, and the text is"In Oshawa", and she advises that she is a tad bit younger than the ad, with "ha ha" at the end of that text. Also, at 7:30, 905 responds that individual is in Oshawa too. "Send the address so I can come eat ur pussy." And then six minutes later, those same two texts that I indicated are repeated by 905 because there was no response from 289. And then also at 7:36 there was a series of question marks that was sent by way of text, which is, I think, three question marks, sort of saying, how come you are not responding to my text?
The next response comes from 289 at 7:37, so a minute after those texts at 7:36 p.m. asking, in effect what time were they thinking, and it repeats again that her age is a bit less than the ad without giving any indication of how much less. 905 then responds at this to that text at 7:37"Send the address", and then a further text, same time"Do you want sex now or no?", and then at 7:38, those three question marks, which again is, like, how come you are not responding to me? There is another phone call made at that point from 905 to 289 that is not answered. That is at 7:39. Now, I do not intend to go through every text, but I think the timing of the text is very important to the determination of who is texting this undercover police officer. It is not until after that phone call, but it is more of "Are you going to give me the address? I am waiting to find out the address?" coming from 905, and then finally, there is a response at 7:41, from 289, which says"k, I just don't want drama. I'm 15, so no heat, no heat, k??" with two question marks. And then the response to that at 8:42 is"Why should I heat you?" And then a request again for the address.
Again, more question marks as a response, then a further confirmation of what he is looking for is"Are you want me, come fuck you, and eat your pussy." And then a further request"Send me your address". And then, finally, a response, this is at 7:45 from 289 saying"yes, babe", and then a further response just after that, where there is a bit of a, I think, a mistake in terms of its the amount, it says "150 for HR", and that later gets changed in the exchange of telecommunications. It is clear from the person that is contacting the undercover police officer from this point on, and even before, as I have gone through, that there is an urgency on the part of the texter wanting to get the address, wanting to come to the hotel where this person is in the ad in LeoList.
There is always questions. This is now at 7:47, it extends to four question marks. And then at 7:47, about a little more than half a minute after the four question marks, the undercover officer responds"Ha ha kk babe, can u pick up a slushie for me?" This is the first time the slushie is mentioned, and there is a response from 905"What is that?", and then the undercover police officer, sends at 7:48"and condom??", and then there is response from 905"yes, send me the address", and another and three question marks and another text and finally a fourth text at, this time around 7:50 now"I have the money." Then a further request at 7:50 from the undercover officer"can you pick up a slushie?" That is responded with question marks, and then a response"yes, I have it. That is also at 7:50. And then a response, from the undercover officer"I do not drive, silly. Can you pick it up on before you come here, or no?" And then the individual responding with the 905"yes. I have the condom." Then the undercover officer at 7:52 says"no, I meant a slushie. Can you pick [it is U-O it should be up] or is that too much?" And then 905 responds"yes. I have it." And then, again, the undercover officer says"you have a slushie. What time you get?" And then they ask another text is, 8:30, and then the 905 is responding now at 7:53. "I'm waiting for the address to come bring it for you." At 7:54"I'm at the store." 7:54"What kind do you want?" And then the undercover officer advises that there is a Circle K at Grandview on Bloor, and they have slushies, and she goes on in another text to say"It's close to the hotel", and then she expresses after "...I am scared you are not legit, LOL." 905 responds at 7:55. "kk", and then in that further response"I am coming now."
And then, at 756, the undercover officer says"K let me know when you are at the Circle K, I'll give you addy, and then red slushy, please." The response from 905 is "kk". And then there is the correction about, half hour. It says"159 an hour. Sorry." and then "HH is autocorrecting half hour." And then he says, whoever is using 905"I am coming, and what is the full address?" At eight o'clock, 289, the undercover officer asked"what's your name? Let me know when you get the slushie", and then 905 responds"Sean". And that is at 8:01. 8:04. Again, a question from the undercover officer, 289, asking"you good with 150 HH?", and the response at 8"04 is "yes". Then there are more comments about the slushie. Once he has it, she will give the address of the hotel. "Thank you for the drink." There are no responses. We are now at about 8:11. And finally, at 8:12, 905 responds"I am here now." And then at 8:15, the undercover officer says "yes" with a whole bunch of s's"Sean, do they have red?" And in 8:23"k, Sean, I feel like you are playing me." And then it says "night" with a bunch of h's and t's at the end. 905 then sends another text saying"send me the address of the hotel", and now at 8:24, that is when this image is sent that was recovered by Mr. Phillips, and it is his Exhibit 7, which shows a red slushie in the centre console of a vehicle that Mr. McIntosh identified as his vehicle. And then at 8:26, the undercover officer gives the Town Place Suites on Bloor. Then there is a message, message her when he was there so that she can prop the back door open.
There is a whole series of texts which really were not discussed by the Crown in his submissions, but in my view are somewhat important. They extend from about 8:26 all the way through till about 8:36. They start at about the back door from about 8:26 and then go to 8:36, so about 10 minutes, where 905 indicates they are at the back door, first"where is the back door?", they are at the back door. It is locked. It is not open. So then 289, the undercover officer, says"go in the front door" and "just go in the front and just do not draw attention." And then 905 wants to know what to tell them in the front now, this is at 8:37, and then 8:38, there is some typos in spelling, but it basically reads "nothing just walk in, or say you are bringing a friend the slushy." And the 8:38"what is your name?", this comes from 905 again. And now at 8:38, the room is given"room 180". And then a further, text at 8:39 from, 289, the undercover officer"that is hurtful ha ha Lily.", that relates back to what's your name. And then, 8:41, undercover officer asks"you, good?", and then at 8:43, there is a question about what last name. 8:43, again, the response from 289 is "just tell them I am in room 180. Just come to 180. No heat."
And then there is another phone call, this is at 8:44. There are more questions from 905 about what the name at the hotel is because the lady at the, I am assuming the front desk, says that if she does not have a name here, Lily, and then the undercover officer at 8:47 responds"'cause I am 15. Room's not in my name. I told you that." That is, I believe, the fifth time that the undercover officer has told the individual that is texting her that she is 15. And then she advises at 8:48"Now, they calling." There are more messages. Question, from, 905 at 8:48, almost 8:49"What so what is the person off the room you in?", I guess asking who rented the room, and response from it, 289, the undercover officer is"you are scaring me. I do not want issues." And then, at 8:49, the person texting with 905 says"cause the ladies, doh [probably means do not want] me come up there." Then there are question marks as a as a text, and then at 8:50, the undercover officer, through 289, says"why are you talking to them? Come to the room. You are making me trouble." There is a response to that almost at 8:51"How I go come", and the talking about the lady. There is more talk about the back door from 289, and the undercover officer"just opened the back door, drive to the back. There is a, a bit white thing in the parking lot", this is 8:53, and then 8:54, 905 says I am coming up there. 8:55"KK doors open.", that is from 289, and then 8:55 is from 905"Answer the phone and tell them yes. You are friend." And the undercover officer responds with two other texts at, 8:58"I did. Should be good now."
And then as we know from the evidence, arrest takes place at nine o'clock. There is a knock at the door, I think at 8:59, and at nine o'clock, Mr. McIntosh is at the door of room 180, and he is knocking on the door and Detective Constable Allison arrests him. He is holding a red slushie and a cell phone in his hands. Those are taken, and seized by Detective Constable Allison, and she puts both of those items on a dresser. She testified that she advised Mr. McIntosh he was under arrest for luring and for obtaining sexual services of a person under 18 and for invitation to sexual touching a person under the age of 16. She gave more detail than that. I am giving an abbreviation of what she said in the evidence. After placing Mr. McIntosh under arrest, Detective Constable Allison said she handcuffed him, did a pat down search. It was at that time that she found on his person, in his pockets a box of condoms and cash, which ultimately is determined to be $146. There are photographs of all of these things in Exhibit 4, which were taken by the officer.
At 9:01, right to counsel is made to Mr. McIntosh. When he is asked if he understands the right to counsel, he says he does, and when he is asked if he wishes to speak to a lawyer, he says he does not. No ID, according to Detective Constable Allison, was uncovered or found when she did the pat down search on him. She did not find a wallet, and so her evidence was she asked Mr. McIntosh what his name was and what his birth date was. Mr. McIntosh identified himself as Sean Williams and provided a birth date of March 19th, 1989. It was Detective Constable Allison's evidence that when the name of Sean Williams and the birth date were provided to whoever was checking on a police computer, there were no matches for that name or that birth date coming up. Officers who were conducting surveillance outside then got the license number of the vehicle that Mr. McIntosh was seen to exit with the red slushie in his hand, and they get the license plate of that car, and it comes back, the registered owner is Nyla McIntosh. They have an address now for the registered owner, which they check, see if there are any other persons with driver's licenses associated with that address, and Jeff McIntosh's name comes up. The officer, Detective Constable Allison, reviews an MTO photograph, and determines that the photo matches the person that she arrested when the door was knocked at 8:59.
At 9:22, that demonstrates, I guess, the length of time from about probably somewhere around 9:02 or 9:03 until 9:22 – 20 minutes, the officers are trying to determine who Mr. McIntosh is, and, as a result of, discovering that he is not Sean Williams, but rather his name is Jeff McIntosh, Detective constable Allison advises Mr. McIntosh at 9:22 that he is also under arrest for obstruct peace officer, and gives him his right to counsel in respect of that as well.
There are no continuity issues on the evidence that is been before me relating to the items that were found on the accused, the two items found in his hands or the two items that were discovered during the pat down search in his pockets. Witnesses were called relating to the seizure of that. Detective constable Allan took them back to the secure room at their police station. They were later photographed there. Another officer entered them all into the Versadex at the police station and put them in plastic bags.
Detective Constable Richardson was also a witness that was called during the trial. It was partly for continuity reasons as relates to the cell phone and the search warrant that was obtained in respect of that cell phone that was in Mr. McIntosh's hands when he was arrested. She is part of the surveillance team that is watching vehicles come in. They are aware that the person who is going to come in response to the telecommunications text messages with the undercover officer is going to be carrying a red slushie. They expect that person to be carrying a red slushie. At 8:40, they observe a red car, CDZA 643, which is the license plate that ultimately was checked to see who owned it, and it came back to Mr. McIntosh's wife, I am assuming. Detective Constable Richardson observed a black male get out of the vehicle, at 8:42. He is wearing a grey T-shirt with writing on it and brown work boots, and he did have a red slushie in his hand. This individual went to the front desk. I mentioned before there was a whole bunch of texts dealing with the back door of the hotel, which is not anywhere near the entrance to the hotel, one would assume, and not near where the front desk is. There is at least 10 minutes spent with the back door. I do not know what that is all about, because the vehicle does not go to the back, from what I understand on the evidence that I heard. He is at the front desk talking to the woman who was operating the front desk for about 10 minutes, and it was at 8:58 that this tall black male is no longer visible at the front desk. The person did not exit through the front door, they just sort of disappeared within the hotel, and
Detective Constable Richardson testified she was advised that at nine o'clock p.m., an arrest was made of Mr. McIntosh, who is before the court.
I have already referred to Fraiser Phillips who was a civilian Durham Regional Police Service technician who performed the search of the cell phone, and Exhibit 6, 7, and 8 were produced, through his evidence.
I have gone through Exhibit 3, and I can indicate I have compared Exhibit 3 to Exhibit 6, and they are, for all intents and purposes, almost identical. Certainly, they are identical in terms of the messages. Some of the timing seems to be a little different. That could be relating, I think, to the different clocks in each phone, that is sending, receiving text messages.
Exhibit 7 is the image of the photo, which is referred to in Exhibit 3, but not identified. It is identified in Exhibit 6 as an image, and it is identified as to when that photograph was actually taken. That is indicated in the Cellebrite report.
Exhibit 8 shows not just the phone calls I have referred to or the text that are all found in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 6, it also includes web searches from the 905 phone.
Crown ended the evidence for the Crown after calling all of the various police witnesses that I have just referred to many of, and when Mr. McIntosh was asked whether he wished to call witnesses or testify, he indicated he had no witnesses to call, but he wished to testify, which he did.
In chief, Mr. McIntosh testified that he had left work early on April 25, 2022, to go to the east side of Oshawa around Bloor and Harmony Road to pick up a lamp for his wife that she had purchased on Facebook Marketplace. She apparently had given him the address to pick up this lamp, and that he picked up the lamp, he testified initially around four something and then said 4:30, and he left work sometime around three something. It took him an hour and fifteen minutes to get from downtown Toronto, to the eastern border of Oshawa. After picking up the lamp, he testified he saw this guy on the street, in this area of Bloor and Harmony where he picked up this lamp from there, and he believed that he recognized this person as a guy he had met at a New Year's Eve party in Toronto at his cousin's. This had been apparently a garage party on New Year's Eve into New Year's Day, there were lights that tried to make it look like a nightclub. There was alcohol served, both beer and liquor. He stopped his car and called out to this gentleman, and the gentleman came up to the car, and he realized this was someone that had told him his name was Sean. And while they were talking, more details about Sean came out in cross-examination, which I will get to in a moment, I am only dealing with chief right now. In-chief he testified that Sean was asking him if he - Mr. McIntosh was going to be going anywhere near the train station in Oshawa, the GO station. Mr. McIntosh said that he could go there because it was only 15 minutes away. He was on his way to go home, but he was prepared to do this because it is the kind of person he is, helping other people out. He had been intending to go straight home, but now he was going to drive Sean, to the GO Station. So Sean got into the passenger seat around Harmony and Bloor, and they were going to drive to the train station, and Mr. McIntosh was driving, and as they were driving, Sean told Mr. McIntosh if they could stop at a store so that he could buy a drink, because he wanted to buy a drink, and Mr. McIntosh said, sure, he would stop at the store so he could get a drink, and he asked Sean if he would buy him, Mr. McIntosh, a Red Bull, which Sean said he would. He said Sean went into the store and came out with this drink in his hand and a Red Bull, and the drink was a red slushie of some sort. Mr. McIntosh said that he had asked who the drink was for, but never really got an answer, and when Sean got into the car, actually, I want to go back. When Sean first got into the car, this is before he asked him to go to the store to buy the drink, he told Mr. McIntosh that he really liked Mr. McIntosh's music that was playing, and Mr. McIntosh gave Sean his cell phone so that, he could download this music through Bluetooth. And when Mr. McIntosh, after stopping at the store and Sean came out of the store with the two drinks, the Red Bull and this red slushie, and he was asked who the red slushie was for. Sean told him it was not for Sean; it was for someone else.
According to Mr. McIntosh, he was still driving to take Sean to the train station. Well, Sean apparently also had two phones on his person. One, he had told Mr. McIntosh was for his business, and the other was for something that Mr. McIntosh said that Sean said was something to do with police. He did not quite understand what that phone was about. As they were driving, all of a sudden Sean asked Mr. McIntosh if he could drop the drink off that he had bought for this other person at a hotel to give to that person. Now, there was some evidence from Mr. McIntosh that somewhere around this time, it was when his wife contacted him by phone and asked where he was, and he told her he was on his way home. That was what I have as my notes of his evidence. I do not know how that phone call was answered from the wife, given the timing that almost as soon as he got in the car, Sean did, Mr. McIntosh handed over his phone to Sean. So I do not know if Sean gave the phone back to Mr. McIntosh to speak to his wife, but that was his evidence in-chief. In any event, this is now coming out in cross-examination. Sean gave Mr. McIntosh the slushie, they pulled into this hotel and also a black plastic bag that was tied and asked him if he would take it into the hotel and that they gave back his cell phone because the person who he was bringing it to would text him the room number and then he could deliver the drink and the black bag.
So Mr. McIntosh testified he went into the hotel and spoke to the front desk lady, said he was there to drop some stuff off. The lady told him to go outside and ask the guy who he was supposed to be delivering this to, but then a text came into his phone. He thought the room number that was indicated was 108. We know from the text it was 180. The lady apparently called this room that came in by text and that he spoke to somebody, and then he was directed to where the room was, and when he knocked on the door, two police officers arrested him. One of the officers said to him"say your, say the name", and he said, Sean Williams. It as Mr. McIntosh's evidence he was never asked for his own name. He gave the guy's name who asked him to deliver the red slushie or Slurpee and the black bag and the items that were in that black bag. Mr. McIntosh testified he was never told why he was under arrest, and when he went back outside to go to his car, he did not see Sean. He was not there. He testified that he thought the guy had left Canada, maybe back, he testified, in Saint Vincent.
Now, as I have said in cross-examination, Mr. McIntosh described in greater detail how he met Sean. It was a New Year's Eve party, talked to him for only three minutes. Sean came up to him, told him he liked Mr. McIntosh's vibe and liked his dancing because there was dancing at this party. He gave Mr. McIntosh his phone number. Apparently, Mr. McIntosh testified in cross that he had tried this number later in the evening, but it did not work. He also testified he really never thought about Sean again, after trying the number and it did not work. He at one point, when Sean was speaking to him for these three minutes, he asked what his name was, this guy that came up to him, and that is when he was told it was Sean. And then, apparently, some other individual, unidentified, who was behind Sean, piped up and said, Williams, which according to Mr. McIntosh, he took as being Sean's last name. He agreed with the Crown's suggestion that Sean was a complete stranger to him. He testified the party was dark. The garage had lights to make it feel and look like a nightclub. He testified and admitted that he drank 15 beers, at least, and two shots of rum, but he was not so affected by the alcohol that he could not remember Sean's face. He has a good memory for faces. He had no contact with Sean after the party on New Year's Day, New Year's Eve, until this date on April 25th, 2022.
He testified he left work around 3:00 to 3:15 in the afternoon. He changed, in my view, the time he arrived in Harmony and Bloor area to get the lamp. He now said that it was five something, maybe 5:20. He got the lamp just before this 5:20 time, maybe 5:00 or 5:10. Took him five minutes to get the lamp, and when he was leaving from getting the lamp around 5:20, that is when he saw Sean, recognized him after four months, and he came and drove over beside him, spoke to him, and Sean asked if he would drive him to the GO station. This encounter did not take more than five minutes according to cross, so he agreed that Sean would have gotten into his vehicle around 5:25 p.m. He was playing music. Sean said he liked the music, asked for Mr. McIntosh's phone to be able to download it through Bluetooth. He gave his phone, he thinks, probably sometime around 5:50, although, that is 25 minutes after he says Sean got into the car, and he made it very clear that it was almost immediately upon Sean getting into the car that the phone was asked for. This will become a theme in Mr. McIntosh's evidence. His times constantly changed as he was questioned in cross-examination. He agreed that if he had gone straight home and had not met Sean, he would have been home in the northwest part of Oshawa up by the 407 at Simcoe and Winfield, I think is the area that he talked about as evidence, he would have been there in half an hour. He thought it would take him 10 to 15 minutes to get to the GO, and that is why he agreed to drive Sean. He then said that Sean probably had his phone from around 5:30, not 5:50. He was busy driving, he did not know what Sean was doing with his phone. They were going to the Oshawa GO Station, and as he was driving, Sean wanted him to stop so he could buy a drink. Sean apparently had been talking to somebody on the phone, but he did not know who that was. Mr. McIntosh testified that he started having suspicions early on that Sean, the stranger, was not doing what he said he was going to do with Mr. McIntosh's phone. He was not downloading music. He did not know what he was doing with it, but he was doing something with his phone. Within five minutes, this was in cross, after starting to drive, he testified he knew that Sean was using his phone for something other than downloading music. He never asked for his phone back. He never tried to take his phone back. He allowed Sean to have his phone until he went into the hotel. Sean went into this store that he wanted to buy a drink at. Initially, Mr. McIntosh said he did not know how long that he had started to drive to go to the GO station that Sean asked him to stop to get the drink. He did not know how long, but it wasn't long. He agreed he was not driving around in circles, he was not lost, that he wanted to go straight to the GO Station. He lived in Oshawa for four years, so he knew where the GO Station was, he knew how to get there. The GO Station is south of the 401, just east, I believe, of Stevenson in Oshawa, sort of on the border of Whitby and Oshawa. At one point, Mr. McIntosh said he was going to take, and I did not fully understand what this was about, it came out in the evidence that he was going to take Sean up to the area of his house in the northwest part of Oshawa by the 407 for him to grab a bus to go to the GO Station. I do not know what that was about. It sort of came out, and it was not followed up on. Initially he said that when he stopped at the store, he had not been driving for even 15 minutes because they had not got to those stations yet. He had not left the area, so he probably was only in the car for five minutes, he agreed with the Crown, and he picked up Sean at 5:25. However, when it was pointed out to Mr. McIntosh that according to the text and the exchange between his phone and the undercover police officer that he was at the convenience store after 8:00 p.m., the time changed. He was asked how he was in the same area for over two hours. It was at that point that Mr. McIntosh remembered that he was also supposed to pick up some books from a lady, but he could not remember where she was located, but he testified it only took 15 minutes to get there, but she was slow in coming to where he was parked with the books. The books were in the same area as the store was, that Sean got the drinks. He forgot about the books, and he was trying to explain why it took so long. He said, at one point that he had to wait for the woman two to three hours, then realized what he had said and changed it to he meant two to three minutes. He thought he probably got the books around 5:45. That was when Sean asked him to get the drink. That was probably around six something, he testified. He figured it was probably around seven something after the drinks were purchased, and he was now going to be heading back to his place or the GO Station, but the hotel apparently was close to where the store was, and Sean wanted him to go there to deliver the drinks. Then he testified that, actually, Sean was in the store for a long time, and when Sean got back in the car with the drinks, Sean's now saying that he wants Mr. McIntosh to drive him to a hotel and drop the drinks off for him. At one point, Mr. McIntosh said he was waiting at the store for an hour. There were people going in and coming out, and Sean was not coming out; he was in there for a long time. Originally, in his evidence, he had said that he had taken Sean for 15 minutes to get the slushie, but it extended and extended as he was confronted with the times according to the text messages. Sean wanted Mr. McIntosh to give the slushie and this black plastic bag to someone in the hotel, and so he testified that he actually went into the hotel around 8:38. He actually knew the exact time he went into the hotel. He had his phone back because the person he was supposed to give the drinks to was supposed to text the room number. Mr. McIntosh claimed he did not know who he was dropping things off to. He agreed, based on the text messages that were shown to him, that he had actually been with Sean for over two and a half hours by this point, all for a favour to drive Sean to the GO Station and what he said would have taken him 15 minutes. He agreed Sean never threatened him, did not have a weapon, he was doing this out of the goodness of his heart.
At 8:44, when Mr. McIntosh has his phone back, he is actually making the sixth call to the 289 number, a telephone call that is not answered. He is also texting the person that he is bringing the stuff to. Again, this is an area that was not followed up on, but Mr. McIntosh testified the lady at the front desk told him when he was having difficulty explaining who he was delivering this to when he mentioned the name Lily, that there was nobody at the hotel by that name, and he was texting the things that I have already gone through, the lady said to him this was a setup, because now he was asking – been told room 180 and he was to drop something off to Lily. They were not renting any rooms to anyone called Lily according to what the lady was telling him. And just before he went to room 180, he texted this person"tell them yes I am a friend", and it was at that point that there are texts from the undercover officer saying that she did, and there are phone calls being made by the lady at the front desk to the room, and that is what the undercover officer is telling the front desk lady.
The slushy picture, he admits, is from his car. The slushie is in the centre console just before the gear shift in this in the centre console. He recognized the gear shift from the photograph. The slushie is still frozen in the photograph. It is sent at 8:24, in the text. It is Mr. McIntosh's evidence that he did not take that picture and did not send that picture to the person in room 180. When it was put to him that the photo, when one looks at it carefully, it is clearly taken from the driver's seat. That was when Mr. McIntosh testified for the first time that he believed that when that photograph was taken, he heard clicking, and he was looking out the driver's side window, and that must have been Sean reaching into his area of the driver's seat to turn his hand and take a picture, so it looked like it was being taken from the front seat. He had heard clicking, that is how he knew the photos were being taken. Now, that is the evidence.
As I have explained to, Mr. McIntosh, in any criminal case he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and I have reminded myself that I need not firmly believe or disbelieve any witness and that I can accept all, some, or none of a witness's testimony. I have also reminded myself that the Crown must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, that this term has been defined and explained in the Supreme Court of Canada case of R v. W.(D.). Proof of a probability of guilt does not amount to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of guilt to a near certainty is required in criminal proceedings. The onus remains on the Crown to prove Mr. McIntosh's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt throughout his trial, and a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, one that arises logically from the whole of the evidence or absence of evidence. I recognize that the rule of reasonable doubt applies to the issue of credibility. Accordingly, I must acquit the defendant if I accept his evidence or if it raises a reasonable doubt. If it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I still must go on to ask whether the evidence that I do accept convinces me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And, of course, the burden never shifts from the Crown to prove every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the application of W.(D.) should not result in a triumph of form over substance. And as Justice Corey reiterated in another case of R. v. S(W.D.), there is no "magic incantation". Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means what it says. There is nothing illogical in rejecting the defendant's evidence, but still not being sufficiently satisfied by the evidence called by the Crown to find that the case has been proven. State of uncertainty at a trial like this is not uncommon. Ultimately, if I have a reasonable doubt on the whole of the case that arises from the evidence of the Crown witnesses, the evidence of the accused, or the evidence of any other defence witness, or the absence of evidence, the charge must be dismissed.
Also reminding myself that circumstantial evidence may or may not prove a fact from which an inference may be drawn. That is a factual conclusion that logically and reasonably flows or may be drawn from that evidence. However, I have also reminded myself that the only inferences that may be drawn are those based solely on the evidence in this case, and that they may not and must not be based on conjecture or speculation. It is speculative to draw an inference when there is no direct or indirect factual or evidential basis to support it. However, it is the cumulative effect of all of the evidence that must meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not each individual item of evidence.
More importantly, I have reminded myself that where the only evidence relative to a particular fact that is alleged is circumstantial evidence before I can find the accused guilty on the basis of that evidence, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that proof of that particular element of the offence, or guilt relative to the offence as a whole, is the only reasonable or rational conclusion or inference that can be drawn from the whole of the evidence. It is important to note that I do not need to be satisfied to that standard relative to each individual piece of evidence, particularly where more than one conclusion may flow from the particular piece of evidence under consideration. However, within the context of the evidence as a whole, I must be satisfied that the Crown has made out the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. I am referring, of course, to the decision in R. v. Villaroman in the Supreme Court of Canada.
As I have indicated, the issue in this case, when one distils the facts, relates to identity of the person who is communicating with the undercover police officer. There is no question that the phone communicating with the undercover officer is in fact Mr. McIntosh's phone. That is not disputed. Mr. McIntosh's evidence is that the phone is being held for almost three hours, two and a half hours by somebody other than himself, and that person is the person who is texting with the undercover officer. It is not him. There is no issue, in my view, but no doubt in my mind that the person who is communicating via telecommunication in text messages from the 905 cell phone is seeking to engage a sex worker for purposes of engaging in sexual relations. Both intercourse and fellatio are referred to in the text for the price of a $150 for half an hour. This is clearly discussed by the individual trying to arrange the rendezvous. Early on in the text from the person who is texting pursuant to the ad posted in LeoList, that individual, I think it is the second text asks"how old are you". The ad clearly indicates the person is 18 years old, but that is the very first question being asked by the person texting the undercover officer, and the response that comes right after"how old are you", from the undercover officer is"I'm a tad bit younger than the absolute discharge ha ha". That comment is made a second time, similarly, at an early stage, and throughout the conversation, the undercover officer portrays her age as being 15 years of age, and that is done on five separate occasions. She makes reference to the fact that she is not able to drive, she is not licensed to drive, she is underage to drive. She asks for a slushie. And when she is asked why, she says, silly, I am too young to drive a car, in effect. There are comments made throughout about her concern that she did not want any drama or issues or heat or for the person who was texting her to freak out, and the response by that individual throughout is that there is no drama. There is no heat, No one is going to freak out. I have no doubt that the person who is conversing by text with the undercover officer knows and believes that the person they are conversing with by telecommunication is under 18 years and is, in fact, 15 years old. In my view, this meets the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person conducting the text believed the person they were communicating with to be under 18 for sexual services, and at the very least, although I find that the individual believes that based on the totality of the conversation that extends for literally over two hours, because there is an hour break from those first two phone calls. There is an hour break, but from the time the text start flowing between 905 and 289, I have no doubt that the individual knows he is and believes he is talking to someone who is 15. Because even after being told that the person who posted the ad is 15, she has told the person texting that she is 15 on two occasions, when 905, the person texting, is still saying that, that she wants him to come to fuck her or eat her pussy.
So, I have, as I say, no doubt that the essential elements of the offence are defined in Morrison, and I rely upon the comments by Justice Watt after citing it and the passages and the paragraphs that the Crown put to me in R. v. Drury, [2020] O.J. No. 3373, decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. This was a charge under 172.1(1)(b), so it is not a person under the age of 18, it is a person under the age of 16. I would only make this comment, that charge could have been laid in this case because it is clear that the person is under the age of 16, but laying in under sub (a) of 172.1(1)(a) does not change the charge because the person is clearly under the age of 18 based on the text messages. This is what Justice Watt says, in paragraph 59 of Drury,
Where a prosecution under s. 172.1(1)(b) originates in a police sting and no underage person exists, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt three essential elements:
I. an intentional telecommunication.
It is clear these text messages are intentional, and they are responding to an ad that is in LeoList. It is even more so intentional because there are searches that are seen in Exhibit 8 to this very LeoList ad, looking for an escort
II. with a person whom the accused believes is under the requisite age.
And I have already indicated it is clear on the evidence in the text that the person who was communicating with the undercover police officer believes that the individual they are communicating with is under 18; and
III. for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a designated offence with respect to that person.
I have no doubt that this person is looking to engage in sexual services, sexual conduct, with someone under the age of 18, and under 286.2, they are looking to hire somebody for sexual services under the age of 18, which that section prohibits.
Justice Watt goes on to say at paragraph 60, and I adopt all of this, and I am bound by it as well. He said,
The second element requires the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused believed the interlocutor was underage. Since the presumption of belief in s. 172.1(3) is no longer of any force or effect, the Crown cannot establish this element simply by proving that the interlocutor represented her age, and that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the interlocutor’s true age. What the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the accused either:
i. believed; or
ii. was wilfully blind whether
the interlocutor was underage: Morrison, at paras. 96-97. Recklessness as to the interlocutor’s age is not sufficient.
I agree with the Crown's interpretation of 172.1(4) which reads:
It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least 18, 16 or 14 years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.
As the Crown submitted to me and as is reflected in Morrison, subsection 172.1(4) is not a pathway to conviction, but there is a requirement for there to, as the Crown put to me and as indicated in the Morrison decision starting at, I think, around paragraph 105, the reasonable steps under that section, and there needs to be an air of reality, to that. In my view, having regard to the texts that are present in Exhibit 3, 6, and 8, they are all the same, there is no air of reality, and there is no evidence contrary to what is reflected in those texts, it’s to some extent, because it is Mr. McIntosh's position, he did not write those texts, somebody else did, and so we are dealing with an issue of identity, and I have no evidence on the other side of what those texts show, and, in my view, the only reasonable inference from those texts is that there were no reasonable steps taken whatsoever, and there is no air of reality to any steps being taken by the person who wrote the text to the undercover officer.
The only question that is asked, and this is going on to paragraph 118 and following, and 123, I do not think there is any defence even being put forward for reasonable steps, but there is certainly no air of reality because the only question asked by the person writing the text is what is your age, how old are you, and in my view, once the other texts are coming back from the undercover officer, reasonable steps, air of reality would only be demonstrated by somebody asking some further questions and maybe cutting off communicating when the person is insisting that they are 15.
So that leaves me with the question of who has the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the individual who wrote and sent those telecommunications to the undercover police officer. Clearly, if I believe Mr. McIntosh's evidence, I must acquit him because he says he did not send them. I can indicate and I will give reasons in a moment, but I do not believe Mr. McIntosh about Sean. I do not believe Sean exists, and there are reasons why I do not believe he even exists. The circumstances that were ultimately disclosed during cross-examination as to Mr. McIntosh's encounter for three minutes with Sean at a party where he has consumed a large quantity of alcohol and dark lighting conditions with no further contact for over four months, a complete stranger, in my view, is completely unbelievable. I do not accept Sean's existence. So it does not even leave me in a state of reasonable doubt. There are numerous reasons why I come to this conclusion. Mr. McIntosh and his evidence continually, repeatedly changed timing when he was confronted with the texts. The first phone calls are made just before six o'clock, the first two are just before six o'clock p.m., 5:54, 5:58, and then the third phone call, and there is no response to any of these calls, is at 6:06 p.m. He picks up Sean. Sean has to make those calls because, if he picks up Sean after six o'clock, then the only person who could have made the calls on the evidence that I have heard is Mr. McIntosh, and he would not have got that number unless he read the ad on LeoList. He was going to do a favour for Sean and drive him to the GO Station, which was going to be 15 minutes away, which I can indicate is 15 minutes away from Bloor and Harmony. It is very close. The difficulty is that they drive around then not going to the GO station in this 15 minutes because the next text is made at 6:55. The first text out of 905 asking how much it is for a half hour, getting the response a 150, where are you located, and how old are you, that is an hour later. They would have gone to the GO Station, on the evidence that I heard at least four times and maybe five, because the time when he first picked up Sean was initially 5:25, and that all changed. It does not make any sense. Completely makes no sense.
I think another thing that makes no sense to me, completely unbelievable, is the fact that somebody that Mr. McIntosh has only talked to for three minutes, he then gives his cell phone to this individual that he wants to drive to the GO Station in 15 minutes so he can get home to his wife and his family, but he lets this person have his cell phone for two and a half hours, doing things on the cell phone that he testifies within a very short time after giving it to him, he thinks are untoward or nefarious. He is not doing what he said he was going to do. What is he doing with my phone? Take your phone back. He never does. You do not drive around with somebody for an hour when you are just doing a favour to take them to the go station in 15 minutes.
Third, Mr. McIntosh repeatedly, on a number of occasions, added events to try to extend the time things took. In his evidence in-chief, he does not tell anything about picking up books. This is all about going to East Oshawa, the furthest east in Oshawa when he lives in the northwest up by the 407, to pick up a lamp for $5, and now he all of a sudden remembers when he is confronted with how long he is spending time with, Sean, oh, yes, I forgot, I had to pick up some books for our wife too. $5 books, five books for $5 paperbacks. I do not believe it. He extends the time that Sean is in the store. Initially, it is 15 minutes, and then it turns into being closer to an hour. It took forever to get this slushy. The time with the books also changed. It took him 15 minutes to get up there, but, oh, then the lady was late coming, but then that was only two or three minutes, and then he still got back, but then they took longer to get back. He kept continually being faced with the fact that too much time was passing by and that the things he was testifying to did not account for all of that time, could not account for all of that time.
Another reason is the photo of the red slushie that is clearly taken from the driver's side of the motor vehicle. It is not a picture that is taken. It is taken at 8:24 when he says he does not have his phone. He does not get his phone. He knows the only time he knows, in all of his evidence, of anything is 8:38 because he has reviewed the transcripts, and that is the time he is at the front desk of the hotel.
And, of course, that is another circumstance where Mr. McIntosh changed his evidence, added something that took place. When it is pointed out to him that it is clear that the photograph is taken from the driver's seat, not from the passenger's seat, and the only time that Mr. Sean Williams might have been in the driver's seat was when he was picking up the books. And I will be frank, I do not know if it was really clear that he went to the apartment to get the books, or the woman came down because he talked about her taking a long time to come and give him the books. So I do not know if there ever was a time that Sean was alone inside the car where he could have been sitting in the driver's seat to take a picture of the slushie, but the slushie was purchased after the books, which was an add on when Mr. McIntosh was confronted with the length of time between the texts and the things were taking that he was with Sean. So now he comes up with an explanation that, oh, I think I was looking out the driver's door window, and I sort of felt or heard Sean leaning into the driver's side and I heard clicks.
The whole scenario described by Mr. McIntosh also does not make any sense whatsoever, that he would spend two and a half, three hours with an individual he does not know, when he is only supposed to be taking him to the GO Station for 15 minutes and then getting home, having picked up this lamp for his wife, and maybe the books, I do not really believe the books actually happened, that was made up like Sean was made up, but to spend all that time to give this man your phone for two and a half hours, it is one thing to give someone a drive to a Go Station that is going to take 15 minutes. It is another thing to pick up a stranger and drive them around with no explanation for what you are doing for three hours. It is just completely nonsensical and completely unbelievable, Mr. McIntosh.
And then the other thing that makes no sense either is you are supposed to be going to the go station, and you are asked to stop at a convenience store to buy drinks, and then you are asked to take those drinks to deliver them to somebody you do not know by a person that you think is doing things with your phone that he ought not to be doing, who has a phone that he describes as something to do with police, his second phone. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Then - takes him to the convenience store, and then he is surprised because now Sean wants him to drive to the hotel. And the interesting thing with all of this is that everything is happening at Bloor and Harmony area. Everything. That is an area you could drive two minutes to go from the convenience store to the hotel, to where you pick up the lamp, if you picked up a lamp, to all these different places that you are probably talking no more than two, three minutes, but we are going to spend three hours driving this whole area with no explanation for what is being done during that three hours. It makes no sense. This person wants you to drop off a bag, this person who may be doing things that are illegal with your cell phone that he has had for over three hours that or close to three hours, and he wants you to drop off a bag and a red slushie, and then you find out in text while you are texting to find the room number with the person, this undercover policewoman, where she reiterates that she is 15, and you are now going to take not only a red slushie, but you say the black bag is opened, and you see a box of Trojans, and you see money to be taken to somebody in a room in a hotel who is saying she is 15 and she does not want any issues. Does not make any sense to me. Does not make any sense whatsoever. And the question that has to be asked is why would Mr. McIntosh do that in those circumstances? And my conclusion is he would not. It makes no sense whatsoever.
It is also interesting that the conversation between Mr. McIntosh, that he admits was his conversation, and the person in room 180, very similar in some respects when you look closely at the conversation that precedes it. And I make that finding. It is very, very similar. Similar misspellings. They all can be seen when one just looks at it.
I think another thing that causes me to believe that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that it is Mr. McIntosh who is making these communications, it is his phone. When he says he has the phone, it is very similar, the conversation and the language used and the way the conversation is going with what precedes it. He also makes a phone call when he is having difficulty getting to the room, and he just as when one reads through the early parts, he wants to have sex with this person. He is telling person in room 180 how much he wants to have sex, and she is wasting his time because she will not tell him where she is, and he does the same thing from 8:38 onwards until he goes and knocks on the door, and he comes with Trojan condoms, money, and he comes with a red slushie. And just as he tried to phone previously, he tries again, and there is no answer.
His evidence that the officer did not ask for his name, in my view, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He ultimately is going to have to be released. He has been placed under arrest. He says the officer did not tell him why he was placed under arrest. I do not believe that either. It is very obvious why he is placed under arrest given the text messages that have been exchanged, where he finds himself, there is no reason for the officer not to tell him why he is under arrest, and it only makes sense for the officer to say, what is your name, you do not have identification, on you, I want to know who you are so you can be released. Because if he would not tell his name, he would have been brought back to the police station. That is my protocol.
JEFF MCINTOSH: I didn't go in the station. I did not go back in the station.
THE COURT: I am sorry?
JEFF MCINTOSH: I did not go to the station.
THE COURT: I am making a finding, sir, that you were asked what your name was, and you gave Sean Williams' name.
JEFF MCINTOSH: Yeah, but you say....
THE COURT: That is what I am finding.
JEFF MCINTOSH: Well, you say I go back to the station.
THE COURT: I am sorry?
JEFF MCINTOSH: You say that they brought me back to the station.
THE COURT: No, I am saying they would have if you did not provide your name. A person who does not provide their name has to be brought to the police station even for Highway Traffic Act offences. Okay? That is protocol for police officers. In order for them to release a person that they placed under arrest, they have to release them under their name. They have to know who they are, and that is why it makes no sense. There is no reason for Constable Allison – you did not ask her any questions. You never put that to her. And I know you are not a lawyer, and there are cases that say you are supposed to put things to an officer or a witness, okay, that you say happened so that they can have an opportunity to respond. Okay. And when lawyers do not do that, it reflects badly on their client's case. You are not a lawyer.
JEFF MCINTOSH: I'm not....
THE COURT: What I am saying to you, I have no doubt that she asked you what is your name, and you told her Sean Williams. And what makes it even more so is you did not know, assuming Sean Williams existed, assuming what you told me is true, which I do not accept about meeting this person at a New Year's Eve party and I do not believe you picked them up, okay, I want you to understand that. I do not believe it. Your evidence was what name, and you just gave the name of the guy you were there with the car, but you never say to the officer, hey, he is in the car. I am bringing these things from the guy inside the car. You never say that to the police.
JEFF MCINTOSH: I told them that.
THE COURT: You never say that. You do not put that to the police officer. I have no evidence of that. And not only that, but you gave a birth date for a person you do not know for more than three minutes you know nothing about. You made up the birth date for sure, and that is further evidence that causes me to believe that you made up the name and made up his existence. I want you to hear this from me. These are my findings of fact in this trial.
Further, Detective Constable Richardson is on surveillance, and they are watching for somebody to come out of a vehicle of some sort that is carrying a red slushie because that is the identifying – they do not have a name of the person because that is not being given, okay. That is why the red slushie is being asked to be purchased. Right. She sees you get out of the car. You are wearing a grey T-shirt and brown work boots, and you only have the red slushie in your hand, you do not have a black plastic bag. I have no evidence of a black plastic bag. I have no evidence of a black plastic – except from you, and the two items that you say were in the black plastic bag are found in your pockets.
JEFF MCINTOSH: Yeah, I have it in my pocket, and then....
THE COURT: I do not wanna hear more from you now.
JEFF MCINTOSH: Okay.
THE COURT: There were no questions asked of this, but Constable Richardson did not indicate there was a second person inside the red car, and she was on surveillance. She was looking for who was coming to the hotel. They ultimately went back to the car to get the license number, and when they went back to the car, again, I have no evidence there was a second person in that car at any time. And, as I say, there is no black bag. All there is, is a Trojan condom box and a $146, which is inside your pocket as a result of the pat down search that was conducted by Detective Constable Morrison.
For all of those reasons, sir, I do not believe your evidence of a person that you picked up and drove around for three hours. I do not believe that happened. I do not believe that person exists. I believe that you left work early because you were going to Oshawa to hire someone for sexual services.
JEFF MCINTOSH: No.
THE COURT: And in the course of doing that, you had the text exchange that is in Exhibit 3, 6, and 8, and I have already indicated that it proves the essential elements of the offences that you are facing under 172.1(1)(a) and 286.2(1). I believe you are the person who wrote those texts. I believe you were by yourself. I find you were by yourself; I find there is no other person. Nothing that you testify to makes any logical sense whatsoever, and I found your evidence and your responses with the Crown and cross to be evasive. You changed your evidence repeatedly. You were not forthright in your evidence, and for all those reasons, I am finding you guilty of the Count 1 and Count 2, and I find that you gave a false name, to the officer, as I have indicated in my reasons, police literally might have been looking for about 15 minutes, to find out who you really were. Did not take them very long, and I do not see that as a very serious offence, but you did obstruct the officer by giving a false name. And I find you guilty of that offence as well.
...END OF EXCERPT AS REQUESTED
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5 (2)) Evidence Act
I, Tania Ciurlia (Name of Authorized Person)
certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R v Jeff MCINTOSH in the Ontario Court of Justice (Name of case) (Name of court)
held at 150 Bond St., E., Oshawa, Ontario (Court address)
taken from Recording 2811_407_20240216_091109__6_WESTPE.dcr which has been certified in Form 1.
October 18, 2024 (Date)
(Electronic signature of authorized person)
2370921515 (Authorized court transcriptionist’s identification number – if applicable)
Ontario, Canada. (Province of signing)
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.