COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-0100-00
DATE: 2021 08 04
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
J. Ostapiw, for the Crown
- and -
MORRIS TUTU
K. Schofield and H. Ghelani, for Morris Tutu
HEARD: June 21, 2021
RULING ON PRE-TRIAL MOTION
André J.
[1] In this blended voir dire, the Crown seeks an order declaring that Mr. Tutu’s statement to the police, following his arrest on August 5, 2018, was voluntary. Mr. Tutu also seeks an order that Constable Jamie Wallace of the Peel Regional Police (PRP) violated his s. 7, 8 and 9, 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights and that the evidence of the firearm found in his satchel should be excluded, pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
background facts
[2] On August 5, 2018 PRP officers Jamie Wallace and Christopher Galvao investigated a group of black males in the parking lot of a bar in Mississauga. Constable Wallace directed Mr. Tutu, who was carrying a black satchel on his back, to come forward. The officer later gave the following reasons why he did so:
a) Mr. Tutu did not make eye contact with him;
b) Mr. Tutu “bladed” him or turned sideways in an apparent attempt to hide the satchel; and
c) Mr. Tutu tried to hide behind another male when the police officers arrived at their location.
[3] Mr. Tutu came to the officer as directed. Constable Wallace grabbed the satchel and felt the outlines of a firearm within it. Constable Wallace then arrested Mr. Tutu for possession of a firearm. He later recovered a Springfield Armory firearm, a magazine and ammunition from the satchel.
[4] Constable Wallace later interviewed Mr. Tutu at the police station.
POSITION OF THE APPLICANT
[5] The Applicant submits that the motivating reason for the officer’s investigation of him and the numerous Charter breaches that resulted was racial profiling, whether conscious or unconscious. Consequently, the officers breached his s. 7, 8, 9 and 15 Charter rights. As a result, a stay of the proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter is justified. Alternatively, the firearm and ammunition evidence should be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.
position of the crown
[6] The Crown submits that the Applicant has failed to meet his onus on all of the alleged Charter breaches. The applications should be dismissed as follows:
a) Sections 7 & 15: The Applicant was not detained because of racial profiling. Constable Wallace made observations based on his training and experience.
b) Section 9: The Applicant was not arbitrarily detained. The officer had lawful authority to detain the Applicant for investigative purposes based on his observations.
c) Section 8: The search was done for officer safety reasons. The officer was entitled to secure the Applicant and ensure he had no access to weapons before he was formally arrested and placed in the police cruiser.
d) Section 10: The Applicant’s reason for detention could not be safely communicated before the Applicant was handcuffed. The Applicant was given the reason for his arrest and his right to counsel. The Applicant was not advised of the reason for his detention which was reasonable in the circumstances. The Applicant was told the reason for his arrest and invoked his right to speak with counsel which was fulfilled before he was interviewed.
[7] The Crown submits that should the court find that any of the Applicant’s Charter rights were violated, the Applicant has failed to establish that the appropriate remedy is a stay of the proceedings or exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter. All three of the factors in R. v. Grant heavily favour the admission of the evidence and excluding the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
ANalysis
[8] The issues in this hearing are as follows:
a) Did Constable Wallace violate Mr. Tutu’s s. 9 Charter rights when he investigated him on August 5, 2018?
b) Did the officer violate Mr. Tutu’s s. 8 Charter rights when he conducted a search of his satchel?
c) Did the officer violate Mr. Tutu’s s. 10 Charter rights?
d) If the officer violated Mr. Tutu’s Charter rights, what is the appropriate remedy?
e) Was Mr. Tutu’s statement to Constable Wallace voluntary? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
a) DID CONSTABLE WALLACE RACIALLY PROFILE MR. TUTU WHEN HE INVESTIGATED HIM ON AUGUST 5, 2018?
THE LAW
[9] Section 9 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
[10] In R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, at para. 28, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that:
[A] person is detained where he or she “submits or acquiesces in the deprivation of liberty and reasonably believes that the choice to do otherwise does not exist”; [see also R. v. Therens, 1985 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613, at para. 644.]
[11] In Grant, the Court recognized detention may also be psychological. It stated:
Moving on from the fundamental principle of the right to choose, we find that psychological constraint amounting to detention has been recognized in two situations. The first is where the subject is legally required to comply with a direction or demand, as in the case of a roadside breath sample. The second is where there is no legal obligation to comply with a restrictive or coercive demand, but a reasonable person in the subject’s position would feel so obligated….
[12] The Court further noted at para. 31 that:
…As held in Therens, this must be determined objectively, having regard to all the circumstances of the particular situation, including the conduct of the police. As discussed in more detail below and summarized at para. 44, the focus must be on the state conduct in the context of the surrounding legal and factual situation, and how that conduct would be perceived by a reasonable person in the situation as it develops.
[13] In R. v. Thompson, 2020 ONCA 264, at para. 36, the Court of Appeal noted that:
A psychological detention can arise either if: (1) an individual is legally required to comply with a police direction or demand (as with a demand for a roadside breath sample); or (2) absent actual legal compulsion, “the police conduct would cause a reasonable person to conclude that he or she was not free to go and had to comply with the police direction or demand”: Grant, at paras. 30-31; Suberu, at para. 22; and Le, at para. 25. This involves “an objective determination, made in light of the circumstances of an encounter as a whole”: Suberu, at para. 22.
[14] The Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Saretzky, 2020 ABCA 421, at para. 31, “It is the perceived loss of choice which requires a psychological detention.”
RACIAL PROFILING
[15] In Peart v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board (2006), 2006 CanLII 37566 (ON CA), 43 C.R. (6th) 175 (ONCA), the Ontario Court of Appeal noted, at paras. 89-90, that:
Racial profiling occurs when race or racialized stereotypes about offending or dangerousness are used, consciously or unconsciously, to any degree in suspect selection or suspect treatment. The one exception to this is where race is used as part of a known suspect’s physical description, the description is detailed and an individual is investigated because he or she reasonably matches that description.
[16] Justice Doherty further noted at paras. 95-96, as follows:
…The courts, assisted by various studies, academic writings, and expert evidence have come to recognize a variety of factual indicators that can support the inference that the police conduct was racially motivated, despite the existence of an apparent justification for that conduct…
The indicators of racial profiling recognized in the literature by experts and in the caselaw can assist a trier of fact in deciding what inferences should or should not be drawn and what testimony should or should not be accepted in a particular case…..
[17] In R. v. Richards, 1999 CanLII 1602 (ON CA), [1999] O.J. No. 1420, at para. 24, the Court of Appeal noted that:
Racial profiling is criminal profiling based on race. Racial or colour profiling refers to that phenomenon whereby certain criminal activity is attributed to an identified group in society on the basis of race or colour resulting in the targeting of individual members of that group. In this context, race is illegitimately used as a proxy for the criminality or general criminal propensity of an entire racial group.
[18] Racial profiling may be the result of overt, subconscious or institutional racial bias: R. v. Brown, 2003 CanLII 52142 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1251, at para. 8. Racial profiling can rarely be proven using direct evidence; it must be inferred from the circumstances of the police action: see Peart v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2006 CanLII 37566 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 4457, at para. 95.
[19] Racial profiling is improper even if it was only one of other factors in a decision to detain or arrest a detainee: Brown v. Durham Regional Police Force, 1998 CanLII 7198 (ON CA), [1998] O.J. No. 5274; Richards; R. v. Dudhi, 2019 ONCA 665, at paras. 62-63. The Court of Appeal noted in Dudhi that:
Where race or racial stereotypes are used in any degree in subject selection or subject treatment, there will be no reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds. The decision will amount to racial profiling.
[20] Similarly, the Supreme Court of Canada noted in R v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, 375 C.C.C. (3d) 431 at para. 76, that racial profiling occurs when race or racial stereotypes are used, consciously or unconsciously, and to any degree, in the selection or treatment of a subject. See also R v Sitladeen, 2021 ONCA 303, at para. 50.
THE FACTS
[21] Constable Wallace, a ten-year veteran of the PRP, was attached to the bicycle patrol unit and to the Strategic Tactical Enforcement Policing Unit (“STEP Unit”) the mandate of which was proactive policing or suppressing drugs and weapons offences. On August 5, 2018, Constable Galvao and himself responded to a disturbance call in the parking lot of a restaurant in Mississauga. They got to the bar at 9:30 p.m. There was a heavy police presence at the restaurant. They therefore decided to check the parking lot which Constable Wallace knew to be a “hotspot”. He had made a previous firearms arrest there. Other officers had also made drug arrests in the area. They decided to check the parking lot to see that none of these offences were being committed. They therefore wanted to have contact with the lot’s occupants and to ensure that offences were not being committed.
[22] According to Constable Wallace, they first encountered a group of Asian males. He spoke to members of the group. He asked them how the evening was going. They replied that they were about to leave. He did not identify any offences. He therefore left the group.
[23] They then drove down a ramp to a lower level of the parking lot where they saw another group, of mostly black males and a few black females. They stopped on the ramp in a location which allowed other vehicles to get through. Some persons were playing loud music in their vehicles.
[24] The officers parked their cruiser. Most of the males were 3 to 5 feet from the front passenger side of the unmarked cruiser. Constable Wallace greeted the group by saying, “Hey, how’s everyone doing?” The males appeared surprised with a “wide-eyed” look. No one responded to his greeting. They stared at him. He took a step towards the group and greeted them.
[25] The officer testified that he noticed a male, later confirmed to be Mr. Tutu, making a “very suspicious movement.” The movement was that Mr. Tutu tapped the satchel he was carrying with his right hand to prevent the officer from seeing it. Mr. Tutu, according to the officer, then “bladed” his body thereby concealing the right side of his body. Constable Wallace felt that this was significant given that the satchel was on the right side of Mr. Tutu’s body. The officer had also seen a police circular indicating that suspects used satchels to carry firearms. The officer’s suspicion was further aroused when Mr. Tutu stepped behind another male in an apparent attempt to conceal the satchel. “I saw him tap it with his right hand,” the officer testified.
[26] The satchel appeared to contain something heavy. “It felt very obvious something was in there,” the officer added. “His eyes were very wide, mouth ajar and he was just staring at me.”
[27] These observations, Constable Wallace testified, left “no doubt in my mind,” that there was a weapon in the satchel. He therefore ordered Mr. Tutu to “come here.”
[28] Mr. Tutu looked at the satchel and then at the officer. Constable Wallace told him, “Don’t reach for it.” He repeatedly asked Mr. Tutu to show him his hands. Mr. Tutu did not respond. Constable Wallace told the male behind Mr. Tutu to get out of the way. He ordered Mr. Tutu to walk towards him. He then handcuffed Mr. Tutu behind his back and told him that he was under investigative detention.
[29] Constable Wallace squeezed the satchel and felt the outlines of a gun. He yelled “gun” and contacted dispatch. A male came towards him aggressively, prompting him to call for more units.
[30] He then told Mr. Tutu he was under arrest. He opened the satchel, reached inside and located a gun. It had a magazine with seven bullets. There was a bullet in the chamber.
[31] Constable Wallace immediately arrested Mr. Tutu for weapons dangerous and possession of a prohibited weapon. He placed Mr. Tutu in the rear of the first marked police cruiser which arrived at the scene.
[32] Constable Wallace read Mr. Tutu his rights to counsel at the back of the cruiser.
[33] At 9:55 p.m. Mr. Tutu was transferred to a division. The officer left the scene at 10:15 p.m. and arrived at 12 Division at 10:56 p.m. He could not facilitate a call to duty counsel at the scene of the arrest because he did not have a cellphone.
[34] He subsequently took a video-taped statement from Mr. Tutu. The officer testified that he never struck or threatened Mr. Tutu, promised him anything, or refused any request from him.
[35] During the statement, Mr. Tutu refused to answer if the gun belonged to him or to someone else.
[36] Constable Galvao testified that they did not pass by the parking lot when they initially responded to a call concerning a disturbance at the restaurant. They stopped and spoke to the first group of persons. There were seven in that group. The members were predominantly “African American.” They interacted with the group for one to two minutes.
[37] They drove down the ramp to the lower level and met another group of “African American” males numbering about ten. He stopped two to three metres from the group. The members were in front of their car.
[38] Constable Wallace and himself stepped out of his car and greeted the males. They asked them, “How are you doing; how’s your night going?” Everyone was completely quiet.
[39] He then heard Constable Wallace say: “Don’t reach for it. Keep your hand out of the bag.” He then heard his colleague ask Mr. Tutu to step forward.
[40] Constable Galvao described their interactions with the two groups as “night and day.”
[41] He described Mr. Tutu as nervous and hesitant and reluctant to comply.
[42] Constable Wallace gave three commands to Mr. Tutu to comply. The first command happened less than a minute after the officers exited their car. Constable Galvao later testified that the command happened within seconds of them exiting their cruiser.
[43] After Constable Wallace had handcuffed Mr. Tutu, the other males started to come forward. They were all advised they were being detained and that they should place their hands on the fence. The males complied. A picture showed four of the males being held at gunpoint by police officers.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE EVIDENCE
[44] Constable Wallace provided reasons why he detained Mr. Tutu by ordering him to come to him. These included:
a) Seeing Mr. Tutu with a satchel;
b) Mr. Tutu’s actions which he described as “blading”;
c) Mr. Tutu attempts to hide the satchel;
d) Mr. Tutu’s attempts to hide behind another male;
e) The information gleaned from a police circular that criminals typically conceal their firearms in satchels; and
f) The parking lot was known in police circles as a “hotspot” for illegal activity.
[45] To the extent that this constellation of objectively discernible factors informed Constable Wallace’s decision to detain Mr. Tutu, then, he had the requisite legal grounds to detain Mr. Tutu for investigative purposes. These factors would have collectively given the officer reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr. Tutu was engaged in criminal activity. R. v. Simpson (1993), 1993 CanLII 3379 (ON CA), [1993] O.J. No. 308 (ONCA). These facts could support a conclusion that the decision to detain was reasonable in the context of all the circumstances: see R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, at paras. 24 & 34. This “objectively discernible standard” for an investigative detention is antithetical to a hunch “based entirely on intuition gained by experience, no matter how accurate that “hunch” might prove to be.” Simpson, at p. 1822. It is also a repudiation of a detention motivated in whole or in part by racial profiling. As the court noted in R. v. Peck, [2001] O.J. No. 4581, at para. 27 (S.C.J.),
Stereotypical assumptions, including those concerning young black men and narcotics, have no proper place in a properly conducted investigation. The inherent worth and dignity of all people regardless of their race or ethnic origin must be respected by the police at all times during the investigation of even the most heinous crimes.
[46] With these legal principles in mind, I turn to Constable Wallace’s evidence. Before I do, I must address a preliminary issue raised by Ms. Schofield which is the suggestion that because the officer is a black man, it may be believed racial profiling could not have played any role in his investigation of Mr. Tutu.
[47] The Crown did not advance this position and rightly so. Unconscious racial bias is not the exclusive preserve of white police officers; it can be a factor in any police investigation irrespective of the race or ethnicity of the officer. The fact that Constable Wallace is black, and repeatedly referred to Mr. Tutu as “bro” or “fam”, which is a reference to family, during the police interview, is not evidence of the absence of unconscious racial bias. The conscious racial bias deals with the exercise of police powers by law enforcement agents rather than with the race or ethnicity of the law enforcement agents who exercise these powers.
[48] In my view, there was nothing wrong with the officers deciding to drive into the restaurant’s parking lot as part of their proactive policing mandate under the PRP’s S.T.E.P. programme. What is problematic however, in my view, is the subjective beliefs formed by Constable Wallace during his interaction with the second group of black males. According to his evidence, he greeted the group but was confronted by a stony silence. Significantly, he clearly construed this non-response as an indicator that members of the group were up to no good. He testified that they did not greet them enthusiastically. He added that they had a “wide-eyed, deer eyed look.” He concluded, based on the silence from the group that he was immediately suspicious that something “was off”. Constable Galvao added that he developed a “very bad feeling” about the group given their failure to respond to the greeting. These descriptions clearly suggest, in my view, that the officers immediately concluded that the black males were involved or contemplated being involved in some nefarious or illegal activity and were caught in the act of doing something illegal.
[49] And yet other than this non-response, the officer did not observe any suspicious action or activity by members of the group. Indeed, they were not investigating any specific criminal activity at the parking lot. They were merely checking on the group and looking for signs or evidence of criminal activity.
[50] The history of police interaction with young black males has been the subject of judicial comment in many cases. The unfortunate reality is that many young black males are wary, suspicious and distrustful of the police. The fact that some black males would be unresponsive to a greeting from a police officer, even if one of them is black, is not indicative of any suspicious activity that they were engaged in. To that extent, the conclusions drawn by the officers about the non-response of the males, in my view, is evidence of racial stereotyping whether conscious or unconscious. The fact that they were playing loud music, on Caribana Sunday, is not evidence of wrongdoing.
[51] Second, I am sceptical about Constable Wallace’s testimony about why he commanded Mr. Tutu to step forward. He testified that Mr. Tutu carried a satchel, “bladed” himself when the officers arrived, tried to hide the satchel and hid behind another black male. Only then did he issue a command for Mr. Tutu to step forward.
[52] I do not accept the officer’s testimony concerning his actions for the following reasons. The first relates to the speed with which Constable Wallace acted. Constable Galvao testified that within seconds of getting out of their unmarked cruiser, he heard his partner issuing commands to Mr. Tutu. Mr. Tutu must have acted very quickly when he “bladed” himself, tried to hide the satchel and tried to hide behind another black male. And yet Constable Wallace testified that most of the black males, including Mr. Tutu, stopped and froze when they recognized that it was the police.
[53] Third, when pressed during cross-examination, regarding how Mr. Tutu had tried to hide the satchel, the officer replied that Mr. Tutu “was trying to make his movements subtle.” He conceded that the satchel could not have been moved more than two and half inches. He testified that he never “fully” lost sight of the satchel.
[54] Fourth, when questioned about the male Mr. Tutu had hidden behind, the officer could not give a description of this male.
[55] Fifth, the officer testified that Mr. Tutu “displayed the characteristics of an armed person” by having a satchel. The officer testified that he had attended a course during which he learnt that persons carried firearms in satchels. In my view, there is nothing suspicious about a young black male with a satchel in a group of other black males during a Caribana weekend. In my view, it is the investigation of Mr. Tutu that displayed the characteristics of racial profiling.
[56] The officer did not observe any telltale signs of suspected criminal activity by any member of the group. They had not threatened anyone; had not assaulted anyone; neither had they damaged any property. They had not had any altercations with members of any other group or individual. Indeed, no one else was arrested or charged with any offence other than Mr. Tutu.
[57] In my view, Constable Wallace’s testimony regarding Mr. Tutu trying to hide the satchel and hiding behind another male is nothing more than an attempt to justify his decision to command Mr. Tutu to step forward, thereby detaining him. He did so because he subjectively assumed that Mr. Tutu was carrying a firearm in the satchel.
[58] There is additional evidence which supports this view. Constable Wallace’s demeanour on the stand was both defiant and arrogant. He sought to justify his actions by pointing to the fact that he recovered a firearm in the satchel. When, under cross-examination, Ms. Schofield put to him that police services in other jurisdictions facilitated an accused’s exercise of his or her right to counsel at the scene of an arrest, he dismissively replied, “I am not concerned with other jurisdictions. It is irrelevant.”
[59] In my view, racial profiling played a role in the detention of Mr. Tutu.
b) DID CONSTABLE WALLACE VIOLATE MR. TUTU’S S. 8 CHARTER RIGHTS?
[60] Section 8 provides that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
[61] In R. v. Castlake 1998 CanLII 838 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51 at para. 13, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that for a warrantless search to be authorized by law, the arrest or detention must be valid and lawful.
[62] Given my conclusion that Mr. Tutu was unlawfully detained, it logically follows that the search of Mr. Tutu’s satchel was similarly unlawful. The officer conducted a search of Mr. Tutu’s satchel when he grabbed it to feel its contents. When his hunch proved to be correct he reached into the satchel and recovered the firearm. The recovery of the firearm cannot legitimize Constable Wallace’s actions. The officer therefore breached Mr. Tutu’s s. 8 Charter rights.
c) DID THE OFFICER BREACH MR. TUTU’S s. 10(a) CHARTER RIGHTS?
[63] Section 10(a) provides that everyone has the right on arrest or detention to be informed promptly of the reasons therefore.
[64] In my view, Constable Wallace did not violate Mr. Tutu’s s. 10(a) Charter rights. After he detected the outlines of a firearm in the satchel, he told Mr. Tutu that he was under arrest for weapons dangerous and possession of a firearm.
d) DID THE OFFICER VIOLATE MR. TUTU’S s. 10(b) CHARTER RIGHTS?
[65] Section 10(b) provides that everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.
[66] Constable Wallace admitted under cross-examination that he did not attempt to contact counsel for Mr. Tutu while the accused was held in the cruiser at the scene. The officer testified that he did not have a private cellphone with him and that the scene was still very “fluid” given that some of the males had moved towards the officers following Mr. Tutu’s arrest. The officer testified that his decision not to contact counsel for Mr. Tutu at the scene was not the result of a policy of the Peel Police Force but his decision was based on the circumstances.
[67] In my view, the officer did not comply with Mr. Tutu’s s. 10(b) Charter rights but his reasons for not doing so, in the circumstances, were reasonable.
e) WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR THE OFFICER’S VIOLATION OF MR. TUTU’S s. 8 AND 9 CHARTER RIGHTS?
[68] In R. v. Grant 2009 SCC 32 2009 SCJ #32 (QL), the Supreme Court of Canada stated that whether evidence should be excluded under s. 242(2) of the Charter involves a consideration of the following factors:
a) the seriousness of the Charter infringing conduct;
b) the impact of the Charter infringing conduct on the accused’s Charter protected interests; and
c) society’s interests in adjudication of a matter on its merits.
f) SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARTER INFRINGING CONDUCT
[69] Mr. Tutu’s arrest was partly on account of racial profiling. As a result, his rights under s. 8, 9 and indeed, the equality provisions under s. 15 of Charter, were violated. The reliance of race as a proxy for criminal activity amounts to a serious violation of the rights of a racialized person.
[70] The carrying of a satchel, a practice which is quite commonplace in the community and one which cuts across all racial, ethnic and even class lines should not be viewed as suspicious or indicative of criminal activity when possessed by a black male. This breach of Mr. Tutu’s Charter rights is very serious.
[71] These factors favour exclusion of the evidence.
g) IMPACT OF THE IMPUGNED CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED CHARTER PROTECTED RIGHTS
[72] The impact of the impugned conduct on Mr. Tutu’s Charter protected rights was serious. He was ordered to approach Constable Wallace, was consequently detained unreasonably before being arbitrarily arrested and taken to a police division.
h) SOCIETY’S INTEREST IN ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE ON ITS MERITS
[73] Undoubtedly, the truth seeking function of the criminal trial process is better served by the admission of the evidence, more so given the devasting effects of gun violence in our society.
[74] Additionally, exclusion of the evidence would essentially gut the Crown’s case.
[75] However, in certain cases, the court cannot be seen to condone behaviour that undermines one of the most important tenets of our democracy which is the right of every citizen not to have their rights against arbitrary arrest and unlawful search and seizure be taken away by law enforcement officers. Maintaining fidelity to this overarching duty plays an important role in maintaining the integrity of our judicial system. To that extent, this factor also favours exclusion.
CONCLUSION
[76] The gun and ammunition evidence is excluded.
[77] The Crown has indicated that it would not be calling any evidence in the upcoming trial. Accordingly, the charges against Mr. Tutu are dismissed.
André J.
Released: August 4, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-0100-00
DATE: 2021 08 04
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
MORRIS TUTU
RULING ON PRE-TRIAL MOTION
André J.
Released: August 4, 2021