COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-15014

DATE: 20210316

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

ADAM STRONG

Defendant

Jinwon Kim and Bryan Guertin, for the Crown

Tom Balka and Justin Guile, for the Defendant

HEARD: September 28, 29, 30, October 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, November 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, December 4, 8, 21, 22, 23, 2020

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DI LUCA J.:

[1] Rori Hache was a young, troubled teen, who struggled with drug addiction and related issues. She was loved by her family, who did the best they could to support her through her troubles. She was last seen alive on August 30, 2017. Days later, on September 11, 2017, her dismembered and disembowelled torso was found in Lake Ontario. Despite an extensive police investigation, police were unable to identify a suspect.

[2] Kandis Fitzpatrick was also a young, troubled teen, who struggled with drug addiction and related issues. She was last seen alive in the spring of 2008, though she was not reported missing until some time later. She too was loved by her family. Her father, William Fitzpatrick, dedicated himself to finding her after she went missing. Despite his efforts, her body has never been found.

[3] On December 29, 2017, plumbers were called to the residence at 19 McMillan Drive in Oshawa by the upstairs tenants who noted that the drains were not functioning. At the time, the defendant, Adam Strong, was living in the basement apartment of the residence. As the plumbers were working on unclogging the drains, they began pulling up strips of what appeared to be flesh. They could not tell whether it was human or animal, and they eventually called the police.

[4] Shortly after the police arrived, they spoke to Mr. Strong to see if they could determine what was clogging the drain. To their complete surprise, Mr. Strong admitted it was a body. Based on this admission, Mr. Strong was arrested for murder. During a subsequent search of the residence, Ms. Hache’s head, pelvis and limbs were found in a chest freezer inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom. Most of her body parts had been de-fleshed. No internal organs were found.

[5] An extensive police investigation ensued, and a large amount of forensic evidence was seized from Mr. Strong’s apartment. One of the seized items was a “Wyoming” knife. It was found in a kitchen drawer along with various other items. When the knife was examined at the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS), “tissue-like” material was observed on the blades. Forensic testing on the tissue-like material revealed a DNA profile for Ms. Fitzpatrick.

[6] The chest freezer, which contained Ms. Hache’s body parts, was also tested. DNA profiles for both Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick were found on blood stains located inside the chest freezer.

[7] Mr. Strong is charged with the first degree murder of both Kandis Fitzpatrick and Rori Hache. The Crown alleges that Mr. Strong unlawfully confined and/or sexually assaulted Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache and then killed them. The Crown further alleges Mr. Strong dismembered and disposed of their bodies in order to cover up his crimes.

[8] Mr. Strong was tried before me without a jury. As is his right, he did not testify or call any evidence. While he acknowledges that the Crown has proven he dismembered both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache, his position is that the Crown has failed to prove that he murdered either one.[^1]

[9] In what follows, I will review the fundamental legal principles that guide all criminal trials. I will then review the evidence that is relevant to the live issues. I will also review the applicable legal principles for the offence of first degree murder and for the various legal issues present in this case. I will then provide my reasons on the Crown’s count-on-count similar act application.[^2] Lastly, I will assess the evidence in accordance with the applicable legal principles and set out my findings and conclusions.

FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

[10] Mr. Strong is presumed innocent of both charges on the indictment. The presumption of innocence is of fundamental importance in the criminal justice system, as it serves to place the burden of proof squarely on the Crown and also serves to protect against wrongful conviction.

[11] The presumption of innocence stays with Mr. Strong throughout the trial and is only displaced if I am satisfied that the Crown has proven each charge, or an offence included in each charge, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown has the sole obligation or burden of proving each charge against Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong has no obligation to prove anything or even to testify.

[12] The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is also of fundamental importance in the criminal justice system. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high legal standard. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

[13] Proof of likely or even probable guilt is not enough to sustain a criminal conviction. Conversely, proof to a level of absolute certainty is also not required as that standard is impossibly high. In order to convict Mr. Strong of an offence, I must be sure that he committed the offence. If I am not sure, I must acquit him of that offence.

THE EVIDENCE

Rori Hache’s Disappearance

[14] In late summer of 2017, Ms. Hache was 18 years of age. She was approximately 5’ 3” tall with a slender build. She had been going through significant personal challenges and was addicted to drugs, particularly crystal methamphetamine. While Ms. Hache was ordinarily a sweet and kind person, her drug use made her violent and angry at times. She would act impulsively and destructively.

[15] Around Christmas of 2016, Ms. Hache re-kindled a relationship with her aunt, Michelle Guindon. Ms. Guindon saw Ms. Hache on a regular basis throughout 2017, including a number of occasions immediately prior to Ms. Hache’s disappearance. Ms. Guindon spent time talking to Ms. Hache, got her lunch and gave her items that she needed. On one occasion in August 2017, they went to a dollar store to get a pregnancy test as Ms. Hache had indicated that she might be pregnant. Ms. Hache performed the test in the bathroom but would not tell her aunt the results.

[16] Ms. Guindon learned that Ms. Hache was involved in the sex trade. She had observed Ms. Hache wearing certain clothing and walking in an area of Oshawa frequented by sex workers.

[17] Ms. Guindon last saw Ms. Hache on August 29, 2017. On that occasion, Ms. Hache stayed with Ms. Guindon for a while, took a nap on a blanket outside in the sun and then “went skipping off down the middle of street.” She appeared happy, despite her troubles.

[18] Ms. Guindon had plans to meet with Ms. Hache on the Labour Day long weekend, but Ms. Hache never turned up. Ms. Guindon went to look for her at various places, including an apartment on Division Street where Ms. Hache had recently moved, but did not find her.

[19] Alexis Smid is the Director of Social Services at The Refuge, a drop-in centre for youth who are experiencing homelessness.She met Ms. Hache in February of 2017, when Ms. Hache started attending the centre for meals and related support. Ms. Smid and her co-workers assisted Ms. Hache with locating accommodation, and they eventually connected her with an apartment on Division Street. Ms. Hache’s money was administered through a trusteeship and she continued to attend at The Refuge throughout the summer of 2017.

[20] During the summer, Ms. Smid observed Ms. Hache’s condition deteriorate. She was openly using drugs. She had a large wound on the top of her hand, she had chopped off her hair in a haphazard fashion, and she would often laugh inappropriately. On August 10, 2017, Ms. Smid called paramedics when she observed Ms. Hache acting in a bizarre fashion. However, during later attendances in August of 2017, Ms. Hache’s condition appeared to be improving. She was “clearer” and “more engaged.”

[21] In late August 2017, Ms. Smid and her co-workers organized a paintball trip for the shelter youth. Ms. Hache attended the trip and appeared in good spirits, though she continued to laugh inappropriately and speak to herself. Ms. Smid again noted that Ms. Hache had a wound on the top of her hand, though she noted no other injuries.

[22] Ms. Hache advised Ms. Smid that she had been “camping” by the Oshawa Creek, an area frequented by homeless youth who had set up makeshift shelters. This evidence was confirmed by Ms. Taylor, a friend of Ms. Hache, who recalled being in a tent with Ms. Hache and others down at the Oshawa Creek in the summer of 2017. She further recalled that the group had been smoking meth and Ms. Hache was “rocking back and forth.” Approximately a week later, Ms. Taylor ran into Ms. Hache outside a Tim Hortons. Ms. Hache asked “Are you good?”, which Ms. Taylor understood as a drug-related request.

[23] Andy Taylor was a youth housing worker at The Refuge. He worked with Ms. Hache and helped her obtain and keep housing, including her last apartment on Division Street which he arranged through a connection he had with the landlord.

[24] When he initially met Ms. Hache, she was very outgoing. However, she then started using drugs and became withdrawn. Mr. Taylor knew that Ms. Hache was using various drugs, including crystal meth, fentanyl, heroin and marijuana. He also observed drug paraphernalia at her residence. In early August 2017, he gave Ms. Hache a pair of red running shoes as he observed that she had no shoes on. He noted that towards the end of August 2017, Ms. Hache’s condition was improving and she was more like her “old self.”

[25] Mr. Taylor was present for the paintball trip on August 29, 2017, and was happy when he saw that Ms. Hache attended. He noted she was happy and engaged. He also noted a scab on her forehead. He never saw her again after the paintball trip.

[26] While Mr. Taylor was not directly involved with managing Ms. Hache’s finances, he was aware that she would regularly attend at The Refuge on the 1st and 15th of each month to get money. She did not attend on September 1, 2017.

[27] Constable Christopher Kane is a uniformed member of the Durham Regional Police Service, who regularly patrolled the downtown core of Oshawa. He met Ms. Hache when he responded to an unrelated incident, and thereafter ran into her again on a number of occasions. In the months leading up to August 2017, he saw her wandering outside in the early morning hours on a number of occasions.

[28] On August 28, 2017, Cst. Kane saw Ms. Hache on a street corner swinging childlike around a crosswalk pole. Her appearance was concerning so he stopped to talk with her. He noted that her hair was chopped, similar to when a child cuts his or her own hair. He observed a swollen purple circle on the back of her hand, though he observed no other injuries. Ms. Hache admitted using marijuana, cocaine and crystal meth, though she stated that she had not used meth in a week. When he asked her where she was getting money for drugs she explained that she would go on “dates”, which Cst. Kane understood as a reference to the sex trade. She further indicated that her hand had been injured in a “mugging.” Lastly, when he asked her where she was staying, she indicated that she had an apartment on Division Street but was not staying there as the apartment was dirty and she did not like the people there.

[29] As a result of his interactions with Ms. Hache, Cst. Kane was concerned for Ms. Hache’s well-being. He discussed the matter with his superiors and prepared a report that was then submitted in support of a request for housing. On August 29, 2017, Cst. Kane learned that Ms. Hache had been accepted into a housing program and he started looking for her that afternoon in order to give her the good news. He could not find her and never saw her again.

[30] Ms. Beatrice Jornes-Reeves met Ms. Hache when her daughter Eva brought Ms. Hache over to their residence. Ms. Hache was in distress and asked to be taken to the hospital. Ms. Jornes-Reeves agreed and she and her daughter brought Ms. Hache to Lakeridge Health Hospital in Oshawa. Once at the triage desk, Ms. Jornes-Reeves heard Ms. Hache tell the triage nurse that her face “was distorted.” A video compilation taken from the security cameras at the hospital shows this attendance on August 30, 2017, starting at approximately 8:27 p.m. Triage notes taken by the nurse who saw Ms. Hache at the hospital reveal that Ms. Hache was “acting bizarre” and was looking for a prescription. Ms. Hache was triaged as “less urgent” and she left the hospital before being seen by a doctor.

[31] Ms. Hache’s departure from the hospital on August 30, 2017 at approximately 9:11 p.m. is the last time any witness saw her alive.[^3]

Kandis Fitzpatrick’s Disappearance

[32] At the time of her disappearance in 2008, Ms. Fitzpatrick was 19 years of age. Her father, William Fitzpatrick, explained that in 2006 following his divorce from Ms. Fitzpatrick’s mother, he moved out to Alberta for work, though Ms. Fitzpatrick remained in Ontario. By September of 2006, Ms. Fitzpatrick had gone missing and he returned from Alberta to find her. Eventually he located her and learned that she was living with some friends. She expressed a desire to live independently and Mr. Fitzpatrick asked her to keep in touch every few weeks so he would know she was okay.

[33] By 2008, Mr. Fitzpatrick was back in Ontario living in a house with his three other children. Ms. Fitzpatrick moved back in early February 2008. She stayed at the residence until the Easter weekend of 2008 and then left. She was never seen again by her family. There was no fight or conflict that precipitated her departure, though Ms. Fitzpatrick was upset that her mother had moved from Ontario to the United States.

[34] It appears that during this time frame, Ms. Fitzpatrick was going through significant personal troubles. A friend, Ms. Tia MacPherson, testified that she would see Ms. Fitzpatrick three to four times a week at various drug houses and coffee shops. She would also see her at The Refuge. Ms. MacPherson would use drugs with Ms. Fitzpatrick, including crack cocaine and drugs taken with intravenous needles. She also knew Ms. Fitzpatrick to be a sex trade worker. Another friend, Jimmy Lee Dempsey, provided a similar account. He explained that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s drug of choice was crack cocaine and that she was engaged in the sex trade to fund her habit. Mr. Dempsey knew that Ms. Fitzpatrick would stay in various accommodations and sometimes would disappear for long periods of time. When she last disappeared, he assumed she had managed to get herself sorted out and had moved on.

[35] Mr. Fitzpatrick conducted an extensive search for his daughter, attending locations from Peterborough to Hamilton and many points in between. He and his other daughter Oksana started a Facebook page aimed at locating Kandis. The Facebook page had 1,200 members. Despite his extensive efforts, Mr. Fitzpatrick never located Kandis.

[36] Police conducted a number of database inquiries to determine Ms. Fitzpatrick’s whereabouts. No records of Ms. Fitzpatrick obtaining a driver’s licence or passport were found, and none of the five major Canadian banks had any record of a bank account in her name. Social service records in Ontario provided a last date of contact in 2007. No other provinces or territories reported social service records for Ms. Fitzpatrick. Medical records in Ontario revealed a last date of service provided on March 20, 2008. No other province or territory reported any medical service being provided to Ms. Fitzpatrick.

[37] Ms. Fitzpatrick spoke to Durham Regional Police officers on a number of occasions in 2008. The last known police contact for Ms. Fitzpatrick occurred on June 15, 2008.

The Discovery of Ms. Hache’s Torso

[38] The Oshawa Harbour is located where the Oshawa Creek empties into Lake Ontario. The mouth of the harbour is framed by a pier on each side. The west side pier is a public pier regularly frequented by people out for walks or fishing.

[39] On September 11, 2017, a number of individuals were fishing on the pier when they noticed something bobbing in the water. It looked like a turkey or chicken carcass of some sort. One of the fishers snagged the item and brought it closer to shore where a net was used to pull the item up onto the pier.

[40] Once the item was taken out of the water, it became evident that it was a female human torso. The torso was split at the centre line of the rib cage. There were no internal organs and no appendages. Police were called and the torso was seized for forensic examination.

Events Leading up to Adam Strong’s Arrest – December 29, 2017

[41] Mr. Strong’s arrest was a happenstance event precipitated by a clogged drain at 19 McMillan Drive. As it turns out, the drain was clogged because Mr. Strong was flushing strips of skin and flesh removed from Ms. Hache’s body down the toilet.

[42] The home at 19 McMillan Drive is a rental property comprised of two units. While the house was initially built and used as a single-family dwelling, it was eventually divided into two separate units with a drywall partition blocking off the original passageway between the upstairs unit and the downstairs unit. The upstairs unit was accessed through the front door of the house and the basement unit was accessed through the side door of the house.

[43] Mr. Strong lived in the basement unit. He moved in during November of 2007. While Mr. Strong mainly lived at the apartment alone, he did have girlfriends stay with him for periods of time. He also let friends who were in need of a place to sleep stay over on occasion. Sandra Giordano and her partner stayed with Mr. Strong for approximately one month, ending September 1, 2017. Anne Boyd and her partner Jason Boyd stayed over for three to four days in late October 2017. The Boyds also left their dogs and some of their belongings in Mr. Strong’s residence. Mr. Strong had other friends come over to visit and often held get-togethers in the backyard of the residence. These friends included Claudio Valvona, Joan Schoales, and “Evangelos” and “Darlene”, among others.

[44] David Wood was one of the tenants in the upstairs unit at 19 McMillan Drive. He and his family moved in at the beginning of December 2017. While he met Mr. Strong on a couple of occasions, they did not have a lot of interaction.

[45] On Christmas Eve of 2017, Mr. Wood had plans to travel to his daughter’s home in Newcastle and stay a few days. He and his wife ran into Mr. Strong outside as they were leaving, and they gave him some cookies as a kind gesture.

[46] On Christmas Day, they exchanged some text messages and Mr. Strong asked to borrow a plumber’s snake, advising that the drains were clogged and that he would try to deal with it. A few days later, further texts were exchanged. By this time, the sewer had backed up into the home and was causing a bad smell. Mr. Wood asked if someone had been called to deal with it, and Mr. Strong replied that he was dealing with it. Mr. Strong asked Mr. Wood again about a plumber’s snake, and then indicated that he would ask the landlord for one or go and rent one. Mr. Strong also advised that he had plugged the drain using an inflated condom and a weight. Lastly, Mr. Strong told Mr. Wood that “a piece of mesh” came up from the drain and he apologized for the inconvenience and smell.

[47] Mr. Strong contacted his landlord and asked her if she had a plumber’s snake. She gave Mr. Strong money to buy one. Mr. Wood offered to drive Mr. Strong to buy it, but Mr. Strong suggested he would ride his bicycle instead. Mr. Wood also offered to help Mr. Strong snake the drain, but Mr. Strong declined suggesting that there was only room for one person where the drain was located. Eventually, it became clear that Mr. Strong was not able to clear the drain on his own.

[48] Professional plumbers were called, and they attended on December 29, 2017. Sean Farndon was the first plumber on scene. He went to the basement apartment and noted that the toilet had been removed from the floor. Mr. Strong told him that he had tried to snake the drain but was not successful in clearing it.

[49] Mr. Farndon noted that the apartment was a mess and smelled very bad, beyond what a drain would ordinarily smell like. Mr. Farndon tried to snake the toilet drain but was unsuccessful. He then moved on to the kitchen drain where he started to pull out a “stringy-type substance” as well as black sludge. By this time, he had been joined by a second plumber, Jeremiah Wildeboer.

[50] Both Mr. Farndon and Mr. Wildeboer noted that Mr. Strong appeared anxious, was walking all over the place and hovering over their shoulders. As the plumbers were pulling material out of the drain, Mr. Strong was making comments along the lines of “oh that’s vile” and “what is that?” At a certain point, Mr. Wildeboer asked Mr. Strong to back up and give them space to work.

[51] The plumbers removed more material from the bathroom located in Mr. Wood’s upstairs apartment. Mr. Wildeboer noted that the material was in two-inch wide strips, was pink and had hair on it. They put all the material in a plastic bag. Despite working on the drain from approximately 3:00 p.m. until 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., they were unable to clear the blockage.

[52] The plumbers were concerned about the material they pulled from the drain, so they took a photo and sent it to their boss. A decision was then made to call the police and report the discovery.

[53] The plumbers called police at approximately 7:18 p.m. They advised that they had pulled up ten to fifteen pounds of material that appeared to be flesh of some unspecified type. Officers were dispatched to investigate.

[54] Cst. Kevin Park arrived at 19 McMillan Drive shortly after 8:00 p.m. He was joined by three other officers. They met with the plumbers who were outside the residence and looked at the bag containing the material that had been pulled from the drain. The police were not sure what the material was, though it appeared to be flesh of some sort. They decided to knock on the door to the basement apartment and ask the tenant about the material.

[55] When the police knocked on the door, Mr. Strong answered. He stepped outside and joined the officers present. Mr. Strong was asked if he had been flushing anything down the drain and he replied, “ok, you got me, the gig is up, it’s a body.” When he said this, he had his head down and his demeanour appeared “defeated.”

[56] Mr. Strong was placed under arrest for murder, handcuffed and walked over to the police cruiser that was parked on the road a few metres away. Mr. Strong told Cst. Park, the arresting officer, that he “wanted to spill the beans”, and he also thanked the officer for being a “gentleman.”

[57] As Cst. Park was entering data on his mobile computer terminal, Mr. Strong stated “if you want to recover the rest of her, she is in my freezer, she is mainly de-fleshed.” Mr. Strong was then taken to the nearest police division for processing. While in the sally port of the police station, he stated, “I considered suicide and I knew it was done. I knew the plumbers were going to pull parts of her up.”

[58] Once at the police station, Mr. Strong was advised that he was only being charged with indignity to a body but that a murder charge remained a possibility. Following consultation with counsel, Mr. Strong was interviewed by Det. Hermano Dorego and Det. Darren Short.

The First Police Interview – December 30, 2017

[59] Mr. Strong’s first interview lasted approximately three hours, from 1:17 a.m. to 4:20 a.m. Mr. Strong made no substantive admissions during this interview and generally declined to talk about anything related to Ms. Hache’s death. He did however openly talk about a wide range of unrelated topics including his interests and hobbies, former girlfriends, his social network and activities, previous forms of employment, religion, etc. Mr. Strong told the police that he does not associate with drug addicts as they are untrustworthy and would “steal the fillings outta your teeth…” He denied engaging any sex service providers.

[60] During the interview, Det. Short asked Mr. Strong, “Is there other girls out there that we should be aware about, that are missing?” and Mr. Strong replied, “No.” Moments later, as Det. Dorego told Mr. Strong that the police just want the truth “not lies, not exaggerations”, Mr. Strong replied, “I haven’t lied to you once.”

[61] Mr. Strong was shown a number of photos of Ms. Hache, including a photo of her torso as it appeared once it was pulled from Lake Ontario. Initially, he stated that he did not want to see the photos. When he was shown a photo of her prior to her death, he commented that she is a “beautiful young woman.” When the officer noted that Mr. Strong stared at the photo, he corrected the officer and said “Glanced. Did not stare.” He asked not to see the more disturbing photos, and later in the interview when the officer asked whether the photos were bothering him, Mr. Strong said, “I dunno. I’m kind of over it.”

The Initial Search of 19 McMillan Drive

[62] Following Mr. Strong’s arrest for murder, the police entered Mr. Strong’s apartment and opened a chest freezer located in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. The chest freezer was located in a corner of the room and had a number of items placed in front of it. Inside the chest freezer, police observed a dead raccoon and some human remains.

[63] The search of the residence was stopped at that time because police learned that Mr. Strong had a homemade pipe bomb in his bedroom. Complex efforts were undertaken to safely dispose of the pipe bomb before police were able to continue their search. These efforts included moving items in order to clear a pathway to the explosive device, and then rigging a pulley system to allow for the extrication of the device with a robot.

[64] The explosive device was found in a cubby storage unit in the bedroom near a number of sex toys. Items in the cubby had to be moved in order to gain access to the explosive device. It is not entirely clear which items were moved and where they were moved to. One such item is a pink cloth or rag that can be initially seen next to a black rubber penis, but in later photos is no longer visible.

[65] Once the search of the residence resumed, the police were able to examine the contents of the chest freezer. They found the following:

a. A black garbage bag containing a dead raccoon;

b. A black garbage bag with two human arms and two femurs. The arms are de-fleshed up to the wrists. The hands on each arm are intact with nail polish visible on the fingernails. The femurs are entirely de-fleshed;

c. A black garbage bag with two lower legs and feet. The lower leg bones are de-fleshed. The feet are intact from the ankle line downwards. Nail polish is visible on the toenails;

d. A black garbage bag containing an entirely de-fleshed pelvis; and,

e. A black garbage bag containing a head with a visible tattoo of the word “alive” behind one ear.

[66] The police also seized the bag of flesh that had been retrieved by the plumbers, as well as buckets of flesh strips that were located outside the residence near a boat belonging to Mr. Strong.

[67] The human remains were transported for a post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Andrew Williams. It is admitted that the human remains discovered in the drain, chest freezer and buckets at 19 McMillan Drive, were those of Ms. Hache.

The Continued Search and Forensic Examination of 19 McMillan Drive

[68] The search and forensic examination of Mr. Strong’s apartment took many days. Initially the search was complicated by the discovery of the pipe bomb. The search was also complicated by the state of the apartment, which was extremely cluttered, very dirty and in complete disarray. As the police sifted through thousands of items, they made decisions on which items were to be tested for forensic evidence and which items would simply be packed into a mobile storage pod that was brought on site. The officers who attended the scene took precautions to prevent contamination. These included using many pairs of gloves and Tyvek suits. The continuity of all items seized was ultimately conceded by the defence. That said, the defence raised issues relating to the potential cross-contamination of certain items, particularly items that were placed in what became known as the “sex box.”

[69] Det. Cst. Desiree Hamid was the assigned lead forensic investigator who was responsible for gathering physical items of evidence inside the residence. On various days, she was assisted by a number of other officers. In order to assist with the orderly processing of the scene, police did a three-dimensional digital scan of the apartment and created scene diagrams. They also maintained detailed logs and took photos of the various seized items in situ, and then set against the packaging into which the items were placed. A large number of photo books relating to the location and processing of the various items were filed as evidence.

[70] Many of the items seized were subsequently submitted for forensic testing at the CFS. On consent, Dr. Maja Popovic, a scientist with the CFS, was qualified as an expert in DNA. She testified about the various forensic testing results, and also opined on the random match probabilities for the various DNA profiles compared with known DNA samples of Ms. Hache, Ms. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Strong and others.

[71] A summary of the key items of evidence seized from Mr. Strong’s residence and subsequently tested at the CFS is as follows:

a. Beige Air Mattress – Exhibit 61: This item was found in Mr. Strong’s furnace room in front of his washing machine. The air mattress was found rolled up and deflated with a large v-shaped portion cut out of it. A video taken during the landlord’s visit to the apartment in March 2017, shows a beige mattress in the bedroom. Forensic testing of this mattress revealed very light to moderate diffuse blood-like staining on more than 60% of the top surface. Chemical testing confirmed the presence of blood in at least six different areas on top of the mattress. Three of these areas were tested for DNA. Mr. Strong, Ms. Hache and Mr. Strong’s former girlfriend, Ms. J.L., could not be excluded as contributors to the DNA profiles.

There was also very light to moderate diffuse blood-like staining on more than 50% of the opening where a portion of the mattress had been cut out. Chemical tests confirmed the presence of blood. Mr. Strong and Ms. Hache could not be excluded as contributors to the DNA profiles obtained from a test of this area.

A further blood stain was found on the underside of the mattress. Mr. Strong and Ms. Hache could not be excluded as contributors to the DNA profiles obtained from a test of this stain.

Dr. Popovic confirmed that if a blood-stained mattress were to be washed, it would still be possible to detect blood and DNA on it. She could not say one way or another whether the beige air mattress had been washed.

Dr. Popovic agreed that if a blood-stained area was tested and produced a mixed DNA profile, she would be unable to say which contributor’s DNA profile came from the blood at the test site. In this case, while Dr. Popovic linked Ms. Hache’s DNA to the mattress, she could not definitively say that it was Ms. Hache’s blood on the mattress. She further could not exclude the possibility that Ms. Hache’s non-blood DNA was placed on the mattress through incidental contact or secondary contact/transfer.

Even assuming that it was Ms. Hache’s blood on the mattress, Dr. Popovic could not state how the blood was placed there. In other words, she could not opine on the nature of the activity that resulted in blood being on the mattress;

b. Second Beige Air Mattress: A second deflated beige air mattress was located in Mr. Strong’s bedroom near the chest freezer, underneath a pile of other items. Blood was confirmed on a swab of red staining on the top side of the mattress near the corner. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as a contributor of the DNA profile produced from this swab;

c. “Spreader Bar” Restraint Device – Exhibit 74: This item is a sex toy used for bondage style activities. It is comprised of four Velcro cuffs connected to a rigid bar and it is used to secure a person’s wrists and ankles. The spreader bar was found in the white storage cubby unit inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom. The presence of blood was confirmed in seven separate areas on the cuffs, including throughout Cuffs #1 and #2. Samples taken from the inside of Cuffs #1 and #2 and the outside of Cuff #4 were tested for DNA. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the contributor of the DNA profile obtained from these samples. Two further non-blood samples were tested for DNA. These samples came from the inside of Cuffs #3 and #4. Ms. Hache and Ms. J.L. could not be excluded as the contributors of these DNA samples.

Dr. Popovic could not quantify how much blood had been placed on the device. She also confirmed that the blood staining was described as “moderate” and “discontinuous” in relation to Cuffs #1 and #2. She explained that there was no way to date the blood stains and agreed that it was possible the blood was placed there at different times. Lastly, she could not opine on what type of activity may have resulted in the deposit of the blood;

d. Pink Running Shoes – Exhibit 82: A pair of pink blood-spattered running shoes were located in a plastic bag inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom near the head of the bed, between the nightstand and the utility closet. These running shoes look similar to the running shoes Ms. Hache was wearing in the days prior to her disappearance, as depicted in various security videos and still photos tendered. A “wearer profile” DNA sample was taken from a non-blood stained portion of the inner tongue of one shoe. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor of this sample. As well, two DNA samples were taken from blood-stained portions of the shoes. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor of the samples.

No blood staining is present on the inside of the shoes, suggesting they were being worn when the blood staining on the outside of the shoes was deposited;

e. Bent Hammer – Exhibit 64: The bent hammer was located on a shelf near the doorway entrance to Mr. Strong’s bedroom. Blood was detected in four general areas of the hammer, with nine discrete spots testing positive for blood. All of the areas with blood were tested for DNA and no profile was developed.

Ms. Hache and Mr. Strong could not be excluded as contributors to a non-blood DNA profile found on the handle of the hammer.

Dr. Popovic agreed that she could not opine on whether the blood on the hammer was human. She also agreed that the mixed DNA profile was broken down as 86% male and 13% female. Dr. Popovic was presented with a number of scenarios that might explain why Ms. Hache’s DNA ended up on the handle of the hammer, including the possibility that the hammer came into contact with a surface that had Ms. Hache’s DNA on it, or that Mr. Strong handled the hammer after having touched or handled Ms. Hache. Dr. Popovic agreed that all the various scenarios put to her were possibilities;

f. Crowbar – Exhibit 62: A metal crowbar was located underneath a box in the spare room of Mr. Strong’s apartment. Visible staining and chemical testing revealed the presence of blood on the crowbar. A swab of the blood-stained portion revealed a DNA profile that was unsuitable for comparison. A swab of the middle section or handle portion also revealed a DNA profile that was unsuitable for comparison.

g. Pulley System: The “pulley system” was comprised of a set of ropes and pulleys which were located on the wall by the head of Mr. Strong’s bed. A number of carabiners were also located alongside the pulley system, though one appears to have been on the ground nearby in some of the photos. Lastly, a pet leash was located hung along with the pulley system. Blood was detected on the leash and on one of the carabiners. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor of the sample for the DNA profile produced from these blood stains;

h. Chest Freezer: The chest freezer was located inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom near the entrance. The chest freezer contained a number of bags containing Ms. Hache’s frozen body parts. Once the chest freezer was emptied and examined, blood was located in 19 separate areas. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor of the sample for the DNA profile produced from seven of the blood stains. Ms. Fitzpatrick could not be excluded as the donor of the sample for the DNA profile produced from three of the blood stains. One area of blood staining produced a DNA profile for both Mr. Strong and Ms. Hache;

i. The Wyoming Knife – Exhibit 71: During the search of Mr. Strong’s apartment, police located what they described as a “specialty knife” in a kitchen cutlery drawer. The knife was in a black sheath. The seizing officer, Det. Aquin, recognized the knife as a type of knife used by hunters and decided to seize it.

The knife was determined to be a “Wyoming Knife”, which is a special purpose knife specifically designed for use in field dressing hunted animals. The photos of the knife reveal certain aspects of its design, including finger holes in the body, a hooked blade used for splitting open an animal’s belly and a smaller curved blade that is used for skinning and gutting an animal.

Forensic testing was conducted on the knife. Chemical indications of blood were detected on the handle and a greasy “tissue-like” material was noted on the blades of the knife. During initial testing, the knife was swabbed and DNA profiles were obtained. Ms. Fitzpatrick could not be excluded as the donor of one of the DNA profiles found on the blade of the knife. Ms. Hache was excluded as the donor of the DNA. A swab of the handle produced a DNA profile that was analyzed and Mr. Strong could not be excluded as the donor. This swab was on an area that had tested negative for the presence of blood.

The knife was re-submitted for further testing, at which time the knife was disassembled. The disassembly revealed further “tissue-like” substances on the blades. The tissue-like material tested negative for blood. Further DNA testing confirmed that Ms. Fitzpatrick could not be excluded as a donor of the DNA obtained from these additional samples.

A fair amount of direct and cross-examination was directed at the “tissue-like material” on the blade.[^4] Given the small amount of material available on the knife, the police decided against histological testing which possibly would have revealed the specific nature of the material. Instead, a decision was made to conduct further DNA testing. Dr. Popovic testified that determining specific provenance of the tissue-like material was beyond her area of expertise. That said, she testified that the DNA sample obtained from the blade was taken from a DNA rich source and was not blood. This would mean that it came from either tissue or another bodily fluid. Given the presence of a greasy, tissue-like substance on the blade, she could not exclude the possibility that the sample was taken from tissue;

j. Two Knives – Exhibits 67 and 68: Police located two knives, one serrated and one non-serrated, in Mr. Strong’s bathroom on a shelf at one end of the bathtub. Both knives had visible tissue, though no blood was present. Swabs of the tissue were analyzed and Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor of the sample that produced the DNA; and,

k. Sex Toys – Exhibits 75, 76, and 77: Exhibits 75 and 76 are two of several sex toys that were found in the white storage cubby in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. No blood was detected on these items. Swabs were taken from both toys and DNA profiles were produced. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the contributor of the DNA profiles on each toy. Exhibit 77 is a black pumpable penis that was located hanging on the doorway frame between the kitchen and the living room. No blood was detected on this item. A swab taken from the penis portion produced a DNA profile from which Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the contributor. A swab of the strap produced a mixed DNA profile from which both Mr. Strong and his former girlfriend, Ms. J.L., could not be excluded as contributors.

The defence challenged the manner in which the various sex toys were seized and sealed for forensic identification. In particular, the defence noted that a number of sex toys found in the white cubby storage unit were placed together in the same bag and then into a box that was marked “sex box.” The sex box also contained a number of other sex toys and related items found elsewhere in the apartment, including many pornographic video tapes and a rubber vagina. Det. Hamid was challenged on the procedure used to seize and package these items, and she agreed that in hindsight the procedure was far from ideal.

The “sex box” was examined during the trial, and photos taken of that process reveal that the box used to contain the various sex toys was stained by a liquid of some type as was the paper bag containing the rubber vagina.

[72] Det. Trudy Bennett was qualified to give expert evidence on blood stain pattern analysis based on her examination of blood stains that were found inside Mr. Strong’s apartment. Her findings were set out in a report that was filed on consent as part of her evidence.

[73] Det. Bennett noted that she did not observe a defined “blood scene” inside Mr. Strong’s apartment. She also observed no clear instances of an “impact pattern”, which is a blood stain pattern resulting from an object hitting liquid blood. She further agreed that while the absence of an impact pattern left open the possibility that the impact pattern had been cleaned up, she could not say one way or the other whether there ever was an impact pattern anywhere inside Mr. Strong’s apartment. She agreed that the blood spatter stains visible in the apartment could have been caused by the flicking motion of a hand with blood on it. Lastly, Det. Bennett agreed that she could not opine on the age of the blood stains, nor could she opine on the sequence of events resulting in the stains.

[74] Det. Bennett examined blood stains found in the following areas: the stairwell down to the basement apartment, the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom. Det. Bennett also examined the blood-stained pink running shoes found inside a plastic bag in Mr. Strong’s bedroom.

[75] An examination of the stairwell down to Mr. Strong’s apartment revealed approximately 15 small blood spatter stains, in three rough groups, one group by the bottom step and two groups by the top step. A sample of the blood spatter in the bottom step group revealed a DNA profile from which Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor. Samples were taken from spatter in the top step group but there was insufficient DNA to develop a profile. Det. Bennett opined that the spatter could be castoff from the top of the stairs, downwards towards the bottom of the stairs. She also agreed that the spatter could be from an application of force to liquid blood in this area, but this would only be possible if an additional amount of blood had been cleaned up.

[76] Det. Bennett observed a group of approximately eight blood spatter stains on the wall of the kitchen by the doorway to Mr. Strong’s bedroom. The shape of the blood spatter stains suggested an arc from a blood source below the stains on the left side. Det. Bennett opined that force was applied to liquid blood in this area, but she also could not exclude the possibility that the blood spatter was related to castoff. A sample of the blood spatter was examined, and a DNA profile was obtained. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor of the sample.

[77] The bathroom examination revealed a blood stain on the door of a white wooden vanity. The blood stain was tested and Mr. Strong could not be excluded as the donor. In testing done by other officers, chemical indications of blood were also located beside the toilet along the wall and in the corner of the bathtub shelf. There were no blood stain patterns visible in these areas.

[78] The examination of Mr. Strong’s bedroom revealed a number of blood stains. A wooden walking stick was found inside the bedroom leaning against the north wall where the head of Mr. Strong’s bed had been placed. A small blood stain was observed on the walking stick. Testing revealed a DNA profile from which Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor of the blood. Det. Bennett agreed that she did not know where the walking stick had been located when the blood was deposited on it.

[79] Det. Bennett also observed a group of eight blood spatter stains on the north wall where the head of the bed was located. These stains exhibited a downward directionality. She also observed a minimum of seven spatter stains on the ceiling, including one on the ceiling dropdown bulkhead. Det. Bennett opined that these stains were caused by force being applied to liquid blood. However, she also agreed that the stains were possibly castoff stains, though this would mean that if the two groupings of stains happened at the same time, there would have been stains between the two groups that had been cleaned away. She further agreed that the two groupings could have been from two separate castoff incidents. Det. Bennett examined the storage cubby next to the wall where the bed had been located. She saw no blood spatter on it, though she agreed that it was possible that blood spatter associated with the spatter on the wall could have reached the storage cubby or an item that was on the storage cubby.

[80] Det. Bennett testified that she did not have enough data to conclude that an impact with an object or hand caused the spatter pattern visible, and noted that a clean up was a possible explanation though she observed no evidence of a clean up. She further agreed that the same pattern could be obtained simply by flicking fingers that had blood on them, or by the flicking of a rag or cloth that had blood or diluted blood on it.

[81] Swabs were taken of the blood stains on the ceiling and the wall in the bedroom and DNA profiles were developed. Ms. Hache could not be excluded as the donor of the samples.

[82] Det. Bennett also applied Bluestar spray to the area where the blood stains were observed in the bedroom. Bluestar spray is a chemical test used to presumptively determine the presence of blood. If blood is present, luminescence occurs once the chemical is applied. Using this process, Det. Bennett observed chemical indications of blood along the north wall of the bedroom where the head of the bed had been located, as well as on the wood panelling of the wall and a brown wooden night table. Dr. Popovic also conducted testing for the presence of blood in certain areas of the bedroom. While she did not observe any blood on the floor where the head of the bed was, she noted chemical indications of blood using the Kastle-Meyer test. Dr. Popovic explained that according to the most recent standards at the CFS, the test result would be considered “inconclusive” in the absence of a visual observation of blood.

[83] Lastly, Det. Bennett examined the pink running shoes found in the plastic bag inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom. Blood staining was observed on multiple surfaces of the shoes, though no blood was observed inside the shoes. Given the multitude of varying blood stains on the shoes, Det. Bennett was unable to offer any firm opinion or interpretation of the visible patterns.

Adam Strong’s Whereabouts in Late August – Early September 2017

[84] The evidence of Mr. Strong’s whereabouts during late August and early September 2017, comes primarily from the examination of electronic communications data obtained under warrant. In this regard, Mr. Robert Aboumitri, a civilian member of the RCMP, gave expert evidence regarding the analysis and interpretation of the electronic communications data. The Crown also tendered a collection of voice to text messages and regular text messages sent/received by Mr. Strong, and called a number of witness who interacted with him during this time frame.

[85] Mr. Aboumitri was provided with a data file for Mr. Strong’s Google account associated with the email address of scubaadam1@gmail.com. The file had been initially obtained by Fraser Phillips on October 12, 2018, using “Google Takeout” which is a feature that provides access to back-up data stored on Google servers. Using this data, Mr. Aboumitri was able to plot out the general daily movements of Mr. Strong’s communications devices.

[86] Mr. Aboumitri explained how Google collects and stores various forms of location data created by users whenever they use various applications on a device linked to a Google account, or a device using an Android operating system. The data is collected from cell phone sites, GPS, Wi-Fi hotspots, Bluetooth beacons etc., and is stored in a digital vault maintained by Google. The data is created both actively and passively, oftentimes without the user’s knowledge.

[87] The data obtained in relation to Mr. Strong’s account was reviewed, analyzed and collated by Mr. Aboumitri. Using the time frame of August 30 to September 11, 2017, Mr. Aboumitri noted approximately 7,814 location points. He then plotted the location points by time and date on a series of maps. He also catalogued the different types of location data in order to accurately present the range and accuracy of the location data. The accuracy and range of the location data depends on the type of data. For example, with GPS data, the range can be a number of metres, and with cell tower data the range can be up to two kilometres. In terms of accuracy, Mr. Aboumitri explained that the estimated accuracy is 68%. In other words, based on his analysis, there is a 68% chance that the device will be within the geographical range for the specified data type.

[88] The data for the time period analyzed reveals the various locations where the electronic device linked to Mr. Strong’s Google account was at. These locations were plotted on a series of Google maps filed as exhibits. The specific pinpoint locations are set within a coloured radius. The actual location of the device is likely within the radius. The size of the radius depends on the type of data.

[89] The location data for the time period analyzed generally shows areas routinely frequented by Mr. Strong’s device. For the most part, the device is in downtown Oshawa area near Mr. Strong’s residence at 19 McMillan Drive. Some of the more noteworthy aspects of this evidence include the following.

[90] On August 30, 2017, the location data shows that Mr. Strong’s device travelled to certain locations in downtown Oshawa, including the area of Bond Street West and Simcoe Street North where a branch of the Royal Bank of Canada is located, and the area of Memorial Park. Text messages and photos sent by Mr. Strong to Ms. Darlene Olaiya, confirm that he was at these locations, as does a bank receipt found in Mr. Strong’s bedroom.

[91] On September 1, 2017, the location data shows Mr. Strong’s device in the area of the Midtown Mall from 6:33 p.m. to 7:06 p.m. Vanessa Provencher testified that she ran into Mr. Strong at the Midtown Mall on September 1, 2017 at approximately 7:00 p.m. She knew Mr. Strong as a customer of a burger restaurant she worked at, which was near a gas station that Mr. Strong worked at. While at the mall, Ms. Provencher purchased two barbeques and was attempting to call a friend to help her take them home. Mr. Strong spotted her at the payphones and offered her the use of his cell phone. She called her friend Mr. Powers, and also called her nanny. Mr. Strong then invited her to bring the barbeques to his home where she could charge her phone and wait for a ride. During this conversation, Mr. Strong mentioned that he had recently broken up with his girlfriend because she could not keep up with his “rough sex” fantasies and desires. The conversation made her uncomfortable and she declined the offer to go to Mr. Strong’s residence. Ms. Provencher’s evidence was confirmed by call and text records for Mr. Strong’s phone which reveal the calls and texts she made.

[92] From 7:06 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., the location data shows Mr. Strong’s device move north from the Midtown Mall, then east across the bridge over the Oshawa Creek and then back to the area of 19 McMillan Drive. Location points at 8:29 p.m. and 8:36 p.m. are locations near City Hall. The coverage radius for the latter of these points includes a wooded area alongside the Oshawa Creek. From 8:38 p.m. to 8:42 p.m., the low accuracy location data encompasses 19 McMillan Drive. Higher accuracy location data thereafter has Mr. Strong’s device in the area of 19 McMillan Drive. A text message was sent to Claudio Valvona at 7:33 p.m. inviting him to come over for a backyard fire. There was no response to this invite and Mr. Valvona testified that he would have replied if he had been able to attend.

[93] On September 2, 2017, the location data shows that Mr. Strong’s device stayed in the area of his residence the entire day. In fact, the location data shows that Mr. Strong was in the area of his home for over 36 hours between 9:17 p.m. on September 1 to 9:34 a.m. on September 3, 2017. During this time, Mr. Strong’s cell phone records reveal no incoming or outgoing activity. His Facebook messenger and call data show some activity from 3:49:26 p.m. to 4:05:14 p.m. and 6:11:26 p.m. to 6:51:32 p.m. A number of voice to text messages were recorded, suggesting that Mr. Strong was using his phone at the locations noted. In a voice to text message created on September 3, 2017, Mr. Strong confirmed that he stayed in his home throughout September 2, 2017.

[94] On September 3, 2017, in a voice to text recording time stamped 8:25:08 a.m., Mr. Strong states “I was thinking about going down to the lake today but unfortunately it is raining.” The location data for that day shows Mr. Strong’s device travelled north to Port Perry leaving around 9:43 a.m., then returned to 19 McMillan Drive by around 11:23 a.m. This evidence accords with the evidence of Claudio Valvona and the text messages Mr. Strong exchanged with Mr. Valvona, which reveal that Mr. Strong was planning on going to Port Perry to buy cigarettes. Further data points show movement from 19 McMillan Drive to King Street East and Albert Street, where the St. Vincent Kitchen is located. This movement corresponds with text messages Mr. Strong sent to Darlene Olaiya inviting her to lunch at “the Kitchen” at 1:00 p.m.

[95] On September 4, 2017, location data shows that Mr. Strong’s device travels from the area around 19 McMillan Drive down to the Oshawa Harbour, and then back to the area around 19 McMillan Drive. Unlike the data obtained for the other days, the data relating to the movement of the device to and from the area of the Oshawa Harbour is based primarily on low accuracy points. By contrast, at most other times, the location data is comprised of a mixture of low accuracy and high accuracy points. Mr. Aboumitri opined that the user of the device likely turned off the “location services” feature of the device while travelling to and from the harbour. He further opined that the presence of a few high accuracy points down at the harbour suggest that the user accessed an app that automatically recorded location such as, for example, a weather app.

[96] A voice to text message dictated by Mr. Strong on September 5, 2017, states “Had a really good day yesterday, went down to the lake and was flying my stunt kites.”

Pathology Evidence – Rori Hache

[97] Dr. Andrew Williams is the forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy on Ms. Hache’s remains. On consent, he was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in relation to his findings which were set out in a series of reports and diagrams.

[98] Dr. Williams’ first involvement in the case was on September 12, 2017, the day following the discovery of Ms. Hache’s torso in Lake Ontario. He conducted further examinations once Ms. Hache’s body parts were discovered in Mr. Strong’s residence. These examinations occurred on January 3, 4, 25 and 29, 2018.

[99] Dr. Williams describes the nature and extent of Ms. Hache’s dismemberment, noting the following features:

a. The head and upper neck were severed from the lower neck through the 5th and 6th cervical interspace;

b. The lower neck and upper torso were severed from the lower torso through the 1st and 2nd lumbar interspace. The midline of the chest was cut, including a cut through the sternum bones. The organs normally found in the chest cavity had been removed, though remnant portions of the trachea, bronchi, aorta and esophagus were present;

c. The arms were disarticulated through the shoulder joints. Skin and pieces of tissue had been removed from the arms above the wrists. A small patch of skin remained on one arm. The skin and soft tissue was intact on the hands. A healed wound was observed on the left hand;

d. The femurs were disarticulated through the hip joints. The majority of skin, muscle and tissue had been removed. The knees remained attached to the femurs;

e. The lower legs were disarticulated through the knee joints. Skin and tissue had been removed down to the ankle. The skin and tissue were intact from the ankle down. There were no injuries to the feet;

f. The skin had been removed from the lower torso, including the external portions of the genitalia and anus. No internal digestive or reproductive organs were present, though a small ring of vaginal and anorectal mucosa remained intact;

g. A number of post-mortem incised, perforating or sharp force wounds, were present and appeared to be associated with dismemberment and evisceration. These included approximately 40 superficial incised wounds on the chest area of the torso; and,

h. The incisions related to the dismemberment, removal of the skin and tissue and evisceration, showed cleanly incised edges and margins that appeared post-mortem in nature. The numerous superficial incised wounds also appeared post-mortem.

[100] Dr. Williams noted the following signs of injury:

a. A number of blunt force injuries to the head, including: an “X” shaped full thickness scalp laceration with an underlying depressed skull fracture; three full thickness scalp lacerations with underlying minimally depressed skull fractures, one of which was a radiating “pond” fracture; and a fracture of the left orbital roof. The head lacerations did not reveal hemorrhaging;

b. A number of bruises to the side of the head and the face, including around the eye, the cheeks and on the chin. The bruises observed were all ante-mortem, though no signs of healing were observed;

c. A bruise to the rear of the right shoulder, a bruise to the right upper back and a possible bruise to the rear of the left shoulder; and,

d. A sharp force wound to the underside of the chin that appears distinct from the bruise on the chin. This incised wound likely occurred post-mortem during or related to the dismemberment.

[101] In terms of the scalp injuries and skull fractures, Dr. Williams opined that these injuries were highly suggestive of an impact with a blunt ended object like a hammer or crowbar. He did not believe that these injuries were caused by contact with a hard, flat surface, like a wall or a floor. He noted that there were distinct skull fractures that were possibly, though not necessarily, caused by the same item. In terms of the timing of these injuries, Dr. Williams noted that there was an absence of visible bruising and bleeding, and that as a result, it was possible that the head injuries were caused post-mortem. Ultimately, he could not say “with a degree of confidence” that the injuries were post-mortem. Conversely, Dr. Williams could not say the injuries were certainly ante-mortem. He noted freeze/thaw effects, decomposition and immersion in water as potential factors inhibiting a more definitive opinion.

[102] Dr. Williams agreed that he observed no signs of injury to the brain and further agreed that a neuropathology assessment also failed to reveal signs of a brain injury. Dr. Williams agreed that the absence of this evidence was factored into his assessment on the cause of death.

[103] Dr. Williams also examined the various strips of skin and flesh that had been submitted. Some of the flesh and skin was found in buckets and some had been removed from the drains at 19 McMillan Drive. Dr. Williams did not observe any definitive bruising on these items.

[104] Vaginal and rectal swabs were taken from the short lengths of mucosa that remained on the pelvis.[^5] Forensic DNA testing resulted in the production of a profile. Mr. Strong could not be excluded as the contributor of the profile. Forensic testing also revealed that semen was detected on the swabs. Dr. Popovic testified that the maximum length of time that semen might remain detectable in the vagina of a living person was 7 days and 3 days in the rectum. Dr. Popovic could not estimate how long semen would be detectable post-mortem, but noted that freezing would preserve both DNA and semen. Dr. Popovic also indicated that the chemicals that are tested for to determine the presence of semen were water soluble. As such, if the semen had been in water first, before coming into contact with the item tested, the chemicals would have dissolved and the test would have produced a negative result.

[105] Toxicology testing was done on tissue samples and vitreous fluid. The testing revealed the presence of methamphetamine, amphetamine, cocaine and pregabalin, a prescription drug. The toxicology testing could only reveal that these drugs were present. It did not reveal the quantity that had been taken.

[106] Apart from the apparent bruising to the face and head, Dr. Williams was unable to determine whether there were other bruises on Ms. Hache’s body. When he examined tissue samples under a microscope, he saw no evidence of bruising. However, he noted that the presence of bruising could have been obscured by the freeze/thaw process. He was also unable to date any of the bruises that were observed during gross examination or opine on the sequence of the bruises. Dr. Williams observed no signs of bruising on the strips of skin he examined, though he observed some discoloration that was possibly related to blunt injury.

[107] Dr. Williams saw no evidence of ligature marks on the neck, wrists or ankles. However, he also did not know whether the skin sample tested for signs of bruising would have represented skin removed in the proximity of the neck, wrists or ankles.

[108] Dr. Williams was asked to opine on the cause of the death. He concluded that the cause of death was “undetermined.” He explained that a cause of death will be considered undetermined where a pathologist does not have sufficient data or evidence to be confident about a specific cause of death. Dr. Williams added the following considerations to this opinion:

a. He opined that blunt impact head injury was a potential cause of death that could not be excluded. On this issue, he explained that if the observed injuries were caused ante-mortem, they would have been fatal injuries. However, he explained that in view of the lack of demonstrable hemorrhaging in the scalp or around the brain, and the absence of evidence suggesting a fatal brain injury, he could not conclude that blunt impact head injury was the cause of death. Further, he noted that the scalp injuries and skull fractures were possibly post-mortem;

b. A fatal injury to the thoracic, abdominal or pelvic organ structure could not be excluded, since the organs had been disposed of and could not be examined;

c. The possibility of strangulation as the cause of death could not be excluded as the findings required to support this conclusion were possibly obscured by the dismemberment, decomposition and freezing of the body. As well, given Ms. Hache’s age, it was possible that the bones in her neck had not ossified and as such, the absence of broken bones would not necessarily tell against strangulation. That said, Dr. Williams observed no positive evidence of strangulation;

d. The toxicology testing revealed the presence of substances that may be recreationally abused and not result in death. Dr. Williams could not opine on whether a toxic dose had been taken, and agreed that what might be a fatally toxic dose for one person might be non-fatal for another person. While he could not rule out the presence of a fatal quantity of drugs, Dr. Williams explained that in cases where drug toxicity is the cause of death, there is usually an absence of a competing cause or causes of death; and,

e. The opinion proffered was limited by the dismemberment and evisceration of the body, as well as by the freezing and early decomposition of the body. The freeze/thaw effect and decomposition may have limited the ability to demonstrate hemorrhage associated with the scalp injuries and skull fractures, as well as the microscopic demonstration of bruises.

[109] In cross-examination, Dr. Williams agreed that it was hypothetically possible that Ms. Hache died of a drug overdose and was then dismembered with the noted injuries caused during the dismemberment and perhaps an attempt to “break up” the body for disposal. He agreed that this hypothetical would account for the injuries observed and findings he made.

[110] Dr. Renee Kosalka was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on forensic anthropology. She conducted an examination of Ms. Hache’s skeletal remains and provided evidence in relation to various defects observed.

[111] In her view, the defects to the skull were caused by two or three strikes to the head with an object such as a hammer or similar tool, though she agreed that the defects could have been caused by someone falling into an object. She agreed that the shape of the defect would not necessarily correspond to the shape of the item that caused the defect. Dr. Kosalka was asked whether the same object caused both skull defects. She indicated that she could not exclude the possibility that both defects were caused by the same item. However, she explained that a hammer was more likely to have caused the depressed skull fracture noted as “Defect 1”, and less likely to have caused the radiating skull fracture noted as “Defect 2.” Further, she explained that the second defect was noted as having been caused by at least one strike, though based on the condition of the scalp, it was possible that there was more than one strike.

[112] Dr. Kosalka noted a number of defects to various other bones and opined that they had been caused by a serrated or partially serrated knife and not a saw. She also observed that the location of defects suggested that they were related to dismemberment.

Adam Strong’s Second Statement to Police on November 8, 2018

[113] On the morning of November 8, 2018, Mr. Strong was taken to court. The Crown formally withdrew the charge of causing an indignity to the body of Ms. Hache, and Mr. Strong was re-arrested and charged with the first degree murder of both Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick. He was then taken to the police station where he was interviewed by Det. Paul Mitton.

[114] The interview is very lengthy, lasting approximately 12 hours. The transcript of the interview spans 640 pages. Throughout this lengthy interview, Mr. Strong presents as an openly engaged and at times enthusiastic participant. He happily discusses a wide range of topics and appears eager to demonstrate how smart or knowledgeable he is on various issues, including police investigative techniques.

[115] That said, Mr. Strong is very careful whenever the questioning verges into areas relating to the deaths of Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick. He declines to answer questions on these issues. However, in a few instances, Mr. Strong appears to catch himself going too far with an answer and states words to the effect “but I can’t say that…”

[116] Det. Mitton is obviously a highly experienced and skilled interviewer. Over the course of the lengthy interview, he very patiently and very fairly keeps Mr. Strong talking about a number of topics, including topics related to the death of Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick. While Det. Mitton does not obtain a confession from Mr. Strong, he does obtain a number of inculpatory admissions which the Crown seeks to rely on.

[117] Mr. Strong makes the following admissions in relation to Ms. Hache:

a. He admits knowing Ms. Hache and admits knowing that she was involved in the sex trade. He claims that he once took her to dinner at St. Vincent’s Kitchen, though not as a “couple” or “boyfriend-girlfriend”;

b. He also admits knowing that Ms. Hache was “sleeping” by the Oshawa Creek, near the Midtown Mall, an area frequented by young adults who were between homes;

c. He admits that Ms. Hache had been to his apartment and suggests that it may have been on more than one occasion. Mr. Strong mentions that there are security cameras on business premises near his apartment that capture video of Ms. Hache coming to his apartment, “but not on the night of.” He then tells Det. Mitton “anytime you have a video of her coming to my house, you’ll have a video of her leaving my house.” He explains that she walked into the house “not unconscious”, “not bent out of shape”, “or drugged up”, “always walked in and walked out under her, her own power.” Mr. Strong denies that this is a riddle, calling it “the honest to God truth”;

d. He agrees with Det. Mitton that Ms. Hache ended up at his apartment some time between August 30, 2017 and September 11, 2017, and that she died at some point in that time period;

e. When confronted with the DNA evidence from the vaginal and rectal swabs, Mr. Strong forcefully denies anal sex but does not deny vaginal sex, though he offers some possible explanations for why his semen might have ended up on Ms. Hache’s body. He also notes that there was “not much” of Ms. Hache’s vaginal cavity left. He also denies post-mortem sex with Ms. Hache;

f. He admits that he “chopped her up”, though he explains that he was rather indifferent to the dismemberment, noting “it was just a corpse…at that point.” He describes how he used a paring knife and a serrated “Ginsu 2000” knife for the purpose of disposing of Ms. Hache’s body. He admits that he flushed her organs down the toilet some four months before he was arrested, and then froze the remaining parts. When he was cutting up her organs, he used her torso as a cutting board. He describes Ms. Hache’s liver as massive and states “…I’ve never seen one that big before.” He describes how he “held her entire reproductive system” in his hand. When Det. Mitton tells Mr. Strong that Ms. Hache was pregnant, Mr. Strong rather bluntly states that she was not, and then goes on to describe how he cut up her reproductive system and only noted a small cyst on one ovary and no other signs of pregnancy;

g. He admits that he was “shocked” when the torso was found floating in Lake Ontario. He suggests that the torso should not have floated as it did not have organs in it. He explains how if he had had access to his boat, he would have dumped the torso in 600 feet of water and it would never have been discovered;

h. He admits that he defrosted Ms. Hache’s body parts on Christmas Eve by placing them in his bathtub which was filled with hot water, on several occasions. He completed the de-fleshing in one evening and then re-froze the de-fleshed parts. He was in the process of disposing of strips of flesh and skin when his drains clogged. He explains that he was “foiled by inadequate plumbing”;

i. When asked why he waited almost four months to complete the disposal of her body, Mr. Strong explains that it was “not exactly something that one would look forward to.” He explains that the reason why Ms. Hache’s remains were still in the house was “procrastination”, which he describes as a life-long problem;

j. When Det. Mitton puts the Google Location History data to Mr. Strong and suggests that he disposed of Ms. Hache’s torso on September 4, 2017, Mr. Strong replies, “I think that’s a pretty friggin’ good guess there, bud”;

k. Mr. Strong denies having seen any bruising on Ms. Hache’s face, and when shown photos of the bruising indicates that he did not know when the bruising depicted happened;

l. When Det. Mitton tells Mr. Strong about the blood spatter found in his bedroom, Mr. Strong is adamant that there should have been more blood. He explains that there was visible blood that the forensic officers missed. He states, in reference to the forensic officers, “I want you to know, they did a shit job”, and then tells Det. Mitton, “You should give someone a spanking”;

m. Mr. Strong explains that he attempted to clean off the blood at the head of the bed, but there was more that was not wiped off. He also explains that he later observed some dried up blood that he scraped off; and,

n. When asked about Ms. Hache’s blood-stained shoes which were found in a plastic bag in his bedroom, Mr. Strong explains that the presence of the shoes is “another procrastination issue.”

[118] Mr. Strong makes the following admissions regarding Ms. Fitzpatrick:

a. Mr. Strong admits knowing Ms. Fitzpatrick and knowing that she was involved in the sex trade;

b. When asked whether Ms. Fitzpatrick was ever in his apartment, Mr. Strong refuses to directly answer though he explains that “if there was a video”, Ms. Fitzpatrick would be seen coming and going “under her own powers”;

c. In his initial statement to Det. Short and Det. Dorego, Mr. Strong is asked whether there might be “anyone else” the police should be worried about. Viewed in context, Det. Short was clearly asking whether there was more than one victim. Mr. Strong replies “no.” In his statement to Det. Mitton, Mr. Strong is asked about this comment and Det. Mitton suggests that Mr. Strong lied in response. Mr. Strong acknowledges that the earlier denial was a lie. When pressed on this issue, Mr. Strong states, “Well, I was trying to protect my ass.” Further on, he explains that self-protection is a worthy thing to lie for. He states, “…I’m not a liar…I, I, I generally am not, but I often said, you know, things I’d lie about. No, Officer, I didn’t kill that woman, or no, I didn’t rape that girl. Those are things that are, are reasonable to lie about”;

d. Mr. Strong acknowledges possession of the specialty hunting knife that is found in his kitchen drawer. He also admits knowing that the knife has Ms. Fitzpatrick’s DNA on it. He offers that the knife is “very damning evidence.” When shown a photo of the knife, Mr. Strong offers that the “tissue” that is visible on the knife “looks like fat.” During this portion of the questioning, Det. Mitton does not initially specify what object Ms. Fitzpatrick’s DNA has been found on. It is Mr. Strong who first volunteers that it is the specialty hunting knife located in the kitchen drawer. He also explains that he had forgotten about the knife, and that “procrastination” was to blame for the fact that it remained in his kitchen despite the passage of almost 10 years. He tells Det. Mitton that the police are “lucky” to have found the knife, and he explains that all he had to do was boil the knife to “cook” or destroy the DNA evidence, or throw the knife in the fire;

e. Following the discussion about the DNA on the specialty hunting knife, Mr. Strong asks Det. Mitton whether that is the only DNA they found for Ms. Fitzpatrick. Det. Mitton says, “That’s it.” Mr. Strong replies “Holy, shit a dick…Wow…Procrastination…And I know it sounds really cold, but, like, when you think of how little it would have taken to do away with that”;

f. When Det. Mitton asks Mr. Strong why he had not used the specialty hunting knife on Ms. Hache, he explains that at the time, he had forgotten about it. Det. Mitton then suggests that maybe the reason was that the knife was a “shitty thing to use.” Mr. Strong disagrees and states, “No, it’s a great tool”; and,

g. When Det. Mitton points out the general similarities between Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick, and notes Ms. Hache’s body was disposed of and Ms. Fitzpatrick’s DNA is on the specialty hunting knife, implying that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s body was also disposed of, Mr. Strong replies, “You make an obvious summation.”

[119] Mr. Strong makes a number of additional admissions which the Crown argues are admissions in relation to both alleged murders. These admissions fall into the following three categories:

a. The desire to “make a deal” – During the interview with Det. Mitton, Mr. Strong raises the possibility of “spilling the beans” in exchange for a comfortable stay in jail. Mr. Strong raises this issue on his own, without prompting, and indicates that he has spoken to two lawyers about the possibility. The discussion of this topic begins when Mr. Strong suggests that if he was ever released from prison he would be “a dead man” as there is an apparent bounty on his life. He explains that “all he wants” is comfortable living “for whatever years I might have left.” He also states that he is not looking for a “get outta jail free card” or “a hundred thousand dollars like Pickton,” but hopes to have internet access and a TV.

In exchange for comfortable living in jail, Mr. Strong states that he would “spill everything.” Mr. Strong goes on to explain that he has been advised to hold back some “cards” in order to secure a deal “later.” He states, “But if I let those cards out here, then I don’t have them later to play. You can understand me, I’m sure.” And further on, “If, if I got what I want, I’d spill, …I’d spill it.”

b. The Discussion about “Serial Killers” – In the context of the passage of time between the disappearance of Ms. Fitzpatrick and the discovery of Ms. Hache, Det. Mitton raises the topic of serial killers. The following discussion ensues [emphasis added]:

DM: …and I did a little research on serial killers and, and things. And, and there, there’s a real loose definition of a serial killer actually. The F B I’s definition is two (2) or more ___

AS: I thought it was three (3) or more.

DM: F B I’s it two (2) or more.

AS: What’s ours? It’s three (3) or more?

DM: Most, uh, uh, academics say three (3) or more. Like…

AS: Okay.

DM: …and, and, uh, and that’s again, that’s according to the guy I was talkin’ to, the forensic psychiatrist.

AS: Uh, according to me, it’s three (3) or more.

DM: And, and that’s the general standard. I…

AS: Yeah, yeah.

DM: …I think…

AS: Good.

DM: …it’s, uh, that’s held up. So, um, and, um, I think that’s what, whether someone wants it or not, that’s what…I, I think…I hate to say this ___ it separates them from the crowd, or elevates them to a…

AS: I don’t f…

DM: …to a different…

AS: …I don’t feel ___

DM: …I know, I know you don’t look for that.

AS: Yeah, I don’t, I’m not. I don’t.

DM: But, I, I think that’s a lot…

AS: I, I would have happily, uh, flown under the radar for the rest of my life. I really would have.

DM: Oh, I’m sure you would have.

AS: Yeah.

DM: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, and what, what’s concerning for me, is because you’re, open end quotes, good, um…

AS: Good?

DM: Uh, because you’re go…good at what you’ve done, and, and, and…

AS: Oh, and just the bad luck of having it…

DM: …of, of, the bad…

AS: ___

DM: …luck of how you got caught.

AS: Yeah.

DM: Uh, you were completely under the radar.

AS: Uh huh.

DM: We talked about that a little bit. And, and, and, and you’re right. You never would have probably been held accountable, or…

AS: I, that’s what I said. I’m like, you know what? I’m on…they’re like, you’re an idiot. I’m like, it was just, uh, bad luck, man, that’s all it was.

DM: Uh, hundred (100) percent agree. Hundred (100) percent agree, Adam. Um, so, because you’re, I’ll use that word, good…

AS: I, I don’t…

DM: ___

AS: …I don’t really like that word. How’s that sound?

DM: Because you’re, you were, um, careful…

AS: I, uh… (Sighs) …it’s, I don’t know. I find it disturbing still.

DM: Which part? (Chuckles)

AS: The, the whole thing. I, I really do. I don’t even wanna…

DM: Well, it is.

AS: (Unintelligible sound) Uh…

DM: The, like, because it, it’s, seems disturbing ‘cause it is. I mean…

AS: It is disturbing.

DM: I mean…

AS: I know it is.

DM: …two (2) young women…

AS: Yeah.

DM: Uh…

AS: Possibly.

DM: Yeah.

AS: Yeah.

DM: Yeah…

AS: Uh…

DM: …or, or possibly, I don’t know. The point I was gettin’ at when I said that you’re, I won’t use that word, you don’t like it. Um, uh, careful, um, bec…the, you know, undetected for a number of years, uh, knowing, knowing when Kandis disappeared, so a number of years. And, uh, but for bad luck with Rori, uh, we would be none the wiser, and it would be a big ___

AS: And I don’t think I woulda continued. But, uh…oh…

DM: Well…

AS: …I can’t say that, sorry.

c. The Discussion about the Lack of Remorse – Towards the end of the lengthy interview, Det. Mitton asks Mr. Strong if he feels remorse. Mr. Strong replies, “I feel bad that I got caught.” Det. Mitton states “And that’s where the bad feeling ends?” Mr. Strong replies, “I think so” and explains that this stems from his “damageness.” The following exchange then takes place [emphasis added]:

DM: And some, and some people, you know, take the road and, and then, you know, that’s, that’s life. Some people have are remorseful.

AS: I didn’t feel it and I, I, I’m really sorry.

DM: No, you ___ listen…

AS: ___ find that horrible, horrible ___

DM: It is horrible to hear, and I…

AS: Yeah.

DM: you know, ya, the, two (2) young lives have been snuffed out and the person responsible’s not remorseful. That is shocking, Adam. I think, yeah, it is. But, I mean, we are who we are. But, uh, that’s the truth.

AS: (Stutters) Um, I believe I was created.

DM: Created?

AS: I am who I am because of my childhood.

DM: Yeah, yeah ___

AS: I’m not, I’m not tryin’ ah…

DM: Blame someone else for your actions?

AS: Yeah, exactly. They’re my actions, but I don’t think I, I would have made those actions, had I been nurtured. It was a really bad childhood, man. It was horrible.

[120] Mr. Strong also made several exculpatory comments during his statement to Det. Mitton, including the following:

a. Mr. Strong states that surveillance video would show both Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick arriving and leaving his apartment “under their own steam”;

b. When Det. Mitton suggests that some of the blood spatter on the bedroom wall was weapon castoff, Mr. Strong states that he is 100% sure it is not weapon castoff;

c. Mr. Strong is also adamant that he did not use the bent hammer as a murder weapon on Ms. Hache; and,

d. When the topic of erotic asphyxia is discussed, Mr. Strong states that he has never “intentionally or accidentally choked anybody to death before, during or after sex.” He then adds, “It’s a very controlled thing.”

THE GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

(i) Culpable Homicide

[121] A homicide is committed when a person, directly or indirectly, causes the death of another person. A homicide can be culpable or non-culpable. A culpable homicide is one that is caused unlawfully, see section 222 of the Criminal Code. Culpable homicide includes murder and manslaughter.

(ii) Manslaughter

[122] A culpable homicide is manslaughter where the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally committed an unlawful act that caused someone’s death, and did so with objective foreseeability of bodily harm that is neither trivial nor transitory, see R. v. Creighton, 1993 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3 and R. v. DeSousa, 1992 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944. In essence, the offence of manslaughter requires the commission of an objectively dangerous act that is likely to subject another person to danger of harm or injury, and that causes that person’s death. The objective foreseeability of death is not a constituent element of the offence of manslaughter.

(iii) Murder

[123] A culpable homicide is murder where the accused causes the death of another person and either (a) means or intends to cause their death, or (b) means or intends to cause them bodily harm that they know is likely to result in death and are reckless as to whether death ensues or not, see section 229(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code. The difference in the mental elements set out in section 229(a)(i) and section 229(a)(ii) is “too slight to warrant distinction”, see R. v. Moo, 2009 ONCA 645 at para. 47 and R. v. Nygaard, 1989 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074 at pp. 1087-1088. The requirement in section 229(a)(ii) that the accused be “reckless” as to whether death ensues is essentially a redundant requirement, as a person who intends to cause bodily harm that he or she knows is likely to result in death is invariably reckless as to whether or not death ensures, see Moo, supra, at para. 48, Nygaard, supra, at p. 1088, and R. v. Cooper, 1993 CanLII 147 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146 at p.154-155.

[124] Proof of causation requires a factual and legal link between the conduct of the accused and the death of the victim. The Crown must prove that the conduct of the accused was a significant contributing cause of death. It does not need to be the only cause or even the most significant, see R. v. Maybin, 2012 SCC 24 at paras. 1 and 20 and R. v. Manasseri, 2016 ONCA 703 at paras. 184-189.

[125] The Crown need not prove a specific medical mechanism or cause of death, though the Crown often calls expert evidence from a pathologist for this purpose. The inability to prove the medical cause of death, does not automatically undermine the Crown’s ability to seek a conviction. Ultimately, in order to obtain a conviction, the Crown must prove that however the death was caused, an unlawful act committed by the accused was a substantial contributing cause. As such, a conviction for murder or manslaughter remains available even where the victim’s body is never found or where there is no known medical cause of death, see Manasseri, supra, at paras. 194-196 and R. v. Dhillon, 2019 ONCA 159 at para. 11.

(iv) Constructive First Degree Murder

[126] The offence of second degree murder becomes first degree murder where it is committed during the commission or attempted commission of one of the offences listed in section 231(5) of the Criminal Code, see R. v. Harbottle, 1993 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 306.[^6] Section 231(5) includes, inter alia, the predicate offences of sexual assault and unlawful confinement, which are offences involving a form of domination. Murder committed in these circumstances is elevated to first degree murder because the accused’s conduct evidences a higher degree of moral blameworthiness, see R. v. Magoon, 2018 SCC 14 at para. 61 and R. v. Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59 at para. 19.

[127] Where the Crown seeks to prove first degree murder using section 231(5) of the Criminal Code, it must prove that the murder occurred in close temporal and causal connection to the commission or attempted commission of the predicate offence. The key issue is whether the predicate offence and the murder are a continuous sequence of events that form a “single transaction”, see Pritchard, supra, at paras. 19-20, 33-35, and R. v. Pare, 1987 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 618 at pp. 631-633.

(a) The Predicate Offence of Unlawful Confinement

[128] Where the predicate offence is unlawful confinement, the Crown must prove that the accused confined the complainant and that the confinement was unlawful. A confinement arises where a person’s movements are coercively restrained or directed for some period of time, see R. v. Parris, 2013 ONCA 515 at paras. 60-61. The unlawful confinement does not need to be complete or prolonged. However, the act of unlawful confinement must not be the very act that causes the death, otherwise the distinct commission of a predicate offence upon which the enhanced moral responsibility of first degree murder rests is absent, see Pritchard, supra, at para. 27 and R. v. Kimberley (2001), 2001 CanLII 24120 (ON CA), 157 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont.C.A.).

(b) The Predicate Offence of Sexual Assault

[129] Where the predicate offence is sexual assault, the Crown must prove the requisite elements of a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, and must further prove that the sexual assault forms part of a single transaction or event along with the murder, see R. v. Niemi, 2017 ONCA 720 at paras. 48-60 and 73-77. A sexual assault involves the touching of a person in a manner that violates the person’s sexual integrity without that person’s legally operative consent, see R. v. Chase, 1987 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293 and R. v. Higginbottom (2001), 2001 CanLII 3989 (ON CA), 156 C.C.C. (3d) 178 (Ont.C.A.). In order to commit a sexual assault, the accused must intentionally touch another person, and must know, be reckless to or wilfully blind to the complainant’s subjective lack of consent or lack of legally valid consent, and the touch must one that objectively violates the complainant’s sexual integrity, see R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 at paras. 23-25 and 37, and R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 at paras. 87-91. It is not required that the accused intends the touching to be for a sexual purpose.

[130] Consent is the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the exact sexual activity in question. Consent must be freely given and must exist at the time the activity takes place. There is no such thing as implied consent. Consent can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. From the accused’s perspective, the communication of consent is the central consideration. Silence or passivity does not communicate consent, see Barton, supra, at paras. 87-91 and 98-100, J.A., supra, at paras. 34-36 and 44-47, and see also section 265(3) and 273.1 of the Criminal Code.

[131] Consent can be vitiated in a number of circumstances, including where the sexual act includes the intentional application of bodily harm, see R. v. Jobidon, 1991 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714, R. v. Zhao, 2013 ONCA 293 at para. 107 and R. v. Nelson, 2014 ONCA 853 at paras. 22-25. A consensual sexual act becomes legally non-consensual the moment intentionally inflicted bodily harm occurs.

(v) The Assessment of Evidence

[132] The Crown must prove each and every essential element of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this standard of proof is not applied to individual facts underlying the elements of the offence, except in the rare instance where the Crown’s burden is carried by a single fact, see R. v. Pham, 2019 ONCA 338 at para. 22. Individual facts are proven on a balance of probabilities. The individual facts are then assessed cumulatively, and in context with the evidence as a whole to determine whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, see R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25 at para. 82.

(vi) Reasonable Doubt

[133] A reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence or from the absence of evidence. A reasonable doubt does not need to be based only on evidence that is accepted by the trier of fact, see R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 230 at para. 36, and R. v. Darnley, 2020 ONCA 179 at paras. 31-35. All of the evidence must be considered in assessing whether a reasonable doubt remains at the end of the case, see R. v. Miller (1991), 1991 CanLII 2704 (ON CA), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 517 (Ont.C.A.).

(vii) Circumstantial Evidence

[134] Where the evidence in a case is circumstantial, the Crown must prove that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable inference available on the evidence, see R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. The consideration of circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of reasonable inferences based on logic, experience and common sense. Speculation and conjecture are impermissible. The line between speculation and reasonable inference may at times be difficult to draw. However, the ease of drawing the inference is not the standard. The standard is whether the inference is based in logic and reason.

[135] If, after all the evidence is considered, a reasonable inference inconsistent with guilt on any essential element of the offence exists, the accused is entitled to an acquittal or a conviction on a lesser and included offence, as the case may be. An inference inconsistent with guilt must be reasonable, not simply possible. The Crown is not required to negative every possible inference conceivable. However, an inference inconsistent with guilt does not need to arise from “proven facts”, see Villaroman, supra, at para. 35 and R. v. Robert (2000), 2000 CanLII 5129 (ON CA), 143 C.C.C. (3d) 330 (Ont.C.A.) at para. 17. It can arise as a matter of logic and experience based on a consideration of all the evidence and the absence of evidence.

(viii) Evidence Favouring the Accused

[136] Mr. Strong, as is his absolute right, did not testify. However, his two lengthy statements to police and some utterances he made upon arrest were introduced into evidence by the Crown. This is not a classic credibility case where the statements are on the whole exculpatory or advance an affirmative defence. The initial utterances are mainly inculpatory. The subsequent police statements contain both inculpatory and exculpatory portions. They also contain repeated exercises of the right to silence, which have no evidentiary value, see R. v. Turcotte, 2005 SCC 50 and R. v. Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184.

[137] In accordance with R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, I need not accept the exculpatory portions of Mr. Strong’s statements in order to rely on them. There is an alternative between complete acceptance and complete rejection of a defendant’s evidence, see R. v. Edwards, 2012 ONSC 3373 at para. 20 and R. v. J.M., 2018 ONSC 344 at paras. 9-20. Even if I do not accept the exculpatory portions of his statements, I may be left with a reasonable doubt on an element of the offence or on the offence as a whole based on the exculpatory portions that I am unable to reject. Even if I completely reject the exculpatory portions of his statements, I must nonetheless consider whether the balance of the evidence that I accept satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Strong committed one or both offences charged.

[138] In considering the first two steps of the W.(D.) analysis, I must consider the exculpatory portions of Mr. Strong’s statements in the context of the evidence as a whole. In other words, the assessment is not simply whether the exculpatory portions standing alone and without context are believed or leave a reasonable doubt, see R. v. Carriere (2001), 2001 CanLII 8609 (ON CA), 159 C.C.C. (3d) 51 (Ont.C.A.) at para. 51, R. v. Hull, 2006 CanLII 26572 (ONCA), and R. v. J.J.R.D. (2006), 2006 CanLII 40088 (ON CA), 215 C.C.C. (3d) 252 (Ont.C.A.).

[139] Lastly, in assessing the inferences that can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, I must consider not only the portions of Mr. Strong’s evidence that I accept, but also those portions that I do not entirely reject either. Again, an assessment of the available competing inferences does not need to be based on “accepted facts.”

[140] In assessing Mr. Strong’s statements and utterances, I must also guard against using a rejection of his evidence as positive evidence of guilt. Rejected evidence is simply rejected evidence. It proves nothing.

[141] One exception to this rule arises where the Crown is able to point to independent evidence of fabrication capable of demonstrating the falsity of a statement, see R. v. O’Connor (2002), 2002 CanLII 3540 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (3d) 263 (C.A.) and R. v. Bradey, 2015 ONCA 738. The independent evidence can come from other evidence in the case, but it must be “independent of the evidence tending to show the falsity of the statements”, see O’Connor, supra, at para. 30. It can also come from the very content of the impugned statements, including instances of self-contradiction by the accused, see R. v. Ching, 2019 ONCA 619, R. v. Shafia, 2016 ONCA 812 and R. v. Al-Enzi, 2021 ONCA 81. Where independent evidence of fabrication exists, it is open to the court to consider the fabricated statement as a form of after the fact conduct that supports an inference that the accused fabricated the statement because he was conscious of having committed an offence. The resort to independent evidence of fabrication serves to protect against the prospect of turning the simple disbelief of an accused’s statement into affirmative evidence of guilt, see R. v. Johnson-Lee, 2018 ONCA 1012 at para. 41.

(ix) After the Fact Conduct

[142] Evidence of what an accused person did following the alleged commission of an offence is a species of circumstantial evidence which, in certain circumstances, may be capable of giving rise to reasonable inferences about what an accused did in relation to the commission of the offence, see R. v. White, 2011 SCC 13 at para. 157 and R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6 at paras. 29 and 111.

[143] There is no special rule to be applied to after the fact conduct evidence. An assessment of this type of evidence involves examining the relevance and probative value of the evidence to determine whether and what reasonable inferences the evidence permits. At times, the evidence will be relevant for more than one purpose. At other times, it will only be relevant for a limited purpose.

[144] To have probative value, after the fact conduct evidence does not need to be confirmed by physical or other types of evidence, though the presence or absence of other confirmatory evidence will potentially strengthen the inferences available.

[145] The available inferences are determined by the application of logic, common sense and experience, see Calnen, supra, at para. 112, per Martin J. dissenting, though not on this issue. The available inferences “must be reasonable according to the measuring stick of human experience” and will depend on the nature of the conduct, what is sought to be inferred from the conduct, the parties’ positions, and the totality of the evidence, see Calnen, supra, at para. 112, R. v. S.B.1, 2018 ONCA 807 at para. 68 and R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25 at para. 77.

[146] After the fact conduct evidence must be treated with caution. The trier of fact must guard against simply jumping to a conclusion of guilt based on how the accused acted, or what the accused did after the fact. The evidence may appear more probative than it is and may encourage speculation, particularly where the after the fact conduct evidence is based on an accused’s demeanour. The temporal gap between the conduct and the alleged offence may also make inferences more difficult to draw. Lastly, the evidence may also give rise to imprecise reasoning. To address these risks, the trier of fact should carefully consider any available alternative explanations such as “panic, embarrassment, fear of a false accusation, or some other innocent explanation,” see Calnen, supra, at paras. 116-117.

[147] While after the fact conduct evidence has been routinely admitted to establish an accused’s participation in an offence or to rebut defences such as self-defence or accident, there exists no per se rule prohibiting its use to establish the level of the accused’s intent, see Calnen, supra, at para. 119. To the contrary, the courts have on a number of occasions accepted that after the fact conduct evidence can, in certain circumstances, be relevant to and probative of the level of the accused’s intent, see White, supra, at para. 42, R. v. Rodgerson, 2015 SCC 38 at paras. 20 and 27, R. v. Jackson, 2016 ONCA 736 at para. 20, R. v. Teske (2005), 2005 CanLII 31847 (ON CA), 32 C.R. (6th) 103 (Ont.C.A.), R. v. Zekarias, 2018 ONSC 2588 at paras. 183-193, R. v. Panghali, 2012 BCCA 407 at para. 66 and R. v. Hosack, 2013 BCSC 2504 at para. 113.

[148] Where the after the fact conduct evidence is equally consistent with the commission of two or more offences, it may not assist the trier of fact in determining which of the two offences the accused committed. Further, where the accused admits a baseline level of culpability, the after the fact conduct evidence may lose all probative value, see R. v. Arcangioli, 1994 CanLII 107 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129. However, the available inferences supported by the after the fact conduct evidence, when viewed in context with the whole of the evidence, may not be equal. Indeed, it is open to the trier of fact to conclude that the after the fact conduct is more consistent with one level of culpability than another.

[149] In order to assess the available inferences, the nature of the conduct must be carefully assessed. In Arcangioli, supra, the court examined the value of evidence of flight. In the circumstances of that case, the court determined that simple flight from a crime scene could not be used to distinguish between levels of culpability. Put simply, the fact that the accused fled was equally consistent with the accused having either punched (which he admitted), or stabbed (which he denied), the victim and as such, could not be used to assist the jury in picking one over the other.

[150] The decision in Arcangioli reflects the fact that the nature of the specific after the fact conduct of flight in that case did not permit an inferential distinction on levels of the accused’s culpability. Arcangioli, does not, however, stand for the proposition that after the fact conduct evidence is never relevant to determining degrees of guilt.

[151] Where the after the fact conduct is complex, extensive and risky, it may permit an inference of a higher level of culpability. The inference may be available because the nature of the conduct is entirely disproportionate to a lower level of culpability, and therefore more consistent with a higher level of culpability, see Calnen, supra, at paras. 125-126, 146. The facts in Calnen provide a clear example of such an instance. The accused, therein, took extraordinary steps to destroy the body of his deceased romantic partner. The efforts involved initially concealing the body in a forest, then retrieving and burning the body in part, and then later retrieving the torso which was further burned to ashes. At trial, Mr. Calnen admitted that he caused an indignity to the deceased’s body. He did not admit any further culpability, and advanced the argument that the deceased died by accident or in the alternative, as the result of an unlawful act and not murder.

[152] In addressing the relevance of the after the fact conduct evidence, Martin J. concluded as follows at para. 148:

In my view, the nature of the conduct (Mr. Calnen’s successful destruction of Ms. Jordan’s body, and with it any evidence of her injuries), its relationship to the evidentiary record (which includes evidence of a relationship fraught with discord, including violence and threats of suicide), and the issues raised at trial (the Crown’s theory that Mr. Calnen destroyed the body to hide the nature and extent of the injuries) indicate that the evidence was relevant to Mr. Calnen’s level of culpability. In other words, the after-the-fact conduct evidence makes the Crown’s proposition — that Mr. Calnen intended to cause Ms. Jordan bodily harm knowing that it was likely to cause her death and was reckless as to whether death ensued — more likely than that proposition would be in the absence of this evidence. Mr. Calnen’s determined efforts over numerous days to destroy Ms. Jordan’s body strengthen the inference that he attempted to remove any ability to ascertain Ms. Jordan’s cause of death and the nature and extent of her injuries.

[153] Similarly, in Rodgerson, supra, the Supreme Court found that the accused’s efforts to clean up the scene and conceal the victim’s body supported an inference that the accused had done so in order to conceal the nature and extent of the deceased’s injuries. This evidence was therefore relevant to whether or not the accused had acted in self-defence, and also whether he had committed murder as opposed to manslaughter.

[154] Lastly, in Teske, supra, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that extensive efforts to clean up a scene, burn the body and hide the remains of the deceased in the days following her disappearance, were probative of the level of the accused’s culpability. The Court noted that a calculated and risky effort to obscure evidence of the cause of death was relevant to assessing the degree of the accused’s culpability. According to Doherty J.A. at para. 86:

As a matter of common sense, it is reasonable to infer that someone who destroys a body after causing the death of that person does so because he knows that the victim suffered injuries that are inconsistent with a non-intentional cause of death.

[155] The assessment of the available inferences stemming from after the fact conduct evidence is necessarily case and fact specific. However, these cases demonstrate that the more involved, time consuming and risky the after the fact conduct is in relation to the disposal of a body, the more likely it is that the evidence will reasonably support an inference regarding the accused’s level of culpability.

THE COUNT-ON-COUNT SIMILAR ACT RULING

(a) The Arguments

[156] As indicated, following the completion of submissions on this issue at the close of the Crown’s case, I endeavored to provide a bottom-line ruling with reasons to follow. After careful consideration of the issue, I allowed the application. These are my reasons.

[157] The Crown argues that the cross use of evidence from each count on the other should be permitted as it is highly probative of the following issues:

a. To prove that Ms. Fitzpatrick is deceased (Count 2 applied to Count 1);

b. To prove an element of the actus reus, namely that both Ms. Fitzpatrick’s and Ms. Hache’s deaths were culpable homicides (Count 1 and 2 cross-applied);

c. To prove that the murder of Ms. Fitzpatrick, if proven, occurred during a sexual assault or forcible confinement (Count 2 applied to Count 1);

d. To rebut the defence of innocent association and coincidence, and more specifically that one or both deaths were due to innocent occurrence (Count 1 and 2 cross-applied); and,

e. To provide context for the after the fact conduct and its use in assessing Mr. Strong’s degree of culpability (Count 1 and 2 cross-applied).

[158] The Crown is not leading the evidence to prove the identity of the person who murdered both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache, and as such argues that the high degree of similarity usually warranted in cases where identity is the issue is not required in this case.

[159] The defence argues that the requisite degree of similarity is not present, especially given the paucity of evidence in relation to what occurred to Ms. Fitzpatrick. In addition, the defence argues that the almost 10 year gap in time between the two alleged offences significantly diminishes the probative value of any alleged connection between Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache.

(b) The Legal Framework

[160] Similar act evidence is presumptively inadmissible. The similar act evidence rules serve to prevent a trier of fact from engaging in impermissible reasoning, by concluding that the accused is the “type” of person to have committed the offence based on the similar act evidence. It also protects against the potential for moral prejudice reasoning, which arises where the trier of fact seeks to punish the accused for conduct extraneous to the charged offence.

[161] Where an indictment contains multiple counts relating to separate incidents, the evidence in relation to one count is generally not admissible to prove the offence contained in another count, see R. v. T.C., 2019 ONCA 898 at para. 48 and R. v. Poulin, 2017 ONCA 175 at paras. 39-40. However, in circumstances where evidence in relation to one count is sufficiently relevant to and probative of issues in another count and not outweighed by its prejudicial effect, it may be admissible to prove the other count, see R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, R. v. Durant, 2019 ONCA 74 at para. 82 and R. v. Tsigirlash, 2019 ONCA 650 at paras. 23-25.

[162] Where the Crown seeks to rely on similar act evidence, whether extrinsic or “count-on- count”, it bears the onus of establishing admissibility on a balance of probabilities. Admissibility is established where the Crown demonstrates that the probative value of the evidence outweighs any potential prejudice to the fair trial rights of the accused.

[163] The starting point for assessing the relevance and probative value of proposed similar act evidence is to identify what the similar acts are, the issue on which the similar acts are to be used and the inferences the evidence is tendered to support, see Handy, supra, at paras. 69-74, and R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58 at para. 38. The “principle driver” of the probative value assessment is the connectedness or nexus between the similar act and the offence in question, see Durant, supra, at paras. 87-88. Relevant factors in assessing the relevance and probative value of the evidence include:

a. The proximity in time of the other acts;

b. The extent to which the other acts are similar to the conduct charged;

c. The number of occurrences;

d. The circumstances surrounding the similar acts;

e. The distinctive features unifying the acts;

f. Intervening events; and,

g. Any other factors which would tend to support or rebut the underlying unity of the similar acts.

See Handy, supra, at para. 82.

[164] The degree of similarity required to warrant admission is context specific and depends on the purpose for which the evidence is sought for admission. Where the evidence is tendered to prove identification, a high or “striking” degree of similarity is often required to warrant admission. Where, however, the evidence is tendered for another purpose such as proving the actus reus of an offence, admissibility may be warranted even in the absence of a “striking” degree of similarity, see Tsigirlash, supra, at para. 31 and R. v. Cresswell, 2009 ONCA 95 at para. 9. Ultimately, the issue is whether there exists a persuasive degree of connection between the similar act evidence and the offence charged, see Shearing, supra, at paras. 48 and 60.

[165] As Professor Wigmore famously put it, “it is the improbability of a like result being repeated by mere chance that carrie[s] probative weight”, see Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 2 (Chadbourn Rev., 1979) at p. 245-46. In assessing the probative force of the similar act evidence, the court must assess, therefore, how alike the alleged incidents are.

[166] The prejudice assessment examines whether there is a risk that the proposed evidence invites impermissible moral and/or reasoning prejudice. In a judge alone trial where the proposed similar act evidence stems from a multi-count indictment, the risk of prejudicial reasoning is significantly attenuated, though not altogether extinguished, see Tsigirlash, supra, at para. 38, and R. v. MacCormack, 2009 ONCA 72 at paras. 56, 68-69.

[167] The final stage of the analysis involves balancing the probative value against the prejudicial effect of the evidence. The absence of a potential prejudicial effect to the similar act evidence does not simply make it admissible. The evidence must have sufficient relevance and probative value to warrant admission. As well, at the admissibility stage, the issue is not whether the similar act evidence is conclusive of the issue or issues in question. The ultimate weight and use of the evidence is determined at the conclusion of the case, in the context of the evidence as a whole.

(c) Analysis

[168] At the outset of the analysis, it is important to note again that the Crown does not seek to tender the count-on-count evidence to prove identity. In other words, the Crown is not seeking to rely on evidence extraneous to each count in the indictment to establish a connection between Mr. Strong and the deaths of Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache. To prove identity, the Crown points to evidence that Mr. Strong lived in the apartment where each complainant was dismembered and then stored in a chest freezer. The Crown also relies on Mr. Strong’s statements and other items of circumstantial evidence to prove that he was the person responsible for each death. To the extent that the defence argues that the Crown is essentially using the similar act evidence to stealthily prove identity, I disagree. The Crown has an independent basis upon which to argue that Mr. Strong was the person involved in both alleged offences. The scenario would be different if one or both of the complainants were found in locations unconnected to Mr. Strong. In such a scenario, the Crown might need to point to similar act evidence to show that the same person committed the offences, and further that the perpetrator was the accused, see Durant, supra, at para. 101.

[169] The Crown seeks to rely on the similar act evidence in relation to the five issues listed above which I will turn to next. The Crown’s principal argument is that when the evidence is viewed cumulatively, it supports a finding that Mr. Strong has a situation specific propensity to target and kill a certain type of woman, and then dispose of the body in a particular fashion. The Crown acknowledges that the evidence relates to only two incidents that are approximately 10 years apart. However, the Crown notes that the degree of similarity is sufficient to nonetheless warrant admissibility.

[170] In terms of the similarities between the alleged offences, I find the following:

a. Both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache were roughly the same age at the time of their deaths. Ms. Hache was 18 and Ms. Fitzpatrick was 19;

b. Both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache had roughly the same build and physique. They were both short and slim;

c. Both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache were drug users suffering from addiction issues;

d. Both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache had turned to the sex trade in order to fund their drug habits;

e. Both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache frequented downtown Oshawa in proximity to Mr. Strong’s address;

f. Both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache were “living on the streets” for periods of time. Ms. Fitzpatrick was known to “bounce around” from place to place, and Ms. Hache was known to be “camping” in downtown Oshawa despite having an apartment to stay at;

g. Both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache were dismembered using knives. Knives connected to each complainant by DNA evidence were found in the same apartment. There is no issue that Ms. Hache was dismembered. While Ms. Fitzpatrick’s body has never been found, an inference that she was dismembered arises from the presence of her DNA on the blades of the specialty hunting knife which is specifically designed to gut and skin animals, and further from the fact that her blood was found in a small chest freezer that is likely not large enough to hold an intact human body;

h. Body parts from both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache were stored inside the same chest freezer inside Mr. Strong’s apartment. Ms. Hache’s body parts were actually found inside the chest freezer. Again, an inference arises from the presence of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s blood drops, that her body parts were also stored inside the same chest freezer;

i. Ms. Hache’s body was partially disposed of. Her torso was found in Lake Ontario, and when police arrested Mr. Strong he was in the process of flushing strips of her skin and flesh down the toilet. While Ms. Fitzpatrick’s body has never been found, the evidence supports an inference that she too was dismembered, and the absence of her body suggests that her body was successfully disposed of;

j. The similarities between Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick were acknowledged by Mr. Strong himself in his statement to Det. Mitton; and,

k. Mr. Strong is connected to both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache. He was a long-time tenant in the apartment where Ms. Hache’s remains and Ms. Fitzpatrick’s blood was found. In his statement to police, he acknowledged knowing both of them and knowing that both of them were involved in the sex trade. He acknowledged that both of them had been to his apartment. He admitted to dismembering Ms. Hache and described in detail certain aspects of the dismemberment. He also acknowledged that the presence of the specialty hunting knife with Ms. Fitzpatrick’s DNA on it in his kitchen was “very damning evidence.”

[171] When I consider these similarities in context and cumulatively, I am satisfied that there exists a sufficient degree of connectivity between Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick. Not only were they from similar backgrounds and in similar vulnerable life circumstances, but the evidence supports a finding that their dismembered body parts were ultimately stored in the same chest freezer in the same apartment. I accept that the passage of 10 years time is concerning and warrants careful consideration. However, the fact that the dismembered remains of both women were stored in the same chest freezer serves to sufficiently bridge the time gap.

[172] I also acknowledge that there exists an evidentiary gap in terms of what happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick. Her body has never been found. There are no autopsy results which provide a cause of death. As well, there is no evidence as to what happened to her in the time proximate to her death. However, this is not a case where the Crown is attempting to use similarities between what happened to the complainants to prove that they were murdered by the same person. In other words, this is not a case where the Crown points to unique features of two murders to support the submission that the murders were committed by the same person.

[173] Ultimately, when I consider the proposed similar act evidence as a whole, I conclude that as a matter of admissibility it supports a finding that Mr. Strong has a situation specific propensity to commit violent acts on young, drug addicted sex workers, and that those acts end with the dismemberment and disposal of their bodies.

[174] I turn next to assessing the particularized “issues in question” set out by the Crown in argument.

[175] First, the Crown argues that the evidence relating to Ms. Hache assists in proving that Ms. Fitzpatrick is dead. I agree. The evidence of what happened to Ms. Hache’s body is relevant in determining what happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick. The fact that Ms. Hache’s body parts were stored inside a chest freezer that also contained blood drops from Ms. Fitzpatrick, makes it more likely that Ms. Fitzpatrick is dead, especially when viewed in combination with the DNA evidence on the specialty hunting knife.[^7] In other words, the fact that a chest freezer containing body parts of one young vulnerable woman also contains blood drops from another young vulnerable woman, makes it more likely that the latter is also dead and was on an earlier occasion placed inside the chest freezer. The passage of almost 10 years time does not undermine or weaken this inference.

[176] Second, the Crown argues that the evidence assists in proving an aspect of the actus reus, namely, that both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache died as a result of a culpable homicide. The Crown argument is essentially that the circumstances of Ms. Hache’s death are relevant to determining what happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick. On this issue, the Crown highlights the following features of what it alleges Mr. Strong did to Ms. Hache:

a. Significant trauma was caused to Ms. Hache in Mr. Strong’s bedroom, as evidenced by the blood on the “spreader bar”, shoes, air mattress and blood spatter on the walls and ceiling by the bed;

b. There was bruising caused to Ms. Hache’s face shortly before her death;

c. Ms. Hache’s skull was fractured in multiple locations. If these injuries were caused ante-mortem, they would have been fatal; and,

d. Ms. Hache’s body was dismembered, disembowelled and de-fleshed.[^8]

[177] I agree that in view of the similarities between Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick, both in terms of their life situation and what happened to their bodies after death, including the fact that they both ended up in the same chest freezer, the evidence in relation to Ms. Hache can be used to fill in the gaps in terms of what happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick. The similarities are sufficiently cogent to permit an inference that in view of what happened to Ms. Hache, it is more likely that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death was similarly caused by an unlawful act and not by accident or other innocent explanation. I accept that the strength of this inference is weakened by the almost 10 year gap in time between the two alleged offences, but I am satisfied that it is not weakened to the point of inadmissibility.

[178] Third, the Crown argues that the evidence proving that Mr. Strong sexually assaulted and/or unlawfully confined Ms. Hache, assists in proving that Ms. Fitzpatrick was either sexually assaulted or unlawfully confined. In assessing this “issue in question”, I note that at the admissibility stage I am only determining whether the Crown has established on a balance of probabilities that the evidence has probative value that exceeds it prejudicial effect. On this basis, I agree that when the evidence is viewed in context, particularly given the fact that both Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick were young, vulnerable, drug addicted sex workers whose body parts both ended up in Mr. Strong’s chest freezer, evidence supporting a finding that Ms. Hache was sexually assaulted and/or unlawfully confined can also be used to support the inference that the same thing happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick. In my view, there is a sufficient degree of similarity between the two alleged offences to permit this inference as a matter of logic and common sense. However, I find that the passage of approximately 10 years between the two deaths and the absence of evidence regarding what happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick, significantly weakens the strength of the connection almost to the point of inadmissibility. As well, while the inference sought on this issue is similar to the inference sought in relation to the actus reus of culpable homicide as I have just reviewed, it is significantly weaker in view of the identified specific propensity. However, and to be clear, I am only dealing with a threshold determination at this point. The evidence does not need to be conclusive or even strong in order to be admissible, especially in view of the limited potential for prejudicial effect in a judge alone trial. The ultimate weight that I accord to the evidence on this issue in my role as trier of fact may well be very minimal.

[179] Fourth, the Crown argues that the similar act evidence is relevant to assessing the possibility of an innocent explanation for each death. I agree. The evidence from each count is admissible on the other count to undermine the possibility of coincidence. It may be unlikely, though perhaps not impossible, that a person dies innocently in an apartment and is then dismembered by the occupant of the apartment for a number of reasons, including panic or a fear of being disbelieved as to the existence of an innocent cause of death. However, as a matter of common sense and logic, the possibility of an innocent explanation for a death that precedes a dismemberment is rendered even less likely where there are two separate instances of death and dismemberment undertaken by the same occupant, of the same apartment, some years apart.

[180] Fifth, the Crown argues that the similar act evidence will assist in providing the context required for the assessment of the after the fact conduct, and is relevant to showing that the after the fact conduct can be used to assess Mr. Strong’s level of culpability. I agree. In assessing what inferences can be drawn from the after the fact conduct, particularly the nature and extent of the dismemberment of Ms. Hache, the fact that Mr. Strong had on an earlier occasion dismembered a young woman is clearly relevant as it undermines the suggestion that Mr. Strong dismembered Ms. Hache in a moment of panic, or for some other non-culpable or less culpable reason.

[181] I turn next to assessing the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence. On this issue, I note that where the proposed similar act evidence relates to a separate count on the indictment, the issue is only the use of the evidence and not its general admissibility. The evidence is already properly admissible before the court and there is no risk of prejudice as a result of the court hearing otherwise inadmissible evidence. As well, this matter is a judge alone trial, so there is no risk that a jury will be diverted from its task or that it will require unduly complex jury instructions.

[182] I remind myself that the potential prejudice of this type of evidence stems from improper reasoning that the evidence reveals the accused’s general propensity to do bad things. In other words, I must guard against using the evidence simply to conclude that the accused is the type of person to have committed the offences. I must also ensure that the evidence is not used as an indirect means of punishing the accused because he committed other criminal acts. Ultimately, if the similar act evidence is admitted, it remains my task to consider and weigh all the evidence, to determine whether the Crown has discharged its onus of proving one or both charges beyond a reasonable doubt based on the admissible evidence.

[183] When I consider the probative value of the count-on-count similar act evidence as discussed above and balance it against the limited potential for prejudicial effect, I am satisfied that the evidence warrants admissibility. The evidence is admissible as similar act evidence and will be assessed and weighed in concert with all the evidence led at trial.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Count #2 – Rori Hache

[184] I commence this portion of the judgment by first determining whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Strong committed the first degree murder of Ms. Hache.

When Did Rori Hache Die?

[185] Ms. Hache was last seen alive on August 30, 2017. Her torso was found in Lake Ontario on September 11, 2017. There is no issue that she died, was dismembered and partially disposed of in between these two dates. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Ms. Hache died between September 1 and 3, 2017. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

a. Ms. Hache was last seen alive on August 30, 2017, when she was taken to Lakeridge Health Hospital at approximately 8:28 p.m. complaining that she felt “off.” She left the hospital at approximately 9:11 p.m. having received no treatment;

b. Staff at The Refuge expected Ms. Hache to attend at the centre to pick up her financial assistance on September 1, 2017, as she would routinely attend on the 1st and 15th of each month. She did not attend;

c. I am satisfied that at the time of her disappearance, Ms. Hache was frequenting the “camping” spots along the Oshawa Creek. While she had access to an apartment, it is clear that she was not regularly using it for a variety of reasons. I accept that she would at times stay in tents or makeshift camps at a location or locations near the Midtown Mall;

d. Mr. Strong’s house guests, the Giordanos, moved out of his apartment on September 1, 2017. As of that date, he would have been the only resident at 19 McMillan Drive as the upstairs apartment was not occupied until December 2017;

e. The Google Location History data shows Mr. Strong’s general movements on September 1, 2017.[^9] These movements cover various geographical locations, such as The Gate and St. Vincent’s Kitchen, as well as a parkette just north of the Oshawa City Hall. From 6:33 p.m. to 7:06 p.m., Mr. Strong is at the Midtown Mall. This is confirmed by the evidence of Ms. Provencher, who described meeting him at this time. Mr. Strong engaged Ms. Provencher in a conversation that made her feel uncomfortable, and he then departed towards the location of the beer store. The location data shows that Mr. Strong crossed the area of the Oshawa Creek and then headed back to the area of his home. Mr. Strong was in the area of his home for a while, during which time he texted Mr. Valvona but received no response. He then headed out again, back to the area of the parkette just north of City Hall and was there at 8:29 p.m. By 8:36 p.m., Mr. Strong was in the area west of City Hall by the Oshawa Creek. He then returned home. I find that this is likely when he encountered Ms. Hache;

f. Based on Google Location History data, I am also satisfied that from September 1, 2017 at 9:17 p.m. to September 3, 2017 at 9:34 a.m., Mr. Strong did not leave his apartment. This is a period of approximately 36 hours. I am satisfied that Ms. Hache was with him inside his apartment during this time, and remained there until her torso was disposed in Lake Ontario. I am also satisfied that she died during this time period;

g. I accept that Mr. Strong initially planned to dispose of Ms. Hache’s torso in Lake Ontario on September 3, 2017. He sent a voice to text message indicating that he wanted to go to “the lake” but it was raining. This message was sent at approximately 8:25 a.m. Instead of transporting Ms. Hache’s torso to Lake Ontario, Mr. Strong travelled by bus up to the Port Perry area, ostensibly to buy discount cigarettes as discussed with Mr. Valvona, and then returned to Oshawa by the afternoon. I infer that by the time Mr. Strong decided against going to Lake Ontario because of the rain, Ms. Hache had died and her torso was ready for disposal; and,

h. Mr. Strong accepts that the Crown has proven that he disposed of Ms. Hache’s torso in Lake Ontario on September 4, 2017. While this is not a formal admission, it is amply supported by the evidence. On this issue, I am satisfied that the Google Location History evidence supports an inference that Mr. Strong turned off the GPS location services on his phone and travelled down to the Oshawa Harbour on September 4, 2017. I find that Mr. Strong turned off the GPS location services in an attempt to avoid leaving an electronic breadcrumb trail that would reveal his travels on this date. On this issue, I note that when Det. Mitton confronted Mr. Strong with the location data evidence, Mr. Strong asked whether data would be collected if the GPS was turned off on the phone. I find that this question by Mr. Strong reveals his mistaken belief that there would be no location data on his phone if he disabled the GPS location service.

Where Did Rori Hache Die?

[186] I am satisfied that Ms. Hache died inside Mr. Strong’s apartment, and more particularly inside his bedroom. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

a. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Strong would have found Ms. Hache dead somewhere outside his apartment and then decided for whatever reason to bring her body back into his house, only to then engage in the meticulous and macabre process of dismembering her and disposing of her body parts. This is a manifestly speculative and fanciful scenario. Mr. Strong had no means of transporting a body. He did not drive or have access to a car. He believed that the entranceway to his home was within the field of view of security cameras. He lived in downtown Oshawa in an area frequented by members of the public, including police officers who would frequent the tailor shop next door. Further, on the evidence before me, Mr. Strong would have no reason to bring a dead body into his home. In his statement to Det. Mitton, Mr. Strong was clear that he did not engage in acts of necrophilia. When shown photos of Ms. Hache, Mr. Strong was careful to make it clear that he was not getting “jacked” by seeing the photos. He described the process of disposing of Ms. Hache as something he did not look forward to, and something that he procrastinated in doing.[^10] There is no suggestion in his statement that he had a particular interest in simply dismembering a body that he had happened upon;

b. I consider Mr. Strong’s repeated statements to the effect that the security cameras near his home would show Ms. Hache always coming to and leaving his apartment “under her own power.” I note that on one instance in the statement to Det. Mitton, Mr. Strong qualified this assertion, stating “but not on the night of.” I view this qualifier as a recognition by Mr. Strong that Ms. Hache did not leave the apartment “under her power” after her final attendance. Indeed, there is no issue on this point as her body parts were in the chest freezer. She could not have left “under her own power.” However, I do not view this qualifier as a suggestion that she did not arrive “under her own power” on the final occasion. At no point in his statement does Mr. Strong suggest that he transported Ms. Hache’s body into the apartment post-mortem. To the extent that Mr. Strong continues to suggest that “if” a video exists, it will show Ms. Hache coming and going on her own, I find that Mr. Strong was toying with Det. Mitton and posing what amounts to be a riddle. Indeed, at one point in the interview, Mr. Strong tells Det. Mitton, “…and I understand it doesn’t make sense to you…Yeah, yeah. No, I totally. It doesn’t, if, if I was in your position, I wouldn’t understand it either.” Det. Mitton then asks whether Mr. Strong is suggesting that someone else killed Ms. Hache and he just helped with the body, Mr. Strong denies the suggestion, stating, “No, I’m not trying to hint anything.” Moments later, Mr. Strong states, “if I ever lay it all out, you’ll be like, of course…I fuckin’ shit you not”;

c. I am satisfied that the forensic evidence supports a finding that Ms. Hache was killed inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom. I find that while there is no evidence of a “blood scene”[^11] in Mr. Strong’s bedroom, there is residual evidence of a blood letting event inside the bedroom;

d. Ms. Hache’s blood-stained running shoes were found in a plastic bag by the nightstand in the bedroom. Based on the security video from the Lakeridge Health Hospital, and based on the videos taken from security cameras on Division Street near Ms. Hache’s apartment, I find that the shoes in Mr. Strong’s bedroom were the shoes Ms. Hache was wearing in the time frame proximate to her death. As well, her DNA was found on the inner tongue of one shoe, away from any blood stains. The outer areas of the shoes are blood spattered. There is no blood inside the shoes, suggesting they were worn at the time the blood was applied to the outside of the shoes. I find that Ms. Hache was wearing these shoes at the time of her death and that the shoes were removed from her body thereafter. I further find that the shoes remained where the blood letting event occurred, in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. It would make no sense for the blood letting event to have occurred elsewhere and then for Mr. Strong to take the shoes, place them in a plastic bag and bring them into his bedroom, next to his nightstand. I attribute the fact that the shoes remained in Mr. Strong’s bedroom months after Ms. Hache’s death to his self-professed problems with procrastination;

e. There was evidence of Ms. Hache’s blood spatter on the wall where the head of the bed was located, and also on the ceiling above the bed. There were approximately eight spatter stains on the wall and approximately seven on the ceiling. All of these stains could have come from castoff, including castoff from the flick of a hand with blood on it.

When confronted with the blood spatter evidence during his police interview, Mr. Strong was adamant that the blood spatter was “one hundred percent” not castoff from a “weapon strike.” Mr. Strong is likely lying or wrong about this, but even if the blood spatter is not from weapon castoff, it does not undermine the overall conclusion that there was a blood letting incident on or near the bed.

Ms. Hache’s blood was also on a walking stick seen near the bed, on a carabiner[^12] and on a pet leash located on the wall by the head of the bed. While these latter items are moveable and could have been elsewhere in the apartment when the blood letting event occurred, it seems most likely that they were in the area of the blood letting incident. In any event, the inference supported by the presence of the blood spatter on the wall and ceiling remains even in the absence of the blood spatter on the moveable items;

f. Ms. Hache’s blood was also found on two air mattresses located in the apartment. Mr. Strong used air mattresses to sleep on and police found a number of deflated air mattresses stacked on a makeshift bed, as well as other air mattresses in a spare room. One of the mattresses with Ms. Hache’s blood was found balled up under a pile of other items near the chest freezer that contained Ms. Hache’s body parts. A red stain on the top side of the mattress near a corner tested positive for blood. DNA testing detected Ms. Hache’s DNA.

A second blood-stained mattress was found balled up in front of Mr. Strong’s washing machine in the laundry room. Almost 60% of the top side of the air mattress had diffuse blood-like staining that was described as “moderate” and “discontinuous.” Six areas of the mattress tested positive for blood. Three of those areas were tested for DNA and Ms. Hache’s DNA was found on all three, albeit in a mixture with Mr. Strong’s and Ms. J.L.’s DNA. Dr. Popovic could not confirm that Ms. Hache’s DNA contribution to the mixed samples came from her blood. She agreed that it was possible that Ms. Hache’s DNA contribution came from another bodily fluid and not from a blood deposit, and that the blood therefore belonged to one of the other DNA contributors. Moreover, Dr. Popovic could not say what type of activity resulted in the deposit of Ms. Hache’s DNA on the mattress, nor could she say whether Ms. Hache’s DNA was placed on the mattress at the same time as Mr. Strong’s DNA.

That said, one telling feature of the second mattress, is that a large portion of mattress has been cut out and is missing. More than 50% of the cut out opening has blood-like staining. This area was tested for DNA and both Mr. Strong’s and Ms. Hache’s DNA was identified. A further blood stain on the bottom of the mattress was also tested for DNA, and both Ms. Hache’s and Mr. Strong’s DNA was detected as well as a third unknown contributor.

When I consider the evidence in relation to the second air mattress, I am satisfied that this mattress was once in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. The presence of his DNA and Ms. J.L.’s DNA (Mr. Strong’s former girlfriend) supports this inference. As well, a beige coloured mattress can be seen in the video clip filmed in March 2017 and filed as Exhibit 25-3. I am further satisfied that Ms. Hache’s blood was on the mattress and that Mr. Strong undertook efforts to clean and/or destroy the blood evidence. The mattress was located balled up in front of the washing machine. The visible blood-like staining was diffuse and discontinuous but covered much of the surface. There was also a large v-shaped cut out portion that had blood staining on it. Taken all together, I infer that a blood letting event occurred on or near the mattress. I also infer that an attempt was made to clean the blood off the mattress and that a significant area of blood staining was cut out of the mattress. I reject the defence argument that if Mr. Strong had actually been attempting to get rid of the blood staining, he simply would have thrown out the entire mattress. The large cut out rendered the mattress useless and it nonetheless remained in Mr. Strong’s apartment months later. Moreover, the size and shape of the cut out in combination with the degree of blood staining around it, suggests that the removal of that piece of the mattress was intentional and not coincidental or accidental.

I also find that the blood on the mattress came from Ms. Hache. While Dr. Popovic could not definitively come to this conclusion based on the scope of her expertise, when I consider the location of the mattress, the size of the diffuse stain and the nature and size of the cut out, I am satisfied that the mattress was removed from the bedroom and brought to the laundry room, where an attempt was made to clean it and destroy the portion that had the most blood on it. This was done because the blood was Ms. Hache’s.[^13] While it appears odd that the mattress would remain in Mr. Strong’s apartment many months after Ms. Hache’s death, this is likely another example of Mr. Strong’s self-professed procrastination;

g. A BDSM restraint device referred to as a “spreader bar” was located in a cubby storage unit in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. This is a device used in certain forms of sex play, and is used to bind a person’s wrists and ankles to a fixed bar using Velcro cuffs. Blood was located on seven areas of the spreader bar, including throughout Cuff #1 and Cuff #2 and on the outside of Cuff #4. The most significant blood staining was on the inside of the cuffs. Three areas of blood staining were tested for DNA and the DNA was Ms. Hache’s. Non-blood stained areas were also tested and they too revealed the presence of Ms. Hache’s DNA. Based on this evidence, I infer that the blood staining on the spreader bar occurred while it was being worn by Ms. Hache.

While Dr. Popovic could not quantify the amount of blood required to leave the observed stains, I find that it was more than a minor amount given the area covered by staining as set out in CFS diagrams prepared by the forensic examiner. I am also satisfied that the amount of blood on the device cannot be accounted for as additional castoff related to the blood spatter on the wall and ceiling near the head of the bed. There is also no basis to suggest that the blood was transferred onto this device when it was stored for police transport along with other sex toys. While the other sex toys had DNA on them, none of them had any blood;

h. While I accept that there was no significant “blood scene” observed in Mr. Strong’s bedroom at the time of the examination, this fact is not surprising given the passage of time. The forensic examination of Mr. Strong’s apartment occurred many months after Ms. Hache’s torso was found in Lake Ontario. It is highly unlikely that someone would leave a blood scene present and make no effort to clean it up, especially when the blood scene is in the person’s bedroom. Mr. Strong himself admits that he attempted to clean blood off at the head of the bed but missed some which he later noticed and scraped off. He also repeatedly mocks the police officers for failing to find more blood stains.

Forensic testing using Bluestar spray suggested the possible presence of blood along the wall and baseboard area at the head of the bed. Dr. Popovic also tested an area under the baseboard near the head of the bed, and received a positive Kastle-Meyer test result suggesting the presence of a chemical indication of blood. While the Bluestar and Kastle-Meyer tests are not conclusive of the presence of blood in the absence of physical observations of blood, when viewed in context with the other evidence these test results support an inference that blood in this area had been cleaned up;

i. I reject the suggestion that the blood in the bedroom and on the mattress[^14] came from the dismembering activities. I find that the dismemberment of the torso occurred in the bathroom, and more particularly in the bathtub. Mr. Strong admits that the de-fleshing of Ms. Hache’s body parts took place in the bathtub on Christmas Eve. He explains how he filled the bathtub with hot water on more than occasion in order to defrost the body parts. The parts of Ms. Hache’s body that were removed were flushed down the toilet that is right next to the bathtub. The knives used for this process were also located next to the bathtub on a small shelf.

I find that the earlier dismemberment in September also took place in the bathtub and not in the bedroom. The dismemberment was meticulous and careful. It involved the disarticulation of shoulders, hip joints and knees, as well as the transection of the neck just above the torso, as well as the lower pelvis. It also involved the disposal of her internal organs, which were sliced against her torso for easy disposal down the toilet. It would make little sense for Mr. Strong to undertake this gruesome and, no doubt, messy task in the bedroom, only to then transfer the organs to the bathroom for disposal. Common sense and logic suggest that this task would have been undertaken in the bathtub and near the toilet. The bathtub would readily contain the ensuing mess and could be easily cleaned. The nearby toilet permitted ready disposal of the internal organs. Indeed, Mr. Strong acknowledged to Det. Mitton that the use of the bathtub, “makes more sense.”

In view of my finding that Ms. Hache’s dismemberment occurred in the bathtub and not in the bedroom, I am not concerned that the blood spatter patterns observed in the bedroom on the wall at the head of the bed and on the ceiling are possibly related to the dismemberment. When viewed in concert with the blood on the mattress, I infer that they are related to the same blood letting event.

I also reject the possibility that the blood on the running shoes came from the dismemberment process. As mentioned, the shoes were found in a plastic bag in the bedroom. I have already found that they were likely removed in the bedroom and left there after Ms. Hache died. I also have already found that Ms. Hache was likely wearing the shoes at the time of her death. In view of the detailed and meticulous nature of the dismemberment process, it is unlikely that Mr. Strong would have left the shoes on Ms. Hache during the process. It is far more likely that he would have removed the shoes and other clothing items that Ms. Hache was wearing before commencing the dismemberment in the bathtub;

j. I reject the argument that the blood in Mr. Strong’s bedroom could have come from the plumbing overflow that occurred in December, or from the movement of people inside the apartment when the plumbing issue was being addressed. The evidence on this issue is that strips of flesh and skin were extracted from the drain and that some sewage leaked into the residence. By the time Mr. Strong started de-fleshing the body parts, Ms. Hache had been dismembered and disembowelled. Her body parts had been frozen and then thawed in a tub of hot water.

The strips of flesh that were retrieved by the plumbers and police were not bloody. They appear mainly black. Forensic testing of the bathroom revealed no blood belonging to Ms. Hache, despite the fact that the drain backed up through the toilet that had been removed in the bathroom. Further, the rags used to clean the area and the material that came up from the drain was placed in buckets which the police found outside near Mr. Strong’s boat. Dr. Williams testified that nothing in the buckets appeared to be blood.

As well, while the plumbers removed flesh and skin from the drains, they did so in various areas of the house, including the upstairs tenants’ bathroom. Det. Groves testified that he observed no staining or spatter in the upstairs bathroom.

When all this evidence is considered together, I find that the sewer blockage, the presence of the plumbers and movements of Mr. Strong and Mr. Wood in December, did not cause or contribute to the blood spatter observed inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom or to the presence of blood on the various items as noted;

k. The defence argues that the evidence, particularly Mr. Strong’s statement to Det. Mitton, supports an inference that Ms. Hache was in Mr. Strong’s apartment on more than one occasion and that as a result, the presence of the blood and DNA could be accounted for by earlier consensual sexual activities, or perhaps from contact with Ms. Hache’s blood stemming from an earlier unhealed wound or wounds. The Crown argues that there is no evidence supporting a finding that Ms. Hache was at Mr. Strong’s apartment on more than one occasion.

I cannot exclude the possibility that Ms. Hache was at Mr. Strong’s apartment on more than one occasion. While Mr. Strong was not likely to have had any sort of friendship with Ms. Hache, he did count a diverse cast of characters in his friend group, which included Ms. T.M., a young woman living in circumstances similar to Ms. Hache. It is possible that Ms. Hache could have come into contact with Mr. Strong in a similar fashion. He could also have come into contact with her through the provision of sexual services.

As such, it is possible that Ms. Hache was at Mr. Strong’s apartment on more than one occasion. However, the possibility that Ms. Hache was at Mr. Strong’s apartment on more than one occasion and that on those occasions her blood was innocently deposited on various items and locations is speculative, and fails to account for the cumulative effect of the evidence. On this issue, I accept that it is theoretically possible that Ms. Hache attended at the residence on an earlier occasion and deposited some blood on an air mattress during consensual sex.[^15] It is further theoretically possible that Ms. Hache attended at Mr. Strong’s apartment earlier in the summer of 2017, before the wound on her hand had healed and left some blood on a sex restraint that was used consensually.[^16] It is also theoretically possible that Ms. Hache herself flicked blood off her own hand in Mr. Strong’s bedroom, depositing it on the wall and ceiling and perhaps also on the leash, carabiner and walking stick.

While each of these individual events is theoretically possible, the possibility that all of these innocent events occurred in a fashion that accounts for the blood stains and DNA evidence observed, is so remote as to be entirely speculative especially when one considers the combined effect of the blood staining on the mattress, the missing portion of the mattress, the fact that blood is found on the wall and ceiling by the head of the bed area, and the fact that blood is found on multiple parts of the restraint device including throughout two cuffs, and on the pet leash, carabiner and walking stick.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Mr. Strong has any obligation to prove how the blood was deposited on all of these items. I am merely suggesting that in assessing the availability of any competing inference or explanation, I am required to look at the evidence as a whole and not piecemeal; and,

l. When I consider this evidence as a whole, I find the only reasonable inference is that Ms. Hache met her death while on or near the bed in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. While I accept that some of this evidence may be potentially explained away, the cumulative effect of the evidence leaves no reasonable alternate explanation.

Who Caused Rori Hache’s Death?

[187] I am satisfied that it was Mr. Strong who caused Ms. Hache’s death. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

a. As I have already indicated, I am satisfied that Ms. Hache died in Mr. Strong’s bedroom on the evening of September 1, 2017, or shortly thereafter. At that time, Mr. Strong would have been the only occupant of his apartment and indeed, the entire home located at 19 McMillan Drive;

b. I also rely on Mr. Strong’s initial utterances made shortly before and right after his arrest for murder. When the police officers asked him if he had been flushing anything down the toilet, he replied to the effect “The gig’s up. You got me, it’s a body.” While being transported to the police station, he told the arresting officer that he knew the plumbers were pulling up Ms. Hache’s body parts and that he would be caught. He indicated that he contemplated suicide. In his later statement to Det. Mitton, he again described how he contemplated suicide following his initial arrest. I find that Mr. Strong’s utterances and his contemplation of suicide upon arrest are some evidence of his involvement in Ms. Hache’s death. This is not an instance where the utterances and suicidal ideation are equally consistent, with Mr. Strong only being involved in the dismemberment and not the death of Ms. Hache. In any event, the evidence of his utterances must be viewed in context with the evidence establishing that Ms. Hache died in Mr. Strong’s apartment and not elsewhere; and,

c. Lastly, I rely on the after the fact conduct evidence. Mr. Strong engaged in a prolonged and meticulous dismemberment and disposal of Ms. Hache’s body. After dismembering her body, destroying her internal organs and throwing her torso in Lake Ontario, he stored the remaining body parts, including her head, in a chest freezer in his bedroom. Months later, he resumed efforts to destroy the remainder of her body by flushing strips of her flesh down the toilet. When combined with the evidence suggesting Ms. Hache was killed in the bedroom of Mr. Strong’s apartment, the evidence relating to her dismemberment and disposal overwhelmingly supports the singular inference that Mr. Strong caused Ms. Hache’s death.

What is the Cause of Rori Hache’s Death?

[188] I am satisfied that Ms. Hache died as a result of blunt force trauma that was applied to her head. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

a. I acknowledge at the outset of this portion of my reasons that the pathologist, Dr. Williams, concluded that the cause of death was “undetermined.” However, I note that Dr. Williams’ opinion was based only on the results of his post-mortem examination. His opinion was not based on the totality of the evidence that I have before me.

Dr. Williams’ opinion on the medical cause of death does not prevent me from assessing the totality of the evidence to determine whether I can make a factual/legal finding about the cause of Ms. Hache’s death. Moreover, I note that the Crown does not need to prove a specific cause of death. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the death was, at least in part, caused by an unlawful act committed by the accused. The absence of proof of a specific cause of death may make this determination more difficult, but it does not foreclose it;

b. At the time of her death, Ms. Hache had extensive bruising to her face, head and shoulders. The bruising to her face included a large contusion to the right temporal area of her head, a contusion to the right eye, a contusion to the right cheek, a contusion to her left cheek and a contusion to her left chin. She had contusions to her upper back and rear right shoulder, as well as a possible contusion on her rear left shoulder;

c. I accept Dr. Williams’ evidence that these bruises were caused by multiple applications of blunt force prior to Ms. Hache’s death. Further, while the dating of bruises is not an exact science, I accept that the absence of observed signs of inflammation suggests the bruises were inflicted shortly before or at the time of Ms. Hache’s death;

d. I reject the suggestion that the bruising to Ms. Hache’s face could have been caused prior to her encountering Mr. Strong in early September 2017. While Ms. Hache presented at the hospital on August 31, 2017 complaining that her face was “distorted”, there is no evidence suggesting that she was visibly injured at this time. Ms. Jornes-Reeves, who took her to the hospital and spent a significant period of time with her, noticed no injuries. The triage notes from nursing staff note no visible injuries. The security video from the hospital, while not the clearest, also depicts no visible injuries. I am satisfied that Ms. Hache’s trip to the hospital was likely related to her drug use, which was causing her to act bizarrely, and it may be that she was using the trip to the hospital to gain access to prescription drugs;

e. I also reject the suggestion that Ms. Hache was injured at some point between leaving the hospital and encountering Mr. Strong. I accept that Ms. Hache’s failure to attend at The Refuge to obtain her financial support on September 1, 2017 is odd. Something caused her not to attend that day, despite her obvious interest in obtaining the support. There is no issue that Ms. Hache was not living a healthy lifestyle at the time, including significant drug use. There is also no issue that she would at times react poorly or violently when using drugs. However, I do not see her lifestyle or her failure to attend to pick up her financial support as supporting an inference that she suffered the bruising to her head and face before encountering Mr. Strong;

f. In addition, when Mr. Strong was shown photos of the bruises during his police interview, he claimed not to know when they were inflicted. He did not suggest that she appeared at his residence with the bruising already visible. While I accept that the bruising would have looked different on Ms. Hache when she was alive, I find that it would nonetheless have been obvious and Mr. Strong would have seen it. Indeed, his failure to recall seeing the bruising initially is telling. He would have had an incentive to recall seeing the bruising when he was confronted with post-mortem photos of the bruising during his police interview;

g. Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied that the bruising observed on Ms. Hache’s head, face and shoulders, was inflicted by repeated blows administered once she was at Mr. Strong’s apartment at some point on the evening of September 1, 2017 or thereafter, but prior to death;

h. I turn next to the significant head injuries which were observed by Dr. Williams during the autopsy. These injuries are grouped in two distinct areas of Ms. Hache’s head. In the first area, there is a large “X” shaped, full thickness scalp laceration with a depressed skull fracture and embedded hair. The shape of the depressed skull fracture is rectangular on one side and curved on the opposite side. In the second area, there are three separate full thickness scalp lacerations. Beneath these lacerations there is a complex, incomplete depressed skull fracture, with radiating “pond” fracture lines.

I accept the opinion evidence of Dr. Williams and Ms. Kosalka that these skull fractures appear to have been caused by an impact with a hard object with a blunt end, such as a hammer or similar object. While Ms. Kosalka opined that the differences in the skull fractures suggested that a second hard object might have been was used, she agreed that the same object could have been used assuming it struck the skull in a different manner on each instance.

I find that the skull fractures and related head injuries were caused by Mr. Strong when he hit Ms. Hache repeatedly with a hard object like a hammer or a similar tool. I find that the same object was used to cause the injuries, and that the different presentation of the injuries is likely accounted for by different angles of contact and/or different parts of the blunt end of the item coming into contact with the skull.

While I note that a bent hammer with Ms. Hache’s non-blood DNA on it was found inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom, I also note that in his statement to police Mr. Strong vigorously denied that the bent hammer found in his bedroom was the murder weapon. I need not determine whether the hammer found in the bedroom is the actual weapon used to kill Ms. Hache. While the dramatic tenor of Mr. Strong’s insistence that the hammer cannot be the murder weapon raises some concerns about his veracity, I am prepared to find that the bent hammer may not have been the actual item used to repeatedly strike Ms. Hache. However, I am satisfied that even if this hammer is not the murder weapon, Mr. Strong may simply have used another hard, blunt ended tool or object as a weapon, and then disposed of it afterwards. It ultimately does not matter whether he used the specific hammer found in his bedroom, or another hammer or comparable object;

i. I accept Dr. Williams’ evidence that if the skull fractures were inflicted on Ms. Hache when she was alive, they would have been fatal. There seems to be little dispute on this point. However, Dr. Williams cannot, from a medical perspective, entirely exclude the possibility that the skull injuries were inflicted post-mortem;

j. Based on the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the head wounds and related skull fractures were inflicted ante-mortem and are the cause of Ms. Hache’s death. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

i. First, Dr. Williams could not exclude the possibility that the wounds to Ms. Hache’s head occurred post-mortem, because he did not observe demonstrable hemorrhaging or other demonstrable findings to support a fatal brain injury. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Williams relied on the report of a neuropathologist who observed no bleeding on the brain. However, despite this, Dr. Williams did not rule out a fatal head injury as the cause of death because the post-mortem interference with Ms. Hache’s body, which included freezing and thawing as well as some decomposition, may have altered the appearance of any hemorrhaging associated with the injury. In this regard, Dr. Williams was presented with a hypothetical fact scenario which involved the infliction of a fatal head injury, followed by decapitation and dismemberment, followed by freezing of the head for a number of months and then thawing it in hot water. Based on this hypothetical, Dr. Williams opined that this sequence of events could cause the leaching of the blood from the head injuries and, through the freeze/thaw process, could obscure findings by microscopically breaking down blood so that it is no longer visible on examination.

The possible impact of the freeze/thaw process was not only hypothetical. In discussing the potential impact of the freeze/thaw process on the presence of observable blood cells, Dr. Williams noted that during his examination of Ms. Hache’s body parts which had been frozen and thawed, blood cells were absent in areas where they would normally be found, such as in blood vessels. The clear inference from this evidence is that the freeze/thaw process did have an impact on observable blood cells, and therefore it could have obscured signs of hemorrhaging.

ii. Second, I am satisfied that the head injuries did not form part of the dismemberment process. The dismemberment was systematic and methodical. The joints were disarticulated with the connecting tissue and tendons cut away. The organs were removed and disposed of by slicing them into small pieces using the torso as a cutting board. The dissection point for the removal of the head and pelvis from the torso was between the vertebrae and did not involve any significant damage to the vertebra above and below the dissection. Apart from a couple rib tips and the chest plate which were cut, none of the bones were broken or smashed.

By contrast, the injuries to the skull appear unrelated to the process of dismembering Ms. Hache’s body. They were caused by repeated strikes with a blunt ended hard object. There is nothing precise or methodical about them.

I do not accept that the head injuries form part of the post-mortem attempt to dispose of Ms. Hache’s bones by breaking them down for disposal. It was the flesh, skin and organs that Mr. Strong planned to flush down the toilet, and not the bones. Indeed, Mr. Strong admitted that his plan was to dispose of the bones by throwing them in the lake as he did with the torso. In accordance with his stated plan, there would be no need to smash the skull. Furthermore, when Mr. Strong discussed the dismemberment, he bragged to Det. Mitton that he was able to complete the task using only a paring knife and a serrated Ginsu knife. He made no mention of using a hammer or any other blunt object for the purpose of dismemberment.

iii. Third, when Det. Mitton and Mr. Strong discussed the head injury and the possibility that a hammer caused the injury, Mr. Strong was adamant that the hammer in his bedroom was not the “murder weapon.” He did not, however, suggest that the hammer was related to the dismemberment of Ms. Hache’s body.

iv. Fourth, the evidence of the head injuries must be considered in concert with the blood stain evidence in the bedroom and the objects inside the bedroom, as well as the blood stain evidence in relation to the mattress, as I have already detailed. This evidence supports a finding that a blood letting event occurred on or near the mattress inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom, and further that it occurred while Ms. Hache was alive;

k. When I view this evidence cumulatively, I am satisfied that the blood letting event in the bedroom involved Mr. Strong repeatedly striking Ms. Hache in the head with a hard blunt ended object. This is the injury that resulted in her death. When she was struck repeatedly in the head, her blood was deposited on the various items in the bedroom including the mattress which I find she was on or near, and the BDSM restraint device which I find she was wearing. I also find that Ms. Hache was struck in the face on a number of occasions prior to her death. These strikes did not cause her to bleed or contribute to her death, but they resulted in the bruising noted by Dr. Williams and visible in the autopsy photos;

l. In reaching this conclusion, I reject the suggestion that Ms. Hache possibly died of a drug overdose. I accept that Ms. Hache was a drug user who likely consumed drugs around the time of her death. The limited toxicology evidence suggests that she had been exposed to cocaine, methamphetamine, possibly amphetamine and pregabalin, all of which are drugs that can be abused recreationally without causing death. I also accept that these drugs could cause a person to die if taken in sufficient quantities. However, the presence of drugs alone does little more than suggest that they were ingested at some point prior to death. It does not suggest that the drugs were the cause of death. According to Dr. Williams, in most cases where drug toxicity is found to be the cause of death, the deceased presents with drugs in the blood system and no competing cause of death. That is not the case here, where there is an obvious competing cause of death and no other evidence suggesting a drug overdose;

m. On this last point, I note that Mr. Strong was not a hard drug user himself and denied that anyone used hard drugs in his presence. Further, while he explained that he did not trust drug addicts, he expressed sympathy at their plight and suggested that he even obtained and later donated a Naloxone kit to prevent a drug overdose death. Set against this backdrop, if Ms. Hache had suffered an accidental drug overdose in Mr. Strong’s home, it seems highly likely that he would have done something to get her medical assistance, whether it was calling 911 or getting someone to get her to the hospital. Even if, for some reason, he decided not to get her assistance, it makes absolutely no sense that he would then proceed to dismember her body, disembowel and dissect her internal organs, throw her torso in Lake Ontario, and store the remaining body parts in a chest freezer in his bedroom, only to defrost them months later and dispose of them down the toilet, strip of flesh by strip of flesh. In my view, the after the fact conduct evidence in this case is so extreme that it obliterates any possibility that Ms. Hache died of an accidental drug overdose in Mr. Strong’s apartment;

n. I also note that the suggestion of an accidental drug overdose as the cause of death fails to account for the evidence suggesting a significant blood letting event occurred on or near a mattress inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom. While Mr. Strong is not required to explain away the blood evidence, my consideration of the possibility of a drug overdose is not to be conducted in the abstract. It must be conducted on the basis of all the evidence, including the blood evidence; and,

o. In reaching the conclusion that Ms. Hache died of blunt force impact injuries to her head and not of a drug overdose or other unknown cause, I do not ultimately need to rely on the similar act evidence relating to the fact that Ms. Fitzpatrick was dismembered and placed in the same chest freezer as Ms. Hache. My conclusion on causation is based on the evidence I have just reviewed. That said, I do note that the similar act evidence makes the possibility that Ms. Hache died innocently even more unlikely. To be blunt, the chances that Mr. Strong would have twice found himself in need of a chest freezer to store the dismembered body parts of young women who met their death innocently, is so infinitesimally small that it suggests the opposite conclusion.

Did Mr. Strong Have the Intent for Murder When He Killed Rori Hache?

[189] I am satisfied that Mr. Strong had the requisite intent for murder when he killed Ms. Hache. In other words, I am satisfied that when he struck her repeatedly in the head with a hard blunt object, he either intended to kill her or he intended to cause her bodily harm that he knew was likely to result in death, and was reckless as to whether or not death ensued. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

a. I find that the injuries themselves conclusively support a finding of murderous intent. The common sense inference suggests that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions. Applying this common sense inference, I am satisfied that when a person uses a hammer or similar object to crack open a victim’s skull more than once, the only reasonable inference is that the person either intends death or intends bodily harm that is likely to cause death; and,

b. I find further support for this conclusion in the nature and extent of the after the fact conduct evidence. As indicated above, I am readily satisfied that the nature and extent of the dismemberment activities foreclose the possibility that Ms. Hache died innocently while inside Mr. Strong’s bedroom. The more nuanced issue is whether the nature and extent of the dismemberment activities can be used to support an inference of murderous intent. In my view, they can. As discussed in Calnen, Rodgerson, and Teske, supra, where an accused undertakes extreme efforts to get rid of a body, an inference arises that the accused did so in order to prevent authorities from discovering the true cause of death.

In this case, Mr. Strong engaged in an extreme, meticulous and prolonged effort to get rid of Ms. Hache’s body. She was initially dismembered and disembowelled. The disembowelling involved the dissection of her internal organs, including her uterus and fallopian tubes. Her torso was used as a cutting board and then disposed of in Lake Ontario. Later, once Mr. Strong decided to defrost and destroy her remaining body parts, he did so by stripping away flesh and skin in strips and flushing them down the toilet. He stripped the skin and flesh on her arms and legs down to the hands and feet. He removed and destroyed her outer genitalia and anus. The organs inside her pelvis were also removed. All that remained of her sexual and rectal organs was a ring of vaginal mucosa and a ring of anal mucosa.

While I accept that Ms. Hache’s head was found intact thus revealing the cause of death, I note that the process of disposing of her body was not complete at the time of his arrest. Mr. Strong was interrupted by “faulty plumbing”, as he put it in his statement to police. I am satisfied that at the time of his arrest, Mr. Strong’s plan was to complete the disposal of Ms. Hache’s body, with the flesh and skin being flushed down the drain and the remaining bones eventually being thrown into the lake. I am satisfied that if Mr. Strong had not been arrested, he would have followed through with his plan and would have eventually disposed of all of Ms. Hache’s body parts through the various means noted.

When I consider this evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the dismemberment was undertaken not only to make the discovery of Ms. Hache’s entire body impossible, but also to ultimately obscure the cause of her death. As a matter of logic and common sense, the extreme nature and meticulous extent of the dismemberment makes it more likely that Ms. Hache’s death was intentional and not simply an unintended consequence of an unlawful act.

Did Mr. Strong Murder Rori Hache During the Commission of a Sexual Assault or Unlawful Confinement?

[190] The Crown alleges that Ms. Hache was sexually assaulted and/or unlawfully confined at the time of her murder. If either a sexual assault or an unlawful confinement is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the second degree murder of Ms. Hache is elevated to first degree murder.

[191] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Hache was sexually assaulted during the transaction that ended with her murder. While I find that she was also probably unlawfully confined at the time, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she was confined against her will. I reach these conclusions for the following reasons:

a. I am satisfied that Ms. Hache was wearing the restraint device at the time of the blood letting incident which resulted in her death. The amount and location of blood on the device suggests that it was being worn by a person who was bleeding extensively. I find that the blood on the restraint device came from the wounds to Ms. Hache’s head. Further, as I have already indicated, I find that the blood on the mattress, wall and ceiling (as well as possibly on the moveable items such as the leash, walking stick and carabiner), came from a blood letting event that occurred on or near the bed area in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. This blood evidence adds further support to my conclusion that she was wearing the restraint device at the time of her death;

b. I further find that the device was being worn because Mr. Strong and Ms. Hache were engaged in a BDSM style sexual act. As indicated, the restraint device is comprised of a rigid bar and four Velcro cuffs worn on the user’s wrists and ankles. When worn, the user’s ankles and wrists are bound in a series along the length of the rigid bar. While the user can get out of the restraint cuffs without significant difficulty, the device is used as a form of restraint during BDSM activities. Apart from engaging in BDSM style sexual activity or perhaps testing the device to see how it might work, there is no other reasonable purpose for wearing it;

c. I find that the sex act probably included the use of one or more sex toys. The presence of Ms. Hache’s DNA on the sex toys amply supports this inference, even if it is possible that Ms. Hache attended at Mr. Strong’s residence for an earlier sexual encounter. Given the possibility that the sex toys came into contact with one another, either in the storage cubby or when they were improperly packaged by police during the search, I cannot conclude that all the sex toys were used on Ms. Hache. At best, I can conclude that at least one was used;

d. I am satisfied that Mr. Strong and Ms. Hache engaged in a sex act immediately prior to her death. I accept that Mr. Strong’s DNA and semen were found in what was left of her vaginal and anal cavities. In his statement to police, Mr. Strong offered that his DNA would be “all over” swabs of Ms. Hache’s pelvis. When he was advised that the semen was found in both her vaginal and anal cavities, Mr. Strong repeatedly and firmly denied engaging in anal sex, though he did not deny vaginal sex. Viewed in context, I find that his comments amount to admission of at least vaginal intercourse with Ms. Hache. That said, given the condition of the body post-dismemberment, I am unable to conclude that the presence of semen in the small portion of Ms. Hache’s anal cavity that remained, conclusively supports a finding that Mr. Strong and Ms. Hache engaged in anal sex.

I have no concerns that the presence of Mr. Strong’s semen may be explained by the submersion of Ms. Hache’s body in Mr. Strong’s water filled bathtub which contained semen as a result of his masturbation activities. The possibility of this type of transfer is eliminated by the water solubility of a chemical detected by the testing solution. The chemical is a constituent component of semen and its presence indicates the presence of semen. If the semen had been in water first, the chemical would have dissolved and a negative result would have been obtained by the forensic examiner.

I am also not concerned that the semen was placed on Ms. Hache post-mortem. There is no suggestion that Mr. Strong engaged in any post-mortem sexual activities with Ms. Hache’s body. He specifically denied doing so in his statement to police, and I have no basis to reject his evidence on this point.

Lastly, I reject any suggestion that the semen was related to a sexual act that occurred on a prior visit to Mr. Strong’s apartment. While I cannot entirely reject the possibility that Mr. Strong and Ms. Hache may have known each other and may have had earlier encounters, including earlier sexual encounters, the inferences stemming from the presence of the semen are to be assessed against the backdrop of the evidence as a whole, including the after the fact conduct. In this regard, I note again that the dismemberment involved the complete removal and destruction of Ms. Hache’s external sex organs and anus. Her internal reproductive organs were not only removed, they were dissected, examined and then destroyed. As mentioned, the only portions that remained were a ring of vaginal mucosa and a ring of rectal mucosa. The nature and extent of the destruction of Ms. Hache’s internal and external sex organs and anus, supports an inference that this aspect of the dismemberment was undertaken with a view to obscuring or hiding evidence of sexual intercourse. When the after the fact evidence is combined with the blood and DNA evidence from the mattress, bedroom and restraint device, the singular available inference is that a sexual act accompanied Ms. Hache’s death on or near the mattress in the bedroom of Mr. Strong’s apartment. Simply stated, there would be no reason for Ms. Hache to be in a BDSM restraint device, on a mattress in Mr. Strong’s bedroom, unless they were having some form of sexual interaction;

e. I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual act using the restraint device, and perhaps one or more of the sex toys with Ms. Hache’s DNA on them, was non-consensual when it started. The use of the restraint device and one or more sex toys do not, on their own, support a singular inference of an absence of consent. I find that Ms. Hache may well have been initially engaged in a consensual, albeit paid sex act, which involved the use of the restraints and the use of sex toys. There is no issue that Ms. Hache had turned to sex work during her troubled time on the streets. It also seems most likely that this is the manner in which she met Mr. Strong, or at least the manner in which she ultimately ended up in his apartment on the final occasion;

f. However, regardless of how the sex act initially started, I find that it became non-consensual the moment Mr. Strong began beating Ms. Hache. As indicated, I find that Ms. Hache was repeatedly struck about the face which resulted in a number of bruises. She also suffered fatal skull fractures. I am satisfied that these injuries occurred during a sex act and while Ms. Hache was wearing the restraint device. As a matter of law, a person cannot consent to the intentional infliction of bodily harm. As such, when a party intentionally inflicts bodily harm on another party during a sex act, the sex act instantly becomes non-consensual. In this case, the repeated strikes to the face were of sufficient force to leave a number of obvious bruises. I am readily satisfied that bruising amounts to bodily harm, and I am further satisfied that the bruises would have been intentionally caused, thus vitiating consent. These strikes to the face were accompanied by the skull cracking blows to the head. Taken together, I am satisfied that the strikes to the face and the blows to the head manifestly amount to an intentional infliction of bodily harm sufficient to vitiate consent. Lastly, I am satisfied that Ms. Hache was alive during the sexual assault which lasted, at a minimum, the duration of the beating. This is not an instance where there was an attempt to commit a sexual assault after death;

g. I do not know why Mr. Strong decided to kill Ms. Hache during this encounter. Perhaps it was because she resisted a particular sex act and Mr. Strong used force to overcome her resistance or prevent her from seeking help. Perhaps the violence simply formed part of the sex act that Mr. Strong wanted to engage in. Ultimately, it does not matter. Motive is not an element of the offence; and,

h. In terms of unlawful confinement, when I consider the totality of the evidence, I am left with a reasonable doubt on whether Ms. Hache was unlawfully confined at the time of her murder. Ultimately, in view of my findings on sexual assault, the issue of unlawful confinement is moot. The Crown does not need to prove that a murder is a first degree murder in more than one way. However, for the sake of completeness I find as follows:

i. I am not satisfied that the “pulley system” was used to restrain Ms. Hache. The pulley system appears to be a homemade contraption that was used to restrain sex partners to Mr. Strong’s bed, with ropes that ran under the bed up to the wall and then over to the ceiling. Apart from its presence in the area where Ms. Hache died, there is no evidence suggesting it was used at the time of her death. As well, while a leash with a blood stain on it was found hanging on the wall at the head of the bed, I cannot conclude that the blood stain was on the leash because the leash was used to restrain Ms. Hache. The blood stain could readily be related to the other blood spatter stains on the wall and ceiling.

ii. There were no ligature marks observed on Ms. Hache’s body and body parts. Given the state of the body at examination, Dr. Williams could not exclude the possibility that ligatures were used. However, there was no positive evidence of the use of ligatures. That said, the fact that the skin was stripped from Ms. Hache’s arms and legs down to the hands and feet is curious, and suggests a possible attempt to obscure the presence of bruises around the wrists and ankles. Nonetheless, the only reasonable inference is that the use of ligatures, beyond the Velcro restraint bar, is no more than a mere possibility.

iii. I am not satisfied that Ms. Hache was initially unlawfully confined when using the restraint device. As I have indicated, the use of this Velcro strapped BDSM restraint may well have been consensual. The device itself is also easy to get out of as Ms. J.L. testified.

iv. I also cannot find that Ms. Hache was confined in the bedroom during the sex act. There is no evidence capable of supporting such a finding.

v. As a matter of law, for the purposes of first degree murder, an act of unlawful confinement must be distinct from the act of killing. I note that when Mr. Strong began striking Ms. Hache with his hands and whatever hard object he used to crack open her skull, any consent to the use of the restraint device would have evaporated. The continued use of the restraint device at that point would have resulted in an unlawful confinement. That said, I find that the strikes to the head and skull were the very acts that caused her death and as such, there is no distinct act of unlawful confinement that coincides with the murder. As a result, I am left with a doubt about whether the Crown has established an act of unlawful confinement distinct from the acts involved in causing the actual death.

Count #1 – Kandis Fitzpatrick

[192] I turn lastly to my analysis and findings in relation to the alleged first degree murder of Ms. Fitzpatrick.

Is Kandis Fitzpatrick Dead?

[193] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Fitzpatrick is dead. The evidence suggests that all traces of her activity end in 2008. She has never been heard from since despite extensive family and police efforts to locate evidence of her whereabouts. While I accept that she regularly absented herself from her family, there is no possibility that she has done so for this long and without a trace.

[194] In any event, Mr. Strong, through counsel, accepts that the Crown has proven that he dismembered Ms. Fitzpatrick using the specialty Wyoming knife, and then placed her body parts in the same chest freezer that was later used to store Ms. Hache’s body parts. The defence position on this issue is a fair one in view of the evidence. I accept that the Wyoming knife was used to dismember Ms. Fitzpatrick. The special design of the knife and the presence of the tissue-like substance with Ms. Fitzpatrick’s DNA on it, years later, amply supports this conclusion.[^17] The conclusion is further supported by Mr. Strong’s comments to Det. Mitton which reveal that he knew Ms. Fitzpatrick’s DNA would be on the knife, and in which he acknowledges that he simply failed to get rid of this “damning” piece of evidence due to procrastination. Lastly, the presence of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s blood inside the chest freezer adds further support to the conclusion that Ms. Fitzpatrick was dismembered.

How Did Kandis Fitzpatrick Die? Who Killed Her?

[195] There is no evidence on the specific cause of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death. Her body was never recovered and there is no other evidence that directly informs her medical cause of death. However, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that she was killed in some unlawful fashion by Mr. Strong. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

a. Ms. Fitzpatrick was dismembered and her body was successfully disposed of. The exact specifics of her dismemberment cannot be entirely discerned. However, I find that at least some of her body parts were placed inside the chest freezer in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. The chest freezer is small and is unlikely capable of storing an intact human body. The use of the chest freezer to store body parts also suggests that there was a time gap between the dismemberment and the eventual disposal of her body. In other words, the dismemberment and disposal of the body took place over time, which necessitated the use of the chest freezer.

b. Mr. Strong told Det. Mitton that he was surprised when Ms. Hache’s torso “popped up” in Lake Ontario. He explained that he followed a process of removing internal organs which he believed would permit the torso to sink. He also expressed the view that Ms. Hache’s breasts may have created unexpected buoyancy. When this portion of the statement is viewed in context, I find that Mr. Strong’s “surprise” is based on the fact that he had successfully used the same technique earlier in order to dispose of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s torso. He was surprised because with Ms. Hache, it did not work.

c. Mr. Strong also explained that flushing flesh down the toilet was an “awesome way” to dispose of a body. He maintained this view, despite the fact that the clogged plumbing resulted in his initial arrest in relation to Ms. Hache. I infer that he formed this view because he had earlier managed to dispose of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s body, in part, by flushing her flesh down the drain.

d. When Mr. Strong described Ms. Hache’s liver, he noted “I’ve never seen one that big before.” I infer from this comment that Mr. Strong had on a prior occasion seen Ms. Fitzpatrick’s liver and was making a comparison. This adds further support to a finding that Ms. Fitzpatrick was disembowelled.

e. The dismemberment and successful disposal of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s body very strongly supports an inference that it was done to cover up an unlawful act. I consider it highly unlikely that a person would resort to dismemberment and a complete disposal of a body in circumstances where there was an innocent or accidental death. While I accept that a person may not want to face the scrutiny that might follow if a sex worker innocently died while in their home, it is a huge leap to then conclude that dismemberment of the body, storage of body parts in a chest freezer and final and complete disposal all body parts, would be an answer. The nature and extent of this type of dismemberment and disposal is entirely disproportionate to an accidental or innocently occurring death.

f. When Mr. Strong discusses the specialty knife with Det. Mitton, he laments that all he had to do “was boil it” in order to destroy the DNA on the knife. He refers to the knife as a “very damning” piece of evidence and comments that it was “lucky” for the police to find it. When Mr. Strong is advised that the DNA on the specialty knife is all the DNA evidence the police have for Ms. Fitzpatrick, he responds, “Holy, shit a dick” and then states, “And I know it sounds cold, but like, when you think of how little it would have taken to do away with that.” These utterances were made after Mr. Strong had been arrested and cautioned in relation to the first degree murder of Ms. Fitzpatrick. During the interview, Det. Mitton is very clear that he is asking questions about Ms. Fitzpatrick’s murder and not merely the fact that she was dismembered. This is unlike the first interview with police wherein Mr. Strong was only under arrest for indignity to Ms. Hache’s body, though under caution for a potential charge of murder. Viewed in context, I find these utterances add support to the inference that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death was unlawfully caused by Mr. Strong, and not accidental or otherwise innocent. Mr. Strong is essentially acknowledging complicity in Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death by describing the knife used to dismember her as a “very damning” piece of evidence that he could easily have gotten rid of.

g. While the location of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death need not be determined, I find that she was most likely killed and later dismembered inside Mr. Strong’s apartment. As with Ms. Hache, it makes no sense whatsoever that Mr. Strong would just happen upon Ms. Fitzpatrick’s body somewhere and then decide to take her into his apartment, only to then engage in the gruesome process of dismembering her. It also makes little sense that Mr. Strong would kill her elsewhere and then risk somehow bringing her body into his house for dismemberment and disposal. Again, I find that Mr. Strong’s comments to Det. Mitton about the potential of a video “always” showing Ms. Fitzpatrick entering and leaving the residence “on her own steam”, are essentially posed as a riddle. Mr. Strong was toying with Det. Mitton on this issue by suggesting that he could reveal what actually happened and that it would be to Det. Mitton’s great surprise. Even assuming that Mr. Strong’s comments on this issue are a denial of involvement in Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death, I do not accept his comments nor am I left with a reasonable doubt by them. As Mr. Strong candidly explained to Det. Mitton, lying about killing or raping a woman was one thing he was prepared to do as a matter of self-preservation. I accept he was being honest when he said this.

h. I find further support for the conclusion that Mr. Strong unlawfully killed Ms. Fitzpatrick in three specific passages of his statement to Det. Mitton.[^18] I will examine each of these in turn.

“The Deal” – During his interview with Det. Mitton, Mr. Strong offers to “spill the beans” in exchange for a comfortable existence in jail. The “deal” is initially raised by Mr. Strong, who explains that he has discussed the matter with two lawyers. Mr. Strong acknowledges that he is not seeking a “get outta jail free” card, but is simply seeking to be comfortable for “whatever years” he may have left to live. He explains that he fears getting killed if he is released from jail. In exchange for a comfortable existence while in jail, Mr. Strong offers to “spill everything.” He also explains that he is holding “cards” to play later, presumably once a deal is in place. This discussion occurs during the interview that follows Mr. Strong’s arrest for the first degree murder of Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick. The interview occurs many months after Mr. Strong was initially arrested and charged with causing an indignity to Ms. Hache’s body. Viewed in context, I find that Mr. Strong was trying to strike a bargain using inculpatory information regarding the deaths of both Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick. The “cards” he was holding was the information he had to reveal about his involvement in each death. The “cards” are also clearly inculpatory, as Mr. Strong himself acknowledges that he is not seeking to get out of jail, but rather is seeking comforts like a TV and internet for his remaining years in jail. Lastly, I am not prepared to find that the “cards” were only about the dismemberment of each victim. The police already had all the evidence needed to prove an indignity to Ms. Hache’s body. Indeed, Mr. Strong acknowledged as much in the statement. Further, he implicitly acknowledged dismembering Ms. Fitzpatrick through the discussion of the specialty hunting knife. As such, the dismemberment of Ms. Fitzpatrick was also not a “card” that he was “holding back.”

“Serial Killers” – At a certain point in the interview, Det. Mitton turns the discussion to the topic of serial killers. He notes that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death and Ms. Hache’s death were years apart. He comments that Mr. Strong went “undetected” for a number of years. Det. Mitton and Mr. Strong then engage in a discussion about the definition of a “serial killer.” Mr. Strong states that according to him, a serial killer is a person who kills three or more people. Det. Mitton agrees and suggests that killing at least three people is what “separates them from the crowd.” Mr. Strong replies that he is not seeking the notoriety of being a serial killer, and then notes that he does not think he would have “continued.” I find that Mr. Strong’s comment about not “continuing” is an admission that he has killed two people and does not think that he would have gone on to kill a third. In other words, he does not think that he would have gone on to be a serial killer, as he believes the term is defined. I further find that Mr. Strong immediately catches the import of this admission, because he follows up with “But….I can’t say that sorry.” When this passage is viewed in context, it is clear that Mr. Strong recognizes that he has made an inculpatory admission.

“Lack of Remorse” – Towards the end of the interview, Det. Mitton and Mr. Strong speak about remorse. Mr. Strong explains that he feels bad about getting caught, which prompts Det. Mitton to state “and that’s where the bad feeling ends?” Mr. Strong replies affirmatively and then explains “that’s my damageness.” Further on in the interview, Det. Mitton returns to the issue of remorse. He states, “…two lives have been snuffed out and the person responsible is not remorseful.” Mr. Strong replies “…I believe I was created…I am who I am because of my childhood…” Det. Mitton replies “Blame someone for your actions?”, and Mr. Strong then states “Yeah, exactly. They’re my actions, but I don’t think I, I would have made those actions, had I been nurtured.”

When I view this exchange in context, Det. Mitton links the discussion of remorse to the two “young lives” that have been “snuffed out.” It is clear that Det. Mitton is referencing the killing of both Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Strong does not deny responsibility or remain silent. Rather, he acknowledges “his actions” and takes the position that he would not have engaged in these “actions” if he had been nurtured as a child. I find that this response by Mr. Strong is an admission that he killed both Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick.

i. When I consider this evidence as a whole, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Strong unlawfully caused Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death. The evidence relating to the extent and nature of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s dismemberment, along with the combined effect of Mr. Strong’s inculpatory statements, leaves no other reasonable possibility.

j. In reaching this conclusion, I decline to place any weight on Mr. Strong’s admitted lie to Det. Dorego and Det. Short in response to their question about the possibility of other victims. While the Crown suggests that this is an admitted fabrication which can therefore be considered as positive evidence of guilt, I do not see it as having any ultimate evidentiary value, even if it meets the exception discussed in O’Connor. Mr. Strong simply denied that there were other victims that the police had to worry about. His only alternatives would have been to admit that there were other victims or remain silent. Viewed in context, I see his denial as essentially a failure to admit the existence of an additional victim. It is a stretch to view this denial as probative of Mr. Strong’s guilt; and,

k. I also decline to place much, if any weight, on the similar act evidence. While I have ruled that the evidence relating to Ms. Hache can be used to infer that Ms. Fitzpatrick also died as a result of an unlawful act, I do not need this evidence to support the conclusions I have just articulated.

Did Mr. Strong Have the Requisite Intent for Murder when he Killed Kandis Fitzpatrick?

[196] The evidence I have just reviewed is the sum total of the evidence available to determine whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that when Mr. Strong killed Ms. Fitzpatrick, he had the requisite intent for murder. The issue at this stage is narrow. Does this evidence exclusively support a finding that Mr. Strong had the requisite intent? Or does the evidence, when viewed as a whole, also permit a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Strong only committed an unlawful act that resulted in Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death, but in doing so did not have the requisite intent for murder? If it is the former, Mr. Strong is guilty of murder. If it is the latter, Mr. Strong can only be convicted of manslaughter.

[197] When I consider all of the evidence on this issue, I find that the evidentiary gap regarding what happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick cannot be sufficiently bridged by the available evidence. Simply stated, even with the after the fact conduct evidence and the similar act evidence, I am unable to conclude that the only available inference is that Mr. Strong had the requisite intent for murder when he killed Ms. Fitzpatrick.

[198] Unlike the scenario with Ms. Hache, the after the fact conduct evidence stands almost alone in revealing what happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick. While it supports an inference that her death was intentionally caused, that is not the only inference it supports. As well, while Mr. Strong’s utterances are clearly inculpatory, I find that they do not squarely support a finding that he murdered Ms. Fitzpatrick over a finding that he caused her death unlawfully. In other words, when I look at Mr. Strong’s inculpatory utterances, I find that they clearly support a finding that he caused Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death unlawfully and probably did so intentionally, but they do not permit me to conclude that death could only have been caused intentionally. Lastly, the similar act evidence adds weight to the possibility that Ms. Fitzpatrick was murdered much like Ms. Hache, but given the passage of time and the absence of evidence in relation to Ms. Fitzpatrick, I cannot conclude that Ms. Fitzpatrick was in fact killed in the same fashion as Ms. Hache.

[199] When I consider all this evidence together, I am unable to conclude that the evidence supports a singular finding that Mr. Strong had the requisite intent for murder when he killed Ms. Fitzpatrick. To be clear, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Strong is Ms. Fitzpatrick’s killer. He unlawfully caused her death and he will be punished for that offence. However, I am not sure that when he did so he either intended to cause her death or intended to cause her bodily harm that he knew was likely to result in her death. He probably did, but “probably” is not the test.

Was the Murder of Kandis Fitzpatrick Committed During a Sexual Assault or Unlawful Confinement?

[200] In view of my finding that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Strong had the requisite intent for murder when he killed Ms. Fitzpatrick, a further determination of whether the Crown has proven either sexual assault or unlawful confinement is unnecessary. However, for the sake of completeness, I note that had I been satisfied that Mr. Strong murdered Ms. Fitzpatrick, I would not have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it occurred during either a sexual assault or an unlawful confinement.

[201] There is no evidence revealing what the nature of Ms. Fitzpatrick’s final encounter with Mr. Strong entailed. The fact that at the time of her death Ms. Fitzpatrick was engaged in the sex trade, supports a possible inference that the encounter was sexual in nature and perhaps paid. This possibility is strengthened when I consider the similarities between Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache. Nonetheless, on the basis of the evidence before me, the suggestion that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s final encounter with Mr. Strong involved sexual activity amounts to no more than a reasonable possibility.

[202] When I consider the similar act evidence, I am unable to conclude that because Mr. Strong sexually assaulted Ms. Hache while killing her, he must have done the same to Ms. Fitzpatrick. While Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick were similarly situated in terms of their life circumstances and may well have fallen in with Mr. Strong for the same reasons, the almost 10 year gap in time and the absence of forensic or other evidence relating to what happened to Ms. Fitzpatrick at the time of her death, renders a singular inference on this issue impossible.

[203] I also consider the nature of the dismemberment. While the dismemberment of Ms. Hache and Ms. Fitzpatrick share a number of similarities, I do not know whether Mr. Strong engaged in the same extreme degree of destruction and mutilation with Ms. Fitzpatrick as he did with Ms. Hache. I am also not prepared to reason backwards from Ms. Hache’s dismemberment to a conclusion that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s dismemberment was undertaken in the exact same fashion. As such, I cannot conclude that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s dismemberment also included efforts to obscure any signs of sexual interaction that were present. Again, in view of the similar act evidence it is reasonably possible that it did, but I am not satisfied that it did.

[204] Considering the evidence as a whole, I conclude that it is possible that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s death occurred during the commission of a sexual assault. However, I am simply not sure that this is the case.

[205] In terms of unlawful confinement, I conclude that there is no evidence that Ms. Fitzpatrick was unlawfully confined at the time of her murder.

Conclusions

[206] Mr. Strong, please stand.

[207] On count two in the indictment, I find you guilty of the first degree murder of Rori Hache.

[208] On count one in the indictment, I find you not guilty of the first degree murder of Kandis Fitzpatrick, but guilty of the included offence of manslaughter.

Justice J. Di Luca

Released: March 16, 2021

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

ADAM STRONG

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice J. Di Luca

Released: March 16, 2021

[^1]: There is no formal admission on the issue of dismemberment. However, in closing submissions, the defence conceded that on the totality of the evidence, the Crown had established that both Ms. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Hache had been dismembered by Mr. Strong. The defence also conceded that the Crown had established that Mr. Strong disposed of Ms. Hache’s torso on September 4, 2017.

[^2]: The count-on-count similar act application was heard at the close of the Crown’s case. On December 8, 2020, I provided a bottom-line ruling indicating that the Crown’s application was allowed with reasons to follow. My reasons for allowing the count-on-count similar act application are included herein.

[^3]: Ms. Hache’s tragic end should in no way reflect on the efforts of the people who encountered her in her final days. Cst. Kane’s treatment of Ms. Hache demonstrated the finest qualities expected from members of a police service. Ms. Smid and Mr. Taylor both demonstrated compassion and professionalism in their dealings with Ms. Hache. The dignity and respect these witnesses accorded Ms. Hache is to be commended.

[^4]: In closing submissions, the defence effectively admitted that Mr. Strong dismembered Ms. Fitzpatrick using the specialty knife. While the defence initially suggested that the continuity of the speciality knife was in issue, it ultimately made no submissions on the issue and accepted that the Crown had proven continuity. Again, while these were not formal admissions, they readily accord with the evidence tendered at trial.

[^5]: Dr. Williams’ rough estimate was that 1/3 of the mucosa remained available. That said, the entire external genitalia and all the internal organs had been removed.

[^6]: Second degree murder also becomes first degree murder where it is both planned and deliberate. There is no allegation in this case that either alleged murder was planned and deliberate.

[^7]: In closing submissions, Mr. Strong, through counsel, accepted that the Crown had established that he dismembered Ms. Fitzpatrick. Implicit in this position is an acceptance that the Crown has also proven that Ms. Fitzpatrick is deceased. As such, this proposed use of the similar act evidence may be moot.

[^8]: For the purposes of the admissibility analysis, it is sufficient to find that these factual findings are all available on the evidence before me. While in closing submissions the defence argued that I should not make some of these findings, there is no suggestion that the findings are entirely unavailable on the evidence before me.

[^9]: There is no suggestion that someone other than Mr. Strong may have been using his device on the relevant days. In any event, I find that there is ample corroborative evidence suggesting that the device was being used by Mr. Strong during the time frame captured by the communications data.

[^10]: I note that one of the items found in Mr. Strong’s living room was a morgue slab he purchased from a hospital that had closed. There was no forensic evidence linking the morgue slab with either Ms. Hache or Ms. Fitzpatrick. In his statement to police, Mr. Strong explained that the morgue slab was a “conversation piece” that had nothing to do with the case. I do not find that the possession of the morgue slab gives any credence or support to the suggestion that Mr. Strong brought Ms. Hache’s dead body into his home.

[^11]: The blood spatter expert, Det. Bennett, testified that she did not observe a “traditional” blood scene, essentially what one would expect to see upon entering a room where a bloody crime had just been committed.

[^12]: There were a number of carabiners found in Mr. Strong’s bedroom. It is unclear which one is the one with blood on it and where precisely it was located.

[^13]: I note there is no evidence that Mr. Strong ever bled on his mattress. Further, Mr. Strong’s relationship with Ms. J.L. ended four years prior. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Strong cut out the large portion of the mattress because J.L bled on it. Lastly, J.L. testified and offered no evidence of a blood letting event on her part.

[^14]: I am referring to Exhibit 61 - the mattress with the large cut out. There was another mattress found balled up in the bedroom next to the chest freezer which also had a blood stain from Ms. Hache on it. While this blood stain may well have resulted from a blood letting event in the bedroom, I accept that it could also have come from the movement of body parts in/out of the chest freezer. As such, I place little weight on this item of evidence. I also place little weight on the blood spatter evidence relating to the blood stains in the stairwell leading down to the apartment and at the entrance to the bedroom. This blood spatter evidence may well have been caused by the movement of body parts within the apartment and as such does not assist in determining where Ms. Hache died.

[^15]: Though it seems unlikely that an amount of blood deposited during consensual sex would result in a need to cut out a portion of the mattress.

[^16]: Though it seems unlikely that a wound on her hand would have left the degree of blood staining observed. As well, I decline to find that there is any evidence suggesting that she had bleeding cuts or wounds to her feet as a result of walking around without shoes on. While I find that she was known to walk around barefoot, the possibility that she had a bleeding injury and further that this bleeding injury left blood at Mr. Strong’s apartment is both remote and speculative.

[^17]: A fair bit of time was dedicated to challenging the evidence relating to the “tissue-like” material on the knife. In view of the final position taken by the defence, the issue is moot. However, had the issue of dismemberment remained live at the end of trial, I would have readily concluded that the “tissue-like” material observed on the knife was probably Ms. Fitzpatrick’s tissue and not some other substance with Ms. Fitzpatrick’s DNA on it.

[^18]: These utterances also implicate Mr. Strong in the murder of Ms. Hache. However, as I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Strong murdered Ms. Hache, there is no need to consider them. In any event, they would only strengthen my conclusions.