ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-00000254-00BR

DATE: 20200721

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

RAYMOND BURKE

Christine Jenkins and Sandra Duffey, counsel for the Crown

Andrew Vaughan, counsel for the Accused

HEARD: July 17, 2020

M.A. CODE J.

PUBLICATION BAN PURSUANT TO S. 520(9) AND 517(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, EXCEPT FOR CIRCULATION TO OTHER COUNSEL OR FOR USE IN COURT OR BY THE COURT.

endorsement on a bail review

[1] This is an Application pursuant to s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review the decision of Bhabha J. of the Ontario Court of Justice on July 5, 2018, denying the Applicant bail. The Applicant Raymond Burke (hereinafter, Burke or the Applicant) is awaiting trial in this Court on a 12 count Indictment alleging a number of very serious offences. The charges relate to two separate incidents that both involve alleged kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats. The relevant events took place in September 1986 (in relation to the complainant N.M.) and in October 1986 (in relation to the complainant A.E.). The facts of the two cases are horrendous. They are summarized in Appendix “A” to the Reasons of Bhabha J., which I have attached to this Endorsement.

[2] It can be seen that it has taken some 34 years for this case to reach trial in this Court. The history of the matter is long and complex. It can be summarized as follows:

• Burke was arrested on the September 1986 charges relating to N.M. and was released on bail.  Shortly after the subsequent events and charges relating to A.E. occurred in October 1986, he absconded to the United States.  An arrest warrant was issued on December 18, 1986;
• Once Burke was in the United States, he obtained false American identification, assumed this false identity, and sold his one remaining asset in Canada (a large transport truck which he asked his brother to sell for him);
• On January 20, 1987, Burke kidnapped one D.B., robbed her, and assaulted her.  She managed to escape from his car and Burke was subsequently arrested and charged in Colorado.  On January 12, 1988, Burke was convicted of these three offences relating to D.B. and was sentenced to 52 years in prison.  Later that same year (1988), he was convicted of attempting to escape from a Colorado prison and he received a further three-year concurrent sentence;
• Burke was paroled in 2015, after serving 27 years of his 1988 sentence.  He was deported to Canada and arrived back in Toronto on October 26, 2015.  He was arrested at the airport on the still outstanding Canadian warrant.  He did not apply for bail.  The present proceedings on the 1986 charges then commenced;
• The two complainants were both located and they advised that they were committed to the prosecution.  They both testified at a preliminary inquiry and Burke was committed for trial.  The Indictment arrived in this Court on December 23, 2016 and a trial date was set for July 31, 2017.  On a pre-trial Motion, Thorburn J. (as she then was) stayed the charges on the basis of s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights, holding that Canada should have sought Burke’s extradition while he was serving his U.S. sentence.  On June 27, 2018, the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered the case back to trial in this Court, reasoning as follows:

“The delay from the time the charges were laid until the time the Respondent was returned to Canada was illegitimate defence delay. It was caused directly by the Respondent, whose actions were not taken to respond to the charges, but were intended to frustrate them.” See R. v. Burke (2018), 2018 ONCA 594, 47 C.R. (7th) 282 (O.C.A.).

• Burke had been out of custody for about 13 months, between May 17, 2017 and June 20, 2018, until the Court of Appeal released its Judgement, at which point he was re-arrested.  He had been living in modest circumstances, receiving welfare initially and then receiving Old Age Security upon turning 65 in 2018.  For most of this period, he was subject to certain conditions pursuant to a s. 810 peace bond.  The conditions included regular reporting to the police.  There were no breaches of these conditions and the peace bond expired after 12 months, shortly before the Court of Appeal decision;
• The Indictment has now been back before this Court for the past two years, that is, between June 2018 and July 2020.  During this period four separate trial dates have been scheduled, on February 11, 2019, on May 6, 2019, on July 8, 2019, and on January 6, 2020.  All four of these trial dates have been adjourned due to actions taken by the Applicant.  Four separate counsel have either been discharged or removed from the record between 2015 and 2019.  Present counsel, Mr. Vaughan, is Burke’s fifth counsel.  After the fourth trial date (January 6, 2020) had been vacated and adjourned, a fifth trial date of March 23, 2020 was set “with or without counsel”.  On January 13, 2020, Burke’s fourth counsel was removed from the record.  On the next appearance on January 20, 2020, amicus was appointed.  Mr. Vaughan then came on the record and conducted the pre-trial Motions before Kristjanson J. on February 6, 2020.  The Applicant’s lengthy statement to the police was admitted, after voluntariness was conceded, and various s. 276 rulings were made concerning the two complainants’ past sexual history (they were both sex trade workers at the time of the 1986 charges).  On March 23, 2020, the fifth trial date was adjourned due to the closure of the Court House during the Covid-19 pandemic.  I am told that the reason why Burke has either discharged his lawyers, or they have been removed from the record, is because of fundamental disagreements between solicitor and client about the conduct of the defence.

[3] I am satisfied that Burke has met his burden of establishing a “material change of circumstance” on the basis of “new evidence”. In my recent Reasons for Judgement in R. v. Gordon, 2020 ONSC 4071 at paras. 20-24, I set out my understanding of that standard of review, as explained in R. v. St. Cloud (2015), 2015 SCC 27, 321 C.C.C. (3d) 307 at paras. 129-139 (S.C.C.). I simply adopt that analysis for purposes of the present Application. The “material change in circumstance” in the present case is a combination of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on prisoners in the detention centres and the delay in Burke’s trial caused by the closure of the Court House. His new trial date has been set for March 29, 2021, which is exactly one year later than his most recent March 23, 2020 trial date, which was adjourned due to the pandemic. I am told that earlier trial dates were available, in particular for judge alone trials. However, Burke has elected trial by jury and Mr. Vaughan’s calendar also had to be accommodated.

[4] In light of the above “material change of circumstance”, Burke is entitled to a new bail hearing. In her thorough written Reasons, Bhabha J. detained Burke on both the primary and tertiary grounds. The Crown did not rely on the secondary ground, given that Burke has spent 32 of the last 33 years in custody and he committed no offences during the 13 months that he was at liberty in Toronto between 2017 and 2018.

[5] This is a reverse onus bail hearing, because Burke absconded while he was on bail on the September 1986 charges relating to N.M. See: s. 515(6)(a) of the Criminal Code. I acknowledge that there are substantial primary ground concerns in this case but I would weigh the various relevant factors somewhat differently than Bhabha J. In my view, Burke’s present age (67 years old), his recent performance in Toronto during 2017 and 2018 while the Crown appeal was pending, his lack of resources other than a modest Canadian pension, and the difficulties that he would likely now encounter if he tried to cross the border into the U.S.A., all combine to outweigh his lack of any strong current roots or family in Canada, his lack of a surety, and his past history of flight from Canada. On a narrow preponderance of probability, I am of the view that he has met his onus on the primary ground.

[6] It is the tertiary ground that raises the most serious concerns in this case. Once again, my understanding of the post-St. Cloud law relating to the tertiary ground was set out in my recent Reasons for Judgement in R. v. Gordon, supra at paras. 34-41 and 48. I simply adopt that analysis for purposes of the present Application. In my view, the most important factors in this case relating to the tertiary grounds are the following:

• First, the Crown’s case appears to be reasonably strong.  The two complainants gave detailed accounts of the relevant events at the preliminary inquiry, even after the passage of more than 30 years.  This is not surprising, given the shocking nature of those events.  More importantly, there is no live issue as to identity in the case because Burke gave his name to one of the complainants and gave his phone number to the other complainant.  In addition, he gave a lengthy detailed voluntary statement to the police admitting that he knew both complainants as sex trade workers and that he had sexual relations with both of them at the relevant times in September and October, 1986.  He offered explanations as to why they would fabricate their allegations and he also admitted and tried to explain some of the circumstances surrounding the two incidents.  In other words, the only real issue at trial will be the credibility of the two complainants’ separate accounts and whether their descriptions of violent abduction and rape have been fabricated.  Those accounts appear to be corroborated to some degree by their injuries, which are described and recorded in the contemporaneous nursing notes from the two “rape kits” and in photographs taken of A.E.’s injuries.  In addition, the Crown will make a similar fact evidence Application, which appears to be reasonably strong.  It will be heard at the end of the Crown’s case as there is no Application for severance of counts.  See:  R. v. Blacklaws (2013), 297 C.C.C. (3d) 305 (S.C.C.), affirming Finch C.J.B.C.’s dissent, (2012), 2012 BCCA 217, 285 C.C.C. (3d) 132 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Creary and Creary, 2019 ONSC 4843 at paras. 19-29.  In this regard, the two alleged abductions occurred in the same part of downtown Toronto, in the same time period, using the same car, using a generally similar modus operandi (confinement in a car while brandishing a knife and threatening death), targeting similar young sex trade workers, and culminating in somewhat similar violent sadomasochistic sex.  Finally, the Crown’s case is further strengthened by Burke’s flight to the U.S.A., after the October 1986 events relating to A.E., which is arguably incriminating post-offence conduct.  The main weakness in the case, to be relied on by the defence, is a “lost evidence” Application that will be argued at the end of the Crown’s case.  See:  R. v. Vu and La (1997), 1997 SCC 309, 116 C.C.C. (3d) 97 at paras. 27-8 (S.C.C.); R. v. Bero (2000), 2000 ONCA 16956, 151 C.C.C. (3d) 545 at para. 18 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Osman, 2020 ONSC 1830 at para. 2.  It would be unwise to attempt any definitive evaluation of this kind of constitutional defence at the stage of a bail review.  However, it appears that one contributing reason for the loss of evidence is that Burke absconded and became subject to a very lengthy U.S. sentence (he was not expected to be paroled until 2040).  It is also apparent that some secondary sources exist for some of the primary evidence that has been lost.  For all the above reasons, the Crown’s case appears to have “apparent strength”;
• Second, the circumstances surrounding the offences are horrific involving sadistic, prolonged, and repeated rapes and beatings of young vulnerable sex trade workers;
• Third, the fact that there are two incidents and the second incident (involving A.E.) occurred while Burke was on bail for the first incident (involving N.M.) is aggravating;
• Fourth, the fact that Burke admittedly absconded to the United States after the second incident, in order to avoid facing justice, is also aggravating;
• Fifth, the fact that Burke has repeatedly been the cause of delays in his own trial is also relevant to the tertiary ground issue, namely, whether a reasonable member of the public would lose confidence in the administration of justice if he was to now be granted bail;
• Sixth, Burke’s plan of release is weak.  He has no surety and, at present, he has no place to live.  He will look to community agencies and to his past experience when at liberty during 2017 and 2018, in order to help him find a rooming house or a bed at a shelter.  He will report to the Bail Program and/or to the police.  No one will be supervising him or taking responsibility for him;
• Seventh, the total amount of pre-trial custody that Burke will have served, by the time of his next trial date on March 29, 2021, is 51 months (or four years and three months).  This is equivalent to approximately six and a half years credit against any sentence that he will receive, if he is convicted at trial.  The sentence that he is likely to receive, if convicted at trial, would be substantially longer than six and a half years.  He was a 33-year-old mature adult in 1986.  He already had a significant criminal record including convictions for break and enter on four separate occasions (in 1970, 1972, 1977 and 1982), for robbery (in 1972), for attempted rape (in 1982), and for escape custody (in 1973 and 1983).  He had repeatedly received prison sentences of some length and he was twice recommitted to jail as a parole violator.  In other words, he was a seasoned recidivist who would likely receive a custodial sentence at the higher end of the appropriate range for these most serious kinds of sexual assaults and kidnappings.  His age is the only apparent mitigating circumstance;
• Eighth, Burke is now 67 years old and so he is at greater risk of contracting the coronavirus than those who are younger.  However, he is being kept in his own cell with his own sink, soap, and cleaning supplies in the Special Handling Unit (S.H.U.) at the South Detention Centre.  There are only four prisoners on this range, the guards wear masks and protective equipment, and any new prisoners are kept separately on an intake range for 14 days before being transferred into a range like the S.H.U.  There are no cases of Covid-19 on the S.H.U. range at present.  It appears that the risk of Burke contracting the virus in these circumstances is not greater, and may be less, than the risk he would encounter if granted bail pursuant to his somewhat risky release plan.

[7] Applying the above eight factors or considerations to the statutory test set out in s. 515(10)(c), as explained in R. v. St. Cloud, supra, I am satisfied that Burke has not met his onus. The first five factors set out above weigh strongly in favour of detention and the last three factors are all weak or neutral. If Burke was released on bail, a reasonable member of the public would lose confidence in the administration of justice.

[8] For all these Reasons, the bail review Application is dismissed.

M.A. Code J.

Released: July 21, 2020

R. v. Raymond Burke - Appendix "A" to the Reasons

September 1986: Allegations by N.M. (aka Caramel Holiday)

1. In 1986 N.M. was living in Toronto and working as a prostitute. During the month of September she was residing with her boyfriend/pimp in a motel. Her street name was "Caramel Holiday". She was 22 years old.

2. One Sunday night at the end of September 1986 Ms. M. was working on Carlton Street, on a comer where she regularly picked up clients. The Applicant pulled up in his Mercedes and Ms. M. approached him. She opened the passenger door and leaned in. She had never seen the Applicant before. He immediately brandished a knife in her face and directed her to get in the car. Ms. M. panicked and got in the passenger seat. The Applicant told Ms.

M. to put her legs under his, place her hand on the stick shift and put her purse in the backseat. She complied. The Applicant drove along Dundas Street. During the drive, he was aggressive and angry. He told Ms. M. that he wanted to dominate her and that she would have to submit to him. He talked about tying her up and whipping her. She remained agreeable in an effort to diffuse the situation and attempted to persuade him that he did not have to be aggressive with her. The Applicant held the knife to Ms. M.'s waist.

3. After driving about 15 minutes they arrived at the Applicant's apartment. He stopped the car, grabbed Ms. M.'s purse and opened his door. The Applicant held the knife to Ms. M. and guided her into the apartment. Once inside he walked her into the bedroom. He instructed her to take off her clothes and get on the bed. She complied and attempted to convince him not to hurt her. The Applicant was enraged because she would not cooperate or submit to violence. He took a different knife from a nearby drawer and lunged at her threatening to stab her in the eye.

4. After a period of time Ms. M. went in to use the bathroom while the Applicant stood outside. She dropped a bracelet on the floor thinking she may not make it out alive. He found the bracelet and suspected she was planting evidence. He made Ms. M. clean the bathroom.

5. After cleaning Ms. M. changed her tactic and became confrontational with the Applicant. She grabbed his arm and they began physically fighting. He grabbed her and threw her on

R. v. Raymond Burke - Appendix "A" to the Reasons

the sofa. He choked her to unconsciousness. Her next memory is waking up in the bathtub with the Applicant running a knife down her neck and chest area. He told her that he was going to drain the blood out of her body and then throw what's left of her in a garbage bag. He told her that no one saw him pick her up and she would not be missed.

6. The Applicant ordered Ms. M. out of the bathtub and told her to put her clothes, jewellery and purse into a garbage bag. She begged him to let her go and submitted to him. They left the apartment. The Applicant continued to brandish a knife. Ms. M. was covered in a towel. It was still dark outside and there was no one on the street. Once in the car she sat in the same passenger seat with the Applicant 's legs on hers. She attempted to persuade him to let her go. He told Ms. M. he was going to kill her.

7. The Applicant drove Ms. M. to a remote area. He stopped on a side road surrounded by fields. He vaginally raped Ms. M. in the car without a condom. Ms. M. continued her attempts to reason with the Applicant, he told her that he had to kill her because he wasn't going to jail. At some point he told her to take the knife he was holding because either she would have to kill him, or he would kill her. She refused to take it fearing he would overpower her. She also refused to get out of the car when he told her to. He anally raped her in the car.

8. After the second rape they remained in the car talking for a long time. She told the Applicant that they could be friends, and she talked about her children knowing he had a son. At some point he ordered her out of the car. She complied this time as she had given up hope. She had no clothes on and it was cold. It was dark except for the car headlights. She began walking in front of the car and then heard a shot being fired. She dropped to her knees and vomited. The applicant then approached her from behind holding a small gun in his hand. He told her to get back into the car.

9. Once in the car Ms. M. started talking to the Applicant again about forming a friendship together and meeting with their children. She told him what she thought he wanted to hear including that he was a good guy. He raped her again in the car. During this sexual assault

R. v. Raymond Burke - Appendix "A" to the Reasons

Ms. M. played along and acted as if she enjoyed it in hopes of convincing him to let her go. After several hours in the field it was starting to get light and they left the area.

10. En route back to the city, Ms. M. continued to convince the Applicant that she would not go to the police and he could trust her. He drove Ms. M. to her motel. He threw $100 in her purse and gave her his telephone number. They made plans to meet for lunch that day in a public place. After arriving back to the motel Ms. M. immediately went to the hospital with her boyfriend Roy Wilson. The police were called and the investigation commenced.

11. Ms. M. had a scrape from the knife on her throat and chest. She had bruising to her neck. She experienced genital pain for two weeks from being raped.

Transcript of Preliminary Hearing, December 5, 2016, Evidence of Nichole Murdock, Tab 28 Defence Application Record

September 18, 1986 : Arrest of Raymond Burke

12. The Applicant was arrested on September 18, 1986 and released on bail September 25, 1986 with his brother acting as surety. He failed to report to the bail unit on November 7, 21 and December 5, 1986. A warrant for his arrest was issued for failing to comply with his recognizance on May 5, 198-7. His brother applied for surety relief on May 5, 1987 advising that his brother was in custody at Grand Junction, Colorado. On May 15, 1987 a bench want was issued for his arrest when he failed to appear in court.

Recognizance of Bail, September 25, 1986, Tab 1, Crown Application Record

Surety Relief, May 5, 1987, Tab 2, Crown Application Record

Bench Warrant, May 15, 1987, Tab 3, Crown Application Record

Correspondence Toronto Police and Colorado, January 27, 1987, Tab 5 Crown Application Record

October 1986: Allegations by A.E.

13. In 1986 A.E. was living in Toronto and attending high school. She received student welfare and also worked as a prostitute. She had a pimp and lived with a girlfriend. She did not know N.M. Her working names were Barbie and Champagne. She was 17 years old.

R. v. Raymond Burke - Appendix "A" to the Reasons

14. Ms. E. had contact twice with the Applicant in October of 1986. On the first occasion he picked her up on the corner of Jarvis and Dundas Street where she worked. He was driving a Mercedes. He took her to a parking lot where they had sexual contact in exchange for money. He drove her back to the same area and dropped her off. She had no problem with the Applicant during this transaction.

15. On the second occasion the Applicant approached Ms. E. in the same car. He offered her money for sex and she got in. He headed straight for the highway. The Applicant told Ms. E. while driving that he wanted to dominate her and wanted free sex. Ms. E. got angry. He pulled off to the side of the road and produced a knife and threatened to kill her. Her clothes came off. The Applicant began to repeatedly whip Ms. E. with his leather belt on her back, legs and stomach. She begged him to stop. He sexually assaulted Ms. E. by digitally penetrating her, forced vaginal intercourse and fellatio. No condom was used.

16. After whipping and sexually assaulting Ms. E., the Applicant told her that he would have to kill her because of the marks he left on her body. He put his clothes back on. Ms. E. tried to persuade him that he should let her go and that she would not tell the police. The Applicant got back onto the highway and drove to a commercial parking lot where he transferred her into his 18 wheeler truck. He put her in the back sleeper area, tied Ms. E.'s hand and legs with her scarf and then zipped up the compartment. She could not see out of the truck and did not know where she was. The Applicant was debating out loud whether he had to kill her or not given the marks he left, and expressed concern about going to jail.

17. The Applicant drove for a while in the truck and then stopped. He went to the compartment where Ms. E. was. He wanted to have sex but Ms. E. convinced him she was tired. He slept while she stayed awake. She did not attempt an escape out of fear as she would have to climb over him to get out.

18. After the Applicant woke up he began driving the truck again. Ms. E. remained in the sleeper.It was light out. The Applicant stopped for food, got out of the truck and left

R. v. Raymond Burke - Appendix "A" to the Reasons

Ms. E. tied up. She was able to untie herself. When he returned he noticed and threatened to kill her again. He tied her back up. Both ate food and he drove off again at some point eventually going back to where he left his car. The Applicant transferred Ms. E. back into the car. He talked about dominating her again.

19. The Applicant then drove Ms. E.to a remote area with only fields and parked on a dirt road. He took her out of the cat and walked her to a tree. He used her scarf to tie her wrists to a tree branch with her arms over her head. There was no one around and no buildings or houses in sight. She was naked from the waist down. The Applicant began whipping her repeatedly with his belt all over her body for 5 – 10 minutes. He attempted to have sex with her while she was tied to the tree but could not and complained to her "this doesn't even do anything for me". He untied her and then made her perform oral sex on him in the field. He continued to make utterances about having to kill her because he left marks on her body.

20. After the oral sex the Applicant walked Ms. E. back to the car. As they were walking a pick-up truck approached the area. Ms. E. did not want Mr. Burke to harm the elderly driver, so she grabbed his hand and continued walking. They got back into the car. The Applicant drove Ms. E. back to the city.

21. The Applicant allowed Ms. E. to make a telephone call but her attempts failed. He became suspicious about her motive for the call and dragged her back to the car. He began driving again. He told Ms. E. that he planned to take her to a friend who would inject her with heroin, have sex with her and then take her to San Francisco and make her work for him on the street as a prostitute. He told Ms. E. that if she ever escaped he would flee to the United States.

22. As the Applicant was driving on the 401 highway Ms. E. decided the only way to save herself was to jump out of the car. She watched the speedometer and waited until the car was in the lane closest to the shoulder. She jumped out of the moving car. The Applicant

R. v. Raymond Burke Appendix "A" to the Reasons

held onto her by the sweater for a period of time but then let go. She rolled onto the gravel shoulder and ran in the opposite direction of traffic. The Applicant continued driving.

23. Ms. E. flagged down a truck and was taken to a restaurant. The police were contacted and the investigation commenced.

24, Ms. E. had large welts on her body from being whipped. She broke her ankle after jumping out of the car and suffered road rash to various parts of her body. She experienced pain for several weeks after this incident.

Transcript of Preliminary Hearing, December 8, 2016, Evidence of A.E., Tab 29

Defence Application Material

25. A Canada wide warrant for the Applicant's arrest was issued on October 28, 1986. Prior to being arrested for these charges the Applicant fled the country to the United States.

Canada Wide Warrant, October.28, 1986, Tab 4, Crown Application Record

January 1987

26. On January 16, 1987 the Applicant was arrested in Grand Junction, Colorado under the false name of Darryl Jones. The police in Colorado suspected that the Applicant was in fact Raymond Burke and contacted the Toronto Police. Information was exchanged between the two police forces ultimately leading to the true identity of the Applicant. On January 12, 1988 he was found guilty after a jury trial in Mesa County District Court of third degree assault, second degree kidnapping, aggravated robbery and mandatory sentencing for crime of violence against a woman he had never met. He was sentenced to consecutive terms totalling 52 years.

Correspondence TPS/Colorado Police, Jan27, 1987 , Tab 5, Crown Application Record

Affidavit Detective Katherine Stephenson, Tab 6, Crown Application Record Judgement People v Raymond Burke, October 26, 1993 Tab 7, Crown Application Record

2000 Contact

R. v. Raymond Burke - Appendix "A" to the Reasons

27. In July of 2000 the Toronto Police International Assistance Unit reviewed the outstanding Canada Wide Warrant on CPIC in relation to the English charges. PC Harras called and spoke with a representative of the United States Department of Justice, Office of International Affairs in Washington D.C. and was provided the following information:

• The Applicant was in-custody as of January 28, 1988.

• He was still in custody

• He was in custody on charges of kidnapping and sexual assault.

• His earliest parole is May of 2013 although not likely to be granted early parole. His next possible release date for good behaviour would be March 29, 2040 (age 87).

Internal Correspondence TPS, July 11, 2000 Tab 8 Crown Application Record

28. As a result of this information the International Assistance Unit requested that the Canada Wide Warrant remain active on CPIC.

Internal Correspondence TPS, July 11, 2000 Tab 8 Crown Application Record

Affidavit Detective Katherine Stephenson, Tab 6, Crown Application Record

October 12, 2005

29. On October 12, 2005 the charges involving N.M. were withdrawn as part of a "withdrawal list."

Transcript, October 12, 2005, Tab 9, Crown Application Record

August 2015

30. On August 31, 2015 Officer Katherine Stephenson was contacted by the RCMP regarding the Applicant's release from prison in Colorado. In light of the outstanding warrant in relation to A.E. she made arrangements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Toronto Fugitive Squad to have him returned to Canada and arrested for the outstanding warrant. She became the lead investigator on this case.

Affidavit Detective Katherine Stephenson, Tab 6, Crown Application Record

October 26, 2015

R. v. Raymond Burke - Appendix "A" to the Reasons

31. Mr. Burke is returned to Toronto and arrested for the charges relating to A.E.

Affidavit of Detective Katherine Stephenson, Tab 6, Crown Application Record

February 2016 - July 2016

32. In February of 2016 Caramel Holiday is identified as Nichole Murdock and located by the Toronto Police. On May 11, 2016 Nichole Murdock is interviewed by the Toronto Police. A replacement information was placed before the court adding charges relating to Ms. M on July 29, 2016.

Information, Tab 1 Defence Application Record

Affidavit of Detective Katherine Stephenson, Tab 6, Crown Application Record

The Preliminary Inquiry

33. The preliminary hearing was set for 7 days scheduled to commence on September 12, 2016. Defence counsel applied to be removed from the record, which was granted. This preliminary inquiry was adjourned to December 5, 2016. The Applicant was committed to stand trial on December 8, 2016 .

Information, Tab 1 Defence Application Record

Superior Court

34. The Applicant first appeared in Superior Court on December 23, 2016. On January 5, 2017 a judicial pre-trial was conducted and a trial set for 3 weeks commencing on July 31, 2017.

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-00000254-00BR

DATE: 20200721

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

- and -

RAYMOND BURKE

ENDORSEMENT ON A BAIL REVIEW

M.A. Code J.

Released: July 21, 2020