DATE: 20150630
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
IAN ANTHONY SENIOR
Anna Stanford & Linsay Weis, for the Crown
Bradley Burgess, for Ian Anthony Senior
Heard: June 24, 2015
Judgment: June 30, 2015
J.D. McCombs J.
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
OVERVIEW
[1] Mr. Senior was tried for first-degree murder and convicted of manslaughter in the April 29, 2013 killing of Valence Mills, his stepfather. He is before the court for sentence.
[2] There is no dispute that Mr. Senior suffers from schizophrenia. At trial, it was not disputed that he killed his stepfather, or that he suffers from a major mental illness.
[3] Mr. Senior sought a verdict that he was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. The Crown position was that although he was suffering from a major mental illness, and possibly was in a psychotic state when he killed his stepfather, he nevertheless had the intent for murder.
[4] The jury’s verdict occupies the middle ground between the defence position and the Crown position. By its verdict, the jury was not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Senior’s mental disorder entitled him to a finding that he was not criminally responsible. However, given his mental illness and possible psychotic state at the time of the homicide, the jury had a reasonable doubt as to whether he had the intent for murder.
[5] Valence Mills, the deceased, did nothing to provoke the attack. By all accounts, he was a decent, loving, and supportive husband and stepfather. He was attacked in mid-day while he was lying in bed in the small apartment he shared with the offender and his mother, who was not at home at the time.
[6] The attack was extremely violent. The victim suffered 84 knife wounds. Most were not life-threatening, but others were deadly. The victim suffered a 14 ½ cm. slash wound to his throat, resulting in complete transection of his trachea and partial transection of his jugular vein. He was stabbed repeatedly in the chest, resulting in penetration of the left ventricle of the heart, and stab wounds to the pericardium, the outer sac surrounding the heart.
[7] In short, the evidence at trial and the verdict of the jury mean that, although Mr. Senior may have been in an acute psychotic state on the day of the homicide, he was aware of what he was doing when he armed himself with a large knife and entered the deceased’s bedroom with the intention of confronting him.
BACKGROUND—CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO THE HOMICIDE
[8] Mr. Senior’s mother, Icilda, had come to Canada from her native Jamaica in 1991 to get work, get settled, and then to send for her son so that he could, in her words “have a better life”. The offender was 8 or 9 when his mother left for Canada, and he was raised in Jamaica by his grandmother for the next eight years. His mother worked hard at whatever work she could get. At the time of the homicide, for example, she worked nights doing “general work” at a meat packing plant. In 1999, when the offender was 16, she brought him to Canada.
[9] For most of the time over the next several years, just the two of them lived together. Unfortunately, Mr. Senior has extremely low intelligence. He is functionally illiterate and has very poor ability to verbalize his feelings. Not surprisingly, he was unsuccessful at school. He had few if any friends, but he and his mother were very close. He relied on his mother for virtually every aspect of his life. He left school at age 19 without completing high school. His employment over the years has been casual unskilled work, usually of short duration.
[10] Mr. Senior has no prior criminal record. There is some indication of occasional marijuana use, and a few teenage fights in response to bullying, but nothing to suggest the possibility that he might erupt in an explosive act of extreme violence.
[11] In 2005, when he was around 22, his mother became concerned that he was exhibiting bizarre delusional behavior, such as compulsive repetitious conduct; laughing and talking to himself; abruptly standing up and sitting down without apparent reason; and suspicion of others. He often exhibited symptoms of paranoia, believing that people were watching him and wanting to harm him.
[12] Mrs. Mills took her son to hospital in July of 2005. He was admitted and stayed for 3-4 weeks. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
[13] Mr. Senior was released to live with his mother, and was prescribed antipsychotic medication. He had a forensic psychologist, who saw him for a few years until he retired. After that, he saw a family doctor who apparently would renew his prescriptions but was not in a position to help with psychiatric treatment.
[14] In the words of Dr. Jeff McMaster, a forensic psychiatrist who testified on behalf of the defence at trial, there was a gap in treatment, and the offender may have fallen through the cracks.
[15] The responsibility of monitoring the offender’s mental health was left to his mother, who obviously was not qualified to make professional judgments about the state of her son’s mental illness.
[16] Nonetheless, the offender’s mother did her best to help her son. After he was diagnosed in 2005, psychiatric records show that his mother took him to hospital many times over the ensuing years. He would from time to time go off his medications, become delusional, and require hospitalization and stabilization, and then he would once again be released to his mother’s custody.
[17] Mr. Senior was last hospitalized about nine months before the homicide. In July of 2012, he was brought to hospital by his mother and stepfather (the deceased). Medical records show that he had been non-compliant with his medication, and that he believed that people at work were talking about him. He was assessed as delusional, and as having had an acute psychotic episode. He was stabilized, deemed to be much improved, and released to return home with prescribed antipsychotic medication and recommended medical follow-ups.
[18] I pause here to discuss the offender’s mother’s relationship with the deceased, the offender’s stepfather, Valence Mills. She and Mr. Mills had met in 2006. He was a farm worker, working out of town, and on his days off, she would drive to his work and pick him up and bring him to the apartment she shared with the offender in Toronto. She and Mr. Mills were in a relationship for four years before he moved in with her and the offender in 2010. They were married in 2011.
[19] In these reasons I have been referring to the offender’s mother as Icilda. In doing so, I have meant no disrespect to her. In the rest of these reasons, I will refer to her as Mrs. Mills, the name she has gone by since her marriage to Valence Mills, the deceased.
[20] Mr. Mills was a gentle, kind and caring man whose support and love for his wife also extended to her son. For the most part, that affection appears to have been mutual. The offender, Ian Senior, was happy for his mother, and enjoyed a good relationship with Mr. Mills. They never argued, and as well, Mr. Mills spent a lot of time with the offender, trying to help and support him. They both liked to stay home. They didn’t socialize much, and they enjoyed watching television together.
[21] The family was deeply religious, and they attended Bible study at church generally twice a week. Ian Senior, the offender, was a willing participant in the family’s church and Bible study activities.
[22] Mr. Mills’ presence in his mother’s life was, however, a significant change for the offender. With three adults, it was crowded in the small one-bedroom apartment.
[23] Mr. Senior depended on his mother entirely. She was the one person in his life whom he trusted completely. Because of his profound intellectual limitations and his mental illness, he was unable to understand or articulate the feelings of anxiety and stress that the new arrangement caused him.
[24] In hindsight, it seems likely that the cramped quarters, and the fact that he had to share his mother’s affections with Mr. Mills, contributed to the offender’s paranoid thoughts and triggered the violent attack that took Mr. Mills’ life.
[25] In the weeks before the homicide, the offender had been exhibiting strange behavior. He assured his mother he had been taking his medications, but she counted the pills and decided he was not. She made sure he took them each day. She had seen nothing in his behavior that suggested to her that he felt hostility to her husband or any other behaviour that caused her to be concerned about possible violence.
[26] His mother testified that the day before the homicide, she made sure her son took his medication before she went to work the night shift at the meat packing plant.
[27] When she returned from work just before 9 on Monday morning, April 29th, things seemed normal enough. Her son was home, as was Mr. Mills. Mrs. Mills asked her husband to lie down with her. She testified that she always would rest her head on his shoulder because it helped her go to sleep. She awoke around 1 pm, told her husband she was going out for a while and left him in bed. As she left the apartment, she asked her son to lock the door. There was nothing she observed to cause her any concern.
[28] When she returned about two hours later, she saw the police cars outside the apartment building where they lived in apartment 1414. She took the elevator to the 14th floor. There, she learned the tragic news.
EVENTS AFTER THE HOMICIDE
[29] The offender called 911 at 2:07 p.m. He said there had been a fight and they had better send an ambulance. He was vague but when told by the 911 operator to take steps to try to revive his stepfather, he replied that it wouldn’t do any good. When the first responders arrived at 2:14, Valence Mills was clearly dead. His body was cool to the touch and the blood on the floor was beginning to congeal.
[30] After the fatal attack, Mr. Senior changed his clothing and washed the knife. However, he made no effort to hide either the knife or his bloody clothing. In the circumstances, I agree with Dr. McMaster, the forensic psychiatrist who testified at trial, that his actions were a reactive response, reflective of his precarious mental state rather than an attempt to cover up his crime.
[31] When police arrived, the offender was passive and cooperative. He made no attempt to escape, and was apparently oriented enough to understand that he had injured his stepfather and that he might be dead. He did not resist when he was arrested. He was held in custody on the 14th floor for a number of minutes before being transferred to a police scout car where a 15 minute video shows him as he was being transported to the local police division. While he was being kept in the hallway outside the apartment, he repeatedly said that he wanted to talk to his mother.
[32] The 15 minute video of the trip to the division shows him in a placid, almost motionless state, with his head down, seemingly lost in his own thoughts.
[33] He was interviewed at length by police. It was an aggressive interview lasting one hour and forty minutes. Mr. Burgess, on behalf of the offender, expressly waived the necessity for a voir dire, and indicated that he wanted the jury to see the state of mind of his client during the interview and to hear his answers to the questions and suggestions being put to his client. He requested, and the jury received, a mid-trial instruction advising that the opinions expressed by the interviewing officers were not evidence, but that the demeanour and responses of the accused were evidence. The jury was also cautioned not to draw premature conclusions from the responses of the accused because they had not yet heard all of the evidence in the case.
[34] During the police interview, the offender displayed what is often referred to as a “flat affect”. He was responsive to police questions, but denied any recollection of the fatal attack. He did acknowledge partial recollection of some of the events leading up to the attack, and events after the attack.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
(a) Credit for Time Served
[35] Mr. Senior has been in custody just over 26 months. The parties agree that at the appropriate ratio of 1.5:1, he is entitled to credit of 39 months for time already served in custody.
(b) Position of the Crown
[36] The position of the Crown is that an eight year sentence is appropriate. With credit for pre-trial custody of 39 months, or three years and three months, a sentence equivalent to eight years would mean imposition of a further period of imprisonment of 4 years and 9 months.
(c) Position of the Defence
[37] The position of the defence is that a sentence of four years and three months is appropriate. With credit for pre-trial custody of 39 months, or three years and three months, the sentence proposed by the defence would mean imposition of a further period of imprisonment of 12 months. The defence further submits that the sentence should be followed by probation for three years with appropriate conditions.
EVIDENCE ON THE SENTENCING HEARING
[38] The Crown called Dr. Jeffrey Abracen, a psychologist employed by Correctional Services Canada (CSC). Dr. Abracen is Chief Psychologist - Central District (Parole). His evidence was candid and helpful and provided me with useful information about the availability of resources to deal with mentally disordered offenders who are serving their sentences in federal institutions.
[39] Dr. Abracen’s principal area of expertise relates to his knowledge of the resources available to federal inmates who have been granted parole and are either in the community or in half-way houses across the province. However, his understanding of the availability of, and limitations on, mental health resources within institutions housing federal inmates prior to parole was also admitted on consent.
[40] When an inmate receives a federal sentence, his or her classification depends on a consideration of all available information, including psychiatric reports where available, any other reports sent by the court; and for inmates who have been in custody prior to trial, their institutional records are a very important consideration. If the inmate has psychiatric problems and is on medications, he or she would be seen by a psychiatrist. If the inmate’s psychiatric problem is acute, he or she would be recommended for treatment in a mental health centre operated by CSC. Unfortunately, there is a serious shortage of beds in those facilities, and an inmate recommended for mental health centre treatment can expect a lengthy wait before a bed becomes available.
[41] I conclude from Dr. Abracen’s evidence that if given a penitentiary sentence, Mr. Senior would likely not be initially recommended for treatment in a mental health centre. The reason for my conclusion is that during his pre-trial incarceration, Mr. Senior has been housed in general population without any reported disciplinary or safety problems. However, if Mr. Senior were to begin to decompensate and he were to become psychotic, he would then be recommended for treatment in a mental health centre. Unfortunately however, he would be put on a waiting list, because there are nowhere near enough beds to house the inmates who need them.
[42] With that said, I am satisfied by Dr. Abracen’s evidence that although the CSC’s ability to manage mentally ill inmates is far from perfect, efforts are made to ensure that they receive their medication and are housed in an environment that minimizes the risk of assault by other inmates.
[43] I am satisfied that if Mr. Senior receives a federal sentence, he is likely to go to a half-way house when he is released. In Toronto, one such facility is the Keele Street Community Correctional Centre where Dr. Abracen has his office. If Mr. Senior were placed in that facility upon his release on parole, he would be seen by a psychiatrist every two weeks, and his liberty would be restricted. Although the halfway houses are not locked facilities, there is a video camera at the exit recording everything. If Mr. Senior were to leave the facility without permission, or if he were to violate the rules of the facility, he would risk being returned to the federal institution to serve the remainder of his sentence.
[44] In short, CSC offers a less-than-perfect system. But given its limited resources, the people doing this important and often thankless work do the best they can to prepare inmates to return to the community so that the risk to the public is minimized and the prospects for successful re-integration are enhanced.
[45] Dr. McMaster, the forensic psychiatrist who testified for the defence at trial, prepared an extensive report. It was marked a lettered exhibit at trial and hence not seen by the jury, but at the sentence hearing, on consent, it was marked as a numbered exhibit.
[46] The defence also called Dr. Alina Iosif, a forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Iosif impressed me with her knowledge and with her objectivity and candour.
[47] Dr. Iosif conducted a risk assessment and provided a report dated June 8, 2015, and then a supplementary report dated June 13, 2015. In the course of her assessment, she interviewed Mr. Senior and reviewed Dr. McMaster’s August 29, 2014 report. She also had Mr. Senior’s transfer summary from Toronto East Detention Centre, and his medical reports from Maplehurst Correctional Centre. She conducted a series of tests and applied her clinical expertise based on a consideration of the factors she considered relevant.
[48] Dr. Iosif’s testing and clinical opinion led her to conclude that Mr. Senior is not an inherently antisocial or aggressive individual. He displays no indication of psychopathy, and in her opinion, is the polar opposite of a psychopath.
[49] Dr. Iosif used the Violence Risk Assessment Guide, or VRAG to help her reach conclusions about the risk of reoffending. The VRAG is an actuarial tool designed to indicate the likelihood that a particular subject will recidivate. The VRAG results suggest that the likelihood of Mr. Senior reoffending within seven years is 8-17%, and the likelihood of reoffending within 10 years is 10-31%.
[50] It is important to understand that the VRAG is an actuarial tool. It cannot predict future behavior, but helps in evaluating the likelihood of recidivism. Also, as Dr. Iosif noted in her report at p. 13: “it is important to note that actuarial instruments predict probability, not severity, of offences”. (emphasis mine).
[51] In arriving at her opinion that Mr. Senior poses a low to moderate risk of reoffending, Dr. Iosif also conducted a structured clinical judgment using a Structured Guide for the Assessment of Violent Risk. The guide is known as the HCR-20. HCR is an acronym for Historical, Clinical, and Risk. The guide takes into consideration ten historical variables (H), five clinical variables (C), and five risk management factors (R).
[52] I am satisfied that Dr. Iosif conducted her risk assessment objectively and that she applied her considerable expertise in coming to her conclusions without bias in favour of one position over the other.
[53] Importantly, Dr. Iosif agreed that many external variables can impact on the likelihood and the severity of potential recidivism.
[54] In Dr. Iosif’s view, it is important for Mr. Senior, and for the safety of the public, that he have a psychiatrist monitoring his mental health status upon his release. The psychiatrist would not need to be directly involved on an ongoing basis, but must be available as needed.
[55] Administration of prescribed medication and ensuring ongoing treatment can be handled by a family doctor or nurse, but the involvement of a trained psychiatrist is of critical importance in ensuring Mr. Senior’s long-term stability.
[56] Dr. Iosif agreed that it is absolutely necessary to make sure that Mr. Senior not fall through the cracks again.
[57] Dr. Iosif acknowledged that there are strains on the resources within the mental health care community. She indicated that in her opinion there was a “moderately good chance” that he would be taken on for psychiatric treatment, but stressed that he would likely be subjected to a waiting list.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE CROWN
[58] Ms. Stanford points out that the victim was by all accounts, a kind and loving husband and stepfather who was attacked without warning in his bedroom and who did nothing to provoke the attack. She points out that, by its verdict, the jury has concluded that Mr. Senior intentionally armed himself with a knife and entered the bedroom and attacked an unarmed victim resting in bed. Although the jury has not found that Mr. Senior had the intent for murder, in Ms. Stanford’s submission, the very nature of this frenzied attack places this offence in the upper range of seriousness for crimes of manslaughter.
[59] Ms. Stanford points to the fact that the motive, if indeed there was one, was that Mr. Senior was jealous of Mr. Valence. She submits that an attack of such viciousness, particularly when unprovoked, calls for imposition of a sentence that has as its paramount consideration, denunciation and deterrence. Ms. Stanford concedes that Mr. Senior’s mental illness is a mitigating factor, but submits that the paramount considerations remain denunciation and deterrence.
[60] Ms. Stanford acknowledges that the decided cases reveal a wide range of dispositions. She submits, however, that but for Mr. Senior’s mental illness, the facts of this case would attract a sentence at the high end of the range – a sentence of ten years or more.
[61] In her submission, having regard to the mitigating factors of Mr. Senior’s mental illness and his lack of a prior criminal record, the appropriate sentence is one of eight years.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENCE
[62] Mr. Burgess acknowledges that Mr. Senior has been convicted of a very serious offence. He does not minimize the tragic consequences of his client’s actions and accepts that a substantial period of imprisonment is appropriate despite the fact that Mr. Senior’s schizophrenia was a major contributing factor in the commission of the offence.
[63] Mr. Burgess submits, however, that Mr. Senior’s mental illness is a very significant mitigating factor. He submits that the jury’s finding represents a recognition that his client’s mental functioning was disorganized and that he never intended to kill his stepfather.
[64] He submits that the jury’s verdict does not detract from the likelihood that Mr. Senior was in an acute psychotic state when he committed the fatal attack. He submits that although the jury was not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Senior was not criminally responsible by reason of his mental disorder, the verdict clearly means that the jury found that he did not intend the tragic consequences of his actions. He submits that but for his client’s disorganized thought processes, exacerbated by his very low intellectual functioning, the crime would not have occurred. In Mr. Burgess’s submission, although Mr. Senior has been found to bear criminal responsibility for his acts, when evaluating the degree of his responsibility, great weight must be given to his major mental illness and the likelihood that he was in an acute psychotic state at the time of the attack.
[65] In Mr. Burgess’s submission, a sentence of four years and three months imprisonment falls squarely within the appropriate range of sentence for this offender, with his mental illness and his lack of a criminal record, and reflects the fundamental purpose of sentencing articulated in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, of contributing to respect for the law and maintaining a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more objectives including in particular, the objective identified in s. 718(d) “to assist in rehabilitating offenders”.
[66] Mr. Burgess submits that an appropriate sentence is one that on the one hand, reflects the gravity of the offence committed by this mentally ill and severely intellectually limited man, and on the other hand, contributes to the maintenance of a peaceful and safe society. He submits that by imposing three years’ probation following sentence, Mr. Senior would remain under state supervision for a longer time thereby decreasing his risk of reoffending.
[67] Mr. Burgess submits that a further sentence of twelve months imprisonment to be followed by three years’ probation with a recommendation that Mr. Senior serve his sentence in the St. Lawrence Valley Correction and Treatment Centre is the appropriate disposition. He reminds me that the proposed sentence is equivalent to a sentence of four years and three months, and particularly when followed by three years’ probation not only reflects the gravity of the crime and fulfils the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, but also enhances the objective of a peaceful and safe society by placing appropriate emphasis on rehabilitation.
DISCUSSION
[68] Mr. Senior is profoundly mentally ill, with very limited intelligence. He will likely live with his schizophrenia for the rest of his life. In my opinion, the most important variables affecting the likelihood of Mr. Senior reoffending are the continuing support of his mother, and access to mental health professionals with not only the expertise to diagnose and treat him, but also the will to make his situation a priority.
[69] Mr. Senior fell through the cracks in the mental health system with tragic results. With appropriate professional help and support, it is likely that he can eventually function in the community with a low risk to the public. But clearly, every step must be taken to ensure that he does not fall through the cracks again.
[70] There is no real dispute between the Crown and the defence as to which factors are aggravating and which are mitigating.
[71] Major aggravating factors are the viciousness of the attack, the fact that it was unprovoked, and the fact that the victim was unarmed and caught by surprise. Valence Mills was a loving husband and stepfather. Mrs. Mills loved him very much, and she was taken from him by her own son. Despite the horrifying reality for Mrs. Mills, she has displayed enormous grace and courage. She has forgiven her son and continues to love and to support him.
[72] Unfortunately, because of Mr. Senior’s mental illness and severe intellectual limitations, he likely does not fully appreciate the enormity of what he has done. Nonetheless, the seriousness of his crime and the fact that it was unprovoked are major aggravating factors that call for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the offence and denounces the conduct in unambiguous terms. Because of Mr. Senior’s mental illness, deterrence is a less significant factor, but it is not irrelevant. See for example: R. v. Hagendorf [2000] O.J. No. 6072 (per Durno J. at paras. 51-59.
[73] The crime would not have occurred but for the offender’s major mental illness. Mr. Senior’s mental illness is a mitigating factor: R. v. Hart, 2015 ONCA 480; R. v. Prioriello, 2012 ONCA 63 at paras. 11-12; R. v. Robinson, 1974 CanLII 1491 (ON CA), [1974] O.J. No. 545 (C.A.).
[74] Mr. Burgess’s submissions are reasonable and forceful. Certainly I agree that protection of society is a major priority in the imposition of sentence. If I were to impose a sentence of less than two years in addition to pre-trial custody, I would have the jurisdiction to impose a period of probation supervision of three years. As Mr Burgess has argued, this would result in a longer period of state supervision over Mr. Senior than the sentence proposed by Ms. Stanford on behalf of the Crown.
[75] However, I am unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Burgess.
[76] The offence committed by Mr. Senior is simply too serious to attract a sentence of only four years and three months imprisonment, even though the crime would not have happened but for his major mental illness.
[77] Also, I have no evidence to suggest that probation following a period in a provincial institution would have a better chance of achieving the paramount objective of protecting the public. Based on the evidence before me, I am persuaded that the best likelihood of achieving Mr. Senior’s safe reintegration into the community will be through the gradual reintegration likely to occur with a federal sentence.
[78] In paragraphs 56 and 57 above, I pointed out that the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Iosif expressed the opinion that it is “absolutely necessary” that Mr. Senior not fall through the cracks again. But she also said there was only a “moderately good chance” that he would be taken on for psychiatric treatment upon his release.
[79] With the greatest respect to the dedicated professionals who administer the resource-strained treatment of mentally-ill offenders, a “moderately good chance” is not good enough.
[80] The decision-makers have a statutory responsibility to put in place a plan that will permit Mr. Senior to reintegrate into the community with maximum attention to his circumstances and to the protection of the public.
[81] I am confident that they will recognize their duty to make the successful reintegration of Mr. Senior into society a priority.
CONCLUSION
[82] I have concluded that the appropriate sentence, having regard to all of the factors, both aggravating and mitigating, is one of six years imprisonment. With credit of 39 months of pre-trial custody, Mr. Senior will be sentenced to a further period of imprisonment of 33 months.
[83] I strongly recommend that when Mr. Senior is placed on parole, he be placed in the Keele Street Community Correctional Centre in Toronto where Dr. Abracen has his office. Dr. Abracen is not only the Chief Psychologist for the Central District – Parole, but is also well familiar with Mr. Senior’s case. At the Keele facility, Mr. Senior would be seen by a psychiatrist every two weeks. At that facility, there is the greatest likelihood that Mr. Senior’s specific issues will be responsibly and fully addressed.
[84] The indictment will be endorsed as follows: Sentenced to 33 months imprisonment in addition to pre-trial custody equivalent to 39 months, for an effective sentence of six years imprisonment.
[85] In addition, I make the following mandatory ancillary orders: a DNA order under s. 487.051(1), and a section 109(1) weapon prohibition order for life.
[86] All relevant information that may assist the case management team in classifying Mr. Senior appropriately shall accompany the warrant of committal. That includes a copy of these reasons, which I will release in written form, Dr. McMaster’s report, and Dr. Iosif’s two reports, If counsel think other materials would be helpful, I welcome their input.
[87] I want to thank Crown counsel, Ms. Stanford and Ms. Weis, and defence counsel, Mr. Burgess for the professional and responsible manner in which they have conducted themselves in these proceedings.
J.D. McCOMBS J.