SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
-v-
JACK WALTON
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CLAYTON CONLAN
on February 1, 2016 at WALKERTON, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
B. R. Linley Counsel for the Crown
H. Thompson Counsel J. Walton
MONDAY FEBRUARY 1, 2016
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Conlan, J. (Orally)
Part I – Introduction
On December 7, 2015 in Owen Sound Ontario, Mr. Walton entered guilty pleas and was found guilty of fourteen criminal offences.
Those charges are described further as follows; count number one that on April 28, 2014 at Hanover, Mr. Walton possessed a Smith and Wesson model 1000P prohibited firearm without being the holder of a license to possess that firearm, contrary to Section 91(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count Two, on the same date at the same place, Mr. Walton possessed an Iver Johnson Arms .32 calibre prohibited firearm without a license to possess that firearm contrary to the same subsection of the Criminal Code.
Count Number Four, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was unlawfully in possession of the said .32 calibre firearm knowing that the serial number on it had been altered, contrary to Section 108(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Count Number Five, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of the Smith & Wesson 12 gauge firearm knowing that the serial number on it had been altered contrary to Section 108(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Count Number Six, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of the said Smith & Wesson 12 gauge shotgun while he was prohibited from doing so by reason of a court order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code, contrary to Section 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count Seven, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of the said Iver Johnson .32 calibre firearm while Mr. Walton was prohibited from doing so by reason of a court order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code, contrary to Section 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code.
Count Nine, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of a prohibited switchblade without being the holder of a license to possess it contrary to Section 91(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 10, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of another prohibited switchblade without being the holder of a license to possess it contrary to Section 91(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 11, on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of a prohibited weapon, namely a stiletto without being the holder of a license to possess it contrary to Section 91(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 12, on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of a prohibited butterfly knife without being the holder of a license to possess it contrary to Section 91(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 13, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of prohibited brass knuckles without being the holder of a license to possess that item, contrary to Section 91(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 14, on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of a prohibited push knife without being the holder of a license to possess it contrary to Section 91(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 15, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton was in possession of prohibited ammunition that he was not lawfully entitled to possess by virture of a court order made under Section 109 of the Criminal Code, contrary to Section 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code.
And finally, Count 16, that on the same date at the same place Mr. Walton failed without reasonable excuse to comply with a probation order made in the Ontario Court of Justice on 28 April 2014, namely to keep the peace and be of good behaviour contrary to Section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
A presentence report was ordered and the sentencing hearing was adjourned to Walkerton on February 1, 2016. Today in Walkerton in addition to receiving the exhibits on sentencing I heard viva voce evidence from a witness called on behalf of Mr. Walton, that is his counsellor Mr. White.
Part II – The Facts
In 2008 in Toronto Mr. Walton was convicted of pointing a firearm. A 12 month conditional sentence order was imposed on top of two days of presentence custody. In addition, a discretionary firearms and weapons prohibition order under Section 110 of the Criminal Code was imposed for a duration of ten years. That order commenced on July 3, 2008 with an expiration date of July 2, 2018.
On April 28, 2014 Mr. Walton was convicted in Walkerton of assault with a weapon, possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of a weapon while prohibited from doing so by court order. A suspended sentence and two years probation was imposed. In addition, an order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Walton for possession any firearm or weapon as defined in the Criminal Code was imposed for a duration of ten years.
One of the conditions of the two year probation order was that Mr. Walton keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
After court was concluded in Walkerton on April 28, 2014 at about 9:30 P.M. on that date, Hanover police responded to room 111 at the Canadian Motel located on 10th Street in Hanover. The police attended at that address for reasons unrelated to Mr. Walton, in particular the police intended to find a gentleman named Michael Murray and serve that person with a trespass notice.
As it turned out Mr. Murray had, for some reason, left that motel room and when the officer knocked on the door Mr. Walton opened the door of the hotel room. Mr. Walton was visibly intoxicated by alcohol and difficult to comprehend. Mr. Walton opened the door wide and invited the police officer to enter. The police constable immediately noted a sawed off shot gun located on the bed of the motel room.
Mr. Walton advised the officer that the firearm was a replica. The officer entered the room to get closer to the firearm and verified that it was a real one. Mr. Walton was placed under arrest for possession of a prohibited firearm.
Mr. Walton was relatively cooperative and sat on the bed. The police constable then observed a small calibre revolver on the bed as well as a switch blade. Mr. Walton was asked to move away from the weapons, he did so, cooperatively and was placed under arrest. There was a relatively brief skirmish between Mr. Walton and the police officer.
At no time did Mr. Walton assault the police or attempt to escape. A further search of the motel room revealed that the shot gun had four slug rounds in the magazine but nothing in the chamber. The .32 calibre revolver was carrying a full load of five shells and was ready to be discharged. A large amount of ammunition, knives and assorted other weapons were seized from bags near the feet of the accused at the time that Mr. Walton was on the bed of the motel room.
All of the items were in plain view of the police.
Mr. Walton was identified by the discovery of his passport in his coat. Police became aware of the probation order that had been made earlier that same morning including the condition that Mr. Walton keep the peace and be of good behaviour. A full inventory of the items seized by the police from the motel room includes the sawed of shotgun, two .32 calibre revolvers, one of them having been altered by sawing off a portion of the revolver which made it incapable of firing, two switchblades, one butterfly knife, one set of brass knuckles, on stiletto, one push knife, a large amount of shot gun shells, a significant quantity of .32 calibre ammunition, one 357 bullet.
A CPIC check revealed that Mr. Walton was the subject of the 10 year firearms and weapons prohibition order imposed out of Toronto in July of 2008. Mr. Walton's motor vehicle, a 2007 GMC was seized by the police. The truck was towed to the Hanover Police Station.
Mr. Walton was processed and held for a bail hearing.
Part III – The Offender
I have the benefit of Exhibit Number One on sentence the presentence report. The presentence report can only be described as a generally positive one. Mr. Walton is currently 35 years old, born July 11, 1980. Mr. Walton has a related criminal record. The only item not related to the charges before the court is the oldest entry on the record for impaired operation of a motor vehicle out of Calgary in 2006.
Since then Mr. Walton has shown a flagrant and repeated disregard for firearms laws. In February 2008 in Calgary Mr. Walton was convicted of handling a firearm or restricted weapon contrary to the regulations. He received a fine. Five months later, and halfway across the country in July 2008 in Toronto Mr. Walton was convicted of pointing a firearm and received at that time a relatively lenient sentence, 12 months conditional sentence order on top of two days of presentence custody and a firearms and weapons prohibition order for ten years.
One would have thought that the experience for Mr. Walton in July 2008 would have brought to an end his involvement with the criminal justice system regarding firearms and weapons, but that was not the case. In April of 2014 in Walkerton Mr. Walton was once again convicted of weapons related offences in particular assault with a weapon, possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of a weapon while prohibited by court order.
Again, Mr. Walton was the subject of a lenient sentence, two years probation and a ten year firearms and weapons ban. The victim of the assault was Mr. Walton's brother. The weapon in question was not a firearm.
The presentence report indicates that Mr. Walton has a lengthy history of substance abuse. He started consuming alcohol at twelve years of age and quickly became unmanageable to his parents. Mr. Walton was candid with the author of the presentence report in acknowledging his long time struggles with alcohol. Mr. Walton indicated that both he and his brother have a history of substance abuse issues. Very unfortunately Mr. Walton had to endure the passing of his father to cancer in 2013. It was a particularly trying time for Mr. Walton as he was one of the persons responsible for his father's care prior to his father's passing.
In and around that time Mr. Walton started using cocaine due to his feelings of helplessness. Mr. Walton described for the author of the presentence report prior usage of numerous narcotics including LSD, mushrooms, cocaine, ecstasy and methamphetamines in addition to heroin.
The bright side is that Mr. Walton seems to have begun the process of making a healthier life for himself. The presentence report confirms that Mr. Walton has been completely abstinent from alcohol and drugs for a lengthy period of time. Mr. Walton appears to be committed to his recovery with the assistance of his very experienced and caring counsellor Mr. White. There is an indication in the presentence report that Mr. Walton has been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
In the opinion of the author of the presentence report "at this point it is important for the subject to continue with his recovery to increase his chance of rehabilitation." The author of the presentence report states that Mr. Walton appears to have good insight into his offending behaviour and has displayed a genuine commitment in addressing his long-standing substance abuse problems.
Mr. White was an impressive witness in giving his viva voce evidence at court today. I have considered that evidence as well as Mr. White's letter, marked Exhibit Number Two on sentencing dated January 19, 2016. In short, that letter confirms the sentiments expressed in the presentence report concerning Mr. Walton's genuine commitment to rehabilitation.
In addition to his commitment to addressing his long-standing substance abuse issues Mr. Walton is currently attending family court in hopes of obtaining shared custody of his young son. Ms Lavalee described Mr. Walton to the author of the presentence report as a "really good father." Mr. Walton is not currently in a domestic relationship but has recently reconnected with a long-term friend and they have decided to have a baby together. This woman is currently pregnant and is due in July 2016 according to the pre-sentence report.
Mr. Walton is a fairly industrious person and he is not uneducated. He has completed secondary school. He obtained a certificate for business administration and obtained a mortgage broker license and real estate license. Mr. Walton has been involved in his late father's real estate property management business.
Mr. Walton presented to the author of the pre-sentence report as being a polite and cooperative fellow.
Mr. Walton described the circumstances leading to the offence date as being ones in which he was very depressed regarding his father's death, his relationship issues and his drug abuse issues. Mr. Walton indicated to the author of the presentence report that he was feeling suicidal on the date in question.
Mr. Walton presented as very remorseful to the author of the presentence report and ashamed of his criminal misconduct. Mr. Walton had written a suicide note prior to being discovered by the police. That note has been marked Exhibit Number Three on sentencing.
It is indicated in the presentence report at the top of Page Seven that generally speaking Mr. Walton has done fairly well under prior community based orders. In particular he has reported satisfactorily, he has kept his appointments, he has completed his community service hours, he has abided by counselling conditions and so on. What Mr. Walton has great difficulty doing is complying with firearms and weapons prohibition orders.
Mr. Walton is clearly someone who cannot afford to have a hobby concerning firearms or weapons. The previous probation and parole officer indicated to the author of the presentence report that Mr. Walton would be suitable for a form of future community supervision.
The author of the presentence report Ms Bonnici concludes by indicating that a period of community supervision would allow for the monitoring and enforcement of any counselling and rehabilitative recommendations and Ms Bonnici outlines several suggested conditions in the event that the court imposes a community based sentence.
Part IV – The Positions of the Parties
Counsel agree that there are no minimum mandatory penalties for any of the offences that Mr. Walton has been found guilty of. The maximum penalties range from five to ten years imprisonment depending on the offence.
Counsel agree that Mr. Walton be credited 69 days of presentence custody on a 1 to 1.5 scale. There is no opposition to the crown's request for secondary DNA orders. There is no opposition to the crown's request for Section 109 Criminal Code of Canada firearms and weapons prohibition orders.
Counsel agree that Mr. Walton is in need of lengthy further probation, possibly for up to three years on terms.
The crown's position globally is that Mr. Walton ought to be sentenced to 18 to 22 months imprisonment.
The position of the defence is that a conditional sentence order of the maximum duration (that is two years less one day) would be appropriate or in the alternative, a much shorter period of actual jail to be blended with a subsequent conditional sentence order. The defence submits that Mr. Walton ought to be credited in addition to the 69 days the equivalent of two to three months in custody in light of the relatively strict bail conditions that Mr. Walton has been the subject of.
Mr. Walton addressed the Court and spoke about his continuing efforts to address his substance abuse problems and turn his life around.
Part V – Analysis
The matters on consent or unopposed – convictions are registered on all 14 counts that Mr. Walton has been found guilty of.
Victim Fine Surcharges are imposed on each conviction. Mr. Walton is granted twelve months to pay the Victim Fine Surcharges upon the expiration of his custodial sentence, whether that sentence is by way of conditional sentence order or otherwise.
On each conviction, except Count 16 the breach of probation matter, a secondary DNA order is issued.
On each conviction, except Count 16 the breach of probation a Section 109 Criminal Code of Canada firearms and weapons prohibition order is issued for a duration of life.
A forfeiture order is issued for all items seized by the police and listed on the Hanover Police Property List.
Upon the expiration of Mr. Walton's custodial sentence, whether by way of a conditional sentence order or otherwise, he will be the subject of a probation order for a period of three years. The probation order applies to every conviction except Count 16 the breach of probation, concurrent. All of the statutory terms apply. In addition to the statutory terms the following optional conditions apply;
(1) That Mr. Walton shall report to a probation officer in the manner and on such schedule as directed by the probation officer.
(2) Next, that Mr. Walton shall attend and actively participate in counselling or treatment as recommended by the probation officer and not leave that counselling or treatment program without the prior written approval of the probation officer.
(3) Further, in order to monitor Mr. Walton's compliance with the probation order he shall sign any releases of any information requested of him.
(4) Next, Mr. Walton shall not be in possession of any firearm or weapon as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada.
(5) And finally, Mr. Walton shall abstain from the purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol and other intoxicating substances except in accordance with a valid medical prescription.
The issues on sentencing – there are two issues to be decided, first, whether Mr. Walton ought to receive a conditional sentence order. Second, what the length of the custodial sentence imposed on Mr. Walton ought to be.
The evidence on the sentencing – I have considered the facts read into the record by the crown at court on December 7, 2015. I have considered the viva voce evidence of Mr. White. I have considered Exhibit Number Two, Mr. White's letter dated January 19, 2016. I have considered the presentence report marked Exhibit Number One. I have considered the very difficult circumstances that Mr. Walton found himself in on the date in question as reflected by his suicide note marked as Exhibit Number Three on sentencing. I have considered the overall circumstances at the motel that day as reflected in the excerpt from the evidence at the preliminary inquiry marked Exhibit Number Four on sentencing. And finally, I have considered the submissions by counsel on both sides and all of the jurisprudence filed.
Any sentence imposed by this court must be consistent with the principles of sentencing outlined in Section 718 and the following sections of the Criminal Code. Any sentence imposed by this court must be proportional to the seriousness of the charges and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Sentencing is a highly discretionary and individualized process.
The aggravating and mitigating factors on sentence – the primary mitigating factors on sentence include the following;
(1) Mr. Walton entered guilty pleas to the fourteen counts.
(2) Mr. Walton has expressed a genuine commitment to his rehabilitation and genuine remorse for his criminal misconduct.
(3) Mr. Walton has a young son and a baby that will be born in July of 2016. He has important family responsibilities.
MR. THOMPSON: That baby was miscarried. I had neglected to mention that to Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry to hear about that Mr. Walton.
JACK WALTON: Thank you Your Honour.
THE COURT: The point remains that Mr. Walton does have important family responsibilities in particular he has the future of his young son that he is currently in family court with regard to.
Further in mitigation, Mr. Walton appears to have good insight into his offending behaviour and good insight into what is needed to decrease the likelihood of his recidivism.
The chief aggravating factors are as follows; (1) Mr. Walton's related criminal record. (2) The fact that Mr. Walton placed not only himself but anyone in the vicinity of that motel and the public at large in serious risk as a result of his criminal actions on the date in question.
Mr. Walton was in a small motel room, in Hanover, in a state of extreme intoxication by alcohol and in possession of a potpourri of firearms, weapons and ammunition. To describe those circumstances as a highly dangerous cocktail would be an understatement.
In addition, it is aggravating that not only was Mr. Walton in possession of items that he was not licensed for, but he was also in possession of items that he was prohibited from possessing by way of court orders, two of them. One made that morning in Walkerton and the other one made in Toronto a few years prior to.
The defence has filed some helpful jurisprudence. The case law reveals what we already know and that is that each case must be decided on its own facts and in light of particular circumstances of each offender. The sentences set out in the case law filed by Mr. Thompson range from a high of 21 months imprisonment and two years of probation in the Regina v. Boussoulas case, the decision of Justice Campbell of the Superior Court of Justice, to a low of a fine imposed by Justice Bourque of the Ontario Court of Justice in Regina v. Reda.
Those are the two extremes and pretty much everything in between is covered by the case law filed by the defence including conditional sentence orders of varying durations, intermittent weekend jail sentences, custodial sentences in the range of six months and longer sentences up to that imposed by Justice Campbell in the decision previously referred to.
I agree with the defence that generally speaking the offences that Mr. Walton has been convicted of are less serious than the offence under Section 95(1) of the Criminal Code. That is reflected in the fact that Parliament saw fit to enact a three year mandatory minimum jail sentence on the Section 95 offence but no minimum mandatory sentence on the charges that Mr. Walton has been found guilty of.
So I agree with Mr. Thompson that some of the comments relied upon by the crown ought to be viewed in light of the reality that Section 95 of the Code is generally considered to be a more serious offence. Having said that, I agree with Mr. Linley that decisions like Regina v. Smickle, 2014 ONCA 49 (Court of Appeal for Ontario) remain instructive.
Decisions like Smickle stand for the general principle that firearms related offences are taken very seriously by the courts and the principles of denunciation and deterrence are paramount in the sentencing exercise.
In this particular case I am of the view that the most important sentencing principles are;
(1) Denunciation
(2) Specific deterrence of Mr. Walton
(3) General deterrence and;
(4) Rehabilitation.
A conditional sentence order is statutorily available for Mr. Walton in that there is no minimum mandatory sentence and the appropriate range of sentence for Mr. Walton is less than two years imprisonment.
That however, is not the end of the analysis in terms of a determination as to whether a conditional sentence order is appropriate. The Legislation provides that not only must such an order be statutorily available, but it must be consistent with the general principles of sentencing.
In my view although Mr. Walton with carefully crafted terms may not impose a future risk to the safety of the community at large, a conditional sentence order for Mr. Walton would not be consistent with the general principles of sentencing.
In short, given Mr. Walton's criminal history and the seriousness of these charges and the dangerousness of the circumstances that confront the court, a conditional sentence order would simply not be adequate in recognizing the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Walton.
In order to achieve denunciation and specific and general deterrence to the degree necessary in this case I am of the view that a conditional sentence order is not appropriate.
That leaves for determination a consideration of what the length of the jail sentence for Mr. Walton ought to be. As I indicated previously this is not a routine mathematical exercise. Each case must be decided on its own facts and in light of the unique circumstances of the offender.
In my view having regard to the circumstances of these offences and the circumstances of Mr. Walton and keeping in mind the aggravating and mitigating factors, the appropriate length of a custodial sentence globally for Mr. Walton is 15 months imprisonment.
Credited against that will be two things, first, the 69 days of presentence custody on a 1 to 1.5 scale. Second, 81 days credit for the strict bail conditions that Mr. Walton has been the subject of. A total of 150 days or five months will be deducted from the period of imprisonment to account for presentence custody and the strict bail conditions leaving a global sentence of imprisonment from today of ten months in custody.
That custodial sentence applies to each conviction, concurrent, except count 16, the breach of probation. On count 16 the sentence of the court is sixty, days in custody concurrent.
The total global sentence from today is ten months in jail.
Mr. Walton, I recognize that this is not the result that you were hoping for today but I fervently hope that you will continue your road towards rehabilitation with the assistance of Mr. White and I want you to know that the sentence that I am imposing today is not intended to be some sort of a reflection that I doubt the sincerity of your commitment, I do not doubt it, I simply am of the view that this is as low as the court can go for these offences.
If it were not for the mitigating factors highlighted by your counsel Mr. Thompson and if it were not for your commitment to rehabilitation I likely would have imposed a penitentiary sentence.
So the sentence of the court, sir, is ten months in custody from today.
THE COURT: Now I am bound to ask you some questions Mr. Walton. I recognize that you likely are not in the mood to answer these questions but I have to, so, you understand the Victim Fine Surcharges that I imposed.
JACK WALTON: I know what they are, I don't know what the amounts are Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay the amount is, what is the total amount?
MADAM REGISTRAR: Fourteen hundred dollars.
THE COURT: One thousand four hundred dollars. They are mandatory under the Criminal Code. I think it is two hundred dollars per count or somewhere around there.
MR. THOMPSON: I think fourteen hundred is light. The multiples are more than a hundred.
THE COURT: Okay, well, you will have to pay those surcharges within twelve months of the expiration of your custodial sentence, do you understand that?
JACK WALTON: Meaning when I get out I have to pay?
THE COURT: Yes, starting from when you get out you have twelve months to pay those, you understand?
JACK WALTON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You must pay those on time or get an extension or else you could be charged with a criminal offence, do you understand that?
JACK WALTON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The secondary DNA order, it is a blood sample. You have to cooperate with the authorities in giving that sample or else again, you could be charged. The firearms and weapons prohibition order, you must comply with that sir. You have already seen that failure to do so will bring you back to court. Okay? Do you understand that?
JACK WALTON: Yes sir, I understand.
THE COURT: The items seized by the police are forfeited, do you understand? You are not getting them back.
JACK WALTON: Right, none of the stuff they took from that room?
THE COURT: Whatever is on this sheet there.
JACK WALTON: All the weapons, yes, of course Your Honour absolutely.
THE COURT: It does not apply to your personal effects sir but...
JACK WALTON: Absolutely, absolutely.
THE COURT: ...the offence related property is what is being forfeited. You understand?
JACK WALTON: Yes sir.
THE COURT: And the probation order for three years, you know that that will start after you are released from custody?
JACK WALTON: Yes Your Honour.
THE COURT: And do you have any questions about the terms or conditions of the probation order? Again, you must comply with that order or you could be charged with breaching your probation order.
MADAM REGISTRAR: And I apologize Your Honour I was thinking a hundred dollars and it is two hundred dollars for a total of twenty eight hundred.
THE COURT: It is two thousand eight hundred dollars for the Victim Fine Surcharges. It is a lot of money which is why I granted you twelve months to pay. But if you run into problems then you should seek some legal advice in getting an extension, okay? Do not leave it until the last day because there is nothing that the court will be able to do for you then.
JACK WALTON: Twelve months commencing when I'm released?
THE COURT: Yes. Are there any other questions that you want to ask me sir about any of the aspects of the sentence?
JACK WALTON: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay, I wish you good luck. I hope that you have a continuing relationship with Mr. White and with your son.
JACK WALTON: Thank you Your Honour.
THE COURT: Is there anything further that I left out Mr. Linley?
MR. LINLEY: No Your Honour, the crown seeks to withdraw counts not plead to?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LINLEY: It seems they would be subject to what Mr. Thompson may say counts three, count eight and the count, last count, seventeen.
THE COURT: All other counts are withdrawn at the request of the crown.
MR. LINLEY: Thank you Your Honour.
THE COURT: And I have endorsed the matter to cover all of the aspects of the sentencing. The convictions being registered, the Victim Fine Surcharges, the secondary DNA orders, the 109 Code orders, the forfeiture order, the probation for three years and I have specified how the ten months was arrived at on each conviction concurrent except Count 16. It is fifteen months imprisonment less 69 days presentence custody on a 1 to 1.5 scale less a further 81 days credit for strict bail. That brings the total to ten months from today, fifteen months minus five months.
And on Count 16, the breach of probation it is 60 days in jail concurrent. Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you.
COURT SERVICES OFFICER: Order all rise.
THE COURT: I thank the staff for staying past the normal time.
MADAM REGISTRAR: Would you please sign the warrant?
THE COURT: I'll sign it, thank you.
MADAM REGISTRAR: Oy yeah, Oy yeah, Oy yeah the sittings of this court are now concluded. Long live the Queen.
FORM 2
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Lorelei Bonham, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Jack WALTON, in the Superior Court of Justice held at Walkerton, Ontario, February 1, 2016, taken from Digital Recording Number, 0311_CRTRM#1_20160201_094330_10_CONLANC, which has been certified in Form l.
Date Court Reporter
FORM 1
CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING (SUBSECTION 5(1))
Evidence Act
I, Lorelei Bonham, certify that Recording Number 0311_CRTRM#1_20160201_094330_10_CONLANC is the digital recording of the evidence and proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice, held at 207 Cayley Street, Walkerton, Ontario on Monday, February 1, 2016, and that I was in charge of the sound recording device during those proceedings.
Date Court Reporter
Date Transcript Ordered:. . . . . . .March 10 & March 16, 2016
Date Transcript Completed: . . . . . . . . . . .March 20, 2016
Date Ordering Parties Notified:. . . . . . . . .March 30, 2016