CITATION: R. v. Burke, 2015 ONSC 2458
COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-50000344-0000
DATE: 20150428
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
DWAYNE BURKE
Michally Iny for the Respondent
Daniel MacAdam for the Applicant
HEARD: February 23, 24, 25, 2015
B. P. O’marra, j.
RULING AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RELATED TO VOLUNTARINESS AND s. 10(b) OF THE CHARTER
OVERVIEW
[1] The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Burke before and after his arrest on a charge of sexual assault. The burden of proving voluntariness is on the Crown. Mr. Burke also alleged that his rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter were breached and that the Court should exclude certain evidence pursuant to s. 24(2). The burden on the Charter application is on Mr. Burke.
[2] The parties agreed to proceed on a blended voir dire.
[3] On February 26, 2015 I ruled as follows:
all statements made by Mr. Burke from the time he first had contact with the police on May 19, 2013 until he was interviewed on video at the station at approximately 3:55 a.m. on May 20, 2013 were admissible at the instance of the Crown;
very early on in the video interview Mr. Burke’s rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter were violated. The conscripted evidence that followed the violation, including the obtaining of a buccal swab from Mr. Burke for DNA analysis, must be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.
[4] These are my reasons for those rulings.
INVESTIGATION AND ARREST OF MR. BURKE
[5] Officers Len Nicholson and Heather McWilliam were directly involved in the investigation and arrest of Mr. Burke on May 19, 2013. Counsel agreed that the notes made by Officer McWilliam would be filed with the Court on consent and be admitted as an accurate record of her memory of events. This was based on Officer McWilliam being absent from court on a medical leave.
[6] Officer McWilliam made notes of information she had received from another officer of a complaint that a sexual assault had occurred at the Quality Inn in Toronto. The female complainant had advised that she was out with friends the prior evening and drank too much alcohol. She was later with a disc jockey from the event that she had attended. She told him that she was “too drunk”. They ended up at the Quality Inn. When she woke up she did not have any clothes on. She asked the disc jockey if he had unprotected sex with her while she was asleep. He said that he had. The police intended to investigate a black male who was staying in room 525 at the Quality Inn.
[7] Officer McWilliam and Nicholson attended at the front desk of the Quality Inn and sought information as to the guest staying in room 525. They were advised that the room was rented out in the name of Lloyd Dwyer. The guest had indicated a stay of four nights with a departure anticipated on May 20, 2013.
[8] At 9:30 p.m. Officers McWilliam and Nicholson attended at room 525 and received no answer when they knocked on the door. They stood by until they received further instruction from their supervising officer. They were told to stand by and secure the door so that no one entered or left the room.
[9] Officer McWilliam left the scene to conduct a background check in regard to the registered guest Lloyd Dwyer.
[10] At approximately 10:00 p.m. Officer Nicholson was standing by the door when he was approached by a male black person. Officer Nicholson asked the man if the room was his. The man replied that it was not. He said it belonged to a friend. The man did not know the name of the person who was staying in the room but did know him. He said the man was a disc jockey with the performing name of “Bill Cosby”. The man identified himself to Officer Nicholson as Dwayne Michael McKenzie by way of a Jamaican passport. He advised that he was staying in room 316.
[11] As Officer Nicholson was speaking to Mr. McKenzie a second black male approached them from the elevator on the fifth floor. This was Mr. Burke. Officer Nicholson asked if room 525 was his. He said it was. Mr. Burke identified himself by way of a Jamaican driver’s licence with the full name of Dwayne Antony Burke and a date of birth of October 25, 1980. Officer Nicholson asked certain questions of Mr. Burke and received the following responses:
Mr. Burke was the only person staying in the room;
the room was rented in the name of his promoter Lloyd Dwyer;
Mr. Burke went to a concert in Brantford at 11:00 p.m. the prior evening. He returned at approximately 5:00 p.m. on May 19, but there was a fire alarm in progress. He was able to get back into his room between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m.
[12] By this time Officer McWilliam had returned to the Quality Inn and was close to Officer Nicholson, Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Burke.
[13] Officer Nicholson described Mr. Burke as calm at this stage. Mr. Burke did not request to enter the room. There were no language issues that inhibited the communication between the officers and Mr. Burke.
[14] Based on information received, the police understood that the suspect was a disc jockey who worked under the stage name of “Bill Cosby”. Mr. Burke was asked what his stage name was and he said it was Bill Cosby. Officer McWilliam asked Mr. McKenzie what his stage name was. He replied that it was “Harry Hype”.
[15] At 10:18 p.m. Officer McWilliam told Mr. Burke that he was under arrest for sexual assault. Her notes indicate that Mr. Burke was in shock and was alternately standing up, sitting down and holding onto his friend Mr. McKenzie. Officer McWilliam advised Mr. Burke that a female had come forward and claimed that he had sexually assaulted her and that the investigation was ongoing. Mr. Burke was asking “How could this be?” and “This has never happened to me.” He was shaking and his mouth was wide open looking at his friend.
[16] Officer McWilliam then told Mr. Burke that she wanted to advise him of his right to counsel and asked him to please pay attention to what she had to say. She advised Mr. Burke of his right to counsel and asked him if he understood. She reports that he responded that he did understand but he “did not do this”. She asked if he understood what she had said, specifically that he was under arrest for sexual assault and that he can speak to a lawyer for free legal advice. Mr. Burke responded, “Yes, but I don’t have a lawyer”. Officer McWilliam said that she could put him in contact with a free lawyer to which Mr. Burke responded “okay”. She advised Mr. Burke to stay still and calm down. He was moving around and shaking somewhat although not in a violent manner. She asked him if he wanted to call a lawyer now. He responded, “No, but can I call a friend?” She responded that he could speak to officers and investigators when he was at the police station. She proceeded to read the standard police caution to Mr. Burke and asked if he understood. He indicated he did but “I didn’t do this. I’ve never been in trouble”. She asked if he wished to say anything in answer to this charge. Mr. Burke appeared to be somewhat in shock and was not saying anything. He was seated on the ground.
[17] Officer McWilliam was advised by Officer Nicholson that transport officers were en route to take Mr. Burke to the station.
TRANSPORT TO THE STATION
[18] Officers Cameron Munroe and Melofer Bromwich were partners on the evening of May 19, 2013. They arrived at the Quality Inn on Dixon Road at approximately 10:28 p.m. At 10:35 p.m. they attended at the fifth floor hallway to take custody of Mr. Burke and transport him to the station. Officer McWilliam advised those officers that Mr. Burke was under arrest for sexual assault and had been advised of his right to counsel and cautioned.
[19] Mr. Burke was pat searched, handcuffed and escorted to their vehicle. He was placed in the rear seat.
[20] Officer Munroe could not recall any conversation with Mr. Burke as he was walked to the car. He described Mr. Burke as calm but also confused and panicky as they drove to the station.
[21] Officer Bromwich recalled a brief discussion with Mr. Burke as he was escorted to the police car. She informally advised him of his s. 10(b) rights. Mr. Burke said he was a disc jockey and wanted to talk to her in the car. In response she told him to “hold it” and read him the secondary police caution. He confirmed that he had been advised of his right to counsel and that he understood. He did not want to contact duty counsel because he did not do anything. She agreed that reference to duty counsel were her words and not likely the words of Mr. Burke.
[22] Officer Bromwich said she did not read the right to counsel from a card but was sure she offered the option of contacting a free legal aid lawyer. She said that she would have noted any questions from Mr. Burke concerning duty counsel and would have facilitated contact if requested.
[23] Exhibit 1 was the in-car video of the transport of Mr. Burke to the station. It commences at 10:38 p.m. A transcript of the audio portion was also filed. There was discussion between Mr. Burke and Officer Bromwich that included the following:
Mr. Burke said he had done nothing. He asked why he was under arrest for sexual assault.
Mr. Burke wanted to ask a question but Officer Bromwich said she wanted to confirm that he knew he was charged with sexual assault. She also read him the standard police caution. Mr. Burke said he understood.
When asked if he wished to say anything Mr. Burke said he did not assault anyone.
Mr. Burke asked what the meaning of sexual assault was. She explained it and he said he understood.
Mr. Burke said he was scheduled to work as a disc jockey that night.
Officer Bromwich told him he was being taken to the station where he would be talking to detectives.
From time to time on the video Mr. Burke appears to be whistling and humming.
Officer Bromwich asked Mr. Burke if he had been with someone the night before, specifically at a party. Mr. Burke denied he met any girls there.
Mr. Burke complained that his cuffs were too tight on his wrists. He was told they would be off soon when they arrived at the station.
Mr. Burke was told he would not be able to attend work that night. Officer Bromwich said a call could be placed to notify someone that Mr. Burke was unable to attend.
Mr. Burke indicated that he had come from Jamaica to work for a few nights as a disc jockey. He had come to Canada to work many times in the past.
Mr. Burke said he was innocent and had nothing to hide.
Mr. Burke asked if he would be able to face the woman who alleged the sexual assault. He was told “probably not until you go to court”.
Officer Bromwich asked Mr. Burke if he remembered meeting a woman the prior night. He denied that.
Officer Bromwich testified that Mr. Burke’s request to contact his promoter related to his unavailability to work due to his arrest. Mr. Burke did not tell her he wanted to contact the promoter to facilitate contact with counsel.
BOOKING VIDEO
[24] Exhibit 2 was the booking video. The escort officers (Munroe and Bromwich) informed the booking officer that Mr. Burke had already been advised of his right to counsel. Mr. Burke acknowledged that he had been advised of his right to counsel and indicated that he understood he could contact a lawyer. He said he did not need to do so since he had not done anything. The officer in charge advised Mr. Burke that he could contact duty counsel if he wished. He declined as he said he had done nothing wrong.
[25] The booking officer told Mr. Burke in the presence of the escort officer that a Level 3 search was authorized. Mr. Burke was escorted to an interview room for that purpose.
LEVEL 3 SEARCH
[26] Officer Nick Randall testified that he assisted Officer Monroe in the Level 3 search of Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke was escorted from an interview room to a search room for that purpose. Officer Randall recalled that as they escorted Mr. Burke to the search room he asked Mr. Burke whether he wished to speak to a specific lawyer or duty counsel. Officer Randall testified that he asked the question since he did not know what other officers had said to Mr. Burke. He recalled that Mr. Burke declined to contact counsel.
[27] Officer Randall described Mr. Burke as “normal”, agitated and cooperative. He testified that if Mr. Burke had asked to speak to counsel he would have noted it and followed up.
[28] The search of Mr. Burke was negative.
THE VIDEO INTERVIEW
[29] When Detectives Stewart and Petrie entered the interview room shortly before 3:55 a.m. on May 20, 2013 Mr. Burke was lying on the ground. Detective Petrie asked Mr. Burke to sit on the bench.
[30] Detective Petrie took the lead in the interview. The transcript extends for 69 pages. Mr. Burke repeatedly denied that he had committed a sexual assault. Pages 12-14 inclusive involve a request by the police for a buccal swab for DNA analysis. Mr. Burke agreed and a Q-tip was used by Detective Stewart to obtain the sample.
[31] In terms of the Charter application based on s. 10(b) a critical point arose on pages one and two of the transcript. That portion is set out herein:
Rich PETRIE: Hello Sir. Have a seat on the bench. I’m Detective PETRIE and this is my partner Detective STEWART; we’re both police officers. What’s your name?
Dwayne BURKE: Um Dwayne.
PETRIE: What’s your last name?
BURKE: BURKE, Sir.
PETRIE: Okay. I just want you to know that we’re being video taped right now. There’s a camera here; a microphone. Are you okay with being recorded?
BURKE: Sure.
PETRIE: Sir you’re charged with sexual assault.
BURKE: Yes I heard.
PETRIE: Okay I’ve got to read you some things okay?
BURKE: Okay.
PETRIE: It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You have a right to telephone any lawyer you wish. You also have the right to free advice from a legal aid lawyer. If you are charged with an offence you may apply to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan for assistance – 1-800-265-0451 – is the number that will put you in contact with a Legal Aid duty counsel lawyer for free legal advice right now. Do you understand?
BURKE: Yes I understand, Sir.
PETRIE: Do you wish to call a lawyer now?
BURKE: Well if I have to but I don’t know.
PETRIE: Well I’m not saying you have to; that’s your choice.
BURKE: I really don’t know what’s going on.
PETRIE: Okay. Well you’re here, you’re under arrest. You’re charged with sexual assault. We’ve taken all your clothing.
BURKE: Um hm.
EVIDENCE OF DWAYNE BURKE
[32] On the day he was arrested Dwayne Burke was 32 years of age. He was a Jamaican citizen and was in Canada for a few days to work as a disc jockey. His promoter had booked him room 525 at the Quality Inn on Dixon Road in Toronto.
[33] In the early evening of May 19, 2013 Mr. Burke returned to the Quality Inn. He was scheduled to do a performance that evening. As he approached his room he observed two police officers standing outside the door. He asked the officers if he could go in. The police said he could not enter. He asked why he was not allowed in. In answer to questions he told the police that he had both keys to the room and had not shared the room with anyone else. He was coming back to the room that evening from a mall. As he spoke to the police he did not feel he could leave although he was not physically restrained by any of the officers. As he was speaking to one male officer a second female officer approached him and told him that he was under arrest for assault. He told the officer that he did not do anything. He recalled that she told him about access to a lawyer but he did not understand since he was in a state of panic. He could not recall everything that she said to him. He said that he was panicked to the extent that he was shaking and the police said that he could sit to calm down.
[34] Mr. Burke had never been arrested or charged with any offence in Canada before this date. He had never had to retain or contact a lawyer on any of his previous visits to Canada. He said that he had no idea of the notion of access to a free legal aid lawyer for advice. He did ask the officers if he could make a call but they would not allow him. His plan was not to contact counsel but to contact his promoter, Lloyd Dwyer, for assistance. Mr. Dwyer was the promoter who had arranged for Mr. Burke to come to Canada and had been doing so for some 16 years. Part of Mr. Dwyer’s arrangement with Mr. Burke was to arrange for Mr. Burke’s travel and accommodation when he was in Canada for work purposes.
[35] Mr. Burke testified that he now understands the concept of access to a legal aid lawyer. He said that if he had understood at the time he would have sought legal advice.
[36] Mr. Burke recalls that he was presented to another officer who asked him some questions but made no mention of a lawyer or access to legal advice. He recalls being told something related to his right to remain silent but he could not recall the precise words. He does not recall this other officer making any mention of access to a lawyer or to legal advice.
[37] Mr. Burke was taken to the police station where he provided his fingerprints and was searched. He does not recall any mention of access to a lawyer. He was left in an interview room at the station for a long time. He later testified that he did recall that he was asked if he wanted to call a lawyer and he said no because he did not do anything. He wanted to speak to his promoter who was a Canadian citizen and would assist him in getting some advice as to his legal predicament. He said that he did not advise the police that he wanted to speak to Mr. Lloyd for the purpose of connecting him for possible legal advice.
[38] Mr. Burke recalls that he was interviewed for an extended period of time at the police station. He was asked by the police at the outset if he wished to contact legal counsel but he declined because he did not do anything.
ANALYSIS
[39] The defence submits that the issue of voluntariness is inextricably tied to the s. 10(b) application under the Charter.
[40] Mr. Burke concedes that he was read the standard right to counsel by both Officers McWilliam and Detective Petrie. However, he submits that both officers failed to make sure that he understood the information provided, specifically his right to contact free duty counsel. Based on that he submits that any apparent waivers of his right to contact duty counsel were not informed and were thus invalid.
[41] Mr. Burke submits that he was detained by Officer Nicholson and should have been advised of his s. 10(b) rights before he was arrested by Officer McWilliam.
[42] Officer Nicholson was the first officer to speak to Mr. Burke in front of room 525. He asked Mr. Burke questions about who occupied the room and whether others had access. Officer Nicholson agreed that his purpose in attending at room 525 was to find the occupant and arrest him for sexual assault. He also agreed that Mr. Burke was detained (though not physically restrained) as soon as he identified himself as the occupant of room 525.
[43] In my view it was appropriate in the particular circumstances for Officer Nicholson to ask further questions of Mr. Burke related to occupancy and access to room 525 before advising him of his s. 10(b) rights. On arrival at the Quality Inn the police were advised that the room was registered in the name of Lloyd Dwyer. The questions put to Mr. Burke were reasonable to clarify whether Mr. Dwyer, or anyone else, had access to the room. If Mr. Burke had said that he had not been in the room for two days but others had been there he might not have been arrested. The brief investigative detention of Mr. Burke to ascertain whether others had access to room 525 was justified. Very shortly thereafter he was arrested and advised of his s. 10(b) rights.
[44] The initial response by Mr. Burke to Officer McWilliam after being advised that he could speak to a lawyer for free legal advice was that he did not have a lawyer. The very next words from Officer McWilliam were that she could put him in contact with a free lawyer. Mr. Burke responded “okay”.
[45] Mr. Burke claims that there should have been a more fulsome explanation of free legal advice since he was a visitor to Canada. It was evident from the video evidence filed, and his testimony on the motion, that Mr. Burke can clearly speak and understand English. The words of Officer McWilliam were succinct and clear. The brief exchange following the formal s. 10(b) recitation complied with the informational duty of the officer. I do not find there was a breach of s. 10(b) to that point.
[46] Officer Bromwich claims that she paraphrased the s. 10(b) right to Mr. Burke as they walked to the cruiser. The in-car video captures her early on advising Mr. Burke of his right to remain silent. It is unfortunate that she did not repeat the s. 10(b) instructions on video as well. In any event she was not obliged to advise him of his s. 10(b) rights since Officer McWilliam had already done so. Very little time passed until he was escorted by Officer Bromwhich to the car.
VOLUNTARINESS
[47] The onus is on the Crown to prove that the utterances allegedly made by Mr. Burke were voluntary as defined in law.
[48] Mr. Burke denied at all times that he committed the offence alleged. There is no distinction made between inculpatory and exculpatory statements where voluntariness is in issue. See R. v. Piche 1970 182 (SCC), [1971] S.C.R. 23 at p. 36
[49] Statements to a person in authority must be proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Relevant factors include but are not limited to the following:
i) threats, promises or inducements
ii) oppression
iii) operating mind
iv) police trickery
See R. v. Oickle 2000 SCC 38, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3 at paras. 47-67
[50] Voluntariness can only be determined by considering all the circumstances. The ultimate question is whether the accused exercised free will by choosing to make a statement. See R. v. Sinclair 2010 SCC 35, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 at para. 62, R. v. Singh 2007 SCC 48, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405 at para. 53
[51] Mr. Burke does not allege that he was subjected to threats, promises or inducements by the police. He claims he did not receive effective information as to his right to counsel. He does not deny that at various points in time the police mentioned the issue of counsel and his right to remain silent. He claims that he did not effectively waive his right to counsel, or his right to remain silent, based on the particular circumstances.
[52] I accept the evidence of Mr. Burke that he was upset and emotional from the time of his arrest. Given his state of mind at the time he is unable to accurately recall all that was said to him by the police. I find as a fact that after a few questions from Officer Nicholson he was fully and accurately advised of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. He responded that he did not wish to contact counsel as he had not done anything. In response to investigative questions he maintained his innocence.
[53] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Burke’s utterances from his initial contact with Officer Nicholson on May 19, 2013 through to the very early part of the video interview at 3:55 a.m. on May 20, 2013 were made freely and voluntarily.
THE VIDEO INTERVIEW – BREACH OF s. 10(b) OF THE CHARTER
[54] The circumstances of the video interview starting at 3:55 a.m. were dramatically different from prior interactions between Mr. Burke and the police. He was now being interviewed, while seated and on video, by two detectives asking investigative questions. Mr. Burke had been advised of his right to counsel on arrest, before transport to the station, at the booking and search stages. Before the video interview he had not asked to speak to counsel. Notwithstanding all of that, Detective Petrie knew he should formally advise Mr. Burke very early on in the interview of his s. 10(b) rights and he did so. Mr. Burke was asked if he understood and he said he did. Detective Petrie then asked if he wished to call a lawyer now and received this reply: “Well if I have to but I don’t know.” Detective Petrie then said that was his choice. Mr. Burke responded: “I really don’t know what’s going on”. These two comments by Mr. Burke were made in the context of the following issues:
i) his understanding of his s. 10(b) rights, and
ii) his appreciation, or lack thereof, of a choice whether to contact counsel.
[55] Those comments should have alerted Detective Petrie to make sure Mr. Burke clearly understood his rights and his choices relating to contacting legal counsel for advice. However, the officer made no attempt to clarify the issues. Instead he simply veered into an explanation of the arrest for sexual assault. That commences at the bottom of page 3 of the transcript. There was no further mention of access to counsel until page 69 when Detective Petrie asked if Mr. Burke wished to speak to “duty counsel, a lawyer”. Mr. Burke replied he would like to speak to his promoter Lloyd Dwyer first “to hear what he thinks”. The interview ends at page 69 with Detective Petrie saying that the police would call duty counsel for Mr. Burke.
[56] Based on Mr. Burke’s comments on page 2 of the transcript the police had an obligation to make sure he understood his rights and choices under s. 10(b) of the Charter. The failure to do so constituted a breach of those rights. See R. v. Bartle, 1994 64 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173 at p. 204.
[57] Pages 2-69 inclusive of the transcript is conscripted evidence that is linked to the breach of s. 10(b). Those pages contained all the utterances of Mr. Burke as well as a buccal swab that was requested and provided at pages 12-14 inclusive. Mr. Burke agreed to provide the buccal swab without the benefit of legal advice.
[58] Based on the Charter violation early on in the interview there was not a valid waiver or consent to provide any of the conscripted evidence. See R. v. Wills, 1992 2780 (ON CA), [1992] O.J. No. 294 at paras. 47-51, 69-70 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Lewis, 1998 7116 (ON CA), [1998] O.J. No. 376 at para. 12 (Ont. C.A.).
s. 24(2) OF THE CHARTER
[59] When determining whether the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute the Court must consider the following three lines of inquiry:
i) the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct
ii) the impact of the breach on the Charter-protected interests of the accused; and
iii) society’s interest in an adjudication of the case on the merits.
See R. v. Grant 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 at para. 71
[60] Detective Petrie read the complete information regarding s. 10(b) to Mr. Burke, including reference to duty counsel. The immediate replies by Mr. Burke clearly indicated he was unclear about his rights and choices. The officer failed to take the necessary and appropriate steps to make sure Mr. Burke understood. In the context of the start of a formal video interview regarding an alleged sexual assault this was a serious breach of Mr. Burke’s rights.
[61] The impact of the breach of Mr. Burke’s Charter-protected interests was also serious. The police obtained conscripted evidence directly linked to the Charter breach. The buccal swab obtained from Mr. Burke is real evidence but was the product of an uninformed waiver of his right to choose whether to provide the sample.
[62] There is an alternative process for the Crown to seek a DNA sample from Mr. Burke before the trial of this matter. At this pretrial stage I must deal with the buccal swab obtained on May 20, 2013.
[63] Society has a significant interest in an adjudication of the case on the merits. The reliability of the evidence is an important factor in this inquiry. The breach in this case undermines the reliability of the utterances that followed. As indicated earlier, the DNA sample is real evidence and thus is reliable when viewed in isolation. However, the circumstances of it being obtained were conscriptive and the DNA sample is the product of an invalid consent.
[64] In balancing the relevant factors I find that the entire video interview, including the obtaining of the buccal swab, must be excluded under s. 24(2).
RESULT
[65] All statements made by Mr. Burke from the time he first had contact with the police until he was interviewed on video at the station at approximately 3:55 a.m. on May 20, 2013 are admissible at the instance of the Crown.
[66] Very early on in the video interview Mr. Burke’s rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter were violated. The conscripted evidence that followed the violation, including the obtaining of a buccal swab from Mr. Burke for DNA analysis, must be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.
Mr. Justice B. P. O’Marra
Released: April 28, 2015
CITATION: R. v. Burke, 2015 ONSC 2458
COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-50000344-0000
DATE: 20150428
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
DWAYNE BURKE
RULING
Mr. Justice B. P. O’Marra
Released: April 28, 2015