Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CR-17-338 Date: May 22, 2019

Ontario

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Tim McCann for Her Majesty the Queen

- and -

ALBERT TREMBLAY AMANDA RUDDY

Cedric Nahum for the Accused Tremblay Mellington Godoy for the Accused Ruddy

Accused

HEARD: March 22, 2019

RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF PURPORTED PRESCRIPTIONS

1The two documents purporting to be prescriptions prepared by Dr. Baxter and faxed from Dr. Baxter’s office to Mr. Godoy’s office are to be marked as a numbered exhibit so that they are part of the evidence in this case.

2These documents were introduced by Mr. Nahum and shown to Kathleen Deschambeault, one of four secretaries employed by Dr. Baxter, during the course of her cross-examination by Mr. Nahum on behalf of Albert Tremblay. Mr. Nahum indicated to the witness that they were copies of prescriptions that had been faxed from Dr. Baxter’s office to Mr. Godoy, the lawyer for the co-accused, Amanda Ruddy. The questioning assumed the authenticity of the documents. Crown counsel did not challenge their authenticity and did not object to Mr. Nahum asking the witness questions about the documents without them having been formally proven to be copies of prescriptions written by Dr. Baxter.

3The witness, as a 20 year employee in Dr. Baxter’s office who testified that her duties included handling numerous prescriptions on a daily basis, would have been qualified and able to identify whether or not the documents were copies of prescriptions written by Dr. Baxter, but she was not asked this specific question by anyone.

4Mr. Nahum asked Ms. Deschambeault about the presence of the phrase, “Fill Today” and the style of writing on the documents. Ms. Deschambeault pointed to certain characteristics of the writing that she said were consistent with Dr. Baxter’s handwriting. Ms. Deschambeault noted the presence of a fax stamp which she said was placed on all prescriptions faxed from Dr. Baxter’s office. In the course of answering Mr. Nahum’s questions, Ms. Deschambeault appeared to accept that the documents were as they had been represented to be.

5Mr. Godoy’s suggestion that the documents needed to be authenticated by way of an affidavit from a secretary in his office or from Dr. Baxter before becoming exhibits is not persuasive, especially considering that Ms. Deschambeault was sitting in the witness box when he made that comment.

6I do not agree with either of the defence submissions that the documents should not be exhibits because they have not been authenticated or alternatively that they should be marked as alphabetic exhibits for identification purposes only.

7It would be difficult to fully appreciate and assess the evidence of Ms. Deschambeault without being able to look at the documents she was commenting on when she gave her testimony and therefore they are to be marked as evidence exhibits for that limited purpose.