ONSC 3287

SUPERIOR ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

v.

NEIL SWANSON

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE S. O’NEILL

On April 12, 2013 at PARRY SOUND, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

W. Beatty Counsel for the Crown

M. Thurston Counsel for

FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 2013

R. v. Neil Swanson [2013] ONSC 3287

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

O’NEILL, J. (Orally):

These are my reasons on sentence.

Part A - The charges before the court:

Yesterday, on April 11th, 2013, Mr. Neil Swanson pleaded guilty to Count 2 of a two-count indictment that he, on or about the 10th day of June in the year 2012, at the Wasauksing First Nation in the Province of Ontario having consumed alcohol in such quantity that the concentration thereof in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood did, while operating a motor vehicle, cause an accident resulting in bodily harm to Kaitlin Harris, contrary to Section 255(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Part B - The facts with respect to the offence:

Crown counsel read the facts into the court record and they were acknowledged as substantially correct by defence counsel. On June 10th, 2012, at 6:00 a.m., a single vehicle collision took place on Parry Island, Wasauksing. There were five people in this vehicle. The driver was Mr. Swanson, one female person in the front passenger seat was injured. The other occupants sustained only minor injuries.

The group, or members of the group, had been out to a bar in Parry Sound. That bar closed. They took a taxi to Parry Island, and then at 5:30 a.m. in the morning, as the party continued, it was determined that they should go for a joy ride. As Crown counsel correctly pointed out, the decision to get into a vehicle, to get behind the wheel, and to drive a vehicle was taken by Mr. Swanson. He drove his 1994 Ford Probe down some roads on Parry Island. He drove at a rate of speed too high for the conditions. It was estimated that he may have been driving 80 to 100 kilometers per hour on a dirt road. He failed to negotiate a slight right turn. The vehicle went straight off the road to the left into some trees. It struck a large tree head-on. Again, all of the occupants sustained minor injuries except for the passenger, Kaitlin Harris. She wasn't wearing a seatbelt. She went into the windshield with her head. The airbags deployed. Mr. Swanson admitted his drinking and driving. There was no insurance on the vehicle.

The vehicle as demonstrated by pictures filed as exhibits on the sentencing hearing, clearly sustained significant front-end damage. Ms. Harris was taken to the hospital. She sustained a skull fracture. I'll deal with that in more detail later.

Mr. Swanson's readings were 125 and 109 milliliters taken by two breath samples at 00:34 a.m. in the morning.

Kaitlin Harris continues to sustain some hearing impairment as a result of the accident, but it is believed that this will improve. She also sustained an non-displaced rib fracture in this tragic event.

Defence counsel was able to speak with Kaitlin Harris yesterday. She's at Peterborough College now. She indicated she would support Mr. Swanson if asked. She confirmed that she is still suffering some ongoing hearing loss, which she expects to fully recover from. Her headaches now are worse than the kinds of headaches she had before, but she believes they will clear up fully in time.

Part C - The position of the parties on sentencing:

Defence counsel is seeking the imposition of a six-month period of imprisonment through the imposition of a conditional sentence with elements of house arrest and he acknowledges the mandatory driving prohibition that will be accomplished through Section 259 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Crown counsel is seeking a period of incarceration of 75 days and he, of course, acknowledges the mandatory driving prohibition that must occur now through Section 259 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Part D - The sentencing principles:

I refer briefly to Section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada. "The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

Other sentencing provisions are set out in Section 718.1 and 718.2.

Part E - Victim impacts statements and letters of support:

A victim impact statement was provided by Kaitlin Harris. I reviewed that statement. I also reviewed three or four letters of support filed by defence counsel in relation to Mr. Swanson. The victim impact statement itself is rather short. Ms. Harris confirms that she was in Parry Sound Hospital for five days. She was treated for a skull fracture on the back of her skull. She had a concussion as well. She learned later that she sustained an non-displaced rib fracture and we know, of course, that she's having some ongoing difficulties with headaches and some hearing loss, both of which she expects to fully recover from.

The letters of support on behalf of Mr. Swanson speak to his solid record as a worker. He's industrious, he's on-time, he's committed, and they also speak to his present work in the oil fields in Saskatchewan, where, I think it's fair to say the letter of support from his immediate supervisor and from others, speaks to him as being a model employee; committed, dedicated, and valued.

Part F - Analysis.

Firstly with respect to the nature of a conditional sentence order, Crown counsel submitted that a conditional sentence in this case would be inappropriate, asking what would the people of Wasauksing think about a light sentence? He stated, "Where is the justice in a conditional sentence that imparts little or no punishment?" He further stated, "I defy anyone to explain how Mr. Swanson can just walk away with a conditional sentence," and he suggested that there would be no punishment if a conditional sentence were handed down in this case.

The nature of a conditional sentence and issues relating to its denunciatory and deterrent effect were addressed by Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the landmark decision R. v. Proulx. The Proulx case was released in the year 2000 and it remains a major case that outlines and explains the underlying principles contained within Section 742.1, the conditional sentencing section, in the Criminal Code. I read into the record from Martins' 2013 Criminal Code some of the annotations with respect to this Supreme Court of Canada case found on pages 1519 to 1520.

"Unlike probation, which is primarily a rehabilitative sentencing tool, a conditional sentence is intended to address both punitive and rehabilitative objectives. Accordingly, conditional sentences should generally include punitive conditions that restrict the offender's liberty. Therefore, conditions such as house arrest or strict curfews should be the norm. The conditional sentence is available for all offences in which the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. There is no presumption that conditional sentences are inappropriate for specific offences. Nevertheless, the gravity of the offence is clearly relevant to determining whether a conditional sentence is appropriate in the circumstances. A conditional sentence can provide a significant amount of denunciation, particularly when owners' conditions are imposed and the term of the sentence is longer than would have been imposed as a jail sentence. Generally, the more serious the offence, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be. A conditional sentence can also provide significant deterrents if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and judges should be wary of placing too much weight on deterrents when choosing between a conditional sentence and incarceration. Nevertheless, there may be circumstances in which the need for deterrents will warrant incarceration. When the objectives of rehabilitation, reparation, and promotion of a sense of responsibility may be realistically be achieved, a conditional sentence will likely be the appropriate sanction subject to considerations of denunciation and deterrence. While aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender increase the need for denunciation and deterrence, a conditional sentence may be imposed even if such factors are present."

I turn secondly to Section 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code and the Gladue analysis. That provides as follows:

"A court that imposes a sentence shall take into consideration the following principles:

All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders."

Part (i) - Sentencing Aboriginal offenders: Dealing with Symptoms, not Causes.

In paragraph 93 of the Gladue decision 1999 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688, the Supreme Court set out a general summary of the principles to be considered in sentencing Aboriginal offenders.

I have reviewed the principles set out therein at subparagraphs 1 through 13 inclusive. I also take judicial notice of the broad systemic and background factors, which figure prominently in the causation of crime by Aboriginal offenders and of the primary emphasis on restorative approaches to sentencing in Aboriginal cultures. These factors are mitigating in nature to the extent that they may have played a part in the conduct that forms the subject matter in this case.

In Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada stated at paragraph 64 that, " The provision of Section 718.2(e) may properly be seen as Parliament’s direction to members of the judiciary to inquire into the causes of the problem and to endeavour to remedy it to the extent that a remedy is possible through the sentencing process."

Later, at paragraph 67, the court stated that, "The background factors which figure prominently in the causation of crime by Aboriginal offenders are now well known. Years of dislocation and economic development have translated, for many Aboriginal peoples, into low incomes, high unemployment, lack of opportunities and options, lack of a relevance of education, substance abuse, loneliness, and community fragmentation."

In the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Ottawa, Canada, 1996, (RCAP Report), the Commission clearly examined many of the root problems and causes relating to the injustices suffered by Canada's Aboriginal peoples. The RCAP report made several important recommendations for addressing the injustices and the problems relating to crime and lifestyle. A theme throughout this report was the restoration of lands and greater control over resources to the Aboriginal peoples by a process that examined the treaties that were entered into with the Crown, all with the view to implementing the true spirit and original intent of the treaties. Other recommendations included returning to Aboriginal peoples greater community control over the utilization and management of health dollars and health and healing processes.

These larger issues cannot be resolved or carefully analyzed at a sentencing hearing, nor at a bail hearing involving an Aboriginal offender. This was noted by the Supreme Court of Canada at paragraph 65, where it stated that, "It is clear that sentencing innovation by itself cannot remove the causes of Aboriginal alienation from the criminal justice system."

In addressing Aboriginal alienation from and a lack of respect for the justice system, the Supreme Court of Canada may also have had in mind the broader Canadian public's long-outstanding failure to recognize Aboriginal rights, if not the failure of the justice system itself. In 1990, Chief Justice Brian Dickson and Justice La Forest wrote in the landmark R. v. Sparrow decision that, "For many years, the rights of the Indians to their Aboriginal lands - certainly as legal rights - were virtually ignored."

In that same decision, the Supreme Court remarked that the treaties entered into with the Crown were often honoured in the breach. If important land rights and solemn treaties can be ignored and breached, what does this say about how members of impoverished First Nation communities can continue to have respect for the justice system and the upholding of the rule of law?

In the landmark decision Haida Nation v. British Columbia 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 SCR 511, Chief Justice McLachlin had this to say about the reconciliation process mandated by Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution:

"Put simply, Canada’s Aboriginal peoples were here when Europeans came, and they were never conquered. Many Bands reconciled their claims with the sovereignty of the Crown through negotiated treaties. Others, notably in British Columbia, have yet to do so. The potential rights embedded in these claims are protected by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The honour of the Crown requires that these rights be determined, recognized and respected. This, in turn, requires the Crown, acting honourably, to participate in processes of negotiation. While this process continues, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult and, where indicated, accommodate Aboriginal interests."

If Aboriginal constitutional rights can be determined, recognized, and respected, this process of reconciliation may be the very key to turning around or reversing Aboriginal alienation from the justice system and the over-incarceration of Aboriginal people in this country's jails, correctional institutes and prisons. With the determination, recognition, and implementation of Section 35 constitutional rights may well come to Aboriginal peoples, a more just share of the wealth and resources of these Canadian lands on which Aboriginal peoples have settled for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, more economic opportunities and options, and more opportunities to be gainfully and respectably employed.

It may, perhaps, be worthwhile to note that the same Crown that represents the wider public interest in the prosecution and sentencing of an Aboriginal person may also carry responsibilities, along with the Federal Crown, to address, through other forums and processes, issues relating to Aboriginal people's dislocation, loss of economic opportunity, and loss of lands and resources, all of which, as the Supreme Court of Canada has noted, figure prominently as background factors in Aboriginal crime.

Stated differently, responsibilities for effectively addressing many of the root causes rather than the symptoms of Aboriginal crime may, as a matter of justice and social responsibility, primary rest with the appropriate Crown or Crowns as the RCAP report concluded and not solely with the sentencing judge or a bail hearing judge in the sentencing process. Indeed, as long as the sentencing judges can effectively deal only with the symptoms of the problem through the limited scope of Section 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code and not the root causes of the problem, questions are raised regarding whether or not important changes both on an individual and community basis as well as a reduction in the rate of recidivism can be achieved in the sentencing process.

Mr. Swanson was raised in the Wasauksing First Nation, a signatory community to the September 1850 Robinson Huron Treaty. The treaty was entered into by 17 First Nation communities occupying the shores of Lake Huron and the islands including inland Bands located between Sault Ste. Marie and Parry Sound. There can be little doubt that Parry Island and the people of Wasauksing, including Mr. Swanson, have all, in one way or another, suffered indirectly or directly the impacts and effects of racism, discrimination, poverty, and the intergenerational effects of the residential school system.

(ii) - More jail won’t solve Canada's Aboriginal incarceration problem.

Last Friday, April 5th, 2013, the following editorial appeared in Canada's national newspaper; "More jail won't solve Canada's Aboriginal incarceration problem".

There seem to be few people who think the answer to solving the abysmally high incarceration rate for Aboriginals is to make it easier to throw them in jail and keep them longer. Last week, BC's provincial health officer, Perry Kendall, added his voice to a burgeoning group of public officials worried about the increasing role that prisons are playing in the lives of First Nations Inuit and Metis people. A few weeks before him, Howard Sapers, Canada's prison watchdog, was critical of Ottawa for doing little to address the situation he says continues to get worse. "In the past five years alone, the population of Aboriginal inmates in federal penitentiaries increased by forty-three percent. Today, Aboriginal people make up twenty-three percent of all inmates in federal institutions despite representing just four percent of Canada's population."

Before Mr. Sapers, former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci issued a report that suggested Ontario's justice system is in crisis as it concerns the provinces, First Nations, community. Justice Iacobucci released his report about one month ago. In that report, he found that Aboriginal people are subjected to systemic racism in the courts, prison, and jury process. In Saskatchewan, which has the highest native incarceration rate in this country, the person who's been handed the job of trying to change this grim picture told the Canadian Association of Chief of Police that, "We aren't going to arrest our way out of it." Dale McFee, former police chief in Prince Albert and now Deputy Minister of Corrections and Policing in Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice, is trying to introduce more holistic techniques in an attempt to reverse this situation.

Aboriginal people who represent eleven percent of Saskatchewan's “population”-this is where Mr. Swanson works-have made up as much as eighty percent of the jail population in recent years. Mr. McFee's approach made pouring resources into things such as abuse counseling and addressing poverty and cultural issues before they lead to aberrant behaviour.

There is a concern that the governing party of this country is going to make what's already a national disgrace into an international embarrassment. The Safe Streets Act introduced new mandatory minimum sentences for some offences and increases existing minimum penalties in other areas. It also makes changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to allow the courts to keep young people in custody while awaiting sentence. It's the contention of Dr. Kendall and others that the Act also undermines a section of the Criminal Code that asks the judges to consider all possible options for sentencing before choosing prison, especially for Aboriginal people and this, despite a plethora of studies that have shown that prison and longer sentence don't act as deterrents or reduce the likelihood that a person will reoffend. In fact, studies have demonstrated that more prison time can actually increase crime. "Most of us are familiar with the litany of reasons why our First Nations people end up in jail. They're societal, historical, and deep-rooted in scope. A link to poor health, poor education, and the less visible, but no less damaging, influences of colonialism and racism. Incarceration rates are highest among those 20 to 24. In BC's Aboriginal population, there's an abnormally large number of people in the under age 19 group. As this cohort moves into the 20 to 34 category, there's the real risk that this will increase the already unacceptable over-representation in the adult criminal justice system. Dr. Kendall is urging the Federal government to revoke or amend those sections of the Safe - Safe Streets Act that he and others believe will only exacerbate an already terrible condition. It's worth a try.

Clearly, the approach we've taken until now isn't working."

That's an article written by Mr. Gary Mason.

In my view, the over-incarceration of Aboriginal peoples is a fact that occurs slowly, but surely, in our justice system offender-by-offender, sometimes with the thought that incarceration is only impacting one person where within the passage of five to ten years, the national incarceration rate approaches tragic levels.

(iii) - Aboriginal exclusion from development opportunities on traditional lands.

It is no secret that alcohol and drug abuse are serious problems in and around Wasauksing and Parry Sound in Parry Sound District, particularly with respect to many Aboriginal youth and young adults. It is no secret that in many of these communities, particularly the Aboriginal communities, unemployment is measured in double digits, sometimes as a high as fifty, sixty or seventy-five percent. Looking at this problem through the lens of the Gladue analysis, therefore, along with childhood poverty, racism, adult unemployment and alcohol abuse, it surprises no one that another judge in another court on another day is required to sentence an Aboriginal offender, for in this case, a very serious crime.

I repeat paragraph 67 of Gladue;

" The background factors which by now figure prominently in the causation of crime by Aboriginal offenders are by now well known. Years of dislocation and economic development have translated for many Aboriginal peoples, into low incomes, high unemployment, lack of opportunities and options, lack or irrelevance of education, substance abuse, loneliness, and community fragmentation."

In the RCAP report referenced earlier, several important recommendations were made involving changes required to address the injustices and problems relating to Aboriginal crime and lifestyle. As outlined earlier in these reasons, the theme throughout the RCAP report was the restoration of lands and greater control over resources of the Aboriginal peoples by a process to examine the treaties entered into with the Crown all with the view to implementing the true spirit and original intent of the treaties.

Since 1980, a period of almost 33 years, Mr. Swanson's Aboriginal community of Wasauksing has been attempting to reassert its right, jurisdiction, and sovereignty over islands off its coast and more particularly, jurisdiction with respect to the territorial boundary issue at Wasauksing. These issues came sharply into focus when the Township of the Archipelago was established with Municipal control of offshore islands in 1980, long considered treaty-protected and within the jurisdiction of Wasauking and other Robinson-Huron signatory Bands. To date, there has been no resolution of these issues even after 33 years.

If a dispossession has occurred with respect to islands and surrounding waters, is it too hard to imagine that such a dispossession would thereby shrink a land-base, a resource-base, and economic opportunities? If a dispossession has occurred or an alienation of lands, would this partially explain or be linked to high levels of unemployment, idle time, low self-esteem, abuse of alcohol and criminal behaviour?

How many other Wasauksing youth and young adults will come before these courts and be sentenced as criminal offenders before long outstanding issues relating to lands, waters, and economic development opportunities are resolved? If the justice system can resolve criminal charges involving Aboriginal offenders, in most cases under three years, why are some of these larger issues, which may well lie at the root of some elements of Aboriginal crime outstanding for periods not measured in years, but generations, and in some cases half-centuries and centuries?

Indeed, at page 81 of the Ipperwash report released only a few years ago, Justice Linden wrote;

"No reasonable person looking at land claim settlement in Ontario could avoid the conclusion the process takes far too long. An average of 15 years to settle a claim would be scandalous in any other part of Canadian justice system. Is it not time that our justice system, fine-tuned as it is to deal with Aboriginal and all crime effectively and efficiently, addresses the resolution of long-outstanding constitutional legal issues involving Aboriginal rights and development opportunities on traditional lands and waters. A remedy or cure to Aboriginal crime is not possible in the sentencing process despite a thorough Gladue analysis, but is it not time, in the interest of reducing crime and the recidivism rate for Federal Crowns, Provincial Crowns, defence lawyers, judges, as well as the police, to call out and demand that processes that lead to the restoration of lands and greater control over resources to the Aboriginals be created and entered into in a spirit of reconciliation without any more delay and a long passage of time?"

Part G - Conclusions.

Mr. Swanson is 26 years of age with no previous criminal record. He has a good work record and at present, he has secured stable income and employment. He has chosen to move west where there are opportunities for him in the oil economy of Saskatchewan. The injured victim in this case, Kaitlin Harris, supports Mr. Swanson and she has taken, in some manner, a restorative and rehabilitative approach to sentencing.

Mr. Swanson's statement to the court and his guilty plea demonstrate remorse and acceptance of responsibility. It is clear that both he and Ms. Harris are moving forward despite the terrible events of the early morning of June 10th, 2012. Mr. Swanson's words late yesterday afternoon, "I regret my actions. This was one of my biggest mistakes," resonates with this court.

I have reviewed the sentencing factors outlined on pages 180 and 181 of the text defending drinking and driving cases, 2012, Alan Gold. I have also reviewed the legal decisions referred to by Crown counsel and the range of legal dispositions open to this court in a case such as this.

In my view, this is a case where;

1. having regard to the offence on the morning in question;

2. the optimistic prognosis with respect to Kaitlin Harris' recovery;

3. her position with respect to sentencing;

4. Mr. Swanson's relatively young age, academic record, and solid work record;

5. the letters of support filed by defence counsel;

6. the Supreme Court of Canada's framework for understanding and implementing the conditional sentence regime;

7. the legal significance of R. v. Gladue, Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code and Canada's tragic over-incarceration of Aboriginal peoples, that in all of the circumstances of this particular case, the imposition of a conditional sentence order is both justified and appropriate. Any sentence handed down is clearly one that would not exceed two years less a day. The safety of the community going forward would not be impacted, and in my view, such a sentence herein would be consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing as I have outlined in my reasons.

I also take generally into account a First Nations approach to sentencing, which stresses restoration and rehabilitation rather than simply denunciation and deterrence. Mr. Swanson is on the path to restoration and rehabilitation. He is supported on this path by the very person who was most injured in this tragic event.

Accordingly, for these reasons, I have endorsed the indictment this morning as follows:

April 12, 2013, for oral reasons delivered today, Mr. Swanson's sentence is follows:

1. A six-month period of imprisonment to be served under the terms and conditions of the draft conditional sentence order as herein attached.

2. Pursuant to Section 259(1) (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, a mandatory driving prohibition of two years is imposed. The minimum under the Section 259 is one year, the maximum is three years, I have imposed two years.

The terms and provisions of the conditional sentence order read as follows:

Mr. Swanson, and Mr. Thurston, please, I want your client to report forthwith to the probation office on Church Street, he's here today, before his return to Saskatchewan. He is to abstain from the purchase, possession, consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances. He is to abstain from the purchase, possession, consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription. He is to make reasonable efforts to find, maintain, and continue suitable full-time employment.

The additional conditions are attached to Schedule A; for the first three months of the conditional sentence order, he is confined to his house and yard 24 hours a day, save and except for, reporting to a sentence supervisor, attending any treatment, counseling, assessment, or rehabilitative programs that may be required by the supervisor, emergency trips to the hospital, attending scheduled appointments with his doctor or dentist. One period each week, including traveling time, for the sole purpose of grocery shopping, banking, paying bills, obtaining medical supplies on Saturdays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Mr. Swanson, are you working on Saturdays or not or is it a rotating days-off schedule?

MR. SWANSON: Rotating days-off schedule.

THE COURT: So, you can work every day of the week rotating-rotating?

MR. SWANSON: Yeah.

THE COURT: Is there any day you don't work?

MR. SWANSON: Sundays.

THE COURT: I'll change the Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to Sundays. Also, employment is an exception to these strict house arrest curfew and any other time approved by in advance by your supervisor for non-recurring events. Part B; for the second three months of this order, sir, you are to obey a curfew and be in your residence between the hours of 9:00 p.m. at night. Will that be a problem?

MR. SWANSON: No, Your Honour.

The COURT: And 4:00 o’clock a.m. in the morning. Do you leave any earlier for work than 4:00 a.m.?

MR. SWANSON: No.

THE COURT: Are you sure?

MR. SWANSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Except for medical emergencies, employment requirements or as may be approved in writing in advance by the sentence supervisor. That order is shown, Madam Clerk, in draft and is attached to my endorsement. Mr. Thurston, Mr. Beatty, anything further before we close court today?

MR. THURSTON: Just one, Your Honour. With respect to the exceptions to the house arrest during the first three months.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, sir.

MR. THURSTON: I'm asking for a one-time exception to allow him to travel from Parry Sound to Regina, Saskatchewan.

THE COURT: I'll write that in. A one-time exception to travel, and just give me the days between, please, from Ontario....

MR. THURSTON: From Parry Sound to Regina, Saskatchewan. He doesn't know which day it's going to be, but its next week some time?

THE COURT: Regina Saskatchewan within the next seven days. Will that return trip be by air or motor vehicle?

MR. THURSTON: Air.

THE COURT: By air. I'm not going to limit it to number the hours or the exact day. It's an air travel return here. It's within the next seven days.

MR. THURSTON: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Beatty, on that point?

MR. BEATTY: That's fine, Your Honour. I have no qualms with that and generally I've no other things to say.

THE COURT: All right. Madam Clerk?

COURTROOM CLERK: Yes, Your Honour.

THE COURT: That's the endorsement. Attach it, please, to the conditional sentence order. There is the indictment.

...ADMINISTRATION MATTERS ADDRESSED.

...OTHER MATTERS SPOKEN TO.

FORM 2

Certificate of Transcript

Evidence Act, subsection 5 (2)

I, Brenda Wakelin, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the record R. v. Neil Swanson in the Superior Court of Justice, 89 James Street, Parry Sound, Ontario taken from Recording No. 3011 Courtroom 1 20130412 092226, which has been certified in the Form 1 by M. Horvat.

(Date)

(Signature of authorized person(s))

Brenda Wakelin, B.Sc., B.Ed., OCT, CCR, ICDR Certified Court Reporter, CRAO

Internationally Certified Digital Reporter, IAPRT

PLEASE NOTE:

Any copies of this transcript are unauthorized and are in direct violation of Ontario Regulation 587/91, Courts of Justice Act, January 1, 1990. If additional copies are required, please contact the Records Management Clerk.

This transcript is a true certified copy bearing the original signature in blue ink.

Transcript Ordered: April 15, 2013

Transcript Completed: May 14, 2013

Notified Ordering Party: May 27, 2013

Legend

[sic] – Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.

(ph) – Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.