CITATION: GASTLE V. GASTLE – 2017 ONSC 7797
Court File No. CV-13-00000437-00ES
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
CALVIN GASTLE
Applicant
-and-
ROBERT GASTLE in his capacity as Estate Trustee for the Estate of Arthur Robert Gastle
Respondent
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. BRAID
on November 2, 2017, at KITCHENER, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
L. Toner Counsel for the the Applicant
M. Radulescu Counsel for the Respondent
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
EXHIBIT NUMBER ENTERED ON PAGE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1
RULING ON COSTS 22
Legend
[sic] indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically
All spellings of names are transcribed as set out in the reporter's notes unless noted with a (ph)
Transcript Ordered...............................November 9, 2017
Transcript Completed............................November 13, 2017
Approved by Braid, J............................November 17, 2017
Ordering Party Notified.........................November 20, 2017
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2017
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
BRAID, J. (Orally):
OVERVIEW
[1] Arthur Gastle passed away in 2009. He is survived by two sons, Calvin and Robert. Pursuant to the deceased’s Will, the residue of his estate was to be divided equally between Calvin and Robert.
[2] The deceased and Robert had five joint bank accounts. Robert says that his father made these accounts joint with the knowledge and intent that, upon his death, the accounts would become Robert’s property and would not be distributed through the estate. Calvin argues that the joint accounts should be distributed through the estate, and says that he is entitled to half of the value of those accounts.
[3] This application raises the following issues:
A) The presumption of a resulting trust.
B) Is Robert’s evidence corroborated, in accordance with Section 13 of the Evidence Act?
C) Has Robert rebutted the presumption of a resulting trust?
D) Is the application statute barred by the Limitations Act?
E) Is the application barred by the release signed by Calvin?
FACTS
[4] Arthur Gastle’s wife, Kathleen Gastle, was known as ‘Kay’. Kay predeceased Arthur on October 13, 2006. Kay and Arthur were the parents of Calvin and Robert. It was always the intention of Arthur and Kay to treat their sons equally. During their lifetimes, Arthur and Kay generously provided various loans and gifts to their sons. Arthur and Kay did not keep any documentation of the specific amounts of money that they gave to their sons during their lifetimes.
[5] Calvin and Robert disagree about how much each of them received from their parents. They have provided evidence regarding loans and gifts of property. However, it is not possible to determine, with any certainty, how much money was given to either son.
[6] On June 25, 1998, Arthur and Kay signed Wills. Arthur’s Will was still valid at the time of his death in 2009. Pursuant to Arthur’s Will, the residue of his estate was to be divided equally between Calvin and Robert. The Will also forgave all outstanding debts owed by Calvin and Robert to Arthur at the time of his death.
[7] On September 28, 2006, Arthur signed a codicil to his Will. The codicil directed payment of a specific amount of money to each of his two grandchildren. The codicil confirmed all other terms of the Will.
[8] On February 7, 2007, Arthur attended at the TD Bank and requested that a joint account be made with Robert. A copy of the signature card signed by Arthur at the time that this account was made joint, was filed in these proceedings. Arthur checked off and initialled the box that stated he wished for the account to have a right of survivorship.
[9] Between 2007 and 2009, on four separate occasions, Robert drove Arthur to the TD Bank, Scotia Bank and Royal Bank during the usual routine of running errands. During each visit to the bank, Arthur decided at the time that it would be a convenient time to make certain accounts joint with Robert. Arthur did not discuss this intention with Robert prior to each visit.
[10] From Februry 2007 to January 2009, Arthur made five of his bank accounts joint with Robert with the right of survivorship. The following is a list of the five joint bank accounts that are in issue:
On February 7, 2007, one of Arthur’s TD Bank accounts was made joint with Robert. On the date of death this account had a balance of $7,155.60.
On April 20, 2007, two of Arthur’s Scotia Bank accounts were made joint with Robert. On the date of death these accounts had a balance of $5,056.62 and $16,879.26.
On January 19, 2009, a second TD Bank account was made joint with Robert. On the date of death this account had a balance of $53,097.19.
On an unknown date, one of Arthur’s RBC bank accounts was made joint with Robert. On the date of death this account had a balance of $3,597.10.
As of Arthur’s date of death these bank accounts had a total value of $85,785.77.
[11] Robert states that, each time a bank account was made joint, the bank representative spoke to Arthur about the right of survivorship. Robert states that, on two occasions, the representative told Arthur that the right of survivorship meant that, on his death, the account would belong to Robert without going through Arthur’s estate. Robert states that, during those discussions, Arthur confirmed that he wanted the account joint with the right of survivorship. Until his death, Arthur maintained sole ownership of nine other bank accounts.
[12] Arthur’s Will and codicil were silent with respect to how the joint bank accounts should be treated upon his death. Until his death, Arthur maintained the continuous use and control of the funds in the joint accounts after making Robert a joint account holder. Two of those accounts were used for a rental property. One account was used as a “fun account” used for miscellaneous purposes, such as depositing pension money. In 2009 Arthur sold the rental property and deposited the proceeds from the sale into the second TD Bank account.
[13] During this period, Robert performed several transactions in the joint accounts on Arthur’s behalf. On one occasion, Robert took Arthur’s passbook and withdrew cash out of one of the joint accounts for Arthur. On another occasion, Robert transferred $100,000 from a joint account into another investment account for Arthur’s benefit.
[14] In December 2008, Arthur was diagnosed with cancer. On January 15, 2009, Arthur appointed Robert as his power of attorney. Arthur reviewed his Will with his solicitor at that time and determined no changes were required. From the time Robert was appointed as power of attorney until Arthur’s death, Robert exercised primary control over Arthur’s financial affairs.
[15] Calvin states that, in the summer of 2009, Arthur told him that Robert was “living high off the hog”; that Robert seemed to think that Arthur’s money all belongs to him; and that “it’s too late, Robert’s already got everything”.
[16] Arthur died on October 17, 2009. Pursuant to to the deceased’s Will, Calvin and Robert were appointed as co-executors of their father’s estate. On December 3, 2009, Calvin and Robert obtained a Certificate of Appointment of an Estate Trustee with a Will.
[17] On March 16, 2011, Robert signed a Certificate and Warranty regarding the Estate of Arthur Robert Gastle. In that document, Robert certified and warranted that, to his knowledge, the interim distribution statement that was attached accurately describes all of the realizable assets of the estate.
[18] On March 17, 2011, Calvin executed a Release and Indemnity. Robert’s certificate and Calvin’s release had the same interim distribution statement (updated as of March 16, 2011) attached to each of these documents. The Release and Indemnity signed by Calvin released the estate of Arthur Gastle; Robert Gastle; and the lawyers who had assisted with the distribution of the estate. Calvin read the release before he signed it. He received independent legal advice. He understood it was a legally binding document. In that release, Calvin released Robert from any claims relating to the estate; any claims the estate had not realized upon assets of Arthur; and any matters relating to the management of the financial affairs of Arthur by Robert during Arthur’s lifetime.
[19] In late 2011, Calvin found out about the five joint bank accounts. Robert did not previously disclose the existence of those accounts to Calvin. On May 23, 2013, Calvin brought the within application. Calvin seeks an order declaring that Robert holds the proceeds of the joint bank accounts in trust for the estate, and directing that he pay half of the value of the accounts to Calvin.
Evidence of Arthur’s intention regarding joint accounts
[20] Robert has given evidence that Arthur intended to gift the joint accounts to Robert as equalization for gifts to Calvin during his parent’s lifetimes.
[21] Robert A. Sutherland was the solicitor for Arthur and Kay. The couple met with Mr. Sutherland in the months before Kay’s death in 2006 and discussed their intention to treat their sons equally. During this meeting, they decided to convey a piece of property to Calvin. The couple stated that they intended to equalize the treatment of their two sons by making gifts to Robert during their lifetimes.
[22] Two other witnesses provided evidence about discussions with Kay prior to her death in October of 2006:
Donna Norris, Kay’s friend, states that Kay told her that she and Arthur intended to give Robert the money in their bank accounts to equalize the amount they had paid towards Calvin’s mortgage in respect of the Dalewood property. However, Donna has no specific knowledge as to how Arthur and Kay intended to carry this out. She also has no specific knowledge as to how much money was gifted to either son during the years leading up to Arthur’s death.
Annette Kennedy is the former common-law spouse of Calvin. Ms. Kennedy stated that Kay told her that she and Arthur wanted to treat their sons equally and that they intended to do so by giving Robert cash. Ms. Kennedy acknowledged that she did not know what may have been done to carry this out, or whether any gifts had been given during the years leading up to Arthur’s death.
ANALYSIS
A) The Presumption of a Resulting Trust
[23] The presumption of resulting trust is a rebuttable presumption of law. It is a general rule that applies to gratuitous transfers of property. When a transfer is made without consideration, the onus is placed on the transferee to demonstrate that a gift was intended: See Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17.
[24] When a bank account exists between a parent and an adult independent child, there is a presumption of a resulting trust. In such a situation, there is a rebuttable presumption that the adult child is holding the property in trust for the aging parent to facilitate the free and efficient management of that parent’s affairs: See Pecore.
[25] In the case before the Court, the onus is on Robert to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Arthur intended to gift the bank accounts to him upon his death. The presumption of a resulting trust can be rebutted by evidence of the deceased contrary intention, which may include: Evidence of the transferor’s intention; the wording of the banking documents; control and use of the funds in the joint accounts; granting of any power of attorney to the transferee; the tax treatment of the joint accounts; terms of the Will; and evidence from the drafting lawyer or investment advisor: See Laski v. Laski, [2016] ONCA 337 and Pecore.
B) Is Robert’s Evidence Corroborated in Accordance with Section 13 of the Evidence Act?
[26] Robert says that his father made these accounts joint with the knowledge and intent that, upon his death, the accounts would become Robert’s property and would not be distributed through the estate. He says that his father intended to gift the proceeds of the joint accounts to him in an effort to equalize the gifts between the two sons.
[27] In an action against the executor or administrator of a deceased person, an opposite party shall not obtain a judgment on his own evidence in respect of any matter occurring before the death of the deceased person, unless such evidence is corroborated by some other material evidence: See the Ontario Evidence Act, Section 13.
[28] In this case, Robert cannot rely on his evidence alone with respect to matters that occurred before Arthur’s death. His evidence must be corroborated by some other material evidence.
[29] Robert relies on the signature card from the TD Bank. Arthur checked off the box to designate the right of survivorship. Robert argues that this is evidence of Arthur’s intention to give the accounts to him.
[30] I find that this evidence is not sufficient to corroborate the evidence of Robert. The fact that Arthur checked off the box to designate right of survivorship is simply proof that he understood that the accounts would not pass through the estate. This is not evidence that Arthur intended to gift the accounts to Robert.
[31] I have considered the evidence of Mr. Sutherland, solicitor for Arthur and Kay. This evidence is too general to corroborate the evidence of Arthur’s intention with respect to the joint bank accounts for the following reasons:
His evidence relates to discussions that the solicitor had in 2006, before any of Arthur’s accounts were made joint with Robert, and before the death of Kay. Arthur did not make any reference to gifting any specific bank accounts during those discussions, or any bank accounts whatsoever.
Mr. Sutherland stated that he understood that the gifts to Robert were to occur during the lifetimes of Kay and Arthur. Although Robert’s name was placed on the joint accounts between 2007 and 2009, the evidence demonstrates that Arthur and Robert kept the money in those accounts solely for Arthur’s use while Arthur was alive. Robert did not receive or benefit from any funds in the joint accounts during Arthur’s lifetime, apart from any specific withdrawals or gifts that Arthur may have given, including the $50,000 gift that he gave to both sons. The right of survivorship over the joint accounts was triggered upon Arthur’s death, which was not during Arthur and/or Kay’s lifetimes.
The balance of the accounts fluctuated over time, which affected the value of those accounts. Robert acknowledged that it was simply a coincidence that that balance of the accounts as of the date of death added up to roughly $85,000, which he thought was what was owed to him to balance out the gifts to Calvin. Robert agreed that his father never sat down and considered that he had five accounts with a specific amount of money in each account, and then told him that he was going to put his name on the accounts to equalize the gifts between the two sons. This factor weighs against the suggestion that the joint accounts were a gift to Robert intended by Kay and Arthur to equalize the treatment between the sons during their lifetimes.
[32] I have considered the evidence of Ms. Norris and Ms. Kennedy with respect to their discussions with Kay prior to October 2006. I find that this evidence is too general to corroborate the evidence of Arthur’s intentions with respect to the joint bank accounts, for the following reasons:
Any information received by these women came from Kay and not from Arthur. In addition, these discussions occurred before any of Arthur’s accounts were made joint with Robert, and before the death of Kay.
Ms. Norris had no knowledge as to how Arthur and Kay intended to carry out Kay’s intentions to give Robert money from their bank accounts, and had no knowledge as to how much money was gifted to either son during the years leading up to Arthur’s death.
Ms. Kennedy said she did not know what may have been done to carry out an intention to treat the sons equally, or whether any gifts had been given during the years leading up to Arthur’s death.
[33] The parties agree that Kay and Arthur intended to treat their sons equally. The evidence of the solicitor, Ms. Norris, and Ms. Kennedy confirm this fact, which is not in dispute. I find that their evidence goes no further than that. In the circumstances, Robert has failed to corroborate his evidence that Arthur intended to gift the balances of the joint accounts to him.
C) Has Robert Rebutted the Presumption of a Resulting Trust?
[34] In his submissions, counsel for Robert has asked the Court to draw inferences to determine that the presumption of resulting trust has been rebutted. In many cases, however, there are competing inferences that can be drawn.
[35] Robert’s strongest argument is that five accounts were made joint and not the rest. He argues that, if Arthur created joint accounts for the purpose of having Robert assist with his finances or to avoid probate fees, why then did Arthur only make five accounts joint?
[36] However, there are competing questions that arise from this factual scenario. If Arthur intended to equalize the treatment of the sons by gifting these bank accounts to Robert, why did he do so at various points in time? Why not withdraw cash and gift the money to Robert, instead of gifting bank accounts with fluctuating balances?
[37] Robert also argues that at least one of the accounts was made joint after a power of attorney was obtained. This would suggest that the purpose of creating a joint account was not to manage finances, but to create a gift to Robert.
[38] If that inference is available, what inference should be drawn from the creation of joint accounts before the power of attorney was obtained? What consideration should the Court give to the fact that Robert, once he was named power of attorney, may have had influence over Arthur’s financial affairs? These are questions that cannot be fairly answered, given the evidence before the Court.
[39] In Pecore, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that it is common for an adult child to become a joint account holder with an aging parent to facilitate the free and efficient management of that parent’s financial affairs. In my view, it is also possible for an aging parent to consider adding a child as a joint account holder as a type of estate planning. Funds in a joint account would pass outside of the estate and would not be subject to probate fees. If the parent creates joint accounts for this purpose, the parent would have the expectation that the child with the right of survivorship will distribute the balance of the accounts in accordance with the parent’s wishes as set out in the Will, or as otherwise specified specifically by the parent to the child.
[40] It is argued that the deceased had experience with joint accounts and the right of survivorship, since he maintained ownership of joint accounts after Kay died. Although it is fair to infer that Arthur understood the right of survivorship, this does not establish what was to be done with the funds in those accounts after Arthur passed away. Since Robert has not provided any corroborating evidence, this Court has no evidence upon which it can make any conclusions regarding Arthur’s intentions, or any inferences.
[41] Robert’s counsel relies on the decisions in Sawdon Estate v. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 2012 ONSC 4042, and Omelaniec Estate v. Manly, 2010 BCSC 1226. In my view, these cases can be distinguished on their facts. In both of those cases, the Court received compelling evidence of the deceased’s intentions.
[42] In Sawdon Estate, the Court received evidence from a representative from the bank where the joint account was held. The evidence was clear that the bank representative explained the options and the rights of a joint account holder. The representative explained the right of survivorship and what would happen upon the death of the parent. Mr. Sawdon explained to the bank representative that he wanted his children to have the money on his death without having to go through probate. He did not want the account to be frozen upon his death. He said that, upon his death, his children knew what to do with the money. The Court held that the only inference to be drawn from Mr. Sawdon’s actions, after receiving the advice from others, that Mr. Sawdon intended and did not want the money to go into his estate, but rather to go to his sons to be used as he directed. In that case, there was also evidence from one of the sons regarding the specific instructions given by the father. The son understood that he did not own the money. He understood that he had control of the it and that he was to distribute it within the direction of his father. That is a different factual scenario than the one before the Court.
[43] In Omelaniec Estate v. Manly, the Court received first-hand evidence that Mrs. Omelaniec intended the transfers to be gifts to Ms. Manly. In that case, there was also compelling evidence. The Court described it as “abundant first-hand evidence of the circumstances of the transfers and the statements that Ms. Omelaniec made after the transfers about why she made them”. That case included compelling evidence, which we do not have here.
[44] In this case, it is not at all clear what Arthur’s intentions were with respect to the joint accounts. This is the problem with Robert’s position. There is a presumption of resulting trust. On a balance of probabilities, Robert has failed to rebut that presumption with evidence of the deceased’s contrary intention.
[45] In addition to the fact that Robert’s evidence is not corroborated, I have considered the following factors:
There is no documentary evidence to support the position that Arthur intended to gift the joint accounts at the time of transfer, or subsequent to it.
The deceased’s Will is silent with respect to the treatment of the joint accounts.
There is no evidence from the deceased’s solicitor to establish any specific intention to gift the joint accounts. In particular, the deceased met with the solicitor in early 2009 and confirmed that he did not wish to make any changes or additions to his Will. This conversation between the deceased and his solicitor took place after at least three of the accounts had been made joint with Robert.
There is no evidence from bank employees regarding conversations that were had at the time the accounts were made joint.
The deceased continued to control and use the funds in the joint accounts, along with Robert’s assistance who allowed Arthur to use the accounts for his own benefit.
Arthur and Kay did not keep any documentation of the amounts of the money they had gifted to their two sons during their lifetimes. In addition, the deceased had no way of knowing how much would be in the joint accounts at the time of the deceased’s death, due to the fluctuating balances in the accounts.
[46] All of these factors do not support Robert’s position that the balance of the joint bank accounts was gifted to him in order to equalize the treatment between the two sons.
D) Is the Application Statute-barred by the Limitations Act?
[47] Unless otherwise provided in the Limitations Act, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered: See the Limitations Act at Section 4.
[48] A claim is discovered when a person first knew:
That the injury, loss, or damage had occurred.
That the injury, loss, or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission.
That the act or omission was that of a person against whom the claim is made.
That having regard to the nature of the injury, loss, or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it, or when a reasonable person with the circumstances of the person with the claim first ought to have known the matters at one to four: See Limitations Act, Section 5(1).
[49] Robert’s counsel argues that Calvin discovered, in the summer of 2009, that Arthur had suffered a loss and the loss was caused by Robert’s actions. When Arthur died on October 17, 2009, Calvin would have known that Arthur’s loss had become the estate’s loss. By the time of Arthur’s death, Calvin would have known that a proceeding against Robert would be an appropriate means to remedy the loss. If Calvin did not have this knowledge, a reasonable person in Calvin’s circumstances and with his abilities would have known this.
[50] I do not accept this submission. Calvin did not know about the joint bank accounts until late 2011. He did know that he had incurred a loss until he learned that Robert had kept the balance of five joint accounts that should have fallen into the estate. He could not have known that, having regard to the nature of the loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy to it. In addition, Calvin would have had no right of action for any loss of funds that Arthur suffered during his lifetime. This application is not statute-barred by the Limitations Act.
E) Is the Application Barred by the Release signed by Calvin?
[51] Robert’s counsel argues that the release, signed by Calvin, specifically releases Robert from any claim by Calvin that the estate has not realized upon the assets of Arthur, and any matter relating to the management of the financial affairs of Arthur by Robert during Arthur’s lifetime. It is argued that the release is binding and covers the current claim.
[52] The Certificate and Warranty was signed by Robert on March 16, 2011. Calvin signed the Release the next day. The Certificate stated that Robert certifies and warrants that, to his knowledge, the interim statement describes all of the realizable assets of the estate. That statement did not include the joint accounts. The existence of those accounts had not been disclosed to Calvin at the time the Release was signed.
[53] The Release and the Certificate have the same interim distribution statements as an attachment. The problem with Robert’s argument is this: either the joint accounts were part of the estate and should have been included in the Certificate that he signed, or the joint accounts fall outside of the estate, which means they are not covered by the Release. The Release specifically makes reference to the fact that it is made “in consideration of the completion of the administration and distribution of the estate of Arthur Gastle in accordance with the interim distribution statements attached”.
[54] Robert seeks to rely on the release to protect him from this application. In my view, he cannot do so. Calvin was clearly not fully informed as the Certificate upon which he relied when he signed the Release did not disclose the existence of the joint accounts. The applicant’s signing of the Release reflected his partially informed intention to be legally bound by what was disclosed in the incomplete and patently false Certificate. Upon discovering the existence of some of the joint accounts, Calvin immediately made inquiries and sought information. Material information was withheld from Calvin. Robert’s withholding of such material information and his subsequent delay of its release effectively concealed from Calvin the fact that he may have a claim against Robert.
[55] In these circumstances, Robert should be not permitted to rely on the Release in the defence of the application.
[56] Robert argues that the Court should consider the decision in Sheard Estate, 2013 ONSC 7729 as authority for his right to rely on the release. However, Sheard is distinguishable on its facts. In that case, the beneficiaries knew or should have known before they signed the Releases that they might have cause to complain about what the executors had done up to that point.
[57] In this case, Calvin did not know about the existence of the joint accounts, although he was a co-executor. He was unable to obtain any information about the deceased’s bank accounts from the banks during the first year after the deceased passed away. This is not surprising. One would think that once the right of survivorship took place upon the death of Arthur, the accounts were put into the name of Robert solely, and the banks would likely not release information for privacy reasons.
[58] The evidence is clear that Calvin did not know about the existence of the joint accounts until after signing the Release, Robert should not be entitled to rely on that Release to defend this application.
CONCLUSION
[59] For all of these reasons, the Court makes the following orders:
- The Court makes a declaration that the respondent, Robert Gastle, holds the proceeds from the five joint accounts in trust for the estate in the total sum of $85,785.88.
To be absolutely clear, any order should make reference to the chart found at the application record, Tab F, which includes a description of the five joint accounts. The order should reference the name of the bank, the account number, and the balance as of the date of death. The balances are also reflected earlier in these reasons.
The respondent, Robert Gastle, shall pay to the applicant, Calvin Gastle, one-half of the total value of the joint bank accounts, namely $42,892.89.
The respondent, Robert Gastle, shall pay to the applicant, Calvin Gastle, pre-judgment interest from May 23, 2013 (which is the date this application was issued) to November 2, 2017 of $2,482.50.
[60] The Court will also receive submissions regarding costs.
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T O N C O S T S
BRAID, J. (Orally):
[1] The Applicant was successful and is etitled to his costs. I have reviewed the bill of costs of both parties and the offer to settle of Calvin Gastle, which was served on or about September the 29th, 2017.
[2] Ms. Toner quite fairly reduced the amount in her bill of costs to account for the fact that the offer to settle was somewhat late in the day. It is unfortunate that the respondent did not take her up on the offer because that could have avoided two days of court attendances and all of the preparation in advance of these attendances.
[3] This was a difficult case for everyone involved and I sense that there are a lot of emotions running behind the need to litigate this matter. The fact that two days of court days of court time with experienced counsel were expended to argue about $40,000 is unfortunate. The amount of costs should be somewhat tempered because of the value of the ultimate result. In all the circumstances, I find that the appropriate amount of costs is $20,000.
Form 2
Certificate of Transcript (Subsection 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Tracy Thompson, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of Gastle v. Gastle, in the Superior Court of Justice, held at KITCHENER taken from Recording 4411-CRTRM-505-20171102-085106-10_BraidC which has been certified in Form 1.
_November 13, 2017 ________________________________________
(Date) Authorized Court Transcriptionist
Tracy Thompson, ACT
519-589-2121
*This certification does not apply to the (Ruling(s), Reasons for Judgment, Reasons for Sentence, or Charge to the Jury)
which was/were judicially edited.