COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-00000195-00BR
DATE: 20210922
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
SHAMOI PALMER
David Tice and Alice Bradstreet, for the Crown
Kim Schofield, for Mr. Palmer
HEARD: July 15, August 11 and 18, 2021
Pursuant to section 517(1) of the Criminal Code, an order issued prohibiting the publication in any document or broadcast or transmission in any way of the evidence taken, the information given, or the representations made, and the reasons issued, on this application. This prohibition applies until either the accused is discharged at a preliminary inquiry or his trial ends. This prohibition is subject to an exception that permits a lawyer to circulate these reasons to another lawyer or to rely on them before any court.
R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.
[1] Shooting at a person from a moving car and hitting the target is one of those things that happens all the time in Hollywood movies but never in real life.
[2] On August 22, 2018, an assailant shot Jermaine Titus in the head. The assailant was in a moving car, as was Mr. Titus. The Crown alleges that Shamoi Palmer was the assailant. The Crown alleges that Mr. Palmer shot Mr. Titus from a moving car while aiming at someone else. The police arrested Mr. Palmer the next day. Mr. Palmer faces a charge of first degree murder. His trial is scheduled for 2022. He now seeks bail.
[3] There are two basic problems that Mr. Palmer faces in trying to achieve bail. The first is that the Crown’s case is extremely strong that Mr. Palmer shot an innocent bystander in the head while aiming at someone else. The second problem is that Mr. Palmer is essentially ungovernable. He has breached bail conditions time and time again. He has committed violent offences. In my view, Mr. Palmer presents a clear and present danger to public safety. Releasing Mr. Palmer would significantly undermine confidence in the administration of justice. He has not met the onus. Mr. Palmer is detained on the primary ground, the secondary ground, and the tertiary ground.
[4] I dismissed the application for bail on August 18, 2021, with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.
BACKGROUND
The Murder of Jermaine Titus: The Crown Theory
[5] The evidence demonstrating that Mr. Palmer murdered Jermaine Titus is formidable.
[6] The Crown theory is that on August 22, 2018 Egypt Morgan tipped off Mr. Palmer that “Skeeno” was in the neighbourhood. “Skeeno” is the street name of Jerome Robinson. Mr. Palmer then got into a rental car and went looking for Mr. Robinson. The Crown theorizes that Mr. Palmer saw Mr. Robinson on the street. He pointed a firearm out of the window of a moving car and fired at Mr. Robinson. Instead of hitting Mr. Robinson, the round struck Jermaine Titus in the head.
“Skeeno” is Targeted
[7] Egypt Morgan and Mr. Palmer had an intimate relationship in August 2018. It appears that he was staying with her – or at least had stayed with her on the night of August 21-22, 2018. On August 22, 2018, at 9:40 am Ms. Morgan walked out of 55 Emmett Avenue, her apartment building. She was on her way to work. At 9:48 am, Ms. Morgan texted Mr. Palmer that “Skeeno” was in a 7-11. Indeed, at that time, Jerome Robinson, “Skeeno”, was at the corner of Jane Street and Weston Road. Mr. Robinson identified himself in a surveillance video. He also confirmed to the police that his street name is “Skeeno”. At 9:50 am Mr. Palmer and Ms. Morgan spoke by telephone for just under a minute. At that moment, surveillance video at 55 Emmett caught Mr. Palmer walking out of the building while talking on the phone. He was captured on a surveillance video running towards the parking lot of 55 Emmett. A few moments later, at 9:52 am, a Mazda CX-5 exited from the parking lot. At that exact time, Mr. Palmer and Ms. Morgan spoke by phone.
[8] The following is the exchange of text messages between Ms. Morgan and Mr. Palmer:
TIME
FROM
TO
MESSAGE
9:48:11
Ms. Morgan
Mr. Palmer
Baby
9:48:21
Mr. Palmer
Ms. Morgan
Yo
9:48:22
Ms. Morgan
Mr. Palmer
Skeeno is in 711!!
9:48:26
Ms. Morgan
Mr. Palmer
rn
9:48:29
Ms. Morgan
Mr. Palmer
Behind me
9:48:34
Mr. Palmer
Ms. Morgan
Okay
[9] At the time of the texts, surveillance cameras observed Mr. Robinson, “Skeeno”, exiting the 7-11.
Shamoi Palmer Allegedly Goes Looking For “Skeeno”
[10] When the Mazda CX-exited the parking lot of 55 Emmett, it turned onto Jane Street and then south on Weston Road. Ms. Morgan texted Mr. Palmer a moment later: “He waited for the 35 going over the bridge”. At the time Mr. Robinson was standing at a bus stop. Ms. Morgan then texted Mr. Palmer: “Blue sleeves.” Mr. Robinson can be seen in the surveillance videos wearing a shirt with blue sleeves.
Shamoi Palmer Allegedly Shoots At “Skeeno”, Misses, And Hits Jermaine Titus
[11] At 9:54 am the Mazda made a U-turn and headed northbound on Weston Road. The driver of the Mazda stuck his arm out of the window and fired in the direction of Mr. Robinson while the Mazda was moving. The licence plate of the Mazda reveals that it is the same vehicle rented from Exclusive Car Rental using Ms. Morgan’s credit card. The scene of the shooting is only 500 meters from 55 Emmett.
[12] At that same moment shots were fired from the Mazda Jermaine Titus was driving his car south on Weston Road. He was with his friend, Francky Archange. Mr. Arcange heard the gunshot and saw Mr. Titus slump over. Mr. Titus had been shot in the head. He had no connection to Mr. Palmer, Ms. Morgan, or Mr. Robinson. Jermaine Titus was unknown to the police, meaning he had no criminal connections or convictions.
[13] An eyewitness noticed the Mazda because it had cut him off. The eyewitness saw the Mazda do a u-turn, and then heard three gunshots. Other witnesses immediately saw what had happened and called 911.
Shamoi Palmer And Egypt Morgan Do Online Research and Exchange Texts, Allegedly About The Shooting
[14] After the shooting surveillance video captured the Mazda speeding northbound on Weston Road. Mr. Palmer and Ms. Morgan had more conversations. At 9:57 am Ms. Morgan texted Mr. Palmer: “Be careful!!!!!!!!”
[15] At 10:18, Mr. Palmer had accessed the Twitter account of CP24 on his phone. He reviewed the following tweet: “JUST IN: Police locate man suffering from gunshot wound inside vehicle near Weston Road and Jane Street.”
[16] Ms. Morgan appeared to be updating Mr. Palmer about the shooting. At 10:19 she texted: “LOL they said black Dodge”. At 10:34 am she texted a screen capture of a video of what appeared to be the crime scene.
Shamoi Palmer Returns A “Hot” Car
[17] At 10:24 am the Mazda parked again at 55 Emmett. A person with his face covered – but wearing the exact same clothing that Mr. Palmer had been wearing when he left the building – entered using the key fob of Ms. Morgan’s mother. Later, at 12:27 pm, Mr. Palmer left 55 Emmett with his face concealed. Video surveillance from Exclusive Rental Car shows that he returned the Mazda at 4:07 pm that day and simply left the keys in the drop box. He and Ms. Morgan had texted about the car being “hot”. The police later seized the Mazda and found a .45 spent shell casing on the windshield.
The Police Gather Evidence; They Identify Shamoi Palmer As The Shooter
[18] The next day, August 24, 2018, police arrested Mr. Palmer after leaving 55 Emmett. He was wearing some of the same clothing that he had been wearing the day before. Gunshot residue particles were found on the clothing. The police also executed a search warrant at Ms. Morgan’s apartment. They seized a Colt 1911-style .45 pistol. The magazine, which took seven rounds, had five in it. Mr. Palmer does not have a licence to possess a firearm
[19] Forensic investigation revealed the following:
• During the autopsy of Mr. Titus the coroner found a .45 bullet jacket and a .45 bullet fragment. The jacket and fragment were too damaged to be identified or eliminated as having been fired from the .45 pistol seized from Ms. Morgan’s apartment.
• The police swabbed the .45 pistol, magazine, and ammunition. Three DNA profiles were obtained from the swabs. Mr. Palmer and Ms. Morgan could not be eliminated as the contributors of two of those profiles.
• The police swabbed the steering wheel of the Mazda. Multiple DNA profiles were found on the swab. Mr. Palmer could not be eliminated as a contributor of one of those profiles.
• The police seized a shell casing from the scene as well as the shell casing from the Mazda. Both casings were identified as having been fired from the .45 pistol seized from Ms. Morgan’s apartment.
[20] On August 18, 2018, four days before the murder, Enterprise Car Rental rented a Mazda CX-5 to “Mercedes Stewart-Roberts”. Egypt Morgan’s credit card was used to pay for the car. Surveillance video shows Ms. Morgan at the rental car counter while Mr. Palmer stood nearby. The employee of Exclusive who rented the car out identified Mr. Palmer in a photo line-up.
Mr. Palmer’s Background
[21] Mr. Palmer was born and raised in Toronto. He has spent time living in the United States. He has graduated from high school. He is currently 26 years old. In his affidavit he states that at the time of his arrest he was living with his mother in Scarborough. He says that he had been living there for about a year.
[22] Mr. Palmer has an unenviable criminal record. Some of the allegations against him are noteworthy. They bear directly on the question of bail.
[23] In 2015 Mr. Palmer was arrested on charges relating to procuring, human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, assault and forcible confinement. The offences took place in November 2014 and January 2015. The allegation was that Mr. Palmer forced an intimate partner into prostitution and exercised control over her through violence. He was convicted of one count of robbery, one count of mischief, and four counts of assault in relation to his intimate partner. Mr. Palmer was on bail at the time of the offences.
[24] In 2016 Mr. Palmer was arrested on charges of assault, assault with a weapon, fail to comply with probation, and fail to comply with recognizance. The complainant was the same intimate partner. Mr. Palmer was ultimately convicted in 2017 of assault with a weapon and two counts of fail to comply with a recognizance.
[25] In February 2016 Mr. Palmer was involved in an altercation with two women he knew, Ujima Stewart and Mercedes Stewart. He was using a car rented by Mercedes Stewart and refused to return it. When Mercedes Stewart pressed him to return the car, he responded by assaulting both women. He then smashed the rear window of their home. Mr. Palmer was on bail at the time. He was convicted of mischief. While on bail (which included a condition not to have contact with either woman) he approached them in a store and grabbed Mercedes Stewart by the arm. The women left and called the police. Mr. Palmer was convicted of fail to comply with recognizance and fail to comply with probation in relation to this incident.
[26] On December 25, 2016 Mr. Palmer asked Mercedes Stewart for a lift. She agreed. He left his house, where he was under house arrest, in violation of his bail. He was also on probation. He eventually assaulted her and took her car. He was convicted of assault and fail to comply with recognizance in relation to this incident.
[27] On March 2, 2017, Mr. Palmer was again on bail and on probation. He attempted to break into a home. The police investigated. Mr. Palmer attempted to flee. He got into a car and drove it recklessly in an attempt to escape. He was eventually caught by the police. For this incident he was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, obstruct police, and fail to comply with recognizance.
[28] In all, Mr. Palmer has accumulated one conviction for robbery; one conviction for assault with a weapon; two convictions for mischief; one conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle; one conviction for obstruct police officer; five convictions for assault; one conviction for fail to comply with a probation order; and six convictions for failure to comply with a recognizance.
[29] What is noteworthy, and has implications for the proposed plan of release, is that all of Mr. Palmer’s convictions for assault (including assault with a weapon) have been in relation to women.
[30] Mr. Palmer finished high school but it is not entirely clear what he has been doing since then, other than compiling criminal record. According to his affidavit, Mr. Palmer was residing with his mother for the year prior to his arrest. His affidavit does not mention a job. Sarah Lee Brown, one of the proposed sureties, indicated that she had never known him to have a job, other than occasionally working with his father. When he was in trouble, he told her that he was trying to do better and find a job. Khaled Nasr, another proposed surety, testified that he met Mr. Palmer at the car detailing shop owned by Mr. Palmer’s father. There were, however, many times where Mr. Nasr would go by the shop and Mr. Palmer would not be there.
The Proposed Plan
[31] The plan proposes that Mr. Palmer live in a condo rented by his father in Vaughan. He is to be under house arrest. He will not be permitted to leave the condo. There are three proposed sureties: Ms. Brown, Mr. Nasr, and Mellecia Livingston. Ms. Brown will live at the condo permanently with Mr. Palmer. The other sureties will substitute for her from time to time when Ms. Brown visits with her daughter or runs errands. All three proposed sureties have known Mr. Palmer through his family. All claimed to have had frequent contact with him, although on cross-examination it became apparent that the contact was less than first asserted. Nonetheless, all three were credible. I am satisfied that all three sureties are well-meaning and that they would take their responsibilities as sureties seriously – even if they seem quite naïve about Mr. Palmer.
[32] Ms. Brown testified that the door to the condo will be electronically locked, and that it can only be opened with a code or with a phone. Each surety will have the code on their phone. Mr. Palmer will not be able to open the door without one of the sureties.
[33] Stephen Tan, president of Recovery Science Corporation, testified. He is, of course, well-known to the Court and there are no concerns about his credibility and reliability. The plan contemplates that Mr. Palmer wear an ankle monitor. Mr. Tan described the manner in which Mr. Palmer would be monitored, and the manner in which violations would be reported. The Recovery Science system is also well-known to the Court, and I need not describe it in detail. Suffice it to say, as many other judges have observed, ankle monitoring is useful in many cases and for many alleged offenders.
[34] As I will explain, Mr. Palmer is not that offender. As Mr. Tice put it – and I agree with him – the problem is not the plan. The problem is Mr. Palmer. It is difficult to imagine that he will feel constrained by any rules, or by any loyalty to one of his sureties. His previous surety had apparently been his mother. He still violated his bail orders without any apparent hesitation. There are no categories of offence that are closed to bail, but there are some rare offenders who are simply unsafe to release back into the community – even with a solid plan and well-meaning sureties. Mr. Palmer is one of those accused persons.
ANALYSIS:
[35] No person is to be denied bail without just cause: s. 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Persons charged with an offence are ordinarily entitled to bail: R. v. Morales, 1992 CanLII 53 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711 at para. 11. Murder, however, is a reverse-onus offence. A person charged with murder may only be released by a judge of a superior court after they have shown cause: s. 522(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.
[36] The Criminal Code sets out the three grounds for detention. Mr. Palmer must show that:
• His detention is not necessary to ensure his attendance in court (the primary ground): Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(a);
• He is not a threat to public safety and there is not a substantial likelihood that he will reoffend (the secondary ground): Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(a); and,
• His detention is not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice (the tertiary ground): Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(c).
Has Mr. Palmer met his onus on the primary ground?
[37] There is no specific evidence that Mr. Palmer will simply cut off his Recover Science bracelet and find a way to walk out the door – whether by intimidating a surety or taking advantage of a momentary situation. Such specific evidence is not required. Mr. Palmer’s record, as I have pointed out, shows a total lack of regard for bail orders. Mr. Palmer also has strong ties to the United States. I accept that Recovery Science will notify the police in a timely manner if Mr. Palmer decides to cut off his bracelet and leave the condo. I also accept that it is quite possible that Mr. Palmer won’t get very far, but that has never deterred Mr. Palmer in the past. It is reasonably foreseeable that Mr. Palmer will fail to comply with his bail – and in that case the police will be unnecessarily forced to expend time and resources finding him. I am aware that Mr. Palmer does not have any convictions for fail to attend court, but, again, such specific evidence is not required. Indeed, a glance at his criminal record shows that he has not had the opportunity to fail to appear because he has usually violated bail conditions and then found himself back in custody.
[38] Ms. Brown may have no concerns that Mr. Palmer will intimidate her or use violence to obtain the code or let him out. Respectfully, I do share that lack of concern. Ms. Brown seems to me to be a very decent person who wants to do the right thing, but, with great respect, I think she is naïve. While a person’s character is never in issue at trial (unless they put it in issue) character is very much in issue during a bail hearing. Mr. Palmer has a repeated history of using violence against an intimate partner. It is alleged that he forced an intimate partner into sex work. He has assaulted another intimate partner. Furthermore, I can well imagine that a man who feels no compunction about recklessly shooting at someone on a busy street from a moving car would feel even less compunction about intimidating – or worse – a surety into letting him out of the apartment or giving him the code. That is not a far-fetched or unrealistic concern.
[39] In my view, it would be irresponsible for this court to place Ms. Brown or any other surety in that position. I say that even taking into account that the sureties have agreed.
[40] Accordingly, Mr. Palmer has not met his onus on the primary ground.
Has Mr. Palmer met his onus on the secondary ground?
[41] Detention of an accused person is justified where it is necessary for the protection and safety of the public having regard to all the circumstances, including whether there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will commit a criminal offence: Criminal Code, s. 515(10)(b). The risk cannot be based on speculation, conjecture, or a mere possibility: R. v. Le, 2006 MBCA 68 at para. 31. The probability that the accused will commit a crime must be significant. Justice Watt commented in R. v. Manasseri, 2017 ONCA 226 at paras. 86-89 that “where, as here, the onus of showing cause for release falls on an accused, that accused must demonstrate not only that his or her detention is not necessary for the protection of the public, but also that it is not necessary for the safety of the public.”
[42] I have no doubt that Mr. Palmer’s detention is necessary for the protection and safety of the public. There is a substantial likelihood he will commit further offences while on bail – he has repeatedly done that in the pat. I see no evidence that he would approach this bail any differently, simply because he is charged with murder and some people, in a cursory conversation, have come away with the impression that Mr. Palmer is somehow more mature.
[43] I note that Mr. Palmer was on bail and on a weapons prohibition when he allegedly murdered Jermaine Titus.
[44] Moreover, there is no way to say this except directly: Mr. Palmer is a dangerous man. The murder of Jermaine Titus was not a momentary lapse by an otherwise responsible citizen. It was not out of character for Mr. Palmer; it was very much in character. He has not met his onus on the secondary ground.
Has Mr. Palmer met his onus on the tertiary ground?
[45] It is very difficult to see how a reasonable member of the public would not be appalled by the prospect of Mr. Palmer on bail while charged with first degree murder. This is one of those cases where a release would spark outrage – and rightly so. This crime was brazen, reckless, and committed with an unimaginable disregard for public safety. A few vague comments from the proposed sureties that Mr. Palmer appears more mature or has learned his lesson in custody cannot possibly overcome the onus in this situation. When I apply the factors on the tertiary ground, I am left in no doubt that Mr. Palmer’s detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
[46] My duty pursuant to s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code is to consider whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice having regard to all the circumstances, including:
• the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case,
• the gravity of the offence,
• the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and
• the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.
[47] A court must balance all of the circumstances, including the factors set out in s. 515(10)(c): R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27 at paras. 54, 66-68. The analysis is “not a mere exercise of ticking boxes”: R. v. C.J., 2020 ONSC 1933 at para. 8. The court must adopt the perspective of a reasonable person. A reasonable person is one who is familiar with the basic tenets of our legal system, such as the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. The person need not be a legal scholar but simply an informed member of the public: St-Cloud, at paras. 79-80. No exceptional or rare circumstances are required to apply the tertiary ground.
[48] The strength of the Crown’s case: It is difficult to imagine a stronger case against Mr. Palmer. It is true that the case is mostly – although not entirely – circumstantial. Given the well-known frailties of eyewitness identification, a circumstantial case is often stronger than a case based on direct evidence. This is one of those cases.
[49] Mr. Palmer was present when the Mazda involved in the shooting was rented. He returned it. He could not be excluded as the donor of the DNA was on the steering wheel of the Mazda. A spent .45 shell casing was seized from the windshield. The police seized a 1911 style Colt .45 pistol with a laser sight from Ms. Morgan’s apartment. The pistol was identified as the one that matched the .45 shell casings recovered from the scene – and from the windshield of the Mazda. The bullet that killed Jermaine Titus was a .45 round. Mr. Palmer was staying with Egypt Morgan – in the apartment where the pistol was found. Mr. Palmer (and Ms. Morgan) could not be excluded as donors of the DNA that was recovered from the pistol that was found in Ms. Morgan’s apartment. There are videos of Mr. Palmer recklessly playing with what appears to be a 1911 style Colt .45 pistol with a laser sight. Mr. Palmer was seen on video leaving Ms. Morgan’s apartment building prior to the shooting, getting into the Mazda, and then returning to the building after the shooting. And then there are the texts from Ms. Morgan to Mr. Palmer, identifying “Skeeno”, and what appears to be a shot fired in the general direction of “Skeeno”. Mr. Palmer checked Twitter for the status of the murder.
[50] The gravity of the offence: Murder is obviously the gravest crime known to our law. This murder involved a completely innocent bystander.
[51] The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used: It is difficult to overstate the recklessness of this crime. It is true that detention on the tertiary ground does not depend on the type or severity of the crime. But it is also true that the recklessness of the crime tells the court something about the person who allegedly committed it. Here, a firearm was used to kill a random bystander. The circumstances are grievous. The circumstances militate strongly in favour of detention on the tertiary ground.
[52] The fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment: If Mr. Palmer is convicted of first-degree murder, he obviously faces a life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.
[53] Other circumstances: I turn to the Covid-19 pandemic. Mr. Palmer states in his affidavit that he contracted the virus in December 2020. Not unreasonably, he is afraid of catching it again. Apparently, that is possible. He described his symptoms. He has suffered headaches, fever, chills, and difficulty breathing. I have no doubt that it was an extremely unpleasant experience. Mr. Palmer also described what he believes were multiple failures by the jail authorities with regard to droplet precautions, social distancing, and improper wearing of PPE. He suffered through lockdowns and quarantines, which he says affected his mental health. He has had to be held in the infirmary due to an issue with his achilles tendon. There is no question that isolation while in custody increases the mental stress on an accused person: Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 243 at paras. 72-77. Although that case was about administrative segregation – which is not what Mr. Palmer was subjected to – it does speak to the effects of solitary confinement in a general way. I accept the evidence that these lockdown and isolation measures have affected his mental health.
[54] Mr. Palmer says nothing in his affidavit about his vaccination status. During submissions I asked if he was vaccinated. Ms. Schofield indicated that due to circumstances at the institution he has not been able to have the vaccine. I am aware from several other cases that inmates at the Toronto South Detention Centre have been regularly offered the opportunity to be vaccinated. I urge Mr. Palmer to take up the opportunity to be vaccinated when it is offered to him.
[55] The Covid-19 pandemic is simply one circumstance to be weighed on the tertiary ground: R. v. Jaser, 2020 ONCA 606 at para. 103. People who are not releasable because they are a danger to the public will not be released because they are at risk of infection in an institution. As Molloy J. put it in R. v. Newman, 2020 ONSC 4879 at para. 21: “As many other judges have noted, the Covid-19 pandemic is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card. There are individuals who represent such a risk to the community that releasing them prior to trial would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.”
[56] In any event, at the time of the bail hearing there were no positive cases of the virus at the Toronto South Detention Centre.
[57] When I weigh all of the circumstances, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Tice’s statement that this is exactly the type of case that the tertiary ground was created for. As Chief Justice Wagner stated in St-Cloud at para. 88:
In conclusion, if the crime is serious or very violent, if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused and if the victim or victims were vulnerable, pre-trial detention will usually be ordered.
[58] A reasonable person would not just lose confidence in the administration of justice if Mr. Palmer were released under these circumstances. A reasonable person would find it outrageous. And rightly so.
DISPOSITION:
[59] The application for bail is dismissed.
R.F. Goldstein J.
Released: September 22, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-00000195-00BR
DATE: 20210922
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
SHAMOI PALMER
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON BAIL HEARING
R.F. Goldstein J.