ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 15-43

DATE: 2015/07/06

IMPORTANT: CONTENTS CANNOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCASTED OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 517 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA DATED JUNE 4TH, 2015 OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LAFRANCE-CARDINAL.

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent

– and –

RACHEL FENN
Applicant

Daniel Brisebois, counsel for the Crown

Ian Paul and Michael A. Crystal, counsel for the Applicant

HEARD: June 4 and 5, 2015

reasons for judgment ON A BAIL HEARING

LAFRANCE-CARDINAL, J.

[1] Rachel Fenn, age 39, is charged with a co-accused that, on or about the 29th day of November, 2014, at the District of Akwesasne, did commit second degree murder on David Benson Hopps, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[2] Ms. Fenn is arguing that she should be released under section 522 of the Criminal Code pending her trial as her detention is not necessary on any of the grounds as contained in section 515 (10) of the Criminal Code.

The evidence

[3] The evidence that I have before me and that has of course been untested is to the effect that Ms. Fenn and Mr. Hopps had been in a long term relationship of approximately ten years. It was an on-and-off relationship where Ms. Fenn would bring other boyfriends to Mr. Hopps’ home in order for them to consume alcohol. It seems uncontested that both Ms. Fenn and Mr. Hopps were alcoholics and often drank to the point of intoxication. Mr. Hopps lived in a dilapidated home on Cornwall Island, being part of the Akwesasne Reserve, where there was no electricity and no heat. Mr. Hopps had no regular source of income. He did odd jobs and welcomed anyone to his home that was able to supply alcohol. Mr. Hopps and Ms. Fenn were the parents of a child born in 2006, the child was apprehended and placed for adoption.

[4] Between 2007 and 2014, there were 80 incidences of police involvement pertaining to Ms. Fenn and Mr. Hopps. There were domestic complaints made one against the other, there were reports that Ms. Fenn was missing, on many occasions police told Ms. Fenn to stay away from the Akwesasne Reserve. The officer who testified indicated that in many instances they felt like a taxi service, in that a complaint would be made by Mr. Hopps asking that Ms. Fenn be removed from his property, that they would then take Ms. Fenn back home to Cornwall either to her mother’s place, or in the last two years to her apartment on Second Street East in Cornwall. For most of these calls or occurrences, there was rarely any evidence of domestic violence, there was rarely any evidence of injuries. It was just arguments that they would have while they were both drinking and the argument could be over who got the last beer and the last cigarette.

[5] Between 1992 and 2014, there were 59 calls made to the Cornwall City Police by Ms. Fenn or Mr. Hopps or having to do with one or the other always involving the same type of complaint.

[6] From the evidence of the surety, Michael Fenn, it would seem that Ms. Fenn and Mr. Christopher Baldwin, the co-accused, met in Ms. Fenn’s apartment building. The story is that Mr. Baldwin got into trouble for breaking one of his ex-girlfriend’s window and when asked to leave simply left that apartment to move into the apartment of Ms. Fenn. They were apparently a couple from that moment on. Mr. Baldwin was from the Kingston area. There was an occurrence on October 31st, 2014 at Mr. Hopps’ home involving Ms. Fenn and Mr. Baldwin. It would seem that Ms. Fenn had spent the night in Akwesasne at Mr. Hopps home on October 30th. On October 31st, she asked a gentleman by the name of Kyle to give her a ride so that she could pick up a friend at the train station. Although everyone thought the friend was a female friend it turned out to be Christopher Baldwin. With the assistance of Kyle, Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Fenn went to pick up beer and then they all went to Mr. Hopps’ home. At 4:22 p.m., the police were called at the residence. Mr. Hopps wanted Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Fenn to leave his residence. Again the Akwesasne police acted as a taxi, removed them from the premises and brought them to the train station. Police observed at that time that Mr. Hopps had a mark on his face however he did not want to give a statement, he did not want to cooperate, he just wanted Ms. Hopps and Mr. Baldwin to be removed from his premise. No charges were laid with regards to October 31st incidence.

[7] With regards to the murder charges of November 29th, 2014, the evidence that the police have is that on November 28th, 2014 both Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Fenn attended the Walmart in Cornwall in order to purchase two pairs of camouflage pants and a jacket. On November 29th, 2014, they were seen at the Cornwall Square, Choice Taxi was called. The driver observed that both of them were wearing camouflage clothing and that Ms. Fenn had an air cast. They asked for a ride to Cornwall Island but first they wanted to stop at the Beer Store on Sydney Street. Twenty-eight beers were purchased at the Beer Store by Mr. Baldwin. The driver noticed that both of them were hiding their faces when they went through the toll booth. It is Ms. Fenn who told the driver how to get to Mr. Hopps’ home. When the driver realized that they were leaving the highway to go to a gravel driveway that then turned to a dirt driveway, he started fearing that he would be robbed. He expressed his concerns to Ms. Fenn and, consequently, Mr. Baldwin got out of the car at the fork in the laneway in order to appease the driver of the taxi. The driver of the taxi assisted Ms. Fenn in bringing the case of beer into the home. He noticed that there were some dogs barking and the accused told the driver not to be concerned that the dogs were hers. After the driver was paid, he left the premises and observed that Mr. Baldwin was still at the same fork of the road. He had not moved and he was smoking a cigarette. The driver also indicated that when he dropped off Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Fenn that it was still light out. It is the theory of the Crown that on that same day, November 29th, there was an altercation between Mr. Baldwin, Ms. Fenn and Mr. Hopps that resulted in the murder of Mr. Hopps. At 7:12 p.m. Michael Fenn received a call from Mr. Christopher Baldwin, an emotional message to the effect that he and Ms. Fenn needed a ride back. The transcript of that conversation is Exhibit Number Seven.

[8] Mr. Fenn returned the call a short while later and Mr. Baldwin answered, he was quite a bit calmer than he was when he had left the original message and he indicated that they were walking towards the bridge. Mr. Fenn’s phone died on him so the conversation was quite short.

[9] The evidence of the Crown is that shortly after that first hectic message left by Mr. Baldwin on Mr. Fenn’s voicemail, Rachel Fenn would have gone to Jake Hopps’ home, brother of the deceased, in order to get a ride into Cornwall. Jake Hopps was not prepared to do so nor was Mike Buckshot who was there watching some sports. When Mr. Hopps’ wife came out of the home in order to go to the garage where her husband was watching t.v. with friends the motion light turned on and she was able to see Rachel Fenn fully dressed in camouflage clothes. A little later, Mr. Buckshot came out of the garage to go get beer in the home and he heard Rachel Fenn talking to a second person, while they are making their way down Island Road heading west. They headed out to Mr. David’s house who was working in his garage and again Rachel Fenn walked up to him and asked whether or not he could give them a ride to Cornwall and that she was prepared to pay him $20.00. After assuring himself that they would not be smuggling any contrabands of any kind or any drugs, he agreed to give them a ride to Cornwall for $20.00. He noticed that each of them had backpacks, that there were two puppies and a dog in the backpacks. They drove to Cornwall, Rachel sitting in the front with Mr. David and Mr. Baldwin sitting in the back. He dropped them off at Rachel’s apartment on Second Street East. Mr. David indicated that both accused were acting very normally.

[10] The next day Mr. David felt that there was something wrong and consequently he went to check on Mr. Hopps only to find him dead in his bedroom. Speaking to police later that day, Mr. David indicated that he had noticed Chris Baldwin had red chalky hands when he had given him a ride to Cornwall.

[11] Mr. Hopps was found in his bedroom, although there was a substantial amount of blood found on the kitchen floor. When found he was in a supine position. The preliminary cause of death signed by the Coroner, Dr. Peters, on the third day of December, 2014, is that it was a sudden death, a homicide. The report of post mortem examination dated June 22, 2015 speaks of numerous blunt and sharp force injuries of the face and scalp, a deep cut on the side of the head, a stab wound on the right side of the neck. These injuries could have been caused by a knife or other sharp object. Numerous other cuts were present on the head, upper and lower extremities that could have been caused by an edged weapon or broken glass. The lacerations and sharp force injuries to the head and face would have bled significantly. A toxicology report shows blood and urine were positive for ethanol with readings of 303 and 431 mg. per 100 ml of blood.

[12] The scene of the crime shows a broken Pyrex glass container that is shattered that would have been used in the commission of the offence. On December 1st at 7:30 a.m. both accused, Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Fenn, were arrested as they were walking back towards Ms. Fenn’s apartment.

[13] On the Sunday, November 30th, Mr. Fenn went to check on his twin sister in order to see if she was okay. The apartment was a mess. The three dogs were found, there was feces everywhere. He checked to see if someone had taken a shower and it did not seem that it had been used. Upon leaving the apartment, he was intercepted by police where he was completely cooperative, relating the events of the frantic phone call of the previous day.

[14] When the accused were arrested, their clothing, footwear, cell phones were seized. Ms. Fenn at the time was wearing Nike Running Shoes with a zigzag pattern on the sole of the shoe. It is the Crown’s position that it is the same pattern that is seen walking through the kitchen in the blood. DNA profiles were generated and three profiles were found, that being of the victim, profile number 2 was a female profile with a match with a known offender and profile number 3 of a male profile match with a known offender. The DNA results indicate that the blood found on Mr. Baldwin’s cuff of his long sleeve shirt that he was wearing on the morning of his arrest and that was seized was a match with the victim Mr. Hopps. The blood found on the U.S. Army jacket found in Ms. Fenn’s apartment was also a match with the victim. And another jacket that was found in Ms. Fenn’s apartment which contained blood was also a match with the victim. The left shoe of Ms. Fenn was sent and the DNA profile was a match with Mr. Hopps. The victim’s blood was a match on blood found on Ms. Fenn’s walking boot.

Ms. Fenn’s plan

[15] Ms. Fenn presents as having many physical and emotional issues. Although there is no assessment, there is no doubt that Ms. Fenn has mental health issues. She suffers from muscular dystrophy and she suffers from frequent seizures. She relies on special equipment in order to be able to be mobile which includes an air cast, walker, cane, and sometimes a wheelchair. She has shortening of ligaments in her hands and, consequently, her hands are constantly closed. She started having seizures when she was 16 or 17 years of age and those seizures were never fully assessed. She is taking anti-seizures medication, sleeping medication, low dosage (1 mg) of an opiate three times a day, an anti-depressant and an inhaler. Her plan is to go and reside in Crysler at “Crysler Residence”, a residence that caters mostly to people on disability insurance. It is subsidized by Cornwall Housing, governed by the Eastern Ontario Health Unit. There is a possibility of 56 occupants, although there are 28 residents presently residing there. There are two wings and each wing has two baths and a shower. People share a washroom with another resident, and residents of the same sex share the same washrooms. There are 8 staff members at this residence, two of whom are cooks. The others are PSWs who are certified for First Aid and C.P.R. They can also inject insulin and give medication. All employees have police background checks. There is one person on night duty every night and that one person is presently responsible for all 28 guests. The owner of the premises, Mr. Borden, has indicated that there are house rules which include that you cannot be aggressive or loud, you cannot borrow money from another resident, that there is no liquor allowed in the residence. However, nothing stops them from drinking outside of the residence. If they are not able to follow through with the rules and regulations that they are evicted but it is a last straw effort. Everything is done in order to be able to mediate the situation and keep the resident.

[16] Mr. Borden indicates that there are 80% of the residents that have absolutely no issues and cause no grief and there are 20% of the residents that are much needier. Nothing stops the resident from leaving in the morning and coming back later at night as long as they are there to take their medication. When asked what he would do to ensure that Ms. Fenn was not drinking outside of the premises as it would surely be one of the conditions, he indicated that he would go to LCBO, give a picture of Ms. Fenn to the employees of the LCBO and tell them that they are not to sell to her and he believes that they would follow through with that request.

[17] Mr. Borden after hearing all of the calls that were generated both at the Akwesasne Police and at the Cornwall City Police, after hearing all of the entries and the particulars on Ms. Fenn’s criminal record, after hearing the degree of violence that was used in Mr. Hopps’ death indicated that he had absolutely no concerns in housing Ms. Fenn even though he had never met her or never spoken to her.

[18] After receiving questions from the Court, he indicated that there was no curfew, that the residents were free to come and go as they pleased but most of them were heavily medicated, received their last pills at 7 p.m., and were usually very quiet throughout the night. He indicated that there is no one that goes around the different rooms to ensure that everyone is in bed at a particular time.

[19] Mr. Michael Fenn, who is Ms. Fenn’s twin brother, came to the Court in order to assist Ms. Fenn in being released from custody pending trial. He is prepared to be her surety by assisting Rachel in transporting her to Court appearances. He is prepared to visit his sister on a regular basis, to bring his mother there to visit his sister and to keep regular contact with Ms. Fenn and with the staff of the residence including Mr. Borden.

[20] Ms. Fenn did testify. During examination in-chief, she advised us that she broke her foot while housed in a cell. She also hurt her arm in a Lindsay cell and following a seizure she testified that she broke her elbow, her shoulder and her collar bone. She also indicated that she would be prepared to follow any conditions that the Court may order.

[21] In cross-examination, her memory seemed to fail her as she could not remember some basic things. For example, she could not remember much about what was found on her criminal record, she could not remember the last time she was on bail conditions or probation conditions, and she did not know her son’s name or her brother’s son’s name. She did not remember assaulting three ex-boyfriends. She did not remember being found walking on Highway 401 with the co-accused. She does not remember hurting someone or assaulting someone in her life but she remembers people hurting her. She could however remember the name of the landlord where she is presently residing. She did not remember conversations that she had with her brother with regards to the co-accused. She indicated that she could not remember anything anymore because of the medication she was taking.

[22] The testimony of the accused was terminated when I indicated that I had concerns with regards to her memory and that there was a gap in the case with regards to medical evidence. I further surmised that it may very well be that she was on new medication and, consequently, her memory was not what it should be. Consequently, we started the third day of the bail hearing with Dr. Klar who is the acting physician at OCDC. He gave us a listing of all of her medication. He indicated that there was no change in medication when she would have been in Court on June 4th and June 5th. He did not confirm that she had a broken arm, broken shoulder or broker collar bone. He did confirm that she had difficulties with her foot. He did confirm that following the bail hearing, on June 17th, 2015 she would have slipped and fell on her right elbow and would have had swelling of the right knuckles; however her range of movement was good and there was no bruising or swelling on the right elbow. He further testified that he has not observed anything specific that would make him believe that the medication is altering her personality. In cross-examination, Dr. Klar indicated that the accused is clearly able to articulate the problems that she has both to the nurses and to him. She will report all falls, all seizures even those she had during the night and were unwitnessed. He says that she complains about her eyes, her teeth, that she was sent to see a radiologist after she complained of a shoulder injury. He indicates that every two to three days there is a complaint about something, and over and above that, she sees the nurse three times a day. The accused will sometimes fill in requests by letters indicating URGENT in order to get immediate attention. He does not recall the accused complaining of any memory loss. He further indicates that if the patient would have complained of memory loss he would have taken that very seriously as he would have had to look at the medication and the combination of medication she was being prescribed.

Position of the parties

[23] Counsel for the applicant concedes that they bear the onus of establishing that the release is warranted under the objectives of the primary, secondary and tertiary ground.

[24] Under the primary ground, defence argues that if Ms. Fenn did not have a surety that that would be a concern for the Court but because her brother will remind her and will take care of all of the transportation to and from the Court House that there should not be any difficulties with regards to the primary ground. He indicates that Ms. Fenn is on ODSP, has nowhere to go, has always lived in this jurisdiction since the 1980’s and this is where her mother and brother reside.

[25] With regards to the secondary ground, defence indicate that the setting where she will be living, being Crysler, Ontario, is a rural setting which will assist her in being able to follow conditions. There will not be any risk of her reoffending as she will not be near Akwesasne and near any of the known triggers that used to be her downfall. There will be no alcohol in the residence. Her physical limitations minimizes the risk of her committing further offences.

[26] With regards to the tertiary ground, defence refers me to the St-Cloud decision, 2015 SCC 27, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and indicates that there is a four prong test enunciated in paragraph 57 to 65 of the said decision. Defence argues that even though second degree murder is one of the most serious charges of the Criminal Code that, all in all, this is not a strong case against the accused. She may have played the role of a spectator much more than a participant and that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence have not yet been determined. The defence is asking that I take into consideration the personal circumstances of the accused, her ability to commit such a crime, and argues that because of her disability it would be difficult for us to fathom that she would have been the one participating with the knife or the ceramic bowl. Consequently, defence argues that there’s no overwhelming evidence against the accused. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence against the co-accused who already has a criminal record for manslaughter.

[27] Defence quotes paragraph 88 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in St-Cloud:

“In conclusion, if the crime is serious or very violent, if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused and if the victim or victims were vulnerable, pre-trial detention will usually be ordered.”

[28] Defence argues that even though the crime is serious and violent there is no overwhelming evidence against the accused and it is not clear whether or not we have a vulnerable victim. Having regards to the circumstances of this particular accused, taking into consideration paragraph 87 of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, they argue that detention is not necessary under the tertiary ground.

[29] It is therefore defence’s position that they have met their onus and that detention is not necessary under the primary, secondary or tertiary grounds of detention.

The Crown’s position

[30] The Crown argues that in any other domestic case and this is a domestic case, that Ms. Fenn would not be able to pass the secondary ground. The Crown argues that Ms. Fenn should be detained on all 3 grounds of detention arguing the following:

a) Her criminal record indicates 20 registered convictions. Of those 12 are failing to comply; 2 are assaults against previous boyfriends, one conviction dealing with Mr. Hopps, the victim;

b) Tendency of associating with undesirable boyfriends and being a follower. She was under the influence of a new man, Mr. Baldwin the co-accused when this crime was committed;

c) There are many reports of missing person given to police when Ms. Fenn has disappeared and her family was worried about her. In 2008, while her mom was a surety, she went missing. The mother revoked her surety, Ms. Fenn failed to appear in court, she was arrested and she ultimately pled guilty in 2008;

d) Her criminal record indicates there are past assaults on other male boyfriends and past assaults on the victim;

e) She was in a toxic tumultuous relationship with the victim, fuelled by the alcohol addiction of both Mr. Hopps and Ms. Fenn. Between 2007-2014 there are 80 incidences of Akwesasne police involving Ms. Fenn. The incidences are domestic complaints one against the other, or Ms. Fenn being reported missing. She was told many times by police to stay away from Akwesasne, that she was not welcomed on the reserve. She kept coming back and after receiving complaints, they kept acting as a taxi bringing her back to Cornwall or to Summerstown;

f) She is an instrumental player in the commission and the planning of the crime. She introduced Mr. Baldwin to Mr. Hopps in October of 2014. She was with the co-accused when they bought the camouflage clothing that they wore to the scene of the crime. She was in the taxi when Mr. Baldwin went and bought the beer that would make them welcomed into Mr. Hopps’ home;

g) She is a master of manipulation. She uses her disability to her advantage when it suits her purpose. She can be extremely assertive when it is in her best interest as described by Dr. Klar or she can portray herself as being very vulnerable depending on her agenda;

h) She has a selective memory, not remembering assaulting any former boyfriends, not remembering why she was in jail but remembering her landlord’s name. The medical evidence does not support her claim that she is suffering memory loss because of her medication;

i) She was at the scene of the crime although she originally denied it 13 times in a statement given to police. The victim’s DNA was found on blood located on Ms. Fenn’s walking boot and the Crown believes it can prove that Ms. Fenn’s running shoe print is seen in the victim’s blood at the scene of the crime;

j) Her post offence conduct, going to the deceased’s brother’s home to ask for a ride, after Mr. Hopps was left in a pool of blood is the make-up of a dangerous person.

[31] Consequently, the Crown argues that if released her criminal record indicates that she may not appear for a Court appearance. She will commit more crimes, most probably more breaches, and she will claim she did not remember that she was prohibited from doing whatever would be listed in the release conditions. As well, in the context of this being a long standing toxic domestic relationship with 2 assault charges against 2 different boyfriends that she cannot be released under the tertiary grounds.

Conclusion

[32] I will address the three grounds of detention as listed in section 510(10) in the order they appear.

[33] On the primary ground, I would conclude that having regards to Ms. Fenn’s criminal record, her 12 entries of failing to comply with court imposed conditions, her conviction for failing to attend Court, the numerous missing report claims made by her loved ones that there is an unmanageable risk that if released we would lose sight of her and she would fail to attend Court.

[34] With regards to the secondary ground, whether the detention of the applicant is necessary to ensure the protection or safety of the public having regard to all of the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the applicant will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant has not met her onus.

[35] I take the following factors into consideration. The applicant has two prior convictions for offences of violence. The plan that is being proposed is one that is unacceptable to the Court. Firstly, the residents of the Crysler Home are free to come and go as they please, all day, twenty-four hours a day. The only requirement is that they be there to take their medication. I am also very concerned with the fact there is only one person who is there overnight dealing with all of the residents of the premise. Ms. Fenn has a serious problem with alcohol, one that she would admittedly concede. There is an LCBO in the Village of Crysler, and I am not satisfied that by giving the LCBO employees a picture of Ms. Fenn that they would be able to ensure that no alcohol is sold to her. They have no legal obligation to follow such instructions. In any event, any other resident of the Crysler house would be able to buy alcohol for Ms. Fenn.

[36] I am also very concerned with the fact that Ms. Fenn could argue memory loss should she ever breach any of the conditions or commit other crimes. I am not satisfied that she is suffering memory losses but she certainly seems to be able to manipulate the different situations she finds herself in depending on her agenda.

[37] I am also concerned with the proposed plans, having regards to her particular circumstances. The fact that Mr. Fenn, her twin brother and her surety will be delegating most of these powers to Mr. Borden is such that there will not be the necessary safeguards for Mr. Fenn to act as her jailor. There would not be adequate supervision and consequently I am not satisfied that if released she would not commit other crimes.

[38] I am equally of the view that the applicant has failed to discharge her onus in relation to the tertiary ground as it relates to Ms. Fenn’s detention being necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. I have reviewed the decision of St-Cloud and the four-prong test. I am of the view that in the present circumstances that the evidence strongly links the applicant to the offence, that the crime is of the gravest nature, that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence are equally grave and that there exist a potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment.

[39] Based on the evidence tendered at this hearing, there is no doubt that Ms. Fenn is strongly linked to the commission of the offence. Mr. Baldwin met Mr. Hopps because of Ms. Fenn. Mr. Hopps and Mr. Baldwin were boyfriends of Ms. Fenn, people she was romantically involved with. There were some elements of planning when both Mr. Baldwin and herself attended Walmart in order to buy camouflage clothing and wore this camouflage clothing when they attended Mr. Hopps’ residence for the last time. Ms. Fenn also knew that a case of beer would make her welcome into Mr. Hopps home regardless of whom she brought with her.

[40] It may be that Ms. Fenn never touched the Pyrex bowl or the knife that ultimately were used causing Mr. Hopps’ death. But she was present, the deceased’s DNA was found on her Air boot, the zigzag pattern of the sole of her running shoe is found all over the scene of the crime.

[41] It is Ms. Fenn’s after the fact conduct that is the most troubling. She is the one that knocked on the deceased’s brother’s door in order to ask for a ride back to Cornwall. The evidence of the Crown is that this request would have been done after the crime was committed. As the Crown can prove that Ms. Fenn was at the scene of the crime she knew she had left Mr. Hopps in a pool of blood, in a vulnerable state, as he was seriously intoxicated at that time.

[42] Having concluded that the applicant has failed to discharge her onus on the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds, the application for the release of Ms. Fenn pending trial is therefore denied.

Madam Justice Lafrance-Cardinal

Released: July 6, 2015

COURT FILE NO.: 15-43

DATE: 2015/07/06

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IMPORTANT: CONTENTS CANNOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCASTED OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 517 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA DATED JUNE 4TH, 2015 OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LAFRANCE-CARDINAL.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent

– and –

RACHEL FENN
Applicant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ON A BAIL HEARING

Madam Justice Lafrance-Cardinal

Released: July 6, 2015