CITATION: R. v. Davis, 2015 ONSC 7514
COURT FILE NO.: CR-15-1032-00
DATE: 20151202
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
William Dorsey, for the Crown/Applicant
Applicant
- and -
DEANDRE DAVIS
Magda Wyszomierska, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: November 16, 18, 2015
RULING ON THE CROWN’S APPLICATION TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE A VIDEOTAPED STATEMENT UNDER THE PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO HEARSAY
Justice Thomas A. Bielby
INTRODUCTION
[1] The respondent, Deandre Davis is charged with a number of Criminal Code offences, involving the possession of a handgun. The existence of the handgun was allegedly reported to the police by Ian Rivers on or about July 4, 2013. The police attended his home and located the handgun. Later that evening the police took a videotaped and audio recorded statement from Mr. Rivers.
[2] In the summer of 2014, prior to the preliminary hearing, Mr. Rivers died. The trial of this matter is set to proceed in May, 2016, and the Crown has before the court an application seeking leave, to introduce into evidence, Mr. Rivers recorded statement and relies on the principled exception to the hearsay rule.
THE STATEMENT
[3] The statement in issue was not taken under oath. Nor was any warning given to Mr. Rivers about the consequences of lying. The statement was taken by Peel Police Officer Diaz at 8:30 pm on July 4, 2013 and is approximately 8 minutes in length.
[4] In the statement Mr. Rivers told the officer that earlier in the day he was at home and was approached by his stepson Charles Baker who told him that he found a loaded handgun in his backpack which he located in his sister Amy’s bedroom. It would seem he previously had loaned the backpack to his sister and wanted to retrieve it for his own use.
[5] Mr. Rivers goes on to say that after looking at the firearm, he told Mr. Baker that he wanted the gun out of his house and that it could be put in the garage or the shed located in the backyard.
[6] Mr. Rivers states that he did not really know who was using the backpack. He also stated that Amy’s boyfriend, Deandre Davis, the accused, at times, slept in the bedroom with Amy.
[7] Mr. Rivers states that he never saw Mr. Davis use the backpack and that he had observed Mr. Davis use a different backpack.
[8] Mr. Rivers also states that he did not know if the gun was real or a fake but that he examined it and determined that it was real. The gun had black tape on the handle. He states that he told his stepson to put the gun in a bag and get it out of the house.
[9] Mr. Rivers states that he never saw any guns in the house previously and agreed with the officer’s comment that in an earlier discussion, he told the officer that he did not want the gun in the house because of the presence of kids.
[10] Mr. Rivers agrees with the officer’s suggestion that he would never want any guns in the house and had he known the gun was coming into the house, he would have told him to bury it outside somewhere.
[11] Mr. Rivers agrees with the officer that on their arrival (the police) he guided the officers to the shed to where the gun had been relocated. He agreed that he consented to the officers searching the house which search was limited to the bedroom where the gun was found and specifically to the backpack, in which the gun was found, identified as a Jansport backpack.
[12] After placing the handgun in the shed Mr. Rivers called the personal cell phone of Peel Police Officer Stringer who at the time was riding with Officer Diaz.
[13] For the purposes of my ruling it seems clear that at the end of the statement Mr. Rivers asked when he would receive his ‘coinage’ which can only have meant money. In the transcript, at the point the word ‘coinage’ is heard, when listening to the statement, the word is noted as ‘inaudible’.
WITNESS EVIDENCE ON THE VOIR DIRE
[14] On this voir dire to determine admissibility, 3 witnesses testified.
CHARLES TYLER BAKER
[15] Mr. Baker, the person whom Mr. Rivers described as his stepson testified that in July, 2013, he was living in his mother’s home as was Mr. Rivers who Mr. Baker described as is mom’s boyfriend. Also living in the home were his sisters and his sister Amy’s child, fathered by Mr. Davis.
[16] Mr. Baker testified that he went into Amy’s bedroom to retrieve his backpack. He wanted to put his own things in it and when he was emptying the bag he found a handgun wrapped in a sweater. He wrapped the handgun back up and then went to find Mr. Rivers as he, Baker, had no experience with that kind of thing.
[17] Mr. Baker testified that he discovered the gun between 2:00 pm and 4:00 pm. He testified that at the time only he and Mr. Rivers were home. He said that the Mr. Davis lived at the home, “on and off”.
[18] Mr. Baker testified that he found Mr. Rivers in the garage and told him of his discovery. They then both went upstairs and Mr. Rivers was shown the handgun. Mr. Baker testified that Mr. Rivers appeared shocked and that his eyes ‘widened”. Mr. Rivers said to Baker we should move it out of the house. The handgun was placed in a black sock and then in a plastic bag.
[19] The handgun was first placed in the garage but then moved to the shed. Mr. Baker testified that he had never seen Mr. Rivers with the gun previously nor did he see Mr. Rivers use the backpack.
[20] Mr. Baker testified that he was never told by Mr. Rivers to get the backpack.
[21] After relocating the handgun in the shed, Mr. Rivers told Mr. Baker that he would call someone to get rid of it. Mr. Baker was unsure as to what Mr. Rivers meant and whether it meant Mr. Rivers would call the police or whether he would get rid of it some other way.
[22] Mr. Baker testified that the police arrived 15-20 minutes later.
[23] On cross-examination, Mr. Baker said that he knew Mr. Rivers was sick and was in the need of a new liver. Mr. Rivers however was removed from the donor list because of substance abuse issues.
[24] Mr. Baker testified that Mr. Rivers was a drug addict and that he stole anything for money to buy drugs. He testified that Mr. Rivers’ use of drugs escalated in the summer of 2013. He believed the drug of choice was crack cocaine.
[25] Mr. Baker testified that Mr. Rivers used the garage to do drugs and that at times unsavoury types would be in the garage with Mr. Rivers.
[26] When asked what Mr. Rivers did, Mr. Baker testified that doing drugs was all that Mr. Rivers did other than steal to get money to buy drugs.
[27] Mr. Baker testified that for years Mr. Rivers hid his drug use from Mr. Baker’s mother and that Mr. Rivers was asked to leave the home shortly after July 4, 2013.
PEEL POLICE OFFICER DIAZ
[28] Peel Police Officer Gerry Diaz testified that he was in a police car with Officer Stringer when Stringer received a phone call from Mr. Rivers. As a result of the call they attended at the home and met Mr. Rivers who directed the officers to the shed.
[29] The officers arrived at 6:52 pm and left the home at 8:06 pm.
[30] Officer Diaz testified that a firearm was located in the shed and at the time of their attendance Charles Baker was also in attendance at the home.
[31] The officer testified that they had a conversation with both men and obtained Mr. Rivers’ consent to search the bedroom and the backpack. Officer Stringer went into Amy’s room and retrieved the backpack which was searched and items seized.
[32] Officer Diaz testified that at no time did the officer threaten Mr. Rivers or offer him any inducement. Officer Diaz testified that he never suggested to Mr. Rivers that the gun may have been Mr. Davis’.
[33] Officer Diaz testified that Mr. Rivers never asked for anything in exchange for his statement. After giving their statements both Mr. Rivers and Mr. Baker were driven home by the police. During the drive to the station there were no discussions about the firearm.
[34] Officer Diaz said that he knew Mr. Rivers had health issues but details were not provided. The video statement in issue was introduced through Officer Diaz who conducted the interview.
[35] On cross-examination Officer Diaz testified that when taking a video statement of a witness it was not his practice to take the statement under oath or give a warning of the consequences of not telling the truth. He testified that in his experience doing such things may make such a witness less willing to “open up”.
[36] Officer Diaz testified that after Officer Stringer received the phone call from Mr. Rivers he conveyed to Diaz the information received and said it was a “gun stoppers” call for money.
[37] During their investigation Officer Diaz testified that he and Officer Stringer were in the backyard with Mr. Rivers and had discussions. None of those discussions were noted in detail and certainly the discussions were not noted verbatim. He did testify that if anything important was said he would have noted it. His notes were described as only a summary of what was said.
[38] On further cross-examination and in regard to why an oath and warning were not given, Officer Diaz testified that he thought Mr. Rivers was being honest but conceded he did not know of Mr. Rivers’ extensive criminal record which included crimes of dishonesty. Had he known of the criminal record he would have given Mr. Rivers a warning as to the consequences of lying.
[39] Officer Diaz agreed that towards the end of the recorded statement Mr. Rivers seems to ask if he was going to get coinage, and agreed that it must be a reference to money.
[40] Officer Diaz knew that Mr. Rivers was a drug user.
[41] The Officer admitted he could not recall what was discussed in Mr. Rivers’ backyard.
[42] When they arrived back at Mr. Rivers’ home, Officer Diaz agreed that there were other officers at the home wanting to talk to Mr. Rivers in regards to a break and enter in the neighbourhood.
PEEL POLICE OFFICER STRINGER
[43] Officer Stringer also testified on the voir dire. He testified that at 6:45 pm on July 4, 2013 he was with Officer Diaz and received a phone call from Mr. Rivers who told him that there was a gun in his backyard and that he wanted to know who to call and if he could get some money for reporting the gun.
[44] Officer Stringer testified that during the conversation, Mr. Rivers was, ‘jumping all over’. Rivers was described as being flustered during the phone call and talked about the gun being in the shed or the garage and whether the gun was real or fake. During the phone conversation Mr. Rivers said that his stepson found it (the handgun).
[45] The officers travelled to Mr. Rivers’ home and met with Mr. Baker and Mr. Rivers. Officer Stringer went to the shed and retrieved the gun. He testified that they were on the scene in the backyard for over 1 hour.
[46] Officer Stringer testified that he and Officer Diaz drove Mr. Rivers and Mr. Baker to the police station to take their statements. At no time did he offer compensation to Mr. Rivers or offer him leniency on any other matter.
[47] Officer Stringer testified that he never threatened Mr. Rivers in order to get a statement and never coached him as to what to say. He did not tell Rivers that it was important to tell the truth.
[48] On cross-examination Officer Stringer testified that his notes were not verbatim but that he believed he wrote down everything Mr. Rivers told him. When talking to Mr. Rivers on the phone and asking questions of Mr. Rivers, he was told by Mr. Rivers to “just come” (to the house).
[49] Officer Stringer agreed that Mr. Rivers wanted money for reporting the gun.
[50] Officer Stringer denied telling Mr. Rivers he would be paid for this information but agreed that in the past he told Mr. Rivers about a gun stoppers program and that he could get money if he turned in a gun.
[51] Officer Stringer had a history of some sort with Mr. Rivers. He knew of Rivers’ heavy involvement in crime and his drug addiction.
[52] Officer Stringer could not recall the conversation he had with Mr. Rivers in the backyard after the gun was discovered. He was told at the front door that the gun was in the shed. He said that if he was given information by Mr. Rivers he wrote it down in his notes or at least one of them would.
[53] Officer Stringer conceded that he had before July, 2013, developed a relationship with Mr. Rivers and had given Mr. Rivers his personal cell phone number. At the preliminary hearing Officer Stringer testified that by that time (July, 2013) he had dealt with Mr. Rivers maybe a dozen times.
[54] Officer Stringer agreed that when they returned Mr. Rivers home other Peel Police officers were there investigating a break and enter and looking for Mr. Rivers.
SUBMISSIONS
THE CROWN
[55] The Crown relies on the authorities of R. v. Khelawon 2006 S.C.C. No. 57 and R. v. Taylor [2012] O.J. No. 5475 and submits that the truth and accuracy are sufficiently tested taking into account the circumstances and the corroborating evidence and as a result threshold reality has been established.
[56] The Crown acknowledges that cross-examination is the best method for testing reliability and that the statement in issue was not given under oath and that Mr. Rivers was not advised of the consequences of not telling the truth. Notwithstanding these facts it is submitted that the statement should be admitted.
[57] The Crown points out that the statement was video/audio and Mr. Rivers’ demeanour can be observed. The statement was taken the same day as the gun was discovered so Mr. Rivers’ memory would have been fresh.
[58] Mr. Rivers does not identify anyone of being in possession of the gun and states he had never seen it before, nor did he ever see Mr. Davis with the backpack. It is submitted such evidence mitigates any potential prejudice. There is no evidence Mr. Rivers gave the statement as a result of threats or inducement. While it is conceded Mr. Rivers hoped he would be paid for the discovery of the handgun both officers deny offering any reward.
[59] More importantly, the Crown relies on the corroborating evidence of Charles Baker who for the most part corroborates Rivers’ statement as to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the handgun.
[60] The Crown concedes that Mr. Rivers may have been motivated by a hope he would be paid for turning over the handgun but submits there are public programmes where citizens are told that if they report crimes they may be compensated and such motivation does not undermine the reliability of the information.
THE DEFENCE
[61] Counsel for Mr. Davis submits that the statement should not be admitted as threshold reliability has not been established and focuses on five different factors;
The defence will not have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Rivers,
The financial motivation to fabricate evidence,
The police are claiming privilege in relation to any questions about Mr. Rivers’ connection to the police and prevents a proper assessment as to the strength of any information provided to the police by Rivers in the past,
The absence of an oath or warning of the consequences of not telling the truth,
The absence of a complete record in that the discussions had with Mr. Rivers on the phone and in the backyard are not recorded or noted in any detail,
There is an inability to assess demeanor in that for a large part of the video recording Mr. Rivers was bent over and his face was not visible, and
The statement is very brief, and lack details.
[62] Defence counsel relies on R. v. B. (K.G.) [K.B.G.], 1993 S.C.J. No. 22 and the court’s comments in regards to cross-examination. At paragraph 102, the court notes that the inability to cross-examine is the most important of the hearsay dangers.
[63] As noted in R. v. Lyttle 2004 SCC 5, [2004] S.C.J. No. 8, cross-examination is fundamental to an accused’s ability to make a full answer and defence. It is submitted that Mr. Rivers would have been a key witness for the Crown and that the Crown will submit to the jury that the statement if entered, is to be believed.
[64] Defence counsel also relies on R. v. F.J.U., [1995] S.C.J. No. 82, which dealt with a prior inconsistent statement of an accused and that of the complainant and whether the trial judge erred in inviting the jury to compare the two inconsistent statements and the similarities. At paragraph 38 the court refers to the importance of cross-examination and notes that while a statement made without it being under oath and recorded could be admissible in certain circumstances it could not be admissible without the right of cross-examination.
[65] Counsel submits that there was a relationship between Officer Stringer and Mr. Rivers and that by virtue of the Crown’s claim of privilege we cannot test the strength of any information provided by Mr. Rivers in the past and whether he was compensated for information.
[66] It is submitted that Mr. Rivers had an incentive to fabricate, hoping to get financial reward. Such motivation undermines threshold reliability. Defence counsel submits that on this one factor alone, motivation, the statement ought to be inadmissible.
[67] Defence counsel relies on the fact that the statement was not made under oath and no warning was given as to the consequences of lying. It is submitted that these factors are stressed in many of the authorities provided. It is also submitted that Officer Diaz ought to have known Mr. Rivers’ background prior to taking the statement and that his opinion that he thought Mr. Rivers was honest when giving the statement should be given little regard.
[68] Counsel for Mr. Davis submits that the record is not complete in that of three conversations with Mr. Rivers, only one was properly recorded or noted. In the case of R. v. Moore-McFarlane, [2001] O.J. No. 4646 para 67, the court states,
“And, in my view, the completeness, accuracy and reliability of the record have everything to do with the court’s inquiry into and scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the taking of a statement. It is noted that the statements in issue where those of the two appellants and not those of witnesses.”
[69] It is submitted that the recorded statement makes references to earlier conversations between Mr. Rivers and the police and that there is no complete record of those exchanges. Further, it is submitted that some of the answers obtained in the statement were premised on leading questions and suggestions. For example Mr. Rivers states that he has never seen Mr. Davis with the backpack but Officer Diaz makes the suggestion that Mr. Rivers doesn’t watch every action of Mr. Davis.
[70] Finally it is submitted that even if the statement is admissible under the principled exception, the prejudice of the statement outweighs the probative value. Mr. Rivers does not directly connect Mr. Davis with the gun and that as a result the probative value is minimal.
ANALYSIS AND THE LAW
[71] The application before me is known as a Khelawon application in reference to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Khelawon. As noted by M. Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Taylor, the admissibility of such statements rests on the test set forth in cases from the Supreme Court of Canada such as R. v. Khelawon, among others (para.18).
[72] The statement of Mr. Rivers, now deceased, is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible. The issue then is whether the statement of Mr. Rivers is admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.
[73] In the Taylor case, a complainant provided a video statement to the police which, in part, resulted in the accused being charged with fraud. The complainant died shortly after providing the statement which was admitted into evidence at trial, as an exception to the hearsay rule.
[74] Mr. Taylor appealed on the grounds the trial judge erred in admitting the statement. The appeal was dismissed.
[75] At paragraph 23, the Appeal Court notes that an inquiry into the admissibility of such hearsay takes on a constitutional dimension in that an accused is entitled to make full answer and defence which includes the right to cross-examine witnesses.
[76] From paragraph 24 I quote,
“But trial fairness concerns and the admissibility of hearsay are not reconciled by resort to a sole or decisive rule, which asks how important the evidence is to the outcome. Rather, under the Supreme Court’s principled approach, the court examines all the relevant circumstances to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to overcome the dangers arising from the difficulty of testing it.”
[77] In regard to the principled approach, the court is required to consider the principles of necessity and reliability. Further, as noted in paragraph 25, “Because trial fairness may involve factors beyond simply necessity and reliability, the trial judge retains a discretion to exclude hearsay evidence where the prejudicial effect outweighs it probative value.”
[78] As in the Taylor case, the death of Mr. Rivers establishes necessity, a point conceded by the respondent.
[79] In considering reliability my concern is with threshold reliability as distinct from ultimate reliability, the latter being the responsibility of the trier of fact.
[80] From paragraph 26 of Taylor I quote, “As is well known, threshold reliability may be demonstrated because of the circumstances in which it can about or because in the circumstances its truth and accuracy can nonetheless be sufficiently tested; Khelawon, at paras.49, 62-62. However these two different grounds are not watertight compartments.”
[81] From paragraph 2 of the Khelawon judgment I quote,
“Hence the rule against hearsay is intended to enhance the accuracy of the court’s findings of fact, not to impede its truth-seeking function… A hearsay statement may be admitted if because of the way it comes about, it contents are trustworthy, or if circumstances permit the ultimate trier of fact to sufficiently assess its worth…The trial judge acts as a gate-keeper in making this preliminary assessment of the threshold reliability of the hearsay statement and leaves the ultimate determination of it worth to the fact finder.”
[82] In Khelawon the Supreme Court made it clear that all relevant factors should be considered, including the presence of supporting or contradictory evidence (para. 54).
[83] From paragraph 49 I quote,
“As we well see, the reliability requirement will generally be met on the basis of two different grounds, neither of which excludes consideration of the other. In some cases, because of the circumstances in which it came about, the contents of the hearsay statement may be so reliable that contemporaneous cross-examination of the declarant would add little if anything to the process. In other cases, the evidence may not be so cogent but the circumstances will allow for sufficient testing of evidence by means other than contemporaneous cross-examination. In those circumstances, the admission of evidence will rarely undermine trial fairness.”
[84] At paragraph 51 in Khelawon, the court references paragraphs 215/217 of R. v. Starr 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144 which reads,
“Threshold reliability is concerned not with whether the statement is true or not; that is a question of ultimate reliability. Instead, it is concerned with whether or not the circumstances surrounding the statement itself provide circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness…”
[85] As noted previously threshold reliability can be established in two ways. The first involves whether or not reliability can be determined because of the circumstances of the way the statement came about. The other way relates to an examination of the circumstances surrounding the statement trustworthiness can be established. (Khelawon para. 62, 63).
[86] In regards to the circumstances surrounding the way the statement came about, I note that it was given the evening of July 4, 2013, and the facts were fresh in the mind of Mr. Rivers.
[87] Further, the statement was video and audio recorded at the police station albeit not given under oath and without a warning. I agree these criteria are even more important given Mr. Rivers’ criminal record.
[88] In regards to the circumstances surrounding the giving of the statement, it is, for the most part, corroborated by the testimony of Charles Baker. He testified how and where he found the gun and what was done with the handgun to remove it from the home. Mr. Baker corroborated that he went to Mr. Rivers for advice as to what to do about the discovery.
[89] Mr. Baker testified that he was told by Rivers that he knew of someone to get rid of it. Rivers called Officer Stinger and as note by Mr. Baker, the police arrived after 15-20 minutes.
[90] The evidence of Mr. Baker was not challenged. In July, 2013 and currently Mr. Baker was a student and was very candid in his comments about Mr. Rivers’ lifestyle.
[91] While the circumstances surrounding the giving of the statement, on their own, may fall short of establishing threshold reliability, especially given the statement was not under oath and lacked any warning of the consequences of lying, I find that with the addition of the corroborating statement of Mr. Baker threshold reliability is established, in regards to most of Mr. Rivers’ statement and the necessary level of trustworthiness exists. There are portions that are not admissible which I will identify hereinafter.
[92] The facts in regard to Mr. Rivers’ lifestyle, his addiction to drugs, his criminal record, including crimes of dishonesty and his motivation to turn in a handgun, that is, the hope he would be paid, all go to ultimate reliability. These facts can be introduced at trial through the officers and Mr. Baker and the jury can determine ultimate liability. To this I would add as well the defence argument that Mr. Rivers’ demeanour cannot be viewed for a large part of the short video statement.
[93] Further I do not believe we need any further evidence in relation to the relationship between the police and Mr. Rivers prior to July 4, 2013. Given the corroboration reliability is established without such evidence. The same reasoning applies to the defence argument that the complete record of discussions between the officers and Mr. Rivers is unnecessary.
[94] Given the corroboration I find that, given Mr. Baker’s corroborating testimony, the prejudice suffered by the admission of most of the statement does not outweigh the probative value. The circumstances of the discovery of the handgun and it being removed from the house will be before the jury, in any event, through the testimony of Mr. Baker.
[95] However, as noted above, there are portions of the statement that are not reliable and/or create a prejudice that does outweigh the probative value of the statement. Such portions can be edited out of the recorded statement and the transcript.
[96] For the purposes of greater certainty I am setting out the portions in issue in their entirety and the portions are as follows:
From page 5,
Ian: Yeah, he’s supposed to be in by midnight, every night for a curfew.
Ian: And he said he was going out to court, this morning. He asked me for a cigarette. I gave him a smoke and he said he gotta go to the court.
From page 6, on to page 7:
Officer: But you’ve never seen him carry-, but you don’t-, do you, do you really-, do you watch him, his every actions or…
Ian: Not really, cause I don’t-, sometimes, uh, I’m asleep…
Officer: Yeah
Ian: …And he’ll come wandering in…
Officer: Ok
Ian …At 3:00 in the morning or…
Officer: So he’s got a curfew. Now, are you his surety?
Ian: (Shakes head no)
Officer: No
Ian: No
Officer: So you don’t have no responsibility for him.
Ian: (shakes his head no).
Officer: So he comes and goes. If he gets arrested, it doesn’t…
Ian: It’s his problem.
Officer: It’s his problem, okay.
From page 9:
Ian: If I had known that was coming in the house…
Officer: Okay.
Ian: …I would have told him to bury it outside somewhere.
Officer: Okay.
Ian: Don’t bring it in.
[97] Clearly those portions are prejudicial and are not reliable. They imply that Mr. Davis has been charged with or has a record in regards to other criminal matters. Such evidence has no probative value to the Crown and is very prejudicial.
[98] In regards to the passage on page 9, as well as being prejudicial, the “him” in, “I would have told him”, implies Mr. Rivers knew who brought the handgun into the house after earlier in his statement indicating he had no such knowledge. The prejudice of this statement in regard to Mr. Davis clearly outweighs the probative value. The “him” as never been identified and implies an identification made by suggestion or otherwise, sometime prior to the recorded statement.
[99] Accordingly, these passages are to be deleted from the recorded statement and the transcript, and subject to those deletions the statement of the deceased, Ian Rivers, is admissible. The application of the Crown is granted.
Bielby J.
Released: December 2, 2015
CITATION: R. v. Davis, 2015 ONSC 7514
COURT FILE NO.: CR-15-1032-00
DATE: 20151202
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
- and –
DEANDRE DAVIS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bielby J.
Released: December 2, 2015