ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-049
DATE: 2012-06-14

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Carl O’Brien, for the Crown

• and -

P.J.,

Aaron Seib, for the Defendant

Accused

HEARD: April 24, 2012 at Kenora, Ontario

Mr. Justice J.S. Fregeau

Reasons For Judgment

Introduction

[1] On April 24, 2012, P.J. (“J.” or “the defendant”) pleaded not guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on an indictment dated June 15, 2011, as follows:

Count 1: P.J. between the 15 th day of October, 2010 and the 31 st day of October, 2010 at the City of Dryden in the Northwest Region, did commit a sexual assault on F.F., contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada .

Count 2: P.J. between the 15 th day of October, 2010 and the 31 st day of October, 2010 at the City of Dryden in the Northwest Region, did commit an assault on F.F., contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada .

Count 3: P.J. on or about the 2 nd day of December, 2010 at the First Nation Territory of Sabaskong in the Northwest Region, did commit a sexual assault on F.F., contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada .

Count 4: P.J. on or about the 2 nd day of December, 2010 at the First Nation Territory of Sabaskong in the Northwest Region, did commit an assault on F.F., contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada .

[2] The defendant, on the same date, pleaded guilty to Count 5 on the indictment, as follows:

Count 5: P.J. on or about the 4 th day of December, 2010 at the First Nation Territory of Sabaskong in the Northwest Region did wound F.F., thereby committing an aggravated assault, contrary to Section 268 of the Criminal Code of Canada .

[3] The defendant’s trial on Counts 1 to 4 was completed on April 24, 2012. At the conclusion of the evidence, the defendant was found guilty on Count 5 based on his plea of guilty and his counsel’s admission that the facts supported a conviction on that count. I reserved my decision on Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the matter was adjourned to June 29, 2012. Crown and defence counsel undertook to provide comprehensive agreed facts supporting the conviction on Count 5 on June 29, 2012.

The Crown’s Case

[4] The Crown case consisted of two witnesses: the complainant, F.F., and L.S..

[5] The complainant was born on […], 1989 and was 22 years old at the time of trial. The complainant is originally from Grassy Narrows First Nation, north of Kenora, Ontario, but grew up in Toronto until nine years of age when she moved to Eagle Lake First Nation, west of Dryden, Ontario. She has been living in Kenora, Ontario since August of 2011.

[6] The complainant testified that she has known the defendant since she was 13 years of age, both as a friend and as an “on/off” dating partner. The complainant and the defendant had a more serious intimate relationship between October and December 2010 when they lived together in Dryden.

Counts 1 and 2

[7] The complainant testified that she and the defendant attended a birthday party for a family friend of hers, L.S., at the Dryden home of Douglas Brannan on October 27, 2010. The complainant and the defendant were residing in this residence at the time. F.F. testified that the party began at approximately 4:00 pm and ended at approximately midnight or 1:00 am the next day.

[8] There were numerous people in attendance at the party. The complainant testified that she had only a small amount of whiskey to drink that night. The complainant alleges that Mr. J. brought a “two-six” of vodka to the party which he was drinking all day.

[9] The complainant testified that sometime between 10:00 and 11:00 pm that night, she went upstairs to check on the defendant, whom the complainant alleged was drinking alone in an upstairs bedroom. The two got into an argument about the complainant consuming percocets. The complainant testified that the defendant attempted to leave the room with his bag and that she tried to grab him to prevent him from leaving. When she was asked why she attempted to stop the defendant from leaving, the complainant testified that it was because “he was going back to his ex, Candace.”

[10] When the complainant tried to stop the defendant from leaving, the defendant, according to the complainant’s evidence, assaulted her with two closed fists in a pummelling fashion. The complainant testified that she blocked or attempted to block the defendant’s blows and that this went on for ten to fifteen minutes.

[11] On direct examination, the complainant, in response to a question as to whether anyone else was in the room during the argument, testified, “No. But L. (S.) heard us. And she came upstairs.”

[12] The complainant testified that the defendant “raped” her and laughed at her when she asked him to stop. The complainant testified that she then “went back downstairs and I cleaned myself up.” When asked to provide more detail, the complaint testified that the defendant penetrated her anally and vaginally with his penis and that this went on for “ten or eleven minutes,” during which time she asked him to stop.

[13] The complainant testified that after she cleaned herself up, she rejoined the party, followed by the defendant approximately one half hour later. The complainant testified that she had red marks on her ear and bruises on her right forearm as a result of this incident. The complainant testified that she continued living in this home with the defendant and that she did not seek medical attention, nor did she report the matter to the police.

[14] At the start of his cross-examination of the complainant, counsel for the defendant confirmed that the complainant had, shortly prior to trial, reviewed both a videotaped statement she gave to the police on December 6, 2011 and the transcript of her evidence given at the preliminary inquiry on these charges.

[15] On cross-examination, counsel for the defendant had the complainant confirm in evidence that Ms. S. entered the room during the verbal argument and prior to any physical contact. The complainant further testified on cross-examination that Ms. S. told them to “knock it off” and then returned downstairs.

[16] Defence counsel then put to the complainant that in her statement to the police she stated that she had been repeatedly punched by the complainant prior to Ms. S. entering the room. The complainant testified that “I knew it happened something like that,” and that the inconsistency was a “misunderstanding.”

[17] Counsel for the defendant confirmed the complainant’s direct evidence as to her injuries, being bruising to her forearms and a little red mark on her ear. On cross-examination, it was drawn to her attention that she told the police in her December 6, 2010 statement that her entire cheek was bruised. The complainant testified that she had gotten “mixed up” with injuries from another alleged assault which apparently occurred subsequent to October 27, 2010, but prior to her December 6, 2010 statement to the police.

[18] Counsel for the defendant questioned the complainant on the issue of the duration of the October 27, 2010 incident, drawing to her attention that at the preliminary inquiry she had testified that it lasted 15 to 20 minutes, but that on direct examination at trial she testified that it lasted 10 to 11 minutes. The complainant responded, “either or, it happened.”

[19] L.S. testified as a Crown witness in regard to Counts 1 and 2. Ms. S. testified on direct examination that she was residing in Mr. Brannon’s home in Dryden on October 27, 2010 and that they were in a common law relationship at the time. Ms. S. confirmed that the complainant and the defendant were also residing in this home on the night of her birthday party. Ms. S. testified that she was not drinking that night.

[20] Ms. S. testified that she was told by one of the guests of a racket upstairs, which she then heard and went up to investigate. Ms. S. knocked on the bedroom door of the room the complainant and J. were staying in. There was no answer so she walked in.

[21] Ms. S. observed pillows on the floor, the ashtray knocked over and the complainant holding the right side of her face and crying. Ms. S. testified that she asked what was going on and that J. replied it “was none of (her) business”. She then asked the complainant to come downstairs with her, which the complainant did, according to Ms. S..

[22] Ms. S. testified that J. soon joined them downstairs in the kitchen and stated to the complainant, “[c]ome upstairs you bitch, if you know what’s good for you.” According to Ms. S., the complainant remained seated and did not go back upstairs. J. apparently went back upstairs at that point.

[23] On cross-examination, counsel for the defendant confirmed with Ms. S. that the complainant immediately came downstairs with her after she interrupted the two of them in the bedroom. Ms. S. testified on cross-examination that the complainant remained downstairs until the party ended at approximately 4:00 am, at which point the complainant went upstairs and found J. sleeping or passed out. Ms. S. testified that the complainant herself then went to bed.

[24] The defendant did not testify.

Analysis of Counts 1 and 2

[25] The Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of a sexual assault and/or an assault by J. on the complainant, between October 15 and 31, 2010. I find that it has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that J. committed an assault on the complainant on October 27, 2010. I find that Count 2, a sexual assault between October 15 and 31, 2011, has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[26] The complainant testified that the incident which occurred in the upstairs bedroom of Mr. Brannon’s home on October 27, 2010 was interrupted by Ms. S. entering the room at one point.

[27] During cross-examination, the complainant testified that Ms. S. entered the room during the verbal argument and prior to her being assaulted by J.. The complainant testified that Ms. S. told them to “knock it off” and then left the room. The complainant’s evidence is that the sexual assault then occurred, after Ms. S. left the room to return downstairs.

[28] Ms. S.’s evidence, if accepted, makes this sequence of events impossible. Ms. S. testified that she was unable to recall some aspects of the night in question. However, I found her testimony on this point clear and cogent. Ms. S. went upstairs and accosted the complainant and the defendant when she heard the sounds of a commotion from downstairs. She knocked on their door and entered the room when there was no answer. She observed the complainant to be crying and holding one side of her face. She also noticed obvious signs of a struggle, these being pillows on the floor and an ashtray knocked over.

[29] Ms. S. told the complainant and the defendant to “knock it off” and suggested the complainant accompany her downstairs. Ms. S.’s clear recollection is that the complainant did so and remained downstairs until approximately 4:00 am, at which time the complainant went to bed only after personally confirming that J. was already asleep or passed out.

[30] Ms. S. was a Crown witness and was described by the complainant as a family friend. Presumably she would have no reason to tailor her evidence such that it conflicted with and detracted from the complainant’s credibility. The evidence of Ms. S. raises a reasonable doubt in my mind as to the reliability of the complainant’s evidence about the sexual assault. It is impossible for it to have occurred as suggested by the complainant if Ms. S.’s evidence is accepted. I have no reason not to accept Ms. S.’s evidence. The defendant is entitled to the benefit of this doubt and is found not guilty on Count 1 of the indictment.

[31] The complainant testified that she was repeatedly struck by J. after she grabbed him to attempt to stop him from leaving. The inconsistencies in her evidence as to when Ms. S. entered the room, the number and manner of blows and the duration of the physical assault are not material. They do not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind as to the defendant having assaulted the complainant on this date.

[32] Ms. S. entered the room to find obvious signs of a struggle. She also observed the complainant to be crying and holding one side of her face. I find Ms. S.’s evidence corroborates that of the complainant as to the assault.

[33] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that J. assaulted the complainant on October 27, 2010. There will be a finding of guilt on Count 2 of the indictment.

Counts 3 and 4

[34] On direct examination, the complainant testified that she and the defendant moved to the First Nation Territory of Sabaskong (“Sabaskong”) soon after the incident in Dryden. Once in Sabaskong, the complainant and the defendant resided with “Donovan and Clarissa” for a “few weeks.” The complainant testified that she and the defendant then moved to “Rocky’s” place for a period of time, before returning to Donovan’s residence in the early afternoon of December 2, 2010.

[35] On Wednesday December 1, 2010, while the complainant and the defendant were residing at Rocky’s home, they attended a “Poker Night” in the community with Mitchell Bryant and “Reanna” (last name unknown). As a result of the defendant’s level of intoxication and his resultant behaviour, it was suggested to the complainant that she remove the defendant from the premises. At a point in time when the defendant had stepped outside for a cigarette, the complainant convinced the defendant that they should leave. She walked him back to Rocky’s house.

[36] The complainant testified that, once back at Rocky’s house, she expressed her displeasure with the defendant’s behaviour. The defendant became upset and the complainant testified that he pushed her with two hands approximately four times, before throwing her purse out the door and saying, “...why don’t you just get the fuck out then.” At this point, Mitchell and Reanna returned. The complainant testified that the defendant attempted “coming at her again but Mitchell got in the way.” Matters calmed down at that point and the complainant and the defendant both stayed at Rocky’s that night.

[37] The complainant testified on direct examination that on Thursday, December 2, 2010, she and the defendant bought two cases of beer and returned to Donovan’s home at about 2:00 or 3:00 pm, at which time the complainant, the defendant and Donovan started drinking. The complainant testified that the defendant was hoping they could move back into Donovan’s home that day. The drinking apparently continued into the early evening, until approximately 9:00 or 10:00 pm. The complainant’s evidence was that she had only a “couple beers” while the defendant consumed “lots with Donovan.”

[38] Just prior to the complainant and the defendant going to bed, an individual named “Curdy” arrived. The defendant asked the complainant to remove the rest of the beer from the fridge, which she did. She and the defendant then went to bed, leaving Donovan and Curdy in the living room.

[39] On direct examination, the complainant testified that the defendant, once they were in their room, held her down on the bed on her stomach and was holding her by the arms, such that she was “in a dog position type of thing.” The complainant testified that she repeatedly asked the defendant to stop, but that he ignored her pleas. The complainant’s evidence was that the defendant proceeded to rape her anally, during which act “his penis slipped into my vagina.”

[40] The complainant’s evidence is that this went on for 15 minutes. The complainant then left the room and went to the washroom to clean up. The complainant observed Curdy and Donovan sitting in the living room. She did not speak with them. From the washroom, the complainant returned to the bedroom where the defendant was. When asked by the Crown why she did so, she replied “to go to sleep.” The complainant testified that she did not tell anyone about this incident nor did she go to the police.

[41] The aggravated assault to which the defendant has entered a plea of guilty occurred during the late evening of December 3, 2010 or the early morning hours of December 4, 2010. The complainant was taken to hospital in Fort Frances and then air lifted to the Regional Health Science Centre in Thunder Bay due to the seriousness of her injuries. Prior to being transferred to hospital in Thunder Bay, the complainant disclosed the alleged sexual assault of December 2, 2010, as a result of which a Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence “kit” was completed.

[42] The complainant was released from hospital in Thunder Bay later in December 2010. Upon release, the complainant testified that she returned to Dryden to reside with her mother.

[43] The Crown, as part of the complainant’s direct examination, asked the complainant if she had any contact with J. after her release. The complainant acknowledged that she contacted the defendant, both by letter mail and on Facebook. The complainant, when asked by the Crown why she did so, explained that she had heard the defendant was going to be released from custody and that “I didn’t want him showing up at my mom’s. So I basically just told him what he wanted to hear.” The complainant testified on direct examination that she “thought” she wrote him twice, “right after I got out of the hospital. I know there was, there was some sexual stuff in there.” The complainant testified that the content of her communications to the defendant also included the comment, “I miss you” and a mention that she would be receiving a portion of her father’s residential school money.

[44] When asked by the Crown why she told J. she was going to be receiving some money, the complainant replied, “[b]asically just to kiss his ass.” When asked why she included the sexual content, the complainant replied, “[l]ike how the rapes were” and “[b]ecause obviously that’s what he liked.”

[45] When asked by the Crown about her Facebook messages to the defendant, the complainant responded that she initiated the contact, “because I was mixed up. There is a certain part to me that did miss him. And then there is a certain part to me that I was really scared.” When asked by the Crown whether she remembered anything about the content of what she wrote him on Facebook, the complainant replied, “[n]o.”

[46] The complainant was not directly cross-examined on her allegation of being assaulted by the defendant at Rocky’s place December 1, 2010.

[47] The portion of the cross-examination of the complainant which dealt with Count 4, and Count 3 indirectly, began with questions pertaining to the complainant’s video statement to the police on December 6, 2010. This statement was taken while the complainant was in hospital in Thunder Bay. Defence counsel suggested to the complainant that when telling police about the times she was sexually assaulted she failed to mention being sexually assaulted at Donovan’s, instead telling the police that she was sexually assaulted at Rocky’s place. The complainant conceded that this is what she had told the police in her statement. The complainant testified that she “got mixed up with the dates,” that she “got mixed up with Poker Night (Wednesday) and Thursday night,” and that “Poker Night we just got into an argument at Rocky’s.”

[48] When further pressed about the detail she provided to the police concerning the sexual assault at Rocky’s place, the complainant responded, “I barely don’t remember that.” The complainant again acknowledged that, in this statement, she said nothing to the officers about being assaulted at Donovan’s place.

[49] The complainant testified that this statement was taken when she was in the hospital – “I was on morphine, like, lots of morphine. Not saying that’s an excuse or anything, I’m just saying that I barely remember it.”

[50] Moving on to the issue of the complainant’s contact with the defendant after she was released from hospital in December 2010, defence counsel began by having the complainant acknowledge and confirm that the pre-trial preparations with the Crown included discussion about this contact. The complainant, in response to specific questioning on cross-examination, conceded that she had been told by the Crown that this contact was a potential “problem,” that defence counsel had the Facebook messages and that they contained sexual content. The complainant was then asked the following questions and gave the following answers:

Q “And so that’s why when asked about contact you had, you told us about it.”

A “Yeah. I was truthful.”

Q “Okay. “Cause you knew it was going to be a problem.”

A “Mm-hmm.”

Q “And the Crown Attorney told you about it.”

A “Mm-hmm.”

Q “And he told you it was going to be a problem.”

A “Yes.”

Q “So you better have an explanation.”

A “Yeah.”

[51] Defence counsel then proceeded to cross-examine the complainant on her preliminary inquiry evidence on this issue. It was suggested to the complainant that she had, at the preliminary inquiry, on direct examination, denied or minimized that she had contacted the defendant by Facebook subsequent to the letter mail she had sent him. When asked why she did not tell the court at the preliminary inquiry about the Facebook messages, the complainant testified that she didn’t remember, or was confused about the dates and sequence of her contacts with the defendant, or “maybe I forgot. Maybe I was drunk and don’t remember.”

[52] Defence counsel then put the content of a Facebook message of January 8, 2011 to the complainant. The text of this message was:

I wish I could say to you that everything would be okay. Just hearing me say it, or laughing, or telling you, ba ba, I love you and how my long hair gets in the way, and how I ride you and hit that G spot...makes your toes curl, or how when I suck on you, lick it so good, or how I sound mmm, fuck, babe I wanna feel you kiss my neck, touch my breast, lick and play with my nipples. I want to touch you, play with it. Make it so hard it throbs. I’ll always be yours ‘cause I don’t care what people say.

[53] The complainant implicitly acknowledged sending this message when she responded, “I was telling him what he wanted to hear.” When it was suggested to the complainant that she was trying to get back together with J., she answered, “[n]o. I wasn’t. I was telling him what he wanted to hear so he wouldn’t come to my mother’s. I was scared. He left me for dead.” This latter comment was in reference to the aggravated assault of December 4, 2010. The complainant acknowledged that she had initiated this contact and that she had orchestrated the use of a fake name to facilitate the contact. The complainant repeatedly testified that it was all because she didn’t want him coming to her mom’s house and that she was scared.

[53] The complainant’s reasons for contacting the defendant on Facebook, soon after the Sabaskong incident, and the nature of the content of the Facebook message, were not further explored on re-examination.

[54] While at the LaVendrye Hospital in Fort Frances on December 4, 2010, a Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Kit was completed for the complainant. This report was filed as evidence at this trial on consent. The kit was completed after the aggravated assault of December 3 or 4, 2010 and many of the notations and findings pertain to that offence. Germaine to Counts 3 and 4, vaginal and rectal swabs were taken from the complainant and a “scratch” was observed on her left vaginal wall. The complainant’s last previous intercourse was noted to have occurred on Tuesday November 30, 2010 at 9:00 am.

[55] All physical evidence gathered in the investigation, including that from the complainant on December 4, 2010 was forwarded to the Centre of Forensic Sciences, Northern Regional Laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, for analysis. Three reports from the forensic centre, dated March 2, 2011, April 18, 2011 and June 7, 2011, were filed as evidence at this trial on consent.

[56] The conclusion of these reports is that the defendant is a DNA match to semen detected on the vaginal and rectal swabs taken from the complainant in Fort Frances on December 4, 2010.

[57] The defendant did not testify.

Analysis of Count 3

[58 } The Crown is required to satisfy me beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a sexual assault on the complainant on or about December 2, 2010.

[58] The evidence contained in the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Form and the forensic analysis reports do not assist the Crown’s case.

[59] The evidence as to a scratch on the complainant’s left vaginal wall was not explained or supported by evidence from the complainant or a medical expert. This bare statement does nothing to assist in determining whether this was from consensual or non-consensual contact.

[60] The Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Form notes that the complainant’s last previous intercourse was on Tuesday November 30, 2010, shortly prior to the alleged offence. The complainant was not examined on this notation. There is therefore no way to conclude whether this intercourse was with the defendant or another individual or whether it did or did not include anal intercourse.

[61] The complainant and the defendant resided together in an intimate relationship. The possibility exists that the two had consensual vaginal and anal intercourse on November 30, 2010. There is no medical evidence before the court to suggest that the defendant’s semen could not still be present in the complainant four days later if in fact they had sexual relations on November 30, 2010.

[62] This forensic evidence could have been supported by evidence from the complainant and a medical expert. It was not. As a result, given the fact that there is evidence before me that the complainant had intercourse on November 30, 2010, I am unable to place any significant weight on the finding of the defendant’s semen in the complainant’s vaginal and rectal cavities on December 4, 2010.

[63] The evidence establishes that the complainant initiated contact with the defendant shortly after her release from hospital, including a Facebook message with explicit sexual content. The complainant provided numerous explanations for the various contacts, including that she heard he was going to be released from custody, that she was afraid of him, that she didn’t want him coming to her mother’s home and that she was telling him “what he wanted to hear.”

[64] I simply cannot reconcile the nature and content of the communication initiated by the complainant with her explanations for them. This could have been more fully explored and explained on re-examination and was not. I am cognizant of the fact that this contact was also subsequent to the aggravated assault by the defendant on the complainant. However, the fact of these contacts, together with the explicit sexual nature of the complainant’s Facebook posting to the defendant, raise doubt in my mind as to the reliability of the complainant’s evidence as it pertains to the sexual assault allegation.

[65] There were also significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s evidence at trial pertaining to the Sabaskong sexual assault and her statement to police about this incident. Most notable of these was the fact that the complainant told the police, in her December 6, 2010 video statement, that it occurred at Rocky’s place, but at trial the court was told that it occurred at Donovan’s home.

[66] The defendant is presumed innocent of this charge unless and until such time as the Crown has, on the evidence before me, satisfied me beyond a reasonable that he is guilty. A reasonable doubt is one that is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

[67] I do believe that the defendant is probably guilty of this offence. That, however, is not sufficient. In these circumstances, I am required to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant and acquit because the Crown has failed to satisfy me of the guilt of the defendant on this count beyond a reasonable doubt.

[68] The defendant is found not guilty on Count 3.

Analysis of Count 4

[69] It is incumbent on the Crown to satisfy me beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an assault on the complainant on or about the 2 nd day of December, 2010 in the First Nation Territory of Sabaskong. The Crown submits that this charge must be considered in isolation from the charge of sexual assault contained in Count 3. I do not accept this submission. My decision as to the defendant’s guilt on Count 4 turns only on the credibility of the complainant. There is no corroborating evidence before the court, despite the fact that the complainant testified that Mitchell and Reanna arrived toward the end of the incident.

[70] I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assaulted the complainant at Rocky’s place on December 1, 2010 as alleged by the complainant in her testimony. While the complainant’s evidence as to this event was not contradicted, I find it would be unsafe to convict on the basis of her uncorroborated evidence alone.

[71] The complainant advised the police, in her December 6, 2010 statement, that she had been sexually assaulted by the defendant at Rocky’s place. At trial, the complainant testified to a common assault at Rocky’s place on Poker Night and a sexual assault at Donovan’s the next night. On cross-examination, the complainant stated, “We just got into an argument at Rocky’s.”

[72] The complainant’s evidence as to the events over the course of December 1, 2 and 3, 2010 is fraught with inconsistencies. I have carefully reviewed her evidence as to these events and simply find it too unreliable to convict based on it alone. Quite simply, based on all of the complainant’s evidence, I simply cannot be sure that the defendant assaulted the complainant on or about December 2, 2010. In these circumstances, I must acquit him on Count 4.

Summary

[73] For the reasons stated herein, the defendant is found guilty on Count 2 of the indictment and not guilty on Counts 1, 3 and 4.

_______ ”original signed by”_ ___

The Hon. Mr. Justice J.S. Fregeau

Released: June 14, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-049
DATE: 2012-06-14

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and – P.J., REASONS ON JUDGMENT Fregeau J.

Released: June 14, 2012

/mls