ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CRIM NJ(P)14-260
DATE: 2015 12 31
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
S. Karim, for the Crown
- and -
P.B.
S. Baboolal, for the Defendant
HEARD: December 8, 9, 10, 2015
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EMERY J
[1] Mr. P.B. is charged with one count of unlawfully committing a sexual assault on M.V., contrary to section 271(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. P.B. further stands charged with one count that he unlawfully did, for a sexual purpose, touch M.V., a person under the age of 16 years, directly with a part of his body contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Both counts relate to a single incident that, according to the indictment, occurred during a one year period last, past and ending on or about the 31st day of August 2003 in Brampton, Ontario.
[2] M.V. is the nephew of Mr. P.B.. Mr. P.B. is the brother of M.V.’s mother, H.. M.V. was born on […], 1998, and is currently 17 years old. He was therefore 5 or 6 years old at the time he alleges the incident to have occurred.
[3] Mr. P.B. is currently 55 years old. He would have been approximately 43 years of age at the time the incident allegedly occurred.
[4] M.V. testified that there was no other person present at the time of the alleged incident except for himself and Mr. P.B.. Mr. P.B. testified in his own defence that the alleged incident and the acts he is alleged to have performed on or against M.V. never happened. Counsel for the Crown and counsel for Mr. P.B. each submit that this is a credibility case in which the analytical steps set out in R v. W.(D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 are engaged.
A Brief History of the Family Dynamic
[5] In 2002 and 2003, M.V. and his parents, H. and D.1, were living with H's extended family at a townhouse on F. Crescent in Brampton. M.V.’s grandparents, D.2 and S.1, lived in the townhouse, along with his two uncles, the accused P.B. and another uncle, S.2. His aunt S.3 also lived in the townhouse with her two children, C. and his younger sister N., who would be M.V.’s cousins. P.B. is S.3's younger brother. S.3's husband, G., lived in the townhouse, but is now deceased.
[6] M.V. was the youngest child who lived at the townhouse on F. Crescent in 2002 and 2003. N. was two years older than M.V. and C. was 12 years older than M.V. N. and M.V. formed a friendship as the youngest children in the family that has continued throughout their lives.
[7] M.V. describes the townhouse as having three levels consisting of the basement, main floor and upper floor. The washer and dryer of the home were located in the basement. G. and C. also slept on the basement level. The kitchen and living room of the home were located on the main floor. The four bedrooms of the home were located on the upper floor. M.V. states that he would sleep in a room with both his parents located at the end of the hall on the upper floor. Adjacent to the room M.V. shared with his parents was another bedroom where Mr. P.B. would sleep.
[8] M.V. stated that he was not sure if H. was working at the time of the incident when they were living on F. Crescent. D.1 was working and he believes his uncle S.2 was working. His aunt S.3 was working but he doesn’t think his uncle G. was working at the time. C. had a paper route and he states that he and his cousins would help with inserting fliers into the newspapers that C. would deliver.
[9] M.V. describes how his school was within walking distance of the townhouse on F. Crescent. He would usually walk to school accompanied by another family member, from what he can remember. He remembers his mom walking him to work, but not his dad, uncle S.2, uncle G., uncle P.B. or C..
[10] M.V. went to the wedding in Trinidad and Tobago in the summer of 2003 when Mr. P.B. married P.. P. did not immediately come to Ontario to live with Mr. P.B. after the wedding. When she did arrive from Trinidad, she then occupied the bedroom with Mr. P.B..
[11] M.V. agrees that after the P.B. wedding in Trinidad and Tobago, a number of family members from Trinidad and Tobago came to visit that summer. They consisted of his maternal grandfather, another uncle and a cousin named D.. The townhouse on F. Crescent was overcrowded with people during that time.
[12] M.V. states that he was not in any daycare program at the time. He was not attending school. He would generally be at home and there would be people there. Members of the family would generally be in the townhouse. When he was asked if only one of the adults would be looking after him he answered “not that I remember, no”. His uncle P.B. was married while living in the townhouse on F. Crescent, but M.V. cannot remember if it was before or after M.V. lived there. He states that Mr. P.B. and his new wife did not have a child at the time.
The Incident
[13] M.V. states that he was five or six on the day he alleges the incident occurred. He was either in kindergarten or preschool that year. He cannot recall if the incident occurred in the spring or at the end of the school year. He is not sure if it was a school day and that he had stayed home from school that day, or if it was a weekend.
[14] M.V. testified that the incident occurred in Mr. P.B.’s bedroom. M.V. is “pretty sure” he was called by Mr. P.B. to enter the bedroom. When he walked in, he saw a wall to the left and a couple of feet to the right stood a T.V. on a stand. The bed had sheets on it. He recalls that it was midday as the sun was shining bright through the bedroom window. Although the window had curtains, they were thin enough that M.V. could see the top of a tree outside.
[15] M.V. states that Mr. P.B. was already in the room. It was not common for M.V. to go into Mr. P.B.’s bedroom.
[16] M.V. states that he was wearing his t-shirt and underwear at the time. When he walked into Mr. P.B.’s bedroom, Mr. P.B. told him to take off his clothes and get on to the bed. M.V. states that he took off his clothes and laid on top of the bed. He was nude and lying on his back. He states that Mr. P.B. was wearing clothes at the time. Mr. P.B. moved M.V.’s body so that he was lying on his right side and facing the wall. According to M.V., Mr. P.B. did not say anything but got onto the bed and shoved him so that his face was closer to the wall.
[17] M.V. is not sure if Mr. P.B. removed any clothing. He just remembers that Mr. P.B. rubbed his buttock with a hand but does not know which hand Mr. P.B. used.
[18] M.V. described in his evidence that Mr. P.B. then touched his penis with his right hand, but M.V. was not sure what Mr. P.B. was doing. M.V. then states that Mr. P.B. penetrated him anally. When counsel for the Crown asked M.V. with what part of his body did he penetrate him, M.V. answered, “his penis”. M.V. states that he asked Mr. P.B. what he was doing and Mr. P.B. told him, or mumbled to him, to stop talking and be quiet.
[19] M.V. states that he cannot recall how long the anal penetration continued. He just remembers that Mr. P.B. ejaculated on his thigh, which he recalls being the right thigh. Mr. P.B. then told M.V. to get up and get dressed and to not tell anyone.
[20] M.V. got up from the bed and saw Mr. P.B. sitting there on the side of the bed. He was shirtless and had a blanket or sheet draped over the lower half of his body. M.V. states that at no time did he see Mr. P.B.’s penis.
[21] After M.V. got up off the bed, he got dressed by the doorway. The door was closed as he had closed it when he first entered the room. He cannot recall if the lights were on or off because it was the middle of the day.
[22] M.V. then went into the bathroom to wipe off the ejaculation fluid with toilet paper. He flushed the toilet paper that he used to clean himself down the toilet.
[23] M.V. then left the bathroom and does not remember what occurs next. He did not tell anyone of the incident because Mr. P.B. had told him not to tell anyone.
[24] Under cross-examination, M.V. answered that he does not recall feeling any pain during the alleged penetration by Mr. P.B.. He states that he recalls Mr. P.B. thrusting, and he remembers the bed moving.
[25] During cross-examination, M.V. could not recall being left alone in the house with Mr. P.B.. He concedes that there might have been another person downstairs on the day of the incident.
[26] M.V. agrees that his mother would bathe him when he was 5 or 6 years old. He admits that his mother did not detect any injury to him after the day of the alleged incident when bathing him.
[27] M.V. states that the memory of the incident first came back to him in 2011 when he was in grade 8. He was trying to sleep one night when the memory “kind of popped up”. By that time, H. and D.1 had separated and M.V. was living on a week-about basis with each parent. At the time, both parents were living in Barrie, Ontario.
[28] M.V. moved back to live with his mother on October 12, 2012. He recalls that date specifically because that was the date he came out as a gay person. He had been living with his father in Barrie and was concerned how his father would react when he learned of his sexual orientation. He described his father as being a “closed minded kind of dude”. By this time, H. was living with her extended family again in Brampton. The family had moved since 2003 from F. Crescent to […][…]. The same family members were living on […] that had lived in the townhouse on F. Crescent, except that G. had died, D.1 was living in Barrie and Mr. P.B. had married P. who was living with him in the family home along with their child.
[29] In response to a question asked by counsel for the Crown, M.V. stated that he was nervous about going to live in the same house where Mr. P.B. was living, but he was worried about other things. He stated that it would be awkward and uncomfortable, but he was not fearful. Between the time he had lived in the townhouse on F. Crescent and the time he moved into the family home on […], he had only encountered Mr. P.B. at family gatherings and had never talked to him.
[30] M.V. states that he told his mother about the incident a couple of months after he had moved into the family home on October 12, 2012.
[31] After charges were laid against Mr. P.B., M.V.’s relationship with his aunts and uncles was not good. He remained friendly with N.. C. would talk with him, but did not go out of his way to speak with him.
[32] On being cross-examined, M.V. admitted that he often mixes up his dates. He agrees that he mixed up the date of his first flashback memory of the incident, thinking it was in 2012 when it was actually in 2011. M.V. had to be reminded of that date by counsel for the Crown by referring to the transcript from the preliminary hearing.
[33] In cross-examination M.V. restated that his first recollection of the incident occurred when he was sleeping or trying to sleep one night in 2011. Again he stated that the “thought”, being the incident, “popped into” his head. He admits that there are a lot of details about the incident that he cannot remember. He states that he told the police when interviewed about the incident that he only remembers flashes of it.
[34] M.V. states that he first experienced the flashbacks in 2011. He has been trying to piece them together but has only pieced them together to the extent that he has testified about at trial. He has no other recollection of anything else from that date.
[35] H. had custody of M.V. in 2011 when he went to live with his father in Barrie. M.V. told the court that D.1 said he would kill himself if M.V. did not go and live with him. He admitted that H. was drinking heavily and that it was hard to leave her like that but he felt compelled to go and live with D.1.
[36] In 2012, M.V. was 14 years old. The fact that he came out as a gay person in 2012 and the fact that he believed his father to be closed-minded about such things was the motivating factor for M.V. to call his mother on October 12, 2012 to ask if he could move in with her. He testified under cross-examination that he had called N. around the same time. This was the first time he had told anyone in his family that he was gay. He told her that his father would not accept him and expressing his fear that his father would shun him.
[37] M.V. agreed under cross-examination that he had a lot of issues to deal with at the time. He saw the counsellor about his emotional issues and his inclination to cause harm to himself. He did not tell his counsellor about the incident.
[38] His mother H. also had him enrolled at the Peel Youth Centre to deal with his emerging sexuality and his tendency to self-harm.
[39] M.V. states that he has lost the relationship with his family over reporting this event.
[40] M.V.’s mother, H., also gave evidence for the Crown. H. told the court how she and D.1 and M.V. lived at the townhouse on F. Crescent in Brampton for two or three years.
[41] H. states that Mr. P.B. was not married at the time. She does not know the exact date he married P.. H. cannot recall the year of the wedding even though it was in Trinidad and that she attended the wedding with M.V. in Trinidad.
[42] H. described how she first came to learn of the incident that gives rise to the criminal charges against Mr. P.B.. M.V. had moved into the family home to live with her on […] in 2012. He was actually asleep at the time. She heard M.V. crying in his sleep and she woke him. He was upset and then told her about what he has recalled of the incident.
[43] H. testified that when M.V. was not in kindergarten in 2003, he would be at home. Other family members in the home would look after M.V. when H. was a work. When asked if Mr. P.B. was ever left alone with M.V., she answered “I’m sure he was” but changed that answer to “yes, he was”.
[44] H. testified about the various family members she can recall working at the time. She states that C. would have been in his teen years and that he distributed newspapers. She stated that everybody helped with inserting fliers into the newspapers. C. and Mr. P.B. would then take them out. She states that C. and Mr. P.B. had a good relationship.
[45] H. states that after M.V. told her what had happened in 2012, she enrolled him in Rapport House where he received counselling. M.V. cannot recall attending at Rapport House for this counselling. H. also enrolled M.V. with Peel Youth Services to deal with his issues involving anxiety and phantom pain. She also had him examined at the hospital where it was determined that M.V. had nothing physiologically wrong with him. She also supported M.V. in reporting the alleged incident to the police. This led to a huge argument with her sister S.3.
[46] The Crown did not call any expert witness or the investigating officer to give evidence.
The Defence
[47] M.V.’s aunt S.3 was called to testify for the defence.
[48] S.3 resided at 92 F. Crescent in 2002 and 2003. She stated that H. came to her one day in 2002 or 2003 and asked if she and her husband and son, M.V., could stay with the family in the townhouse on F. Crescent for one month. They ended up staying for over one year. S.3 recalls that H. was not employed at the time so that she was home during the day.
[49] In 2012, H. had come to live with the family again in the home they had moved into on […]. M.V. came to live with H. and the family sometime in October 2012. M.V. enrolled in school but his attendance was poor. S.3 observed M.V. to be sleeping upstairs during the day and that he watched T.V. all night. When S.3 asked H. why he slept all day, H. told her “you know what P.B. did.”
[50] While living in the townhouse on F. Crescent, S.3 did not notice any change in M.V.’s behaviour around Mr. P.B.. She stated that M.V. was not uncomfortable around Mr. P.B., and did not try to avoid him.
[51] S.3 testified that her children, C. and N., lived in the townhouse at the time. She testified that she never heard from them of Mr. P.B. acting inappropriately towards them.
[52] S.3 testified that visitors would visit the family and stay for weeks at a time in the townhouse. This included her father, brother and younger nephew D. in the summer of 2002.
[53] When S.3 was cross-examined, it was unclear whether she was able to say with any accuracy where Mr. P.B. was working or where H. was working at the time either of them lived in the townhouse on F. Crescent. She believed that Mr. P.B. had found work through an agency with Systemic Tool for a time. It was also possible that H. was working at Piero Paper at some point.
[54] S.3 testified that Mr. P.B. and P. were married in 2002, but she cannot remember when P. actually came to live with Mr. P.B. in Brampton.
[55] S.3 was consistent with her evidence under cross-examination that she did not notice M.V. acting uncomfortably or trying to avoid Mr. P.B. at any time. She stated that she would know if she saw something different in his behaviour.
[56] S.3 was steadfast in her evidence that even if she was outside of the townhouse, she would know whether Mr. P.B. and M.V. had any contact with one another even though she was not in the home. This evidence was given in so stringent a manner that it lacks credibility. S.3's adherence to giving this evidence in absolute terms had the opposite effect as clearly she cannot see what she was not present at the time to see.
[57] P. also testified for the defence. She told the court that she and Mr. P.B. were married in Trinidad and Tobago on March 10, 2002. The whole family attended the wedding, including M.V., who was actually part of the wedding ceremony. A photograph of the family taken on the day of the wedding was entered into evidence as an exhibit.
[58] P. is currently 53 years old. Her husband, P.B. is 55 years old. They have a son who is currently 6 years old.
[59] After the wedding P. remained in Trinidad and Tobago until she came to Canada on August 10, 2003. At that time she began to live in the townhouse on F. Crescent.
[60] P. states that she has never seen M.V. interact with her husband.
[61] The court heard evidence from P. that Mr. P.B. was admitted to hospital in February 2015 after suffering a moderate stroke. He suffered an aneurism and a bleeding into the brain. He is not capable of working.
[62] P. told the court that Mr. P.B. has a very strong relationship with their son. Mr. P.B. looks after their son when P. is at work. She stated that she has no concerns for her own child while in Mr. P.B.’s care.
[63] P. described what occurred when the charges were laid. The entire family was living at the house on […]. After the charges were laid, Mr. P.B. went to live with his sister. P. went to live at a shelter where she stayed for three weeks. She stopped working. She had no one to look after her son. Finally, a welfare agency found a place for her to live. The Peel Children’s Aid Society required that Mr. P.B. have no contact with his son at that time.
[64] After the Children’s Aid Society completed its investigation, Mr. P.B. was allowed to visit his son. P. and Mr. P.B. lived separate and apart for one year.
[65] P. recalls that after she and Mr. P.B. left the house on […], she cannot recall if M.V. and H. stayed on to live there.
[66] Under cross-examination, P. stated that she would help C. and Mr. P.B. with stuffing flyers into the newspapers. Mr. P.B. would help him with the fliers and then with the actual paper delivery.
[67] P. stated that on only one occasion did M.V. accompany them on an activity outside the home, and that was when she and Mr. P.B. took M.V. and N. to the circus.
[68] P. states that M.V. and Mr. P.B. were rarely in the house together. She states that M.V. was always out with his mother and father at the mall. This evidence was given too strongly and was put too stringently to be accepted.
[69] C. was called as witness for Mr. P.B.. C. is 29 years old and a police officer. Mr. P.B. is his uncle and M.V. is his cousin. C. stated that Mr. P.B. had a huge part in raising him, and that they had a close relationship as an uncle and nephew.
[70] C. testified that he has never witnessed anything sexually inappropriate in the conduct of Mr. P.B. to him, to N., to M.V., or to any of the other cousins.
[71] N. was also called to testify. N. is currently 19 years old. Mr. P.B. is her uncle and M.V. is her cousin. N. testified that she and M.V. would talk all of the time. They maintained their relationship even after M.V. and his parents moved out of the house on F. Crescent.
[72] N. testified that M.V. called her one night. He was crying. He told her that he was gay and that his father would not accept him. N. stated that M.V. confides in her. However, at no time did M.V. tell her that he had been sexually molested by Mr. P.B..
[73] N. testified that she has never witnessed any inappropriate contact between Mr. P.B. and herself, C., or M.V. She observed no change in how Mr. P.B. interacted with M.V. in 2002 or 2003.
[74] N. stated that she still enjoys a good relationship with M.V.
[75] Mr. P.B. testified in his own defence. His examination in-chief was concise. When confronted with the allegations made against him by M.V., Mr. P.B. denied each allegation when asked if it ever happened by saying “no”.
[76] In cross-examination, Mr. P.B. agreed that he would help C. with his newspapers. He was close with C. and considered C. like another son. When he helped C. with newspapers, he stated that other family members would help. He stated that M.V. never touched the newspapers and that he was never asked to help with the newspapers. Of that he is one hundred percent sure.
[77] Mr. P.B. testified that he never looked after M.V. when M.V. and his parents lived at the townhouse on F. Crescent. He stated that he was not used to kids at the time.
[78] Mr. P.B. stated that M.V. would come to his bedroom door sometimes and knock when the door was closed. When Mr. P.B. would open the door to see who was knocking, he would tell M.V. to go back to see his mother downstairs.
[79] Mr. P.B. testified that it was common for the family to have dinner together. He stated that he would have basic conversation with N., C. and M.V. at the dinner table.
[80] He states that he cannot recall getting them snacks after school.
ANAYLSIS
[81] The court was advised at the opening of trial that identity and jurisdiction were not issues in dispute at the trial.
[82] The accused has defended the counts on the indictment for which he stands charged on the basis that the facts alleged on which those counts are based never happened.
[83] Where a credibility issue between a complainant and an accused arises at a trial, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.). has directed the trial judge to instruct the jury or, in the case of a non-jury trial, to determine the question of credibility by undertaking the following analysis:
(i) First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit;
(ii) Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit;
(iii) Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
[84] These questions enshrined in R. v. W.(D.) and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. S.(W. D.) 1994 76 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 521 are founded upon the two principles on which our criminal justice system is based. The first is that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. The second principle is that the guilt of an accused person must be proved by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.
[85] I do not have sufficient evidence from the testimony of Mr. P.B. to form a belief in his evidence under the first question except to hear him answer “No” to each allegation of fact in his examination in-chief to categorically deny that he performed the acts of which he is accused, or the facts given in evidence by M.V.
[86] Similarly, I have insufficient evidence to form the belief about the testimony of the accused as to whether I believe it or not under the second question.
[87] I am of the view that the question of credibility must be determined on the basis of the third question that the case of R. v. W.(D.) requires the court to answer.
[88] M.V. gave evidence about what he remembered happening on the day the incident happened. M.V. also gave evidence about when the memory of the incident next came back to him in 2011. He was asked how the memory came back to him and he stated “I was going to bed. You’re just thinking about anything, trying to sleep and it just sort of popped up.” Even in cross-examination, M.V. stated that the first memory “popped up” in 2011, some eight years later. M.V. gave no evidence about any memory he had between 2003 and 2011 about the incident. He gave no evidence about the other events in his life that could have refreshed that memory. I further note that there was no expert evidence given about recalled childhood memories and how and when the court should find them reliable.
[89] The law in Canada has dispelled the notion that the disclosure of the sexual abuse of a child should be considered as unreliable because of the passage of time, standing alone, before that sexual abuse was reported to a parent, health provider or the police. This was recognized in R. v. D.D. 2000 SCC 43, [2000] S.C.J. No. 44 when the Supreme Court of Canada stated at para 59 that:
“...in diagnosing cases of child sexual abuse, the timing of the disclosure, standing alone, signifies nothing. That all victims of child sexual abuse will disclose the abuse immediately. It depends upon the circumstances of the particular victim.”
[90] In R v. D.D., the Supreme Court of Canada also dispelled the notion that expert evidence is required in every case of historical sexual assault. Only where the criteria of relevance and necessity under R. v. Mohan 1994 80 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 are satisfied should a properly qualified expert be called and permitted to give opinion evidence on the delayed disclosure of implicating facts in a case.
[91] When considering M.V.’s evidence as a whole and the recalled memory that “popped up” in his mind as he was going to sleep one night in 2011, the court is left to conclude that the basis of the facts he gave in evidence arises from the memory recalled by M.V. in 2011, and not the memory of what he as a five year old child actually remembers at the time the alleged incident occurred.
[92] I also have a concern about the veracity of M.V.’s evidence upon recalling what he believes to be an incident that occurred eight years earlier because he did not disclose the memory of the incident to others with whom he would logically share it. When he went to live with his mother at the house on […], M.V. did not immediately tell her about it. His mother enrolled him with a counsellor with whom he discussed a variety of emotional issues but not the incident. M.V. maintained a special bond with his cousin N.. He reached out to her by telephone one night when he had come to terms with his sexual orientation and was concerned his father would not accept him and his sexuality, but made no mention of the incident.
[93] It was only when he was crying in his sleep one night after moving to the family home on […] and being awakened by his mother that he told her of the incident. I also take into account the evidence given by S.3 that M.V. was watching T.V. at night and sleeping during the day to infer that M.V. may have had other lifestyle issues he wished to justify with his family members.
[94] I am mindful of the decision in R. v. Norman, 1993 3387 (ON CA), [1993] 16 OR (3rd) 295 where Justice Finlayson notes that “historical” and “sexual assault” cases are not common and the memory recovery process in the young victims of such abuse is well recognized by judicial authority. However, a trier of fact must exercise caution in such cases. The court has said that expert evidence is of considerable value in such cases. As the Court of the Appeal stated “the issue is not whether the complainant’s memory was real or false, but whether the Crown has made out his case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence adduced at trial.”
[95] I would have found an expert who provided opinion evidence on the correlation between memory recollection and the implicated facts in this case to be not only helpful, but relevant and necessary. This view is very much in keeping with the dissent written by Chief Justice McLachlin in R v. DD, which I consider to be applicable to the particular circumstances about recalling the incident given in evidence by M.V.
[96] I accept the evidence given by S.3, C. and N. that they observed no difference in the behaviour of either Mr. P.B. or M.V. when each of them lived with the family at the townhouse on F. Crescent, or the interaction between Mr. P.B. and M.V. which I accept was minimal to begin with. I further accept their evidence that C. and N. never experienced or observed any sexually inappropriate behaviour by Mr. P.B. towards themselves, M.V., or any other cousin.
[97] In the end, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence which I do accept, if I am convinced on the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. On the basis of the evidence I do accept, I am not convinced on the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. P.B. participated in the incident that forms the basis for the criminal charges against him. I therefore find him not guilty on count 1 of the indictment under s. 271(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and not guilty under count 2 of the indictment under s. 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
EMERY J
Released: December 31, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CRIM NJ(P)14-260
DATE: 2015 12 31
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
P.B.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EMERY J
Released: December 31, 2015