SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

• and -

SEVER NEACSU

Accused

--- Before THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. O'MARRA,

without a jury, at the Metropolitan Toronto Court House; commencing on FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2015.

-------------------- RULING ON ENTRAPMENT APPLICATION

A P P E A R A N C E S:

H. AMARSHI, Esq. for the Crown

M. FAIRNEY, Esq. for the Accused

FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2015

R. v. Neacsu, 2015 ONSC 5255

RULING ON ENTRAPMENT APPLICATION

B. O'MARRA, J.

OVERVIEW

On December 16, 2014, I found Mr. Neacsu guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime. He had testified at trial and admitted that he sold cocaine to an undercover police officer. He also admitted that he possessed the proceeds of that sale when he was arrested.

Mr. Neacsu now claims that he was entrapped to commit these offences. He seeks a stay on both charges. In the alternative, he seeks a reduced conviction for simple possession of cocaine.

LAW ON ENTRAPMENT

Where entrapment is invoked by the defence, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that there should be a

"two-stage trial". In the first stage, the trier of fact must determine whether or not the charges have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the second stage, if the accused is found guilty,

the judge must consider the issue of entrapment. (See R v Mack, [1998] 2

S.C.R. 903 and R v Pearson, [1998] 3

S.C.R. 620)

Entrapment does not bring into play the presumption of innocence. It relates to the faulty conduct of the State. Once an accused has been found guilty, the accused alone bears the burden of establishing that the conduct of the Crown and/or police amounts to an abuse

of process deserving of a stay of proceeding. This standard has been held to arise only in the clearest of cases. (See R v Pearson at para 12 and R v Mack at para 154)

In Mack, the Court held that the doctrine of entrapment reflects judicial disapproval of unacceptable or prosecutorial conduct in the investigation and prosecution of alleged crimes. In R v Imoro, 2010 ONCA 122, the Ontario Court of Appeal summarized the principles that emerged from Mack as follows:

(1) Police must have considerable leeway in the techniques they use to investigate criminal activity. This is especially so in regard to "consensual crimes" such as drug trafficking. Traditional techniques

of investigation may be ineffective;

(2) On the other hand, the power of the police to investigate criminal activity cannot be untrammeled. Police should not be permitted to randomly test the virtue of citizens or offer citizens the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that they are engaging in criminal activity. Even

worse would be the situation where police would go further and use tactics designed to induce a citizen to actually commit a crime. To allow any of these investigative techniques would affect our notions of decency and fair play.

In Mack, the court struck the balance between these objectives by concluding that entrapment arises in either of two situations:

(1) When the State authorities, acting without reasonable suspicion or for an improper purpose, provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence;

(2) Even having reasonable suspicion or

acting in the course of a good faith inquiry, the police go beyond providing an opportunity to commit a crime and actually induce the commission of an offence.

In Mack at paragraph 157, the Supreme

Court held that the drug trafficking business is not one which lends itself to traditional devices of police investigation. It is absolutely essential for police and their agents to get involved in gaining the trust and confidence of people who do the trafficking and who supply the drugs. It is also a crime of enormous social consequence which causes a great deal of harm to society generally.

The police may present an opportunity to commit a particular crime to persons associated with a location where it is reasonably suspected that criminal activity is taking place there. It is clearly permissible to provide opportunities to people associated with the location under suspicion, even if those people are not, themselves, under suspicion. (See R v Barnes [1991] 1

S.C.R. 449 at para 18)

The basic rule in Mack is that the police may only present the opportunity to commit a particular crime to a person who arouses suspicion that he or she is already engaged in that particular criminal activity. The exception to this rule arises when police undertake a bona fide investigation directed at an area

where it is reasonably suspected that criminal activity is occurring. If such an area is defined with sufficient precision, the police may present any person associated with the area with the opportunity to commit the particular offence. Such randomness is permissible within the scope of a bona fide inquiry. Random virtue testing only arises when the police present a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without reasonable suspicion that (a) the person is already engaged in the particular criminal activity or (b) the physical location with which the person is associated is a place where a particular criminal activity is likely occurring. The notion of being "associated" with a particular area for these purposes does not require more than being present in the area. (See Barnes at para 23-25)

In Mack at para 129, the court set out guidelines which are meant to help determine what sort of police behaviours would involve inducing the commission of an offence. I will quote from that paragraph in Mack as follows:

"The presence of reasonable suspicion or the mere existence of a bona fide inquiry will,

however, never justify entrapment techniques. The police may not go beyond providing an opportunity regardless of their perception of the accused's character and regardless of the existence of an honest inquiry. To determine whether the police have employed means which go further than providing an opportunity, it is useful to consider any or all of the following factors:

• the type of crime being investigated and the availability of other techniques for the police detection of its commission;

• whether an average person with both strengths and weaknesses in the position of the accused would be induced into the commission of a crime;

• the persistence and number of

attempts made by the police before the accused agreed to committing the offence;

• the type of inducement used by the police, including deceit, fraud, trickery or reward;

• the timing of the police conduct, in particular whether the police have instigated the offence or became involved in ongoing criminal activity;

• whether the police conduct

involves an exploitation of human characteristics such as the emotions of compassion, sympathy and friendship;

• whether the police appear to have exploited a particular vulnerability of a person such as a mental handicap or a substance addiction;

• the proportionality between

the police involvement as compared to the accused, including an assessment of the degree of harm caused or risked by the police as compared to the accused in the commission

of any illegal acts by the police themselves;

• the existence of any threats,

implied or express, made to the accused by the police or their agents; and finally,

• whether the police conduct is directed at undermining other constitutional values".

So the court in Mack referred to those and made clear that is not an exhaustive list, and obviously, not all of those

factors will be in play in each and every case.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

The parties agree that the evidence in this case supports the following findings of fact:

(1) The undercover officer was released into the area of Bloor and Ossington in Toronto at 8:16 p.m. with buy money consisting of one $20 bill and two $10 bills;

(2) The undercover officer approached

several people prior to engaging with the accused. She used the line "Do you know anyone who is out tonight?" in an attempt to initiate a purchase of crack cocaine. She was unsuccessful in doing so. The first two people did not engage with her.

One of the people she approached said that he had "weed" which the officer was not interested in. Another man said he would try to help her out, but no drugs were offered for sale;

(3) The first interaction between

Mr. Neacsu and the undercover officer was at approximately 8:30 p.m. at the intersection of Bloor and Ossington;

(4) The accused admitted that he gave

the undercover officer a piece of crack cocaine and received in return the $20 buy money. That money was found on the accused when he was arrested;

(5) The amount of crack cocaine that

Mr. Neacsu gave to the undercover officer was .05 grams. No other money or drugs

of any sort was found on the accused by

the arresting officers;

(6) A second man was with the accused when he first met the undercover officer. The second man left right after the initial meeting;

(7) The accused had given the second man

$35 to get the accused some crack cocaine;

(8) The accused was waiting for the second man to return with the crack cocaine that he had given him money for;

(9) The second man never returned;

(10) At one point in their interaction, the accused invited the undercover

officer to go back to his residence. She declined and said that "I can't do that, I'm in a rush, I have to go";

(11) There were no witnesses to corroborate either the accused's or the undercover officer's versions of the interactions; and

(12) Mr. Neacsu was arrested at 9:16 p.m.

THE TARGET AREA

The undercover officer was working that evening on secondment from another police service. When she attended the briefing at Major Crime, she was issued some buy money and was told that the area of Ossington and Bloor in Toronto was a high drug area, especially related to cocaine and crack cocaine. After her arrival at that area and before dealing with

Mr. Neacsu, she spoke to some others about getting some drugs. No actual transactions occurred. One large black

male referred to "weed" and that he knows

people that might be able to help her. The second male said that he could not help and had none of the substance on him. The undercover officer did not specifically ask for cocaine in regard to that interaction. The undercover officer dealt with another male who said that he would introduce her to a friend who could help. However, after meeting that second male, there was no drug transaction that occurred.

When the undercover officer spoke to

Mr. Neacsu and asked him for a "40 piece" (apparently referring to crack cocaine), Mr. Neacsu replied that "his guy could do that". There had been no prior specific mention of cocaine.

Officer Brian Bell was part of the drug project that focused on certain areas for the Toronto Police Service. The area of Ossington and Bloor was described by him as having issues regarding drug use and sales. He, himself, had made arrests in that area. As well, he had information from other officers about drug activity

in that area.

Officer William Poulimenos testified that he was the road boss working in the Major Crime Unit on the evening of these events. In terms of a specific area, he indicated that there had been previous projects involving undercover buys. The police interest and concentration in that area was based on community complaints, prior arrests and the knowledge and experience within the police service that this area was frequented by people who were using and buying drugs. He

indicated that there had been undercover buys in the past in that area. There were three buys on this particular evening, including the one involving Mr. Neacsu. The officer testified that the police information was that there were a lot of drug users in the area. It was a problem area with a high incidence of drug use and related crimes. This was a target area that did not target specific

persons.

Detective Christopher Chilvers was a supervisor on the drug project. The police interest in this area was based primarily on complaints and arrests related to drug activity in the area. That particular evening, there were three areas that were the subject of police attention that included Bloor and Ossington.

Based on all of the above information, the area of Bloor and Ossington was a reasonable and legitimate target for the police for "opportunity street level buys" by undercover police officers.

THE EVIDENCE OF SEVER NEACSU

In the early evening on November 27, 2012, Mr. Neacsu went for a walk near the intersection of Bloor and Ossington. He saw a man who had sold drugs to him in

the past. He asked the man if he could buy some "shit", meaning drugs.

Mr. Neacsu asked to buy $20 worth. The other man said why not 40, meaning $40 worth. They agreed that Mr. Neacsu would give him $35 for a 40 of crack cocaine. The other man walked a short distance away, then returned with the drugs. The two of them then went into a nearby alley

and smoked the drugs together. The other man told Mr. Neacsu that he had seen an unfamiliar female earlier near the location. In the context of this entire case, that would appear to refer to the undercover officer.

Mr. Neacsu had a small amount of drugs left and he asked the man if he could buy more. The man said it would cost him more. Mr. Neacsu gave him some money and the man left. Mr. Neacsu was carrying beer and Crown Royal whiskey and was drinking from both as he waited.

As Mr. Neacsu awaited the return of his drug dealer on Bloor Street, an unknown female asked him five or six times "Can you help me out". This was the undercover officer. He claims that she was almost screaming at him. He denies that at the outset he asked her "Are you looking for someone to help you out". He kept asking her what she needed. He finally asked if she needed "shit". He testified that she did not ask for cocaine. He also testified that his reference to "shit" meant possibly directions or cigarettes or some other

form of help. Mr. Neacsu was sipping the beer and whiskey as he spoke to this unknown female.

The unknown female proceeded to tell him that she and her boyfriend were from Hamilton and were new to the area. She said that her boyfriend told her to stand on the street and ask for $40. She kept saying she wanted $40 worth. He believes she was referring to drugs, but he told her he did not know what she was talking about. He said he did not have any and could not help her out. She told him she really needed it and must bring something back to her boyfriend. He could not recall whether they exchanged names, but does not believe they did.

Mr. Neacsu told her his friend who had been with him earlier and who was to return could help her.

Mr. Neacsu told her about his employment and some of his education. They were together for 45 to 60 minutes before he was arrested. At one point, he asked her to come back to his residence. She declined and said she did not have time. From her appearance, he thought she might be homeless.

At one point, he asked if she was a cop. He suspected she was. If she was not a cop, he did not want her to go down the same drug path as he had in his life. He

told her he had been convicted of drug trafficking in the past.

He knew she wanted crack cocaine. He asked her if she smoked crack. She said no, it was for her boyfriend. Despite knowing she wanted drugs, he testified in cross-examination that "$40 worth" could have meant food. He agreed that if there was a reference to "40 piece", that would refer to drugs, but he claims that what she said was she wanted $40 worth.

Mr. Neacsu had a small amount of cocaine in his sock. They agreed, he and the unknown female, that he would sell her what he had for $20. He told her several times he did not want to sell her drugs. He told her of other locations where she could buy drugs, but she was not interested. She persisted and he finally agreed to sell to her. He claims that

she told him she was under duress from

her boyfriend and needed to get back with drugs soon. Mr. Neacsu felt she could be harmed by the boyfriend if she did not obtain some drugs.

After the transaction, the female walked away and he was arrested shortly thereafter.

EVIDENCE OF THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER

After the briefing at the Major Crime Unit, she attended the area of Bloor and Ossington with buy money. Before she dealt with Mr. Neacsu, she approached other persons. She would initiate contact by asking, "Do you know who is out tonight", or "Who is around". Her contacts with persons other than

Mr. Neacsu are contained in the agreed facts that I have referred to earlier.

Shortly after 8:30 p.m. she was approached by Mr. Neacsu. He asked her if she was looking for someone to help her out. She replied yes, and asked if he could help her out. She denies she ever yelled out to him "Can you help me out". There was a second male with

Mr. Neacsu at this initial contact and that is reflected in the agreed statement of fact or agreed facts to be drawn from the evidence. That person who was with Mr. Neacsu left shortly thereafter.

The undercover officer observed

Mr. Neacsu to drink beer and whiskey as he walked. He did not appear

intoxicated. They exchanged first names. He asked what she was looking for. She responded "40 piece". Mr. Neacsu said "his guy" could do that. She interpreted

this exchange as referring to $40 worth of crack cocaine. There was no specific reference to cocaine.

Mr. Neacsu told her that the other guy had gone to "get his", meaning

Mr. Neacsu's further purchase, and that he had given him $35 or thereabouts.

Mr. Neacsu said he only had a small piece on him, less than $20 worth. He asked if she would come back to his residence.

The undercover officer told him she was in a hurry and could not do that.

Mr. Neacsu told her that his guy was reliable and would have some for her in response to her questions about that.

He asked her how she smoked it. She said it was not for her but for her boyfriend. She denies she ever expressed fear or duress relating to her boyfriend. He

told her of another area where she could buy drugs. She said she did not have time for that. She asked if she could

buy from him. He said he would after his guy returned.

At one point, he asked if she was "legit". He said he had been busted by an undercover cop previously. She commiserated with him on that issue and

not surprisingly did not acknowledge that she was an undercover police officer.

Mr. Neacsu told her some information about his education and occupation.

The undercover officer told him she did not know the area where they were meeting, where they were at that time. He told her he was surprised she knew to come to that area. He said there are

"Always black guys here. A great spot". She interpreted that as meaning they were in a good spot to buy cocaine.

Mr. Neacsu told her that his guy did not trust her. He said there was no offence intended, but they had heard there was a "new chick" out there tonight.

They were still waiting for the return of his friend. She told Mr. Neacsu she could not wait longer. He then said he could help her out. She said she appreciated that. He asked her to walk with him a short distance behind a

building. He removed some drugs from his sock and they agreed on a price of $20. After the exchange, she gave the "takedown" signal and Mr. Neacsu was arrested shortly thereafter as she walked away.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The onus on this application is on Mr. Neacsu. In assessing his credibility, among the factors I have considered are the following:

(1) His criminal record. This, of

course, is relevant only to his credit and cannot be used by me and is not used by me as going to character issues or disposition. His record consists of the

following entries: September 26 of 2006, possession of stolen property. He received ten days in jail. This, of course, is a crime of dishonesty;

December 11 of 2006, he was convicted of four counts - dangerous driving, assault, failing to appear and breach of recognizance. He received a concurrent disposition of one day in jail on top of

30 days of pre-trial custody as well as one year probation; On May 15, 2008 he was convicted of assault and received a sentence of 40 days in jail, on top of

10 days of pre-trial custody plus 2 years probation; On September 7, 2010, he was convicted of breach of recognizance. He was fined $500 after two days of

pre-trial custody; and on February 11, 2011, he was convicted of trafficking in a Schedule 1 drug. He received a 12 month conditional sentence as well as a

12 month probationary term.

In addition to his criminal record, I also consider his knowledge and

experience with drugs. And in this case, this is relevant for, and, in my view, properly for my consideration for this reason. Mr. Neacsu testified that since these events, he has tried to stop using drugs. He testified that they had had a significant negative impact on his life and he was attempting to change. And, indeed, part of his evidence is when he was dealing with the undercover officer, he was concerned that she was heading

down the bad path of drug use that had

such negative implications for himself. The relevance of this evidence about his prior lifestyle and his knowledge of drugs relates to his credibility in that it is relevant to his knowledge of certain street words or code names for drugs. This is relevant to the verbal exchanges between Mr. Neacsu and the undercover officer preceding the sale of cocaine to the officer.

There are two critical issues to be decided in this case in terms of this entrapment application. First, was the area of Bloor and Ossington a reasonable and legitimate target for police attention related to street level drug buys? For the reasons I have referred to

earlier, I find that it was. And among the considerations are the following:

(1) The history of drug use and sales and arrests in that area;

(2) Information that there were three drug buys that particular night, including Mr. Neacsu's in that area;

(3) Before the undercover officer dealt

with Mr. Neacsu, she had interactions with others that appeared to reasonably be related to drugs;

(4) It is evident that Mr. Neacsu was quite able to see somebody who had sold him drugs in the past, that he happened

to see him in that area, and he purchased drugs. He consumed drugs with that person, and at the time of his arrest, he was awaiting the return of more drugs that he had purchased in that area;

(5) At one stage in his interaction with the undercover officer, Mr. Neacsu made comments that I find indicate that the area that they were in was a good area

for drug purchases and it was in the context where he said to the undercover, it's kind of surprising to me that you actually come to this area because it is a good area for this type of activity. I am paraphrasing, but I take that to be what he, in fact, was saying to her, that he knew it was a good area to purchase drugs in.

Based on this area being a legitimate target for police undercover drug buy projects, the police were thus lawfully

in a position to present opportunities to random persons associated to that area, including Mr. Neacsu.

The second very important issue is this: Did the interaction between the undercover officer and Mr. Neacsu exceed

the proper and fair conduct of the police in such a random circumstance?

The defence submits that it was the undercover officer who instigated this crime by approaching and speaking first to Mr. Neacsu. There is a conflict in the evidence in this case between

Mr. Neacsu and the undercover officer as to who initiated the conversation. I find that it is more likely that the undercover officer initiated the interaction. I say that because she has testified about dealing with other people at the scene before she dealt with

Mr. Neacsu, and in those circumstances, she indicated that she initiated, she was the first one to speak to those people with verbal exchanges, such as they were. However, the fact that the undercover officer likely initiated the verbal contact with Mr. Neacsu does not amount

to inducing Mr. Neacsu to commit a crime or to prompt a crime that would not have otherwise occurred. Initiating contact with a subject by an undercover officer is not, without more, a basis to find

that if a crime unfolds later that it was

induced or caused or initiated by the police conduct. The initial words from the officer in this case, which I find

she did say the first words to him, were, in effect, sounding out Mr. Neacsu, as

she was others in that area, to see if he had drugs to sell.

It is interesting to note that in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Imoro that I referred to earlier, at para 16, the Court referred to the trial evidence that the contact in that case was initiated by the undercover officer saying, "Can you hook me up". If I may say, that seems like a very pointed introduction, whether it ends up being a drug transaction. And on appeal, the Court of Appeal indicated that those

words were simply a step in the investigative process, that those pointed words, "Can you hook me up", did not, without more, and depending what followed, mean that what followed was a crime created by the police or induced by the police.

The defence submits that the undercover officer was unfairly persistent in her approach with Mr. Neacsu. She, indeed, I find she did ask more than once about whether or not he could help her out, and this must be considered in the context of a potential illicit drug transaction between two people who do not know each other previously.

The undercover officer, several times, asked if he could help her out. He has testified that he kept responding "with what, with what, with what". Someone who possesses drugs and has a potential buyer and is considering selling them to

someone that they do not know is understandably wary of who are they dealing with. This is, by definition, an unlawful transaction. If either party declares unequivocally at the outset what they are seeking to buy or to sell, that may put an end to the transaction, because the other party, frankly, may get scared away.

In this case, it is totally understandable that Mr. Neacsu was quite wary of whether or not this person might be an undercover police officer.

Mr. Neacsu testified that he had previously been convicted of trafficking,

and that involved an undercover police officer. And, indeed, I find that that context of Mr. Neacsu asking the woman whether she was legit or whether she was a cop was because he was understandably wary of who he was dealing with. It is not surprising, then, that in the exchanges between them, particularly at the outset, there is no specific mention, indeed, there is never a specific mention of cocaine. That is not surprising. At some stage early on, however, Mr. Neacsu, in his evidence, when he indicates he responds a number of times "with what, with what can I help you, with what", at some stage he says to her, "with shit?"

In cross-examination, Mr. Neacsu testified that when he asked her, in effect, do you need help "with shit", he testified in cross-examination that he was, by reference to that scatological

word, was referring to whether she needed directions or food or cigarettes or something else. On this issue, which, in my view, is a fairly important one early on in the exchange, I do not accept

Mr. Neacsu's evidence. And the reason I do not accept his evidence is that

in-chief Mr. Neacsu testified under oath that before he interacted at all with the undercover officer, he was walking in the

area, he saw a man who had sold him drugs in the past and Mr. Neacsu initiated conversation with that person by asking

if he had some "shit" and Mr. Neacsu testified that when he said "shit" in that context, it referred to drugs. I find as a fact that when Mr. Neacsu asked the undercover officer, in effect, after saying what are you looking for or what

do you mean when he said, do you mean shit, he knew he was referring to drugs and that is the way the undercover officer reasonably interpreted it. The reference at that time was not to her

seeking directions or cigarettes or food, but to drugs.

Mr. Neacsu and the undercover officer were together for some 45 minutes before the drug transaction occurred. Before then, before he handed over the drugs and received the buy money, Mr. Neacsu

offered to facilitate and assist the undercover officer in buying drugs in two ways. First, he suggested that they go

to another location, or that she could go to another location where drugs would be available for sale. And second, he said that his guy, who had sold him drugs earlier and had gone away to get more drugs to bring back, would likely have enough for her on top of what he was

bringing back for him. This indicates that well before Mr. Neacsu actually agrees and hands over drugs to the undercover officer, he is quite ready, willing and desirous of facilitating a drug purchase by this female he did not know. He was prepared to help her, to introduce her to his man, his guy, who would have drugs, or he was telling her other places she could go to buy drugs, and this is all from Mr. Neacsu, and that is not a product of any kind of improper police prompting or instigation.

The defence submits that the undercover officer left the impression that she faced duress or threats from her

boyfriend if she did not return with some drugs. Mr. Neacsu testified that this, in effect, prompted him to sell her drugs out of concern or compassion for her safety. I do not find that the

undercover officer said or did anything

to suggest she was in potential jeopardy.

Her reference to the waiting boyfriend and time constraints did, indeed, lend an air or element of urgency to this situation, but in the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the officer to

do so.

The defence concedes in this case that

the police were not acting in bad faith. On the evidence that I have heard, in my view, it is clear that Mr. Neacsu could easily have simply walked away from the undercover officer, as did some of the other people near the intersection who the officer approached and walked away and had nothing to do with her.

Mr. Neacsu could have done that. He did not do that. He chose to engage in a conversation with her, and early on, he knew that the conversation was about drugs.

In the particular circumstances of this case, I find that the undercover officer did no more than offer Mr. Neacsu an opportunity to sell her drugs. The police did not induce Mr. Neacsu to commit this crime. I am not satisfied that Mr. Neacsu has made out the legal elements of entrapment.

The application is dismissed. The convictions are registered on both counts before the court. I have already found Mr. Neacsu guilty, but now I am registering convictions on both counts. That is, one count of trafficking and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

So at this stage, then, I take it we

would be setting a date for sentence submissions.

I want to say before we proceed any further, that I really appreciated the efforts of both counsel in this area. It is not a common presentation and I should say that this obviously was a very

focused trial. Mr. Neacsu at no point

denied that he had sold drugs to this undercover officer, and the trial was very focused on the issue of potential of entrapment. So thank you for that.

So are counsel in a position then to set a date for sentence submissions?

MR. FAIRNEY: Yes, Honour.

THE COURT: Is this a case for a PSR, Mr. Fairney, or --

MR. FAIRNEY: My friend had mentioned that as a possibility. One of the issues I am, there is the mandatory minimum.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. FAIRNEY: Uhmm, so I suppose I was concerned about the potential of, you know, going over the mandatory minimum. Uhmm, but I think my friend and I decided that a PSR would be good.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. FAIRNEY: And so, yes, we've got a couple of dates.

THE COURT: I think we'd need about seven weeks or so, seven or eight weeks. I

think out of custody PSRs are taking that kind of time.

MR. FAIRNEY: Okay. Then we better look at those.

REPORTER'S NOTE: (Sotto voce discussion between counsel)

MR. AMARSHI: Your Honour, sorry, given the fact that it may take seven weeks or longer, that puts us, I think, into the end of September, and there is some difficulties for both of our schedules. We were going to suggest, if Your Honour was inclined, to accept the date of October 15th, which is a Thursday.

THE COURT: Sure. That's fine. Does that work for you, Mr. Fairney?

MR. FAIRNEY: Ah, yes, it does. Thank you, Your Honour.

THE COURT: So that would be 10 a.m. for submissions.

MR. AMARSHI: October 15h.

THE COURT: October 15 at 10 a.m., then. And I am ordering that a pre-sentence report be prepared. I think what I will do is I'll -- I'll ask that the report be prepared, sent to counsel and the court by October 9 to give you both time to look at it.

MR. AMARSHI: That's good. Your Honour, if I can inquire whether you will be releasing a written decision. There is some precedential value.

THE COURT: I will order a transcript. I had hoped to have something to hand out and I ran into some other matters, so I had hoped to have them to hand out, Mr. Amarshi, but I am going to order a transcript and counsel are free to do so. MR. AMARSHI: Thank you, Your Honour.

MS. FAIRNEY: Does the court need Mr.

Neacsu's contact details?

THE COURT: Yes. I'm sure Madam Registrar, you need his contact information.

THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT: Yes, I will.

Yes.

THE COURT: And I think, is there someone he is supposed to see before he leaves today?

THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT: No. THE COURT: No?

THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you need me to endorse - do you have the indictment?

I will just endorse it, the application is dismissed.

REPORTER'S NOTE: (Sotto voce discussion

between His Honour and the Registrar)

THE COURT: Very good. Okay. So anything else?

MR. FAIRNEY: No.

THE COURT: So Mr. Neacsu, you are to return, sir, October 15, 10 a.m. for sentence submissions on that date. In

the meantime, there will be a

pre-sentence report prepared. It can only be good for you, helpful to you and speak to your lawyer, of course, about this, but the staff will need to get some information from you before you leave, okay?

MR. NEACSU: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, every one, and we'll adjourn to 2:15.

FORM 2

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))

Evidence Act

I, Luanne Dube certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R v SEVER NEACSU, in the Superior Court of Justice held at 361 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, taken from Recording

4899_2-1_20150724_094136 10_OMARRABR , which has been certified in Form 1.

Date Signature of Authorized Person(s)