ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
A. Brown, for the Crown
- and -
JASON MICHAEL MURRAY FINN
K. Scullion, for the Accused
Accused
HEARD: November 20-23, 2018,
at Thunder Bay, Ontario
DELIVERED ORALLY:
Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Reasons For Judgment
Overview
1Jason Michael Murray Finn stands charged with the following:
Between 27 May 2016 and 6 July 2016 at the City of Thunder Bay in the said Region, did have in his possession for the purpose of making available child pornography to wit: offering for download videos of child pornography contrary to Section 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.
And further:
Between 27 May 2016 and 6 July 2016 at the City of Thunder Bay in the said Region, did have in his possession child pornography to wit: videos and images contrary to Section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.
2A Statement of Agreed Facts was filed as an exhibit. It was admitted that residue of 14 unique photographs and 17 unique videos that were acknowledged to be child pornography were found on devices seized at Mr. Finn’s home. It was admitted by the Crown that it could not be proven that all of these 31 pornography images or videos were accessible on the seized devices during the period covered by the indictment – May 27, 2016, to July 6, 2016.
3It was submitted by the Crown that at least three of the unique videos can be proven as being in the possession of the accused and that they were in his possession for the purpose of making available during the indictment period. Although it was not disputed by the accused that the computer equipment and iPhone was his, it was submitted by the accused that, even if the Crown can prove physical possession of these unique videos during the period covered by the indictment, the Crown cannot prove that the accused was the person who downloaded these videos, that the accused deliberately downloaded these videos, or that the accused knowingly made these videos available.
4It was further admitted that, at the time of his arrest, Mr. Finn made the following voluntary statement: “If you find child porn, I did not download it on purpose.”
5Two officers in the “cybercrime” unit of the Thunder Bay Police Service testified. Mr. Finn also testified.
The Facts
The Police Evidence
6Constable James Wilson and Constable Chris Dunnill executed a warrant at Mr. Finn’s apartment on July 7, 2016. Pursuant to the warrant, computer and computer related devices were seized. An iPhone was also seized. Forensic identification of these items disclosed that the photographs and videos described in the Statement of Agreed Facts had been present on a computer and iPhone belonging to Mr. Finn.
7Constable Dunnill was proffered as an expert in the forensic examination of computers and mobile devices and the function and use of applications on those devices. Mr. Finn did not dispute his qualifications and expertise. Notwithstanding the fact that Constable Dunnill was actively involved in the investigation, Mr. Finn made no challenge as to Constable Dunnill’s evidence on the basis of bias, and there was nothing in Constable Dunnill’s evidence that suggested that his evidence was tainted by bias or the appearance of bias.
8A 31 year veteran of the police service, Constable Dunnill has been a member of the cybercrime unit for 12 years. He testified that as a tool for general investigation he accesses the Child Protection System (“CPS”), which is software developed by a not-for-profit international organization that searches for file sharing of potential child pornography. Using this software, Constable Dunnill became aware that a user in Thunder Bay may have been accessing child pornography and making child pornography files available on a shared folder. On or about May 27, 2016, Constable Dunnill made connection with the suspected computer with the shared folder and identified and retrieved a portion of six files that might contain child pornography. From an examination of these files, he was able to identify unique “Hash Values” peculiar to these six files, which he independently confirmed to be child pornography. The CPS identifies the Internet Protocol (“IP”) address of the computer accessing this information, the port through which that computer accesses the information, and the globally unique identifier (“GUID”) of the computer. In this case, the IP address was identified as 174.5.6.199, the port was identified as 6528, and the GUID was identified as SHA1 081DAB444931DDFB60AA340EAFFCOFOO.
9Armed with this information, Constable Dunnill obtained a production order from a Justice of the Peace directed to SHAW Cable systems for customer/subscriber account information for that IP address. In response, Constable Dunnill received information that on May 27, 2016, the IP address was associated with the customer account of Jason Finn, and an apartment address was given in Thunder Bay. A search warrant for that address was obtained.
10Upon attendance at Mr. Finn’s apartment the police knocked, but no one responded. The building manager let the officers into the unit, and Mr. Finn was found inside his apartment. Mr. Finn confirmed his identity and was told the reason for the search. Constable Dunnill found that the GUID of a computer tower located in the living area matched the GUID of the computer from which Constable Dunnill had accessed shared folders containing files which he had confirmed to be child pornography. Upon examination of the computer tower, Constable Dunnill found evidence of child pornography. Mr. Finn was arrested, and 13 items relating to computers and electronics were seized including the computer tower with 8 hard drives and 1 iPhone.
11Constable Dunnill described the computer tower with eight hard drives as belonging to someone whom he would describe as a “power user.” There was nothing to suggest to the officers that anyone other than Mr. Finn resided in the apartment.
12At the cybercrime lab, steps were taken to preserve the contents of the seized computer and hard drives so that the examining computers could not change the subject computer. The computer was then examined.
13The user account on the computer was named JEGATRON, which the defendant identified as his account. The account is password protected. Investigation of the JEGATRON use of the computer confirmed Mr. Finn’s involvement. For example, the Apple ID associated with that account was his email address. Banking documents, Xbox live accounts, Twitter, and Facebook accounts associated with Mr. Finn were found on the JEGATRON account. A picture of his cat and an animated picture of Mr. Finn and his cat, which he used as wallpaper for his computer, were also found. Mr. Finn acknowledged that he made the wallpaper. Entries also confirm that Mr. Finn had updated his Facebook profile picture and uploaded new photographs to Facebook through the JEGATRON account.
14Similarly, examination of the iPhone revealed an owner name of JEGATRON and usage consistent with ownership by Mr. Finn.
15As noted, it was admitted that forensic examination of the tower computer and the iPhone found evidence confirming that 31 unique videos and photographs had been on these devices. Three of the video files had been accessed by Constable Dunnill on May 27, 2016, within the period covered by the indictment, and those videos are described as follows from the Statement of Agreed Facts:
Video 1 – Length: 45 seconds
Title: 9YO Nigger Child Whores Black Trash – Goldberg Vol 008 (Sample)
2 young black females naked lying on their backs on a bed with their feet in the air to show their vaginas. Approximate age 6-8 years old.
Has a corresponding thumbnail image also on the device.
This video was also downloaded using its hash value from the shared folder of the user as seen by CPS during the online investigation.
Video 8 – Length: 29 minutes and 53 seconds
Title: pedomom (pthc centre) (Opva) (2016)
Girl showering – age unclear as the video does not show her face – has breasts
Cameraman goes to another room, shows a much younger girl in bed watching something on a laptop. Younger girl is clothed.
Man masturbates behind young girl.
Older girl walks into the room naked, masturbates, camera zooms in on vagina.
Video then switches to the younger girl whipping at the older girl on a bed.
Video switches to younger girl at a desk, older girl standing behind her.
Man comes up behind both girls.
Man exposes older girl’s butt, touches it, the camera zooms in, shows her vagina from behind, man digitally masturbates the older girl.
Man reaches around the front of the older girl and digitally masturbates her from the front and behind.
Video switches to both the young and older girl naked, younger girl is on her stomach on the bed, older girl is applying lotion to her.
Camera zooms in on both of their vaginas etc.
The older girl lies on top of the younger girl.
Video switches to zoom in on another butt – video freezes.
This video was also downloaded using its hash value from the shared folder of the user as seen by CPS during the online investigation.
Video 9 – Length: 26 minutes and 47 seconds
Title: Daphne beautiful 11y blond, HJ, BJ, Anl
Man next to a blond prepubescent girl approximately 7-10 years old.
Man gets naked, lies on his back on a blanket.
Girl touches his penis, gives him a hand job.
Girl performs oral sex on the man.
Girl has vaginal intercourse with the man.
Man gets on top of girl and continues intercourse.
Man performs oral sex on girl – camera is zoomed in.
Girl Masturbates – camera is zoomed in
Girl is smiling, giggling etc.
Has a corresponding thumbnail image also on the device.
This video was also downloaded using its hash value from the shared folder of the user as seen by CPS during the online investigation.
16Examination of other applications on the computer revealed files with titles suggestive of child pornography. The Crown argued that the presence of these other files is strong circumstantial evidence relevant to the possible defences of mistake and possible alternate suspects.
17KODI is a video, music, and photograph player that was installed on the JEGATRON account. A log file generated by KODI listed approximately 100 files with file names suggestive of child pornography. For example, the first two names found on the list are: New baby Nice Orgasm From 4 YO Girl and Two 3Yo and 4Yo Lesbian Girls.
18KODI also creates a “My Videos” list so the user can access the files again quickly. The My Videos list included 17 files with titles suggestive of child pornography including two entries for Video 9 from the Agreed Facts (Daphne beautiful 11y blond, HJ, BJ, Anl) in addition to Star Trek and Avengers movies.
19The “Daphne” video is also identified in the CFS Network Activity Report on May 28 and 29, 2016, and in the Explorer Recent Documents Report and Recent Files Report along with 36 other files with names suggestive of child pornography such as “Dasha 11yo Posing, Suck, Fuck Full.avi.”
20The “Daphne” video also appears in the “Jump List,” which allows a user to quickly access files along with other files that have titles suggestive of child pornography.
21Internet browser activity discloses searches to Facebook and sites such as “youngxbabes.com,” a “cookie” linked to JEGATRON, and a horny-little-teens website.
22The File Activity Report generated for CPS identified the program “TurboWire” as the file sharing software being used on the computer with Mr. Finn’s IP address and his GUID. TurboWire is installed on Mr. Finn’s computer. The GUID is confirmed, and the port that CPS identified as the computer port was the same. The records indicated that the settings or preferences for this program were modified by the user including the directory for shared files, the number of simultaneous downloads (50), and the upload speed. Fifty-five TurboWire sessions were noted. Constable Dunnill testified about the use and appearance of TurboWire screens and noted arrows on the bottom of the TurboWire screen indicating the number of files being uploaded and downloaded and the upload and download speed. He noted that TurboWire is a file sharing program, and it is clearly described as such on the site from which the program is downloaded. Constable Dunnill testified that file sharing can expose a computer to “malware,” which could allow an external user to control a computer. He found one such malware file on Mr. Finn’s computer but testified that the malware program had not been “run” or activated.
Potential Alternate Suspect
23No formal alternate suspect application was brought by Mr. Finn, but information about a potential alternate suspect was provided to the Crown after the judicial pretrial.
24In advance of trial, since an application had not been brought, Crown counsel consulted with Mr. Finn’s counsel to determine if this defence would be presented at trial. The Crown consented to the introduction of possible alternate suspect information by the defence, and the defence consented to the introduction of rebuttal evidence. That rebuttal evidence was led by the Crown during the presentation of its case.
25Constable Dunnill testified that he had searched Mr. Finn’s computer for anything to suggest that the alternate suspect, Moses Beaver, had used Mr. Finn’s computer. It was admitted that Moses Beaver had died before this alternate suspect information had been provided to the Crown so the police could not interview Mr. Beaver. Constable Dunnill was unable to find anything that suggested that Mr. Beaver had used this computer other than a single search for “Moses Beaver” in a search engine.
26To rebut the alternate suspect contention, Constable Dunnill testified that he had encountered the GUID associated with Mr. Finn’s computer on two prior occasions. On each of these prior occasions, Constable Dunnill obtained search warrants for two locations because IP addresses associated with these locations and with a computer using this GUID had been noted as accessing child pornography.
27On November 12, 2015, a search warrant was executed on Secord Street in Thunder Bay. The IP address was associated with a woman resident at that address. Upon attending at this location, no computers were located. Constable Dunnill was advised that Mr. Finn had previously rented a room in this house but had since moved.
28A few weeks later, a search warrant was executed at a location on Lincoln Street in Thunder Bay again as a result of the same GUID accessing child pornography. The IP address associated with this location was Mr. Finn’s father’s account, who was noted to have a computer, but the GUID did not correspond with the GUID of interest. Constable Dunnill was advised that Jason Finn had moved out and that his father did not know where his son was.
Jason Finn
29Mr. Finn is 36 years old. He resides alone at the apartment where the search warrant was executed. Before that, he lived at his father’s on Lincoln Street and, before that, in a rooming house on Secord Street.
30He describes himself as a heavy computer user. He turns his computer on when he wakes up in the morning and turns it off only when he sleeps, unless he leaves his apartment. He uses his computer as a TV. He has two years of television shows stored on his computer.
31He testified that he built this computer, part by part, himself. Only the motherboard was new on the tower computer, and the rest was constructed out of other computers. He would format the used hard drives before installing them in his computer.
32Mr. Finn denied ever searching for child pornography and claimed that he was unfamiliar with short forms for child pornography that are common in the file names found in directories on his computer.
33He testified that Moses Beaver lived across the hall from him and that Moses and other people, including Moses’s son and other friends, would come to his apartment to watch things on his computer and to the drink. He said that Moses Beaver’s name was in his search engine because Mr. Beaver wanted to show Mr. Finn some of his art.
34Mr. Finn testified that he would go through his download folder daily or every other day to see what had been downloaded. He testified that, a “few times,” he had found files that caused him concern and that he immediately deleted those files. He said that he confronted his friends, which included Moses Beaver and a couple of others, and that all denied accessing the child pornography.
35He admitted that, after discovering these files, he did not make any attempts to limit the use of others but perhaps monitored other people more closely when they were on his computer.
36Occasionally, he would leave his apartment for short periods, no more than half an hour, while other people were there. On other occasions, he said that he would be asleep while other people were in his apartment drinking.
37He claimed that he was unaware that TurboWire was a file sharing program and said that he thought he had to have to “do something” to share files.
38He testified that he was very familiar with the KODI program and that he used the program often.
39He explained that the images on his iPhone would have been transferred from his computer to his iPhone during “syncing” as the computer was set up to transfer files both ways.
Positions of the Parties
40Counsel for Mr. Finn reminds me of the presumption of innocence and that the Crown must prove all elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. She argues that the Crown failed to show that it was Mr. Finn who knowingly and deliberately possessed any illegal material. She argues that evidence of deletion is evidence consistent with innocence or no guilty intent and supports the defence assertion that the child pornography was downloaded by other persons or by accident. She argues that Mr. Finn honestly believed that some positive action on his part was required to set TurboWire to upload and that I should accept his evidence.
41The Crown argues that the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that Mr. Finn was not only in possession of child pornography but that he knew he was allowing child pornography to be distributed through the file sharing program TurboWire.
42The Crown submits that there is no substance or air of reality to the alternate suspect theory and that Mr. Finn’s initial statement to the police, “If you find child porn, I did not download it on purpose,” strongly suggests that the alternate suspect theory is a fabrication.
43As to the theory that any possession or distribution was as a result of an error, the Crown points to the number of files found with file names suggestive of child pornography, the multiple locations or directories upon which similar files where found, and the frequency with which such files were viewed as incompatible with Mr. Finn’s evidence that he found child pornography “a few times” and then deleted it. The Crown argues that deletion of files is also consistent with an attempt to escape detection.
44Given Mr. Finn’s sophistication with computers and file sharing, the Crown argues that it is implausible that he would not know that TurboWire was a file sharing program. The Crown points to Mr. Finn’s apparent lack of knowledge as to what “up arrows” and “down arrows” mean in TurboWire as evidence of his lack of truthfulness given his knowledge of computers and computer programs.
The Law
Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
45Every person charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent unless and until the Crown proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
46The phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” is a very important part of the criminal justice system. It is not enough for the trier of fact to believe that the accused is probably or likely guilty. Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. David Watt J. in Watt’s Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2015), at p. 262, describes the reasoning process as follows:
If, at the end of the case, after considering all the evidence, you are sure that [the accused] committed the (an) offence, you should find [the accused] guilty of it, since you would have been satisfied of [the accused’s] guilt of that offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
If, at the end of the case, based on all the evidence or the absence (lack) of evidence, or the credibility of one or more of the witnesses or the reliability of his or her evidence, you are not sure that [the accused] committed the (an) offence, you should find the accused not guilty of it.
The R. v. W.(D.) Analysis
47The evidence must be assessed as instructed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W. (D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. If I believe the accused, I must acquit. If I do not believe the accused’s evidence but still have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt after considering his evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole, I must acquit. Finally, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I still must consider, based on the evidence that I do accept, whether I am still convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
The Offences
48The relevant sections of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c,C-46, are set out:
Definition of child pornography
163.1 (1) In this section, child pornography means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;
(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or
(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
Distribution, etc. of child pornography
(3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.
Possession of child pornography
(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of,
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
49R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, is the leading case on child pornography. With respect to possession, the court stated, at paras. 16 and 66:
16 On an allegation of personal possession, the requirement of knowledge comprises two elements: the accused must be aware that he or she has physical custody of the thing in question, and must be aware as well of what that thing is. Both elements must co-exist with an act of control (outside of public duty): Beaver v. The Queen, 1957 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1957] S.C.R. 531, at pp. 541-42.
66 Accordingly, in order to commit the offence of possession (as opposed to the offence of accessing), one must knowingly acquire the underlying data files and store them in a place under one's control.
50In R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 212, at paras. 83-85, the Court considered proof of the intent to make pornography available:
83 There is no dispute that the accused in a prosecution under s. 163.1(3) must be proved to have had knowledge that the pornographic material was being made available. This does not require, however, as the trial judge suggested, that the accused must knowingly, by some positive act, facilitate the availability of the material. I accept Caldwell J.A.’s conclusion that the offence is complete once the accused knowingly makes pornography available to others. As he put it,
[i]n the context of a file sharing program, the mens rea element of making available child pornography under s. 163.1(3) requires proof of the intent to make computer files containing child pornography available to others using that program or actual knowledge that the file sharing program makes files available to others. [para. 87]
While the trial judge’s reasons may perhaps be open to more than one interpretation on this point, reading his reasons as a whole, I also agree with Caldwell J.A. that the trial judge erred in deciding that a positive act was required to satisfy the mens rea component of the making available offence: para. 81.
84 I further agree with Caldwell J.A. that wilful blindness was a live issue on the evidence and that it was because of the trial judge’s error in relation to positive facilitation that he did not turn his mind to the evidence that could support an inference of wilful blindness. Wilful blindness is a substitute for knowledge. As explained by Charron J. in R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411, at para. 21,
[w]ilful blindness does not define the mens rea required for particular offences. Rather, it can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a component of the mens rea. The doctrine of wilful blindness imputes knowledge to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to the point where he or she sees the need for further inquiries, but deliberately chooses not to make those inquiries. See Sansregret v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570, and R. v. Jorgensen, 1995 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55. As Sopinka J. succinctly put it in Jorgensen (at para. 103), “[a] finding of wilful blindness involves an affirmative answer to the question: Did the accused shut his eyes because he knew or strongly suspected that looking would fix him with knowledge?” [Emphasis added.]
85 The evidence calling for consideration of wilful blindness included, for example, evidence that in Mr. Spencer’s statement to police he acknowledged that LimeWire is a file sharing program; that he had changed at least one default setting in LimeWire; that when LimeWire is first installed on a computer, it displays information notifying the user that it is a file sharing program; that at the start of each session, LimeWire notifies the user that it is a file sharing program and warns of the ramifications of file sharing; and that LimeWire contains built-in visual indicators that show the progress of the uploading of files by others from the user's computer: paras. 88-89.
Circumstantial Evidence
51In a circumstantial evidence case, in order to base a conviction on this type of evidence alone, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference that can be drawn from the proven facts is the guilt of the accused. If I find that alternative rational inferences can be drawn from the evidence, the defence will have raised a reasonable doubt: R v. Cooper, 1977 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860, as set out by Morgan J. in R v. Bobb, 2015 ONSC 6377, 125 W.C.B. (2d) 204.
Analysis and Disposition
52I am satisfied that the Crown has proved conclusively, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the three child pornography videos discussed above were accessible from Mr. Finn’s computer on May 27, 2016.
53Mr. Finn asserts that it was another person, Moses Beaver, who may have downloaded the child pornography. No other evidence was offered which might support that assertion other than a search for the name “Moses Beaver” in a search engine. Forensic examination revealed no other evidence that Mr. Beaver used the computer. At trial, for the first time, Mr. Finn suggested other names. His statement to the police at the time of his arrest, “If you find child porn, I did not download it on purpose,” is not consistent with the assertion that another person was responsible. I do not infer guilt from the prior intercepts of Mr. Finn’s computer GUID accessing child pornography. It is some evidence, which I do accept, that Mr. Beaver was not the one who was accessing child pornography since there is no evidence that Mr. Beaver was at the other locations. Considering all the evidence, I am satisfied that it was Mr. Finn and not Mr. Beaver who was accessing the child pornography.
54The assertion that the download was accidental must be measured against the results of the forensic examination of the computer. The presence of approximately 100 files with file names suggestive of child pornography on the KODI log and the multiple appearances of child pornography files such as Video 9 (the “Daphne” video), elsewhere on the computer do not support the assertion that the possession of the three video files on May 27, 2016, was accidental. I reject Mr. Finn’s evidence as implausible and, on a consideration of all the evidence that I do accept, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Finn knew that he had physical custody of child pornography on May 27, 2016.
55Mr. Finn asserts that he did not know that he was file sharing. On the evidence, I find that Mr. Finn is very knowledgeable about computers and downloading video files. Indeed, his computer and the downloading programs on his computer appears to be the focus of his life. His assertion that he was not aware that the up arrow indicates uploading is incomprehensible based on Mr. Finn’s computer sophistication and Constable Dunnill’s description of how TurboWire functions. I note that many of the TurboWire settings were modified on Mr. Finn’s computer, including the upload speed. Following Spence, I accept the assertion of the Crown that Mr. Finn had knowledge that he was making child pornography available or at least willfully blind to the fact that he was making child pornography available on May 27, 2016.
56Accordingly, I find Mr. Finn guilty of counts one and two on the indictment.
“Original signed by”
The Honourable Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Released: November 30, 2018
CITATION: R. v. Finn, 2018 ONSC 7191
COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-0013-00
DATE: 2018-11-30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
JASON MICHAEL MURRAY FINN
Accused
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Newton J.
Released: November 30, 2018
/sab