COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J (P) 469/14 DATE: 2016 08 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Her Majesty the Queen v. Steven Browne, Amal Greensword and Adrian Williams
BEFORE: COROZA J.
COUNSEL: Alex Cornelius and Greg Hendry, for the Crown Anthony Bryant and Anne Marie Morphew, for Mr. Browne; Michael Moon and Nicole Rozier, for Mr. Greensword; and Maureen Addie, Counsel for Mr. Williams
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The accused face a charge of first degree murder. The trial will begin with jury selection during the week of September 12, 2016. The trial estimate is three to four months.
[2] Lemon J. and I heard a number of pre-trial motions from March to June, 2016. I reserved judgment on the motions that I heard. In order to keep things moving, this endorsement discloses the "bottom line" on the motions to assist counsel with preparation. Complete written reasons will follow.
Overview
[3] The three accused are charged with first degree murder in relation to the death of Dwayne Thompson on November 1, 2012. A fourth accused, Adeyemi Ogunbitan, was discharged at the preliminary inquiry.
[4] The Crown's theory is that Mr. Greensword set up a drug deal with Mr. Thompson to be conducted at apartment buildings on Darcel Avenue in Malton. Mr. Thompson arrived with Margaret Warner and Shawn Edwards. Mr. Edwards stayed in the car with the drugs and Mr. Thompson and Ms. Warner got out of the car to meet Mr. Greensword, known to them as Scarface. On their way to the apartment building, Ms. Warner noted some males running to a white car.
[5] When Scarface did not show, they decided to leave. On the way back to the car, they were accosted by three or four males, one of whom shot Mr. Thompson four times with a handgun. Ms. Warner ran away. The Crown alleges that the murder was planned and deliberate.
The Pretrial Motions
I. Omnibus Procedural Issues Motion
[6] The parties seek various rulings in relation to the conduct of the trial, as set out below. [1]
Prisoner Restraints
[7] The Crown applies for an order that the accused be shackled in the courtroom.
[8] Result: Application denied. See R. v. McNeill (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.) R. v. Fortuin, 2015 ONCJ 116, 119 W.C.B. (2d) 578.
Position of the Accused in the Courtroom
[9] Defence counsel apply to have the accused be seated at the counsel table outside of the prisoner box in the courtroom.
[10] Result: Application dismissed. The accused shall remain in the prisoner’s dock during the course of the trial proceedings.
Internet Access
[11] Defence counsel apply for access to the internet while in the courtroom.
[12] Result: This application was deferred to a later point in time where counsel could make inquiries of the court services. Since the motion has been argued, I have made the inquiries and it is possible to provide counsel access to the internet while they are in the courtroom. Accordingly, I order that all counsel shall have internet access while in the courtroom.
Erroneous Jury Questionnaire
[13] Defence counsel seek to challenge the array pursuant to section 629 of the Criminal Code on the basis that the sheriff wilfully misconducted himself in returning the panel.
[14] Jury service in Ontario is governed by the Juries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.3, as amended. The current legislation sets out the eligibility requirements for prospective jurors in sections 2, 3, and 4.
[15] An excellent overview of the jury selection process is found in the 2006 Report of the Chief Justice’s Advisory Committee on Criminal Trials in the Superior Court Justice: New Approaches to Criminal Trial.
[16] As outlined in that report, questionnaires are sent to potential jurors. The names are taken from the most recent enumeration lists, obtained from the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation. Names are selected randomly from each county and district, and a questionnaire for jury service is mailed to those selected.
[17] The enumeration lists are updated once every three years, and do not reflect changes in personal circumstances within that period. The jury panels for jury trials are created from those who respond and are eligible.
[18] The next step is panels being summoned for jury duty. The roughly 46 weeks a year that there are panels in Brampton, they are summoned for Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning each of those weeks. Where the trial is anticipated to be lengthy special panels are summoned, usually for Wednesday or Thursday.
[19] On July 21, 2015 the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General issued a new Form 1 questionnaire under the Juries Act, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 680. This Form 1 was mailed out to all prospective jurors for the calendar year in 2016 and each prospective juror is required to complete it.
[20] Counsel all agree that there are errors in the questionnaire. These errors have been set out in the detailed notices of application filed by defence counsel.
[21] The concern outlined by the defence is that because of the errors in the questionnaire, there are jurors who may have been misled into believing that they can serve as a jurors, when, in fact, they are ineligible by virtue of being convicted of particular criminal offences or being engaged in law enforcement.
[22] Defence counsel framed their application as a challenge to the array pursuant to the Criminal Code. The remedy sought is a direction that a new panel be returned. Alternatively, counsel submitted that if I was not prepared to do that, then at the very least, the jury panel should be vetted to “weed out” any ineligible jurors.
[23] Result: I decline to direct that a new panel be returned. Any shortcomings in the questionnaire can be dealt with during the jury selection process. I agree with the parties that there are alternative solutions to weed out any disqualified jurors from the panel.
[24] First, by way of correspondence I have put the jury panel on notice to raise issues about potential ineligibility with the trial judge. At the time of the argument of this motion, a jury panel had not been summoned for this trial. Since the argument, a jury panel has been summoned to attend court on September 13 and 14, 2016. These two dates will be used as a vetting process to hear requests from potential jurors to be excused or deferred from jury service.
[25] When a panel is summoned, it is customary for the trial office to send a hardship letter notifying prospective jurors that they are to notify the trial judge of any hardship in serving as a juror. In order to address some of the concerns caused by the erroneous questionnaire, I have amended the standard hardship letter to the jury panel to ensure it tracks the language of the Juries Act (see Appendix A to this endorsement).
[26] Second, I will address each panel on September 13 and 14, 2016 with opening remarks. In my remarks, I propose to highlight the sections of the Juries Act that may have caused some confusion as a result of the erroneous questionnaire. I will forward my opening remarks to counsel and will consider any proposed additions to these remarks.
[27] Third, as part of the jury selection process, counsel will be provided a list of prospective jurors. The jury list describes occupation. If the noted occupation is ambiguous or omitted, I will permit counsel to make further inquiry of the potential juror.
[28] Fourth, the Ministry of the Attorney General, Court Services Division has attached a secondary notice to all jurors summoned to be a prospective juror. The secondary note details all changes to the Criminal Code that may affect eligibility and explains that prospective jurors are automatically disqualified if they have been convicted of offences under sections 130(1), 173(1) and/or 372 of the Criminal Code. The notice mandates that prospective jurors convicted of such offences must call the provincial jury centre, where they will be discharged.
Permitting opening statement immediately after Crown
[29] Counsel for Mr. Browne applies for an order that counsel for the accused be given the option of delivering an opening address to the jury immediately after the Crown delivers their opening address.
[30] Result: After reviewing the principles set out in a number of cases including: R. v. L.G., [2004] O.J. No. 5677 (S.C.J) and R. v. Sandham [2008] O.J. No. 5809 (S.C.J), the application is dismissed.
Race based challenge for cause
[31] Each accused has advanced the position that they should be permitted a race-based challenge for cause pursuant to s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. The Crown is not opposed to the application. In light of the Crown's position, I need not say more. All of the accused in this case are black men. In my view, the concession by the Crown is appropriate and the request to permit a race-based challenge is granted.
[32] The Crown and counsel for the accused disagree regarding the structure and content of the questions to be asked of potential jurors.
[33] Counsel for the accused propose to challenge each prospective juror by asking a number of questions. The Crown is opposed to any deviation from the standard Parks question (see R. v. Parks (1993), 15 O.R. (3d) 324 (C.A.), at paras. 16-92).
[34] First, the Crown is opposed to a preamble to the question that references Mr. Thompson's involvement in drug trafficking. Counsel for the accused seek to add the following language in the preamble to the proposed questions:
[The accused] are jointly charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of Dwayne Thompson on November 1, 2012 that took place in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Malton. Mr. Thompson had gone there for the purpose of trafficking drugs. [Emphasis is mine.]
[35] Second, the Crown is also opposed to a proposal by counsel for Mr. Greensword that jurors be asked the following additional questions in addition to the standard Parks question:
Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice and partiality be affected by any beliefs, attitudes or opinions you may have about black men being more likely to be involved in the commission of violent criminal offences?
Would you be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer just because he is a police officer than you would the testimony of an ordinary citizen?
[36] Result: I have carefully reviewed the proposed questions and the submissions of counsel. I have arrived at the following formulation which attempts to strike a balance between the defence and Crown positions and effectively advance a legitimate inquiry into the impartiality of potential jurors. In my view, the following captures the concern that justifies the challenge for cause under s. 638(1)(b):
Steven Browne, Amal Greensword, and Adrian Williams are jointly charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of Dwayne Thompson on November 1, 2012 that took place in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Malton.
All three men on trial are black men.
As His Honour will tell you, in deciding whether or not the prosecution has proven the charge against an accused person beyond a reasonable doubt, a juror must be able to judge the evidence fairly, without bias, prejudice or partiality. That is to say, the juror must decide the case with an open and fair mind.
With that in mind, His Honour has approved that all potential jurors be asked the following questions.
Please listen to the following questions and consider your responses before you answer.
- Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case fairly be affected by the fact that the persons charged are black men?
- Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case fairly be affected by any beliefs, attitudes or opinions that you may have about black men being more likely to be involved in the commission of violent criminal offences?
[37] I am also satisfied that a copy of the questions will be given to potential jurors to read in advance of being brought into the courtroom to answer the questions.
[38] A special panel of potential jurors has been summoned. Jury selection in this matter will take days. So as not to inconvenience the public more than necessary, they should be broken into groups of 20 and given a schedule to return to the courthouse for the selection process at staggered intervals. As I set out below, unsworn jurors will be excluded from the courtroom during the jury selection process. The questions will not be circulated among the unsworn jurors. Only the next potential unsworn juror in the queue to enter into the courtroom during jury selection will be provided the questions to read silently to themselves before entering into the courtroom. The questions will provided by a jury attendant who will be instructed to provide the questions to the next potential juror. Once the potential juror has reviewed the questions, the court services officer will collect the question from the juror.
[39] Section 640(2) of the Criminal Code provides for rotating triers and all counsel agree that rotating triers are to be used in this case to determine the race based challenge.
Selection of 14 Jurors
[40] All parties request that 14 jurors should be sworn pursuant to s. 631(2.2) of the Criminal Code.
[41] Result: I am satisfied it is "advisable in the interests of justice" to order that the jury hearing this case will be a 14 member jury. Pursuant to s. 634(2.01) of the Criminal Code, each of the accused will have two additional peremptory challenges to account for the additional jurors.
[42] I also believe it is in the interest of justice to select alternate jurors. Therefore, two alternate jurors will be picked pursuant to s. 631(2.1) of the Criminal Code. This means that the accused will have a further two additional peremptory challenges. These additional challenges for alternate jurors are provided for under s. 634(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Pursuant to s. 634(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, the Crown will have the equivalent number of peremptory challenges to all of the accused combined.
[43] In summary, counsel for each accused will have 24 peremptory challenges. The Crown will have a total of 72 peremptory challenges.
[44] If all jurors are present at the commencement of evidence, the alternates will be dismissed. If the whole jury of 14 remain when the jury is ready to deliberate, pursuant s. 652.1(2), two jurors will be discharged and released before the jury retires to consider the verdicts.
Exclusion of Jurors from the Courtroom during Jury Selection
[45] All parties request that unsworn prospective jurors should be excluded from the courtroom while using rotating triers during the challenge for cause proceedings.
[46] Result: The application is granted.
[47] While this issue was outstanding, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its judgment in R. v. Grant, 2016 ONCA 639, [2016] O.J. No. 4419 (Q.L.). In that case, Laskin J.A. wrote that the 2008 amendments to the Criminal Code did not deprive trial judges of the discretion to exclude only prospective jurors from the courtroom, while using rotating triers during the challenge for cause proceedings. I am satisfied that there is a basis for making this order.
[48] The common procedure in Brampton for selecting juries from a special panel has been set out by my colleague Sproat J. in R. v. White, 2009 ONSC 42049 (Ont. S.C.). Laskin J.A. referred to this case in Grant.
[49] In summary, after a vetting process that will take place for about two days, the panel will then be re-assembled on another day and individuals will be randomly selected and organized in groups of 20. The first two or three groups remain in the courthouse to begin the process of jury selection and the remaining groups are advised to return at staggered intervals. I agree with my colleague that reasonable efforts should be made to accommodate potential jurors during this process and for the reasons set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 of my colleague's judgment, staggering the groups necessitates that they be excluded from the courtroom. As such, all prospective unsworn jurors will be excluded until the jury of 14 and two alternates have been chosen.
Parking Motion
[50] Counsel for Mr. Browne and Mr. Williams apply for an order granting them three reserved parking spots for the duration of this trial. Counsel for Court Services Division of the Attorney General opposed the application.
[51] Result: Application is dismissed.
II. Statements to Probation
[52] Mr. Greensword and Mr. Browne provided cell phone numbers to probation officers while they were on probation for unrelated offences. The police obtained the numbers from probation while trying to identify the perpetrators of the murder. As I understand their argument, the Crown seeks to rely on the numbers provided to identify the users of the cell phone numbers at the time of the murder. Mr. Greensword and Mr. Browne seek exclusion of the evidence.
[53] Mr. Greensword was supervised by probation officers from August 17, 2012 until October or November 2012. On August 23, 2012, Mr. Greensword met with Caroline Scharf and provided an address and cell phone number (647-606-9424). In November 2012, Mr. Greensword was transferred to Brampton probation and met with Denise Sidsworth on November 15, 2012. He provided a different number (416-543-6069).
[54] Mr. Browne first met with probation officer Sandra McKenzie on October 23, 2012. He provided a phone number (647-862-9200). At a subsequent meeting on November 26, 2012, he provided a different number (647-537-2507).
[55] During their investigation into Mr. Thompson’s shooting, the police requested the phone numbers of the accused from the probation officers. The probation officers provided the telephone numbers to the police.
[56] The Crown's case apparently turns in part on the use of cell phone evidence placing phones at specific locations and following a consistent pattern of movement, as well as communications between phones.
[57] It appears that the Crown seeks to call the probation witnesses to establish that certain phone numbers belonged to certain accused around the time of the murder on November 1, 2012.
[58] The accused seek exclusion of the phone numbers claiming that the conduct of the police was an unlawful search and seizure. The accused also argue that they were compelled to provide the information to the probation officers. Finally, the accused submit that the probation officers were person in authority and a voir dire is required to assess the voluntariness of their statements to the probation officers.
[59] Result: The application brought by the accused to exclude the evidence is dismissed. I also agree with the Crown that the probation officers were not persons in authority. The Crown may introduce the phone numbers at this trial.
III. Alternate Suspect
[60] Mr. Browne applies to introduce third party suspect evidence. Specifically he seeks to lead evidence of Adeyemi Ogunbitan's involvement in the shooting of the deceased. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Ogunbitan was originally charged with murder as a co-accused. However, he was discharged by Keaney J. at the preliminary hearing.
[61] Surveillance video seized from the scene of the shooting was seized by the police. It shows three black males entering and then leaving the lobby of the apartment building shortly before the deceased and Ms. Warner arrive. It also shows a white car driving back and forth. It is anticipated that Ms. Warner will testify that she saw males running to this car prior to the shooting.
[62] The Crown’s theory is that two of the men in the video are Mr. Greensword and Mr. Williams. At the preliminary hearing the Crown conceded that Mr. Browne is not the third male in the video.
[63] Mr. Browne says that Mr. Ogunbitan is the third person seen on surveillance video. Mr. Browne also argues that he is linked to Mr. Greensword and Mr. Williams through cell phone evidence. It is anticipated the Crown will heavily rely upon cell phone location data to implicate all three accused. Therefore, Mr. Browne argues that he ought to be permitted to introduce evidence that suggests that Mr. Ogunbitan was involved in the offence.
[64] The identity of the shooter is a live issue in this case. I agree with counsel for Mr. Browne that he should be permitted to present to the jury that there is the possible involvement of an alternate suspect and this can raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
[65] Result: Mr. Browne's application is granted.
IV. Eyewitness Identification
[66] Mr. Greensword and Mr. Williams move to prohibit the Crown from leading evidence from Ms. Warner that the males she saw when she was approaching the apartment building with Mr. Thompson were the same males she saw accost Mr. Thompson prior to hearing gunshots.
[67] The issue was raised at the preliminary inquiry. The Crown, at that hearing, showed Ms. Warner the video seized by the police of the apartment lobby. At one point, the Crown asked Ms. Warner to comment whether the three males depicted in the lobby before their arrival were the same males she saw running to the white car when they arrived. Ms. Warner agreed that the males were the same. The witness was not asked to elaborate by any counsel about her assertions.
[68] The Crown argues that Ms. Warner’s evidence is admissible because her observations are enhanced by the presentation of a surveillance video which overlapped with her real-time observations. As I understand the Crown’s argument, this is evidence of fact and not impermissible opinion.
[69] Result: The Crown is permitted to ask Ms. Warner if the males on the video are the same individuals she saw running to the car.
V. Post-Offence Conduct
[70] Mr. Greensword and Mr. Browne move to prevent the Crown from leading the following pieces of evidence characterized as post-offence conduct:
- One of the participants in the homicide was identified as having dreadlocks. The Crown says that Mr. Browne, had dreadlocks before November 1, 2012 and cut his hair sometime after the shooting at the urging of Mr. Greensword. When Mr. Browne was arrested in February 2013, his hair was cut low.
- Cassandra Hudson, a girlfriend of Mr. Greensword around November 2012, told the police that in November of 2012 she visited Mr. Greensword in jail. At that time, Mr. Greensword directed her to tell Mr. Browne to cut his hair. The Crown concedes that this statement is only admissible against Mr. Greensword. As I understand their argument, it is the direction to Ms. Hudson that is relevant. Ms. Hudson allegedly made this assertion to the police in a videotaped interview of March 18, 2013. According to the Crown, that video has been lost by the police.
- Cell phone numbers in use by the accused at the time or before the offence were no longer in use after the murder and the accused had assumed new phone numbers.
[71] Result: First, the Crown may lead evidence that Mr. Browne’s hairstyle changed before and after November 1, 2012. Second, the Crown may also lead evidence of the changes in the cell phone numbers associated with the accused. Finally, the Crown (subject to the lost evidence ruling below) may also lead Cassandra Hudson’s evidence that Mr. Greensword directed her to tell Mr. Browne to cut his hair.
VI. Lost Evidence.
[72] Counsel for the accused argue that the evidence of Cassandra Hudson should be excluded because of a violation of their Charter rights. They argue that the police lost the interview of March 18, 2013 and this amounts to unacceptable negligence.
[73] The Crown concedes that the police lost the videotaped interview of March 18, 2013. However, the Crown argues that there are substitutes to alleviate any prejudice to the accused. The Crown emphasizes that there is a handwritten and electronic synopsis of the interview. In the synopsis there is a reference to Ms. Hudson’s assertion regarding the haircut.
[74] Result: Application to exclude the evidence of Ms. Hudson is dismissed. While I agree that the police conduct was unacceptable, exclusion of the evidence is not the appropriate remedy. The alternative remedies to cure any prejudice are the following.
[75] First, I will order that Ms. Hudson attend court and be examined by all counsel in the absence of the jury. This will assist counsel for the accused in creating a record for impeachment purposes. It will also provide a preview of what Ms. Hudson will testify to. Second, if requested by the defence, the Crown will also call the police officers involved in the taking of the statement (Cst. Bird and Cst. Wighton) and the file manager (Detective Hackenbrook) to explain the loss of the video. Finally, I am prepared to instruct the jury along the lines of Justice Doherty's comments at paragraph 67 in R. v. Bero, 2000 ONCA 16956, 151 C.C.C. (3d) 545 (Ont. C.A.), that the Crown was under an obligation to preserve the evidence and failed to do so, and that the defence cannot be faulted for not gaining access to the video before it was lost.
VII. Crown Discreditable Conduct Application Re: Mr. Browne
[76] The Crown seeks admission of evidence relating to Mr. Browne's possession of and pointing of a handgun at former girlfriends. The Crown says the probative value of the evidence exceeds its prejudicial effect.
[77] The Crown's theory is that Mr. Browne was the triggerman.
[78] The Crown seeks to lead evidence from two former girlfriends of Mr. Browne: Success Aknozee and Cashma Charlery.
[79] In a police interview on January 4, 2013, Ms. Aknozee stated that Mr. Browne pointed a firearm at her earlier that day after a dispute arose. She said that three weeks earlier, she had seen him with another firearm and he had also shown it to her in a FaceTime conversation.
[80] Ms. Aknozee partially recanted this allegation at the preliminary inquiry.
[81] In a police interview on February 21, 2013, Ms. Charlery said that she started a relationship with Mr. Browne on November 13, 2012. During their relationship, she saw him with two different handguns. She described one as a "grandfather" gun and the other as a modern gun.
[82] The Crown argues that the evidence is relevant and material to the trial as it can establish the following facts:
- Mr. Browne had access to handguns
- Mr. Browne had pointed a firearm at another person
[83] The Crown says each fact goes to the issue of the identity of the shooter.
[84] Result: The Crown's application is dismissed.
VIII. Calling Detective Duivestyn Multiple Times
[85] The Crown seeks permission to call Detective Duivesteyn multiple times during their presentation of the case. The officer is a member of the Forensics Identification Service (FIS) and was involved during the entire investigation. The officer's role included examining numerous cars, clothing and taking a sample of Mr. Browne's DNA.
[86] The Crown proposes to call the officer to the witness stand up to three separate times in order to assist the jury in understanding the evidence as it is presented.
[87] Result: Application granted. However, Crown counsel will produce a brief outline to the Court and the defence in advance of calling the witness. The outline will include a breakdown of which areas the witness will testify about on a particular day.
[88] The Crown also seeks an order that if a party wishes to re-examine the officer on any area that has already been covered on a previous occasion then the party would have to seek leave of the court prior to recall. At this time, I decline to make a specific order. Such an order prematurely restricts the ability of defence counsel to cross-examine a witness as they see fit. Of course, once cross-examination takes place, a trial judge has the right to restrict cross-examination that is repetitive.
IX. Issues for discussion on September 1, 2016
[89] There is a meeting scheduled for September 1, 2016 from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm. Counsel do not have to gown for this appearance. Ms. Rozier is given permission to participate by telephone.
[90] The following is a non-exhaustive list of issues to be discussed at the trial management meeting on September 1, 2016 at 1:00 pm:
- Jury selection;
- The proposed use of any PowerPoint during the presentation of cell phone evidence. See R. v. Kanagavisam, 2016 ONSC 2250;
- Dates to begin the presentation of evidence;
- If requested, dates to be scheduled for the examination of Ms. Hudson;
- Hours of sitting. Throughout the trial the jury will sit from 10:00 am to 4:30 pm. Counsel and the Court will sit from 9:30 am to 4:30 pm. On September 23, November 18 and December 2, the Court will end early at 3:00 pm with shorter breaks. Lunch will commence at 12:45 pm to 2:00 pm each day;
- Dates where the Court will not sit. The Court will not sit the week of October 10 (Thanksgiving) and December 23 to January 9 (Christmas).
Coroza J. DATE: August 31, 2016
Appendix A
JUROR NOTIFICATION
You have been summoned for jury duty commencing Tuesday, September 13, 2016. The trial for which you may be selected to serve may take 3-4 months to complete.
Jurors chosen to serve shall be paid $100.00 for each day the trial is scheduled to sit unless they are paid by their employer. No payment will be made for days such as holidays or when the trial is not scheduled to sit.
Courts recognize there will be substantial inconvenience and disruption to the lives of those selected to serve on juries in long trials. Where the inconvenience and disruption would result in substantial hardship, the judge has discretion to excuse potential jurors. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT SERVING ON THE JURY FOR THE TRIAL REFERRED TO ABOVE WILL POSE A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP FOR YOU, YOU MUST WRITE TO THE JURY OFFICE BY SEPTEMBER 3, 2016 AT THE ADDRESS BELOW PROVIDING A DETAILED STATEMENT OF YOUR SITUATION. THE TRIAL JUDGE WILL CONSIDER THESE WRITTEN REQUESTS. You will be notified of the decision as soon as possible. If you do not receive an answer from the Jury Office, you must attend on the date listed above.
If you are employed, please canvass with your employer, union or association whether there is a policy respecting your absence in the event you are chosen to serve on this jury. It would be helpful if your employer, union or association could supply you with a note or letter explaining such policy. Please provide a copy of your juror summons with your letter.
If you are engaged in the enforcement of law you are ineligible to serve as a juror. If you are engaged in the enforcement of the law please raise the issue with the trial judge when you attend on the date listed above.
If there are medical reasons which would prevent you from serving on a jury trial of this duration, you must forward a note from your doctor, or other similar document which indicates the general nature of your condition and how it would affect your ability to serve on a jury.
If you have been convicted of an offence that may be prosecuted by indictment, you are ineligible to serve as a juror unless you have subsequently been granted a pardon. If you have been convicted of such an offence please raise the issue with the trial judge when you attend on the date listed above.
If you wish to be excused from service on the trial referred to above, you must FAX your letter and documentation to (905) 456-4996 or WRITE to:
Attention: Jury Clerk Ministry of Attorney General Superior Court of Justice 7755 Hurontario Street, Suite 100 Brampton, ON L6W 4T6
COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J (P) 469/14 DATE: 2016 08 31 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Her Majesty the Queen v. Steven Browne, Amal Greensword and Adrian Williams BEFORE: COROZA J. COUNSEL: Alex Cornelius and Greg Hendry, for the Crown Anthony Bryant and Anne Marie Morphew, for Mr. Browne; Michael Moon and Nicole Rozier, for Mr. Greensword; and Maureen Addie, Counsel for Mr. Williams ENDORSEMENT COROZA J. DATE: August 31, 2016