Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: SCJ-1036-19 DATE: 2019-03-27 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Robert Parsons/Jody Ostapiw, Counsel for the Respondent Respondent

- and -

ROBERT STEVEN WRIGHT P. Berk Keaney/Michael J. Venturi, Counsel for the Applicant Applicant

HEARD: February 19, 20 and 21, 2019 GAREAU j.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE APPLICATION

[1] The applicant, Robert Steven Wright, is charged with first degree murder, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Information specifies the offence as follows:

That Robert Steven Wright on or about the 27th day of January in the year 1998 at the City of Greater Sudbury in the said Region, did commit first degree murder on the person of Renee Sweeney, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] Mr. Wright, who resides in North Bay, Ontario, was arrested on December 11, 2018 and has remained in custody since.

[3] Mr. Wright brought an application of judicial interim release by way of a notice of application dated February 13, 2019. This application for bail was heard in Sudbury, Ontario on February 19, 20 and 21, 2019. I reserved my decision to today’s date, March 27, 2019, to consider the matter thoroughly.

BACKGROUND

[4] The charge that Robert Steven Wright faces dates back to an incident that occurred over 21 years ago, namely, the death of Renee Sweeney. Ms. Sweeney was 23 years of age at the time of her death. She was a music student at Laurentian University and performed with the Sudbury Symphony Orchestra.

[5] Renee Sweeney had employment at the Adults Only Video Store located at 1500 Paris Street in Sudbury. This retail store sold pornographic videos, magazines and sex toys and was located in a strip mall with seven or eight neighbouring business surrounding it. Due to the nature of its business, the windows at the store were covered with papers and posters to the extent that you cannot see into the store or to the outside from within the store.

[6] There was no surveillance cameras in the store. There was a panic alarm behind the checkout/cash area of the store. The panic alarm was in good working order but was not activated.

[7] The morning of January 27, 1998 was cold. It was minus 15 degrees Celsius outside. As to the activities of Renee Sweeney on the morning of her death, she reported to work at 9:00 a.m. before the store opened at 10:00 a.m., which was her usual custom. The hour before the store opened was designed to run errands and ready the store for the public. Ms. Sweeney attended at the RBC Bank to make a deposit around 9:30 a.m. that morning and was in the store when it opened for business at 10:00 a.m. At approximately 11:00 a.m. she had a telephone discussion with a co-worker at a sister store. At 11:37 a.m. there was a 9-1-1 emergency call made to the police. The body of Renee Sweeney was found in the Adults Only Video Store near the checkout and cash area of the store. There was considerable pooling of blood in that area as well as blood on the floor in the centre isle of the store. There was $189.53 taken from the cash register till inside the store in the same location where the body of Renee Sweeney was found. There was other cash to be taken and other valuables such as jewelry, but these items were left behind.

[8] The injuries sustained by Renee Sweeney leave no doubt that her death was a violent one. Ms. Sweeney was inflicted with multiple stab wounds, up to 30. The autopsy report (Exhibit 2, Tab 1) indicates that there were “multiple stab and incised wounds present on the body. There are two clustered areas of stab wounds involving the upper chest and right neck region”. The autopsy report describes wounds to Ms. Sweeney’s abdomen, upper chest, the front of her neck, the right side of her neck, the left side of her neck, the posterior left arm and shoulder area, the left forearm and hand, and the right hand. There was no evidence that Ms. Sweeney was sexually assaulted.

[9] The autopsy report summarizes the cause of death as follows:

The deceased was found dead at her place of employment with multiple stab wounds of the neck, face, upper back and abdomen. Incised wounds (cuts) were also present on both hands.

The autopsy revealed that the wounds of the neck had partially severed the internal jugular veins on both sides of the neck, as well as the right external jugular vein. The right carotid artery was partially severed also, and there were four incised wounds (cuts) of the trachea. The wounds on the face, abdomen, hands and upper back involved superficial soft tissues and damaged no vital structures. Blood was present within the bronchioles at the lung periphery, consistent with aspiration. No pre-existing disease process contributing to death was identified. The cause of death is multiple stab wounds with exsanguination through the severed blood vessels of the neck. These wounds would have been quickly but not necessarily immediately incapacitating.

[10] Although there were no witnesses to the murder of Renee Sweeney, Tim Schroeder and Tricia Lewis were outside the Adults Only Video Store and entered the store to find a male crouched down beside a display rack inside the store. This unidentified male ran past Mr. Schroeder and Ms. Lewis and turned right onto Paris Street. The unidentified male was described as not wearing a jacket and had on him a green/blue bag. This individual was described by Tim Schroder as a white male, 5’10” to 5’11” in height, 140 to 150 pounds, in early 20’s with messy straight black hair, and a couple of days of beard growth. Mr. Schroeder described the male as wearing oval metal framed glasses. Ms. Lewis described the male person as being in his early 20’s, 5’10” to 5’11”, 150 pounds, with short dark hair and a skinny, fragile build. From the descriptions provided by Mr. Schroeder and Ms. Lewis, a composite image or sketch was prepared by the Ontario Provincial Police and this sketch was released to the public on January 28, 1998 (Exhibit 1, Tab 1).

[11] There was a second composite drawing generated, this time by the Toronto Metro Police, from a description provided by Paulette Taillefer, who was leaving the Country Bagel Store, which is in the strip mall close to the Adults Only Video Store. Ms. Taillefer indicated that the man she saw was not wearing a jacket and was carrying a blue bag of some sort. This second composite sketch was released to the public in March 1998 (Exhibit 1, Tab 1).

[12] Once the Greater Sudbury Police arrived on the scene they engaged canine tracking which led to the discovery of a teal coloured nylon jacket and a blood soaked white cotton gardening glove not far from the crime scene. The police canine track did not locate a suspect. The jacket and glove were linked to the crime scene as they contained the blood of Renee Sweeney. The jacket was size large and was a “High Sierra” brand which was sold exclusively in the United States of America. Inside the left breast pocket of the coat was a yellow diaper pin.

[13] The prints from the shoes at the front door of the store and leading toward Paris Street, as well as the footprints in blood in the washroom at the Adult Only Video Store, resulted in the police conducting an investigation into the footwear likely worn by the assailant. A description of this footwear was released to the public by the Sudbury Greater Police at a press conference held on January 28, 2000. The description of the footwear is summarized in a Sudbury Star Report (Exhibit 5, Tab 6) as follows:

Police unveiled a description of a black Brooks running shoe with white trim similar to what the suspect is believed to have been wearing the day of the murder.

The low-cut, cross-training leather shoe leaves a short spear or torch imprint with its lower half and a backwards 5 or capital S with its upper half. The shoe is believed to have been size 8 to 10. The shoe type is featured on an updated poster that also shows the blue High Sierra jacket and a white, cotton gardening glove recovered in the neighbourhood, a diaper pin found inside the jacket and two composite sketches of the suspect. The new poster was unveiled at the press conference.

[14] The teal coloured jacket, the garden glove and the fingernails clipped from the body of Renee Sweeney have provided DNA profiles for the purpose of testing and analysis. Searches were done in the DNA databank with no results. The DNA of Robert Steven Wright has never been matched to any person in the known offender database.

[15] In addition to the DNA samples from the jacket, glove, and under the fingernails of Renee Sweeney, there were fingerprints left on the cash drawer in the Adults Only Video Store. The photographs of the cash drawer labelled shows R45 depicting the cash drawer, R127 depicting a fingerprint on the inside of the cash tray in the blood of Renee Sweeney, and R46 depicting a fingerprint on the outside portion of the cash drawer with this fingerprint being in the blood of the victim, Renee Sweeney. The cash tray itself was located on a shelf within the store and not in the cash drawer. Detective Sergeant Robert Weston of the Greater Sudbury Police indicated in evidence that a chemical agent was used to enhance the fingerprints found and that these fingerprints were photographed for preservation. The fingerprints themselves no longer exist because of the passage of time but the enhanced photographs of the fingerprints still exist and have been submitted for analysis with further reference to be made of this later in these reasons.

[16] From the date of the death of Renee Sweeney on January 27, 1998 to the present date, the investigation of Ms. Sweeney’s murder is the most extensive criminal investigation ever undertaken by the Greater Sudbury Police Service. The investigation started the day of Ms. Sweeney’s murder and is still ongoing. At one point in time, 14 police officers were fully engaged in the investigation. Media involvement by way of police press releases with media outlets to get information to the public has been extensive. Filed as Exhibit 3 is a media book detailing various police contact with the media from January 27, 1998 to January 27, 2015. At various times there were cash rewards offered for information that could be provided to the police. In his evidence, Detective Sergeant Weston testified that “Media coverage in this case was extensive. It was in the eye of the public consistently.”

[17] As a result of this extensive outreach to the Sudbury community, the Greater Sudbury Police Service has received in excess of 2000 tips. Approximately 1200 people have been eliminated as suspects in the murder through DNA testing. In February 1998, as a result of an anonymous tip, John Fetterly was considered as more than a suspect in the murder and was in fact charged with the murder of Renee Sweeney. Fingerprint analysis which led to the arrest of Mr. Fetterly was ultimately re-examined leading to the conclusion that previous fingerprint analysis was not accurate. As a result, the charge laid against John Fetterly was withdrawn on February 12, 1998. In 1999, DNA testing officially eliminated John Fetterly as a suspect in the murder of Renee Sweeney.

[18] There have even been individuals who have confessed to the murder of Renee Sweeney. In 2016, David Legitt was a person of interest in the investigation. Mr. Legitt had short red hair and wore black metal framed glasses. Apparently he had met the victim on one occasion. Mr. Legitt lived on the same block as the Adults Only Video Store was located. Mr. Legitt wore a shoe no larger than a size 8. Mr. Legitt had told his mother that he had been questioned by police about the murder and that he did it. When asked about this in cross-examination, Detective Sergeant Weston testified that he believed Mr. Legitt in stating that he did it, meant that he had been questioned by police. Ultimately, David Legitt took his own life. It was the evidence of Detective Sergeant Weston that David Legitt’s DNA was tested through his mother and that this testing ruled out Mr. Legitt as a suspect in the murder of Renee Sweeney.

[19] Since 2018, the focus of the Greater Sudbury Police Services with respect to the death of Renee Sweeney has been on the accused, Robert Steven Wright. Interestingly, despite the extensive distribution of numerous composite sketches of the face of the killer and numerous descriptions of him, not one person came forward identifying Mr. Wright as the person described. Additionally, in all the years that this matter was investigated, no person tied Robert Steven Wright to the scene of the crime. Throughout the years there was no information provided by anonymous tips or otherwise that Renee Sweeney and Robert Steven Wright knew each other, or that there was any animus between the two of them.

[20] As a result of a tracing of ancestry history, and an analysis of cast-off DNA taken from the accused, his father, Robert Wright, his mother, Wendy Wright, and his brother, Christopher Wright, the accused was charged on December 11, 2018 with the murder of Renee Sweeney. After the accused was charged, his fingerprints were taken as a routine incident of his arrest. It is the position of the Crown that DNA testing from the cast-off samples confirm that the DNA of Christopher Wright cannot be excluded as being found on the gardening glove soaked in the blood of Renee Sweeney, and the DNA of the accused Robert Steven Wright cannot be excluded as being found underneath the fingernails of Renee Sweeney. It is also the position of the Crown that expert analysis of the fingerprint sample of the accused matches the latent fingerprint found on R46 (the outside portion of the cash drawer in the blood of Renee Sweeney) and matches the latent fingerprint found on R127 (the fingerprint on the inside of the cash tray in the blood of Renee Sweeney).

The Applicable Provisions on an Application for Judicial Interim Release

[21] It is a fundamental principle of Canadian law that an accused is not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. As stated by Wagner J. (as he then was) in R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 509,

The right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause is an essential element of an enlightened criminal justice system. It entrenches the effect of the presumption of innocence at the pre-trial stage of the criminal trial process and safeguards the liberty of accused persons.

[22] There is no doubt, as conceded by defence counsel, that before the court is a reverse onus situation, in that, on a charge of first degree murder, the accused must show, on a balance of probabilities, that detention is not justified.

[23] Generally, the Crown bears the burden of showing cause as to why the accused must be denied bail with regard to the grounds outlined in section 515(10) of the Criminal Code of Canada, but this burden shifts to the accused pursuant to section 522 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 522(2) reads as follows:

Where an accused is charged with an offence listed in section 469, a judge of or a judge presiding in a superior court of criminal jurisdiction for the province in which the accused is charged shall order that the accused be detained in custody unless the accused, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, shows cause why his detention in custody is not justified within the meaning of subsection 515(10).

[24] Section 515(10) of the Criminal Code of Canada sets out the grounds to be considered by the court when deciding whether an accused should be detained in custody or released from custody on a judicial interim release hearing.

[25] Section 515(10) reads as follows:

(10) For the purposes of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;

(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and

(c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including

(i) the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case;

(ii) the gravity of the offence;

(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was use, and

(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.

[26] Essentially, the aforementioned three grounds contemplate the following questions:

(a) Section 515(10)(a): Will the accused attend court? (b) Section 515(10)(b): Will the accused person offend while on bail? (c) Section 515(10)(c): Is detention necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice?

Analysis under Section 515(10)

[27] The Crown acknowledged that the primary ground is not at play in this case and so this ground will not be considered by the court.

[28] The accused takes the position that he has discharged his onus to establish that his detention in custody is not required on either the secondary or tertiary grounds. It is the position of the Crown that the accused has not discharged his burden to show why his detention is not required and that Mr. Wright’s detention in custody is required both on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

[29] The secondary ground, in that it considers public safety, is focused on whether the accused is “substantially likely” to commit another crime or interfere with the administration of justice while out on bail. This essentially creates two points of focus, public safety and interference with the administration of justice, which are both concerned with risk. In R. v. Young, 2010 ONSC 4194, 89 W.C.B. (2d) 329, Clarke J. considered the term “substantially likely” at paras. 20-21:

20 The word “substantial” is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, [Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1964], in part, as follows: “having substance, actually existing, not illusory”. The word “likelihood” is defined in the same source, in part, as “being likely”. The word “likely” is defined, in part, as “such as might well happen”. Therefore, so long as the prosecutor demonstrates that the applicant might well commit another offence if admitted to bail, such that the risk is real or tangible, and not simply fanciful or imaginary, she has met her burden.

21 Moreover, in my view the likelihood of a particular risk materializing cannot be looked at in the abstract. Rather, it must be weighed against the gravity of the harm that will ensue if the risk comes to pass. For example, even a very grave risk that an incorrigible petty thief will shoplift again if granted bail is one that the court might be willing to take when balanced against the accused’s constitutional right to reasonable bail. On the other hand, where the anticipated harm is very grave, a more remote risk may be sufficient meet the test of substantial likelihood. That is of import in this case, where the applicant, for no apparent reason, suddenly engaged in an act of extreme violence, leaving his victim grievously injured and possibly permanently disabled. In the absence of any adequate explanation for this behaviour, of which I will say more when I come to discuss Dr. Sirman’s report, in my opinion the risk is not illusory, but, rather, quite real, that the applicant might well do something similar again if admitted to bail.

[30] As outlined by Trotter J.A. in The Law of Bail in Canada, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2017), some considerations under this ground include:

(i) The criminal record of the accused and compliance with court orders; (ii) The accused is already on bail or on probation; (iii) The nature of the offence and strength of the evidence; and (iv) The stability of the accused person.

The stability of the accused person takes on added weight in circumstances of violent crimes, when the accused has a history of violent or unpredictable behaviour: see R. v. Squires (1996), 497 A.P.R. 17 (Nfld. T.D.) and R. v. Herbert, [1994] O.J. No. 2184 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

[31] The murder of Renee Sweeney occurred in 1998. From that date to the date of his arrest, almost 21 years later, the accused has been without a criminal record. There is no evidence before the court that the accused has not complied with any orders imposed by the court, or for that matter, that he would not comply with any court orders which he may be subjected to.

[32] The accused has been a productive member of society for a long period of time. He was gainfully employed at the time of his arrest. Mr. Wright was employed as a lab technician in the emergency department at the North Bay Regional Health Centre.

[33] There is no evidence before the court that Robert Steven Wright has a propensity to commit crimes or a propensity to violent or unpredictable behaviour. In fact, the evidence is the complete opposite to this. As indicated in the evidence of Detective Sergeant Weston, Brittany Olive, who had a relationship with the accused, described him as a person never quick to anger. Ms. Olive indicated in her December 12, 2018 statement to police that Mr. Wright was “the furthest human being from anger that I have ever met”. Similarly, Anna-Liisa Mottonen, who lived with the accused from 2004 to the date of his arrest, testified that she has never seen Mr. Wright commit a violent act and described him as “the gentlest, most peaceful person I know”.

[34] In considering the secondary ground, the court is aware that subsequent to his arrest Mr. Wright has been charged with a single count of possession of child pornography. As indicated in the evidence of Officer Weston, as a result of a search of the accused’s home on December 11, 2018, reasonable and probable cause was formed on December 20, 2018 to arrest Mr. Wright on the basis of a single document, in the form of a story, found on his computer. Robert Steven Wright was arrested on the charge of possession of child pornography on February 15, 2019, four days before his application for bail on the murder charge was about to commence. Officer Weston’s explanation for the delay that he “was extremely busy and had a lot of things going on” is, in my view, weak in the extreme. It is not difficult to conclude that the delay in charging Mr. Wright and the overall timing of the charges was a veiled attempt to bolster an argument for the detention in custody of Mr. Wright on the secondary ground.

[35] In my view, the child pornography charge balanced against the other factors to be considered provides the court with very little weight to detain Robert Steven Wright on the secondary ground.

[36] When examining the purpose of the secondary ground, that is whether the accused is “substantially likely” to commit another crime or interfere with the administration of justice while out on bail, there is no evidence before the court that this would occur if Mr. Wright is released on bail, and, in fact, the overwhelming evidence before the court is to the contrary. There is no basis to detain Robert Steven Wright in custody on the secondary ground set out in section 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and the accused has met his onus in that regard.

[37] The case before the court is really about the tertiary ground of detention. As previously noted, detention of the accused is necessary on these grounds, if it is required to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all of the circumstances.

[38] The leading authority on the tertiary grounds of detention is R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 328. All cases that preceded St-Cloud must be carefully scrutinized and considered in light of the comments in St-Cloud. The rationale for the tertiary ground of detention is set out in paragraph 33 of St-Cloud in which Wagner J. (as he then was) stated:

33 McLachlin C.J., writing for the majority of the Court, explained that in some circumstances it may be necessary to deny an accused bail, even where there is no risk he or she will not attend trial or may reoffend or interfere with the administration of justice: Hall, at para. 25. According to the Chief Justice, “[w]here justice is not seen to be done by the public, confidence in the bail system and, more generally, the entire justice system may falter”: para. 26. Yet, she wrote, “[p]ublic confidence is essential to the proper functioning of the bail system and the justice system as a whole”: para. 27, citing Valente v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673, at p. 689.

[39] The tertiary ground is considered on an objective standard, namely, “a reasonable member of the public”. As Wagner J. stated at paragraph 80 in St-Cloud:

80 In short, the person in question in s. 515(10)(c) Cr. C. is a thoughtful person, not one who is prone to emotional reactions, whose knowledge of the circumstances of a case is inaccurate or who disagrees with our society’s fundamental values. But he or she is not a legal expert familiar with all the basic principles of the criminal justice system, the elements of criminal offences or the subtleties of criminal intent and of the defences that are available to accused persons.

[40] This objective standard of a reasonable member of the public was considered post St-Cloud in R. v. Papasotiriou-Lanteigne, [2018] O.J. No. 4475. In that case, Trotter J.A., speaking for the Ontario Court of Appeal stated at paragraph 45:

45 Public confidence is to be measured by the standard of a reasonable member of the public. As Moldaver J. said in Oland, at para. 47: “This person is someone who is thoughtful, dispassionate, informed of the circumstances of the case and respectful of society’s fundamental values.”

[41] At paragraphs 87 to 99 in St-Cloud, and in particular at paragraph 87, Wagner J. provided a summary of the principles to be applied in considering the tertiary ground of detention. At paragraph 87 Wagner J. states:

87 I would summarize the essential principles that must guide justices in applying s. 515(10)(c) Cr. C. as follows:

• Section 515(10)(c) Cr. C. does not create a residual ground for detention that applies only where the first two grounds for detention ((a) and (b)) are not satisfied. It is a distinct ground that itself provides a basis for ordering the pre-trial detention of an accused.

• Section 515(10)(c) Cr. C. must not be interpreted narrowly (or applied sparingly) and should not be applied only in rare cases or exceptional circumstances or only to certain types of crimes.

• The four circumstances listed in s. 515(10)(c) Cr. C. are not exhaustive.

• A court must not order detention automatically even where the four listed circumstances support such a result.

• The court must instead consider all the circumstances of each case, paying particular attention to the four listed circumstances.

• The question whether a crime is “unexplainable” or “unexplained” is not a criterion that should guide the analysis.

• No single circumstance is determinative. The justice must consider the combined effect of all the circumstances of each case to determine whether detention is justified.

• This involves balancing all the relevant circumstances. At the end of this balancing exercise, the ultimate question to be asked by the court is whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. This is the test to be met under s. 515(10)(c).

• To answer this question, the court must adopt the perspective of the “public”, that is, the perspective of a reasonable person who is properly informed about the philosophy of the legislative provisions, Charter values and the actual circumstances of the case. However, this person is not a legal expert and is not able to appreciate the subtleties of the various defences that are available to the accused.

• This reasonable person’s confidence in the administration of justice may be undermined not only if a court declines to order detention where detention is justified having regard to the circumstances of the case, but also if it orders detention where detention is not justified.

[42] At paragraph 88, Wagner J. goes on to state that, “In conclusion, if the crime is serious or very violent, if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused and if the victim or victims were vulnerable, pre-trial detention will usually be ordered”.

[43] Although the case of R. v. E.W.M., [2006] O.J. No. 3654 pre-dates the St-Cloud decision, the comments of the Ontario Court of Appeal are helpful in considering the tertiary ground in section 515(c). At paragraph 25 of that decision the court stated that it must consider the effect the release of the respondent would have more broadly on public confidence in the administration of justice. At paragraph 31 of that decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal indicated that “No one factor is determinative. The four factors should be analysed together, not separately. Consideration of their combined effect in the context of all the circumstances enables the court to determine whether it is necessary to deny bail in order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.”

[44] At this point it is helpful for the court to remind itself of the four factors for specific consideration in determining whether detention is necessary on the tertiary ground. They are:

(a) The apparent strength of the prosecution’s case; (b) The gravity of the offence; (c) The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used; and (d) The fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves or whose subject matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.

[45] In his submissions to the court, defence counsel, Mr. Venturi, conceded that in a case of murder the second and fourth factor of the four-part test are always met. In my view, the third factor involving the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, is also met on the facts of this case. With respect to the third factor, Wagner J. makes the following comments at paragraph 61 in St-Cloud:

61 Without drawing up an exhaustive list of possible circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence that might be relevant under s. 515(10)(c), I will mention the following: the fact that the offence is a violent, heinous or hateful one, that it was committed in a context involving domestic violence, a criminal gang or a terrorist organization, or that the victim was a vulnerable person (for example, a child, an elderly person or a person with a disability). If the offence was committed by several people, the extent to which the accused participated in it may be relevant. The aggravating or mitigating factors that are considered by courts for sentencing purposes can also be taken into account.

[46] In the case before this court the acts committed against Renee Sweeney were violent, heinous and hateful. In fact, the acts were violent in the extreme as is indicated in the autopsy report. Ms. Sweeney was stabled numerous times, perhaps as many as 30. The nature of the stab wounds and their location indicate that the perpetrator must have been in a state of rage at the time the offence took place. Although Renee Sweeney was not a vulnerable person in the sense that she was not elderly or disabled, there was a vulnerability in the circumstances that she found herself in; being alone in the type of store that she was working in. Considering all the circumstances of this case, I am more than satisfied that the test set out in section 515(10)(c)(iii) has been met.

[47] The real consideration that the court has to struggle with in the application of section 515(10)(c)(i), namely, the apparent strength of the Crown’s case. Chief Justice Wagner provided courts with some guidance in the application of this test and the consideration of factors in this test in his comments at paragraph 57 to 59 in St-Cloud, which reads as follows:

57 An interim release hearing is a summary proceeding in which more flexible rules of evidence apply. As a result, some of the evidence admitted at this hearing may later be excluded at trial. As Justice Trotter notes, it may be difficult to assess the strength of the prosecution’s case at such a hearing: “The expeditious and sometimes informal nature of a bail hearing may reflect an unrealistically strong case for the Crown” (p. 3-7).

58 Despite these difficulties inherent in the release process, the justice must determine the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case. On the one hand, the prosecutor is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, and the justice must be careful not to play the role of trial judge or jury: matters such as the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of scientific evidence must be analyzed at trial, not at the release hearing. However, the justice who presides at that hearing must consider the quality of the evidence tendered by the prosecutor in order to determine the weight to be given to this factor in his or her balancing exercise. For example, physical evidence may be more reliable than a mere statement made by a witness, and circumstantial evidence may be less reliable than direct evidence. The existence of ample evidence may also reinforce the apparent strength of the case.

59 On the other hand, the justice must also consider any defence raised by the accused. Rather than raising a defence at the initial hearing, the latter will most likely not do so before the release hearing held upon completion of the preliminary inquiry, and may not even raise one before trial. If the accused does raise a defence, however, this becomes one of the factors the justice must assess, and if there appears to be some basis for the defence, the justice must take this into account in analyzing the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case. As the Quebec Court of Appeal noted in a relatively recent decision, [translation] “it would be unfair to allow the prosecution to state its case if the justice is not in a position to consider not only the weaknesses of that case, but also the defences it suggests”: R. v. Coates, 2010 QCCA 919, at para. 19.

[48] As I indicated to counsel in their submissions, the case against Robert Steven Wright is really about the scientific evidence. If the scientific evidence, that is the DNA and fingerprint evidence, holds up then there will be a certain result. If that evidence does not hold up, then the result will be different. The case against Robert Steven Wright is a circumstantial one. No one can state that they saw him at the crime scene or that he had any connection with Renee Sweeney or any animus toward her. The composite sketches generated from descriptions provided by Tim Schroeder, Tricia Lewis and Paulette Taillefer in over 20 years did not result in anyone coming forward to indicate that they recognized Robert Steven Wright as the individual in the composite sketch. The same can be said for the Parabon Phenotype Report prepared which listed various physical traits for the suspect, including skin colour, eye colour, hair colour and ancestry. This Parabon information was circulated to the general public, but again the physical description and facial depiction did not result in anyone coming forward to indicate that they recognized that to be Robert Steven Wright.

[49] A press conference by the Greater Sudbury Police Service reported in the Sudbury Star on March 12, 1998 indicates that the police believed the suspect to be right handed. The evidence before me is that the accused is left handed.

[50] The prints from the crime scene and in the snow and path followed by the suspect indicate that the suspect wore a running shoe that was between size 8 to 10. The evidence before me is that the accused wears a size 12 shoe.

[51] As part of their outreach to the community, the Greater Sudbury Police Service commented publicly about the likely psychological profile of the killer from a profile created by the Behavioural Science Branch of the Ontario Provincial Police. From this profile the following description was set out in the Sudbury Star on January 22, 2001:

The killer was someone “who probably lived alone and within a short distance of the killing”, said Van Allen.

Possibly a high-school graduate, the killer would have had a normal range of intelligence but was likely an underachiever in most aspects of his life, including socially, academically and occupationally, Van Allen said.

In the weeks preceding the murder, he would have “experienced a stressful event which would include loss of job, relationship, being evicted, financial or some other life crisis.”

The man is likely a loner who would have difficulty maintaining meaningful relationships. Even relationships with his own family would be strained, Van Allen concluded in his report.

He would be someone who is known for quickly changing moods and “possibly inappropriate violent outbursts of temper.”

Van Allen said he believes the killer would appear, “neat, orderly, groomed and casually dressed.”

Neatness and organization would likely be apparent in his residence, as well.

As well, he may have a lengthy history of emotional, psychological or anti-social behaviour and may have been received counselling, treatment or been hospitalized.

Albeit, there is not a great deal of evidence before the court about the personality of Robert Steven Wright, but the evidence that I do have does not fit the personality traits described in this profile created by the Ontario Provincial Police (Exhibit 5, Tab 3).

[52] During the course of police investigations from 1998 to 2018, David Legitt confessed to the murder of Renee Sweeney to his mother, and then ultimately took his own life. John Fetterly was charged with the murder of Renee Sweeney with that charge being ultimately withdrawn when a more detailed fingerprint analysis was completed. Over 20 years the investigative path followed by the Greater Sudbury Police Services led to other suspects but it did not lead to Robert Steven Wright until late in 2018.

[53] Without the scientific evidence the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case would be described as weak in an analysis of the first test under the tertiary ground under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[54] The scientific evidence against the accused is that of DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence. A fair summary of the DNA evidence and how it came into existence is set out in the respondent’s factum, paragraph 12 to 27 inclusive, as follows:

12. An autopsy of Renee Sweeney’s body was performed on January 28th, 1998 by Dr. Kelly Uren. Fingernails from the left and right hands of Renee Sweeney were clipped and preserved as evidence.

13. As part of the investigation, a case review by the Centre of Forensic Sciences was undertaken in 2013. Three separate male DNA profiles were created: 1 male DNA profile from the fingernails of Renee Sweeney; 1 male DNA profile from the ‘High Sierra’ jacket that had been recovered; 1 male DNA profile from the white cotton glove found near the High Sierra jacket. The C.F.S. have concluded that the ‘strongest’ DNA profile results from the DNA found under Renee Sweeney’s fingernails. It is the opinion of the C.F.S. that the profile from the jacket is from a male relative of the donor of the DNA profile found under the victim’s fingernails. It is the opinion of the C.F.S. that the DNA profile derived from the jacket could be from a brother of the donor of the DNA found under Renee Sweeney’s fingernails. It is the opinion of the C.F.S. that the male DNA profile from the white glove is from a male relative to the donor of the DNA under Renee Sweeney’s fingernails. The C.F.S. concluded that the profile from the glove could belong to the father of the donor of the DNA found under Renee Sweeney’s fingernails. Both the jacket and the glove have Renee Sweeney’s blood on them.

14. In January 2017, the GSPS released an updated composite of the suspect to the public.

15. The composite was created by an independent DNA technology lab in the United States called Parabon Nanolabs.

16. Parabon specializes in “DNA phenotyping”, which is the process of predicting physical appearance and ancestry from unidentified DNA evidence.

17. Using DNA evidence taken from underneath the fingernails of Renee Sweeney, Parabon produced trait predictions for the suspect and created a composite of what the donor of the DNA found under Renee Sweeney’s fingernails would look like at 25 years of age. This composite was released to the public through the media.

18. In June of 2018, the Greater Sudbury Police Service was contacted by Parabon.

19. At this time Police were offered, and accepted, Parabon’s assistance in genetic genealogy (ancestry) testing of the suspect’s DNA profile.

20. Parabon was able to compare a sample of the DNA from under Renee Sweeney’s fingernails with information provided on public ancestry databases.

21. As a result of Parabon’s analysis and police investigation, it was concluded that a male offspring of Robert and Wendy Wright would fit in the ancestry relationship to the donor of the DNA found under Renee Sweeney’s fingernails.

22. DNA cast-off from Robert Wright Sr. and Wendy Wright was obtained by police and submitted to the C.F.S. for analysis.

23. On November 7th, 2018, police received a Report from the C.F.S. that Wendy Wright could not be excluded as the biological mother of the male DNA profile from the right hand fingernails of Renee Sweeney. As well, the C.F.S. concluded that Wendy Wright could not be excluded as the biological mother of the donor of the male DNA profile found on the left pocket of the High Sierra jacket. Wendy Wright was excluded as the biological mother of the donor of the male DNA profile found on the white, cotton glove.

24. The C.F.S. concluded that the male DNA profile created from the white, cotton glove belonged to Robert Wright Sr.

25. DNA cast-off was obtained from Christopher Wright. He is the biological brother of Robert Steven Wright and the biological son of Robert Wright Sr. and Wendy Wright. This cast-off was sent to the C.F.S. for analysis.

26. DNA cast-off was also obtained from Robert Steven Wright and sent to the C.F.S. for analysis.

27. On November 15th, 2018, the Greater Sudbury Police Service received a Report from the C.F.S. that indicated the following:

(i) The purpose of the examination was to determine whether the donor of discard samples, reportedly Robert Steven Wright and Chris Wright, could be excluded as the source of previously reported DNA profiles.

(a) The donor of the discard sample, reportedly Robert Steven Wright cannot be excluded as the source of the male DNA profile (Profile 2) from the right hand fingernails from Renee Sweeney.

The probability that a randomly selected individual unrelated to Robert Steven Wright would coincidentally share the observed STR DNA profile is estimated to be 1 in more than 1 trillion.

(b) The donor of the discard sample, reportedly Chris Wright cannot be excluded as the source of the male DNA profile (Profile 3) from the front left pocket of the High Sierra jacket from the path.

(c) The probability that a randomly selected individual unrelated to Chris Wright would coincidentally share the observed STR DNA profile is estimated to be 1 in more than 1 trillion.

(d) The donor of both discarded samples are excluded as the source of the male DNA profile (Profile 4) from the right glove from the path.

[55] Any possible defences raised by the defence must be taken into account by the court in assessing the apparent strength of the Crown’s case (see paragraph 59 of R. v. St-Cloud). Through the cross-examination of Detective Sergeant Weston the defence raised the issue of transference, contamination of the small samples of DNA taken and the degradation of the samples over the lengthy period of time of the investigation. Although no scientific evidence was provided to the court by viva voce evidence on this hearing, I must take into account the possible defences raised in my overall assessment of the strength of the prosecutor’s case at this stage in the proceeding.

[56] The other piece of scientific evidence that the Crown brings forward to point to the strength of its case against Robert Steven Wright is the fingerprint evidence. Fingerprint samples were taken at the cash area of the Adults Only Video Store, and in particular in the cash drawer portion and cash tray where the fingerprints were taken in the blood of the victim, Renee Sweeney. Photographs of the fingerprints were taken by the Greater Sudbury Police as part of their investigation. Over the course of time the actual fingerprints have evaporated, meaning that any expert analyzing fingerprints as late as 2018 or 2019 would be working from photographs of the fingerprints. Until the arrest of Robert Steven Wright the Greater Sudbury Police Services did not have the fingerprints of the accused. He had no criminal record. Upon his arrest the police obtained the fingerprints of Robert Steven Wright.

[57] The fingerprints of the accused were sent to Evolve Forensics for comparative analysis against the fingerprints found at the Adults Only Video Store. Evolve Forensics is a United States company located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Its principle is Alice White, who appears from her curriculum vitae to be an expert in latent print examination (Exhibit 1, Tab 5).

[58] The details of the Evolve Forensics analysis is set out in its report dated February 1, 2019 (Exhibit 1, Tab 5). That report concludes that the latent print R127 (the fingerprint on the inside of the cash tray in the blood of Renee Sweeney) is identified to the left thumb of Robert Steven Wright, and the latent print R46 (the outside portion of the cash drawer in the blood of Renee Sweeney) is identified to the right index finger of Robert Steven Wright.

[59] It is the Crown’s position that the aforementioned fingerprint analysis was verified by a second source, namely the Ontario Provincial Police through Jeffrey Myatt, who is a forensic identification officer/superior, with the Ontario Provincial Police. Mr. Myatt reached the same conclusions as Evolve Forensics (Exhibit 2, Tabs 2, 3 and 4).

[60] It is the Crown’s position that this expert fingerprint analysis evidence leads to the conclusion that the fingerprints in the blood of Ms. Sweeney are the fingerprints of the accused, thereby placing Mr. Wright at the murder scene.

[61] Defence counsel, Mr. Venturi, identified the potential for bias and preconceived views and the limitation of what is available for analysis, which had been described by one officer previous and not full enough and the difficulty with the fact that the fingerprints themselves no longer exist. These issues raised by the defence must be considered by the court in assessing the overall strength of the prosecutor’s case under the tertiary ground.

[62] In his submissions to the court, defence counsel, Mr. Venturi, described fingerprint analysis as a “soft science”. Based on past jurisprudence, I am reluctant to accept that view of fingerprint evidence. Courts in Canada have allowed fingerprint evidence since the early 20th century. I am unaware of any Canadian case where a court has excluded expert fingerprint analysis at the admissibility stage on the grounds that the science is unreliable. This is not a novel science by any stretch of the imagination subject to the admissibility of the evidence and the qualifications of the expert witness called upon to give an opinion on that evidence at trial. On a cursory view, without determining admissibility, the fingerprint evidence is strong evidence for the Crown that courts generally regard as highly reliable.

[63] In the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. St-Cloud, Justice Wagner provides helpful instruction to courts with respect to the approach to be taken with respect to scientific evidence in its assessment under the tertiary ground set out in section 515(10)(c)(i). At paragraph 58 in St-Cloud, Justice Wagner states,

Despite these difficulties inherent in the release process, the justice must determine the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case. On the one hand, the prosecutor is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, and the justice must be careful not to play the role of trial judge or jury: matters such as the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of scientific evidence must be analyzed at trial, not at the release hearing. However, the justice who presides at that hearing must consider the quality of the evidence tendered by the prosecutor in order to determine the weight to be given to this factor in his or her balancing exercise. For example, physical evidence may be more reliable than a mere statement made by a witness, and circumstantial evidence may be less reliable than direct evidence. The existence of ample evidence may also reinforce the apparent strength of the case. [Emphasis added.]

[64] The court, on an application for interim judicial release, must be careful not to play the role of trial judge. This means that the application judge should not assess the reliability of the scientific evidence at a bail hearing. Although, ultimately there may be flaws in the scientific evidence, at this stage I must take this evidence in its best light. Given that the fingerprint evidence is strong against Robert Steven Wright and places him at the Adults Only Video Store, in the very area where Ms. Sweeney’s body was found, and with his fingerprints in her blood on the cash box which contained money which was stolen from the store. With respect to DNA evidence, there is evidence of the accused’s DNA under the fingernails of Ms. Sweeney. This DNA evidence does not stand alone but is bolstered by the fact that the DNA of members of the accused’s family is found on the jacket (his brother) and on the gardening glove (his father) both containing the blood of Ms. Sweeney and both found close to the scene of the crime. This fact closes the circle on the DNA evidence and enhances the strength of the Crown’s case.

[65] In assessing the first factor to be considered in the overall assessment under section 515(10)(c)(i), namely, the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case, my view is that the Crown has a very strong case bordering on the overwhelming given the nature of the scientific evidence that it has assembled against the accused.

[66] The quality of any proposed surety and the nature of any release plan proposed by the accused must be considered by the court in the overall assessment as to whether the detention of the accused is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

[67] Mr. Wright proposes strict conditions of his release, the particulars are set out in the draft conditions of release at Tab 8 of the application record. What is being proposed essentially amounts to house arrest. Mr. Wright’s common-law spouse, Anna-Liisa Mottonen, is proposed as the sole surety pledging the amount of $130,000 without deposit. Mr. Wright would reside with Ms. Mottonen at 201 Labreche Drive in North Bay, Ontario. It is proposed that Mr. Wright report to the police once a week and not leave his residence except with Ms. Mottonen, and to report, consult with his legal counsel, for emergencies and for employment or education. The court is aware from the letter dated February 15, 2019 from North Bay Regional Health Centre that Mr. Wright will not be able to return to his employment there while this charge against him is pending. As stated in the last paragraph of that letter, “Given the nature of the charges and the notoriety of the issues, the North Bay Regional Health Centre is concerned about the reaction of our patients, their families and staff and physicians if Mr Wright returns to work prior to the disposition of the charges.” (Exhibit 2, Tab 5)

[68] Part of the proposal for release is that Robert Steven Wright be subject to electronic monitoring through Recovery Science Corporation, a firm which provides that service with direct reporting to the police. This service is not inexpensive at $540.00 per month, a cost which Ms. Mottonen testified that she will bear. As noted by Trotter J. in United States v. Khadr (2008), 234 C.C.C. (3d) 129, a monitoring device does not prevent an accused from absconding. It merely alerts the authorities if the accused flees. Similarly, a monitoring device does not prevent criminal activity by the accused, it simply alerts the authorities as to the whereabouts of the accused.

[69] As noted by Trotter J. in The Law of Bail in Canada, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters 2017) at page 6-37:

When electronic monitoring is requested or ordered, it is important to remember its proper function. The responsibility for enforcement of the conditions of release, including house arrest, still resides with the sureties. Electronic monitoring is merely a form of technology that may augment the powers of human supervision.

[70] As to the surety proposed, Anna-Liisa Mottonen, she cannot be described as an unimpressive person. Ms. Mottonen is 37 years of age. She has known Robert Steven Wright since 1997 and has lived with him since 2004. She resides in a three-bedroom semi-detached home located at 201 Labreche Drive, North Bay, Ontario. This home is in the name of Ms. Mottonen. Ms. Mottonen is employed at both Nipissing University and Canadore College. She is physically required to be at those institutions 15 to 18 hours a week for in-class teaching. She is at school no earlier than 8:30 a.m. and no later than 9:30 p.m. teaching classes that are between one hour and three hours in duration. With the permission of her employer, the rest of her work can be done at home.

[71] In 2018, Ms. Mottonen earned $70,000 in gross income. She has assets totaling $165,000, including equity in her home, RRSPs, a tax free savings account and a regular savings account. It is apparent from the evidence of Ms. Mottonen that if she pledged the amount proposed and there was a breach by Mr. Wright that it would devastate her financially.

[72] It is also apparent from the evidence of Ms. Mottonen that she understands the role and responsibilities of a surety and that she will do her best to ensure that Mr. Wright complies with the condition of his release.

[73] Two areas of the release plan proposed by the accused cause concern for the court. Firstly, the accused’s activities will not be monitored for some 15 to 18 hours a week when Ms. Mottonen is physically required to be at work. An alternate surety has not been proposed as part of the release plan. This second surety would be able to be with the accused while Ms. Mottonen is at work and away from the residence and could be a support to Ms. Mottonen in carrying out her duties and responsibilities. One surety who is romantically involved with the accused may be too little to give the public the confidence they require in applying the tertiary ground under section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[74] Secondly, there is the matter of the nature of the relationship between Ms. Mottonen, as proposed surety, and Robert Steven Wright. They have what she referred to as an “open relationship” where they are both allowed to pursue sexual relationships outside their own relationship without questions asked or details of the relationship being provided to the other. This being the case, there are simply parts about Mr. Wright’s activities and, in particular, his interactions and relationships with females, that Ms. Mottonen knows nothing about. By Ms. Mottonen’s evidence this has been the case for 10 years. This has caused difficulty between Ms. Mottonen and Mr. Wright in the past as evidenced by the presence of Brittany Olive in the life of Mr. Wright which caused such discord between Ms. Mottonen and Mr. Wright that the proposed surety assaulted Mr. Wright in the mall in North Bay, Ontario. This court is not providing commentary on “open relationships” between couples, but the fact is that this has caused the surety to be uninvolved in a large aspect of the accused’s life as it relates to his interaction with other women, and this arrangement has caused difficulties with their relationship in the past.

[75] The aforementioned matters cause the court concern with the plan of release proposed by the accused and whether it is sufficient to maintain the public’s confidence in the administration of justice if the accused is released from custody.

CONCLUSION

[76] In applying the tests under the tertiary ground of detention as set out in section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada, the public confidence in the administration of justice is measured against the thoughtful, reasonable and well-informed person, who Wagner J. described at paragraph 80 in St-Cloud as,

... [a] thoughtful person, not one who is prone to emotional reactions, whose knowledge of the circumstances of a case is inaccurate or who disagrees with our society’s fundamental values. But he or she is not a legal expert familiar with all the basic principles of the criminal justice system, the elements of criminal offences or the subtleties of criminal intent and of the defences that are available to accused persons.

[77] The decision of the court involves a balancing and weighing of the factors set out in section 515(10)(c), that is, the strength of the Crown’s case, the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and the fact that the accused, is liable on conviction, to a lengthy term of imprisonment. The analysis of these factors is an art rather than an exact science. As was stated by Allen J. in R. v. Mohammed, [2018] O.J. No. 6814, at paragraph 49,

Ultimately, the review court must balance the four factors and all the relevant contextual circumstances and decide at the end of the balancing exercise whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. It is a difficult exercise. There is no science or mathematical formula that can assist with this determination.

[78] None of the four factors to be considered under section 515(10)(c) are more important than the other. As noted at paragraph 31 of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. E.W.M., [2006] O.J. No. 3654,

No one factor is determinative. The four factors should be analyzed together, not separately. Consideration of their combined effect in the context of all the circumstances enables the court to determine whether it is necessary to deny bail in order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

[79] In balancing the factors to be considered, I have reached the conclusion that the Crown has a very strong, if not overwhelming case. The offence is a serious one. There is no offence more serious in the Criminal Code of Canada than the crime of first degree murder. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence involved a violent crime where the victim was stabbed perhaps up to 30 times. The term of imprisonment for this act, if the accused were convicted, would involve the most severe sentence that the Criminal Code of Canada can impose. I am satisfied that every factor to be considered under section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada leads to the conclusion that the detention of the accused is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. As Wagner J. stated at paragraph 88 in St-Cloud,

In conclusion, if the crime is serious or very violent, if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused and if the victims were vulnerable, pre-trial detention will usually be ordered.

[80] As noted by Moldaver J. in R. v. Oland, 2017 SCC 17, [2017] 1 SCR 250, at paragraph 37,

In assessing whether public confidence concerns support a pre-trial detention order under s. 515(10)(c), the seriousness of the crime plays an important role. The more serious the crime, the greater the risk that public confidence in the administration of justice will be undermined, if the accused is released on bail pending trial.

[81] I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the one surety proposed with the plan of release proposed will assist in maintaining the public’s confidence in the administration of justice if the accused were released from custody prior to trial.

[82] In my view, the accused, Robert Steven Wright, has not discharged his onus to show on a balance of probabilities, that his detention is not justified. On weighing and balancing the factors to be considered under section 515(10)(c), I have come to the conclusion that the detention of Robert Steven Wright is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. To do otherwise would render the factors set out in section 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada and the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. St-Cloud meaningless.

[83] Accordingly, the application of Robert Steven Wright, for interim judicial release is dismissed and he is detained in custody on the tertiary ground.

Gareau J.

Released: March 27, 2019

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – ROBERT STEVEN WRIGHT REASONS FOR DECISION ON JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE APPLICATION Gareau J. Released: March 27, 2019