Her Majesty the Queen v. Jacob Aubrey

Court File No.: CR-1211-21 Date: 2022-09-09 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent) – and – Jacob Aubrey (Accused/Applicant)

Counsel: Michael N. Jones, for the Crown/Respondent P. Berk Keaney & Stephanie A. Farrell, for the Accused/Applicant

Heard: July 28, 2022

Decision on Application

K.E. Cullin, J. (orally)

Overview of the Application

[1] The Applicant, Jacob Aubrey (“Mr. Aubrey”), appears before this court charged with 30 offences pursuant to both the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”) and the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. The offences involve allegations of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, unlawful possession of cannabis for the purpose of sale, unlawfully obtaining and altering cannabis, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, possession of prohibited or restricted weapons and ammunition, careless storage of firearms, and possession of proceeds of crime. The charges arose from a search of his residence on August 1, 2019; the search followed a lengthy police investigation known as Project Skylark.

[2] Mr. Aubrey brought a pretrial application alleging that the police breached his rights under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[3] In a decision, delivered orally on December 10, 2021, and in writing on January 22, 2022, I found that video surveillance conducted of Mr. Aubrey’s residence from a camera installed adjacent to the residence was obtained in breach of his rights pursuant to s. 8 of the Charter. I ordered that all evidence obtained from this video surveillance be excised from the Information to Obtain that granted the police authorization to enter and search Mr. Aubrey’s residence, and that a date be scheduled before me to present arguments about whether the redacted Information to Obtain (the “ITO”) supported the validity of the warrant. This is the issue which is presently before me.

[4] The Applicant argues that the ITO did not meet the statutory prerequisites for the issuance of a search warrant pursuant to s. 11 of the CDSA. He argues that there was insufficient evidence in the ITO to provide a justice with reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed and that evidence of the offence would be found at the specified time and place of the search. He submits that, in the circumstances, the search warrant must be quashed.

[5] The Crown (the “Respondent”) argues that there was some evidence on which the issuing justice could have issued the warrant. It submits that the Applicant’s request to quash the warrant should, in the circumstances, be denied.

Overview of the ITO

[6] The ITO was sworn by Detective Constable Chris Rawson (“D/C Rawson”) of the Niagara Regional Police Service on July 29, 2019. Pursuant to my ruling, the following paragraphs were excised from the ITO: 97(d), 143, 146, 152(g), 155, 212-214, 311 (partial) and 314 (partial).

[7] The ITO is a “global” ITO seeking authorization to search 11 properties and 9 vehicles, including a residence located at 145 Riverside Drive, Sudbury, Ontario (“145 Riverside”), which was identified as the Applicant’s residence. It sought the search warrant pursuant to s. 11 of the CDSA.

[8] With respect to 145 Riverside, the ITO alleged that the following were expected to be present at the premises:

Cocaine, Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, Cannabis, scales, packaging materials, documents showing ownership or use of a place, or association with other parties to the drug trafficking, telecommunication devices, debt lists, banking records and money.

[9] The ITO alleged that the evidence expected to be present at the residence would demonstrate that the Applicant had committed the following offences:

Count #13: THAT

Keith Earle, Brandon Tupling, Jacob Aubrey and Darren Gerrard, together with other persons known and unknown, between the 5th day of April, 2019, and the 1st day of August 2019, in the City of Sudbury, the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did conspire to commit an indictable offence: to wit, traffic cocaine, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to s. 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

COUNT #33: THAT

Jacob Aubrey committed an offence for a criminal organization contrary to s. 467.12 of the Criminal Code.

[10] No prior authorizations had been requested or issued with respect to the Applicant.

[11] D/C Rawson based his affidavit upon information that he obtained as a member of the investigative team; information that he received from other police officers involved in the investigation, a police agent, confidential informants, and computerized police information networks; and information that he reviewed in surveillance reports and intercepted private communications.

[12] Throughout his affidavit, D/C Rawson provided opinions and beliefs about information obtained during the investigation and relied upon in support of the ITO. In arriving at his opinions and beliefs, D/C Rawson relied upon his 20 years of experience as a police officer, his experience in conducting drug investigations, surveillance, and monitoring private communications, and his enhanced law enforcement courses.

[13] The redacted ITO disclosed the following specific evidence regarding the Applicant and 145 Riverside:

a. On April 16, 2019, Brandon Tupling attended at 145 Riverside twice prior to attending a restaurant in Sudbury where he supplied a police agent with 131.86 grams of cocaine. Following the transaction, Brandon Tupling returned to 145 Riverside; he employed counter-surveillance techniques en route to the residence. After leaving the residence for the third time, Brandon Tupling met with Darren Gerrard; they were observed under surveillance conducting what D/C Rawson believed to be a drug transaction.

b. On April 27, 2019, Brandon Tupling attended at 145 Riverside, removed a duffle bag from his trunk and entered the residence. Upon leaving the residence, he attended a restaurant in Sudbury where he supplied a police agent with 528.12 grams of cocaine.

c. On July 10, 2019, text messages were exchanged between the Applicant and Keith Earle regarding a meeting that day.

d. On July 11, 2019, text messages were exchanged between the Applicant and Keith Earle, and between Keith Earle and Darren Gerrard, organizing a meeting for 4:00 p.m. that day; D/C Rawson opined that the messages contained coded communications. Shortly after 4:00 p.m., Darren Gerrard was observed attending at 145 Riverside, walking to the rear of the residence, and leaving a few minutes later. Darren Gerrard had driven 166 km from Blind River to attend 145 Riverside; following the visit, he returned directly to Blind River. D/C Rawson opined that the purpose of the attendance was to pick up drugs.

[14] On the strength of the unredacted ITO, a search warrant was issued by Justice of the Peace Bruce W. Phillips on July 31, 2019, authorizing a search of 145 Riverside to be conducted on August 1, 2019, between 6:00 a.m. and 8:59 p.m. A search of the Applicant’s residence was subsequently conducted on August 1, 2019.

Overview of the Law – ITO’s and Search Warrants

Legislative Authority and Statutory Standard for Issuance

[15] Pursuant to s. 11(1) of the CDSA:

11 (1) A justice who, on ex parte application, is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that

(a) a controlled substance or precursor in respect of which this Act has been contravened,

(b) any thing in which a controlled substance or precursor referred to in paragraph (a) is contained or concealed,

(c) offence-related property, or

(d) any thing that will afford evidence in respect of an offence under this Act or an offence, in whole or in part in relation to a contravention of this Act, under section 354 or 462.31 of the Criminal Code

is in a place may, at any time, issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer, at any time, to search the place for any such controlled substance, precursor, property or thing and to seize it.

[16] The statutory standard to be applied by an authorizing justice reviewing an ITO is whether there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that one of the items enumerated in ss.11(1) (a)-(d) of the CDSA are present in the place for which the warrant is sought. This standard was described by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Sadikov, 2014 ONCA 72, at paras. 81-82 as follows:

The statutory standard – “reasonable grounds to believe” – does not require proof on the balance of probabilities, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The statutory and constitutional standard is one of credibly-based probability: Hunter v. Southam Inc., 1984 33 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at p. 167; and R. v. Law, 2002 BCCA 594, 171 C.C.C. (3d) 219, at para. 7. The ITO must establish reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that there is evidence to be found at the place of the proposed search: Hunter, at p. 168. If the inferences of criminal conduct and recovery of evidence are reasonable on the facts disclosed in the ITO, the warrant could be issued: R. v. Jacobson (2006), 2006 12292 (ON CA), 207 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 22.

The authorizing justice makes his or her decision about whether to issue the warrant from the evidence included in the ITO as a whole, approaching the assessment on a common sense, practical, non-technical basis. The justice, like the trier of fact at a trial, is also entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the contents of the ITO: R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, at para. 16; R. v. Shiers, 2003 NSCA 138, 219 N.S.R. (2d) 196, at para. 13; and Wilson, at para. 52. [Citations in original.]

[17] Evidence that the target of the search was observed in the commission of an offence is not a prerequisite to forming reasonable grounds that evidence will be present at the proposed location of the search. As noted by Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Rocha, 2012 ONCA 707, 112 OR (3d) 742, at para. 22:

The police will rarely be able to confirm the tip to the extent of having observed commission of the offence and that level of confirmation is not required. In a very short judgment in R. v. Caissey, 2008 SCC 65, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 451, [2008] S.C.J. No. 66, the Supreme Court of Canada said the following [at para. 2]:

The dissenting judge advanced the view that only corroboration of some criminal particular of the offence offered the necessary assurance for the issuance of the warrant. This is the question of law that brings the appeal before us. On this issue, we agree with the test adopted by the majority.

[18] The affiant’s authority in offering opinion and belief evidence in an ITO is a relevant consideration for the court. As noted by Felix, J. in R. v. Vigneswaralingam, 2017 ONCJ 640, at para. 37:

In evaluating reasonable grounds, the affiant’s training and experience as a police officer must be considered. As a result, the analysis requires the reviewing court to consider whether a reasonable person, standing in the affiant’s shoes and imbued with the affiant’s training and experience would have come to the same conclusion: R. v. Mackenzie, 2013 SCC 50, at paras. 62-63. [Citations in original.]

[19] The currency of the evidence in support of the ITO is also an issue which must be considered by the issuing Justice. In R. v. Woo, 2017 ONSC 7655, at para. 60, Schreck J. noted:

In addition to being sufficiently reliable to establish reasonable and probable grounds that the target committed an offence, information relied upon in an ITO must establish that there is reason to believe that evidence will be found at the time the warrant is executed. This was explained by Trotter J. (as he then was) in R. v. Chen, 2007 ONCJ 177, at para. 18:

In determining whether reasonable grounds exist to search a location, the currency or freshness of the evidence is important. Numerous courts have held that an Information to Obtain a search warrant must contain information that is recent enough to satisfy the issuing justice that it is probable that the things sought will still be at the location, and not that it is merely possible that they are still there: Regina v. Turcotte (1988), 1987 984 (SK CA), 39 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Sask. C.A.), Regina v. Adams, 2004 12093 (NL PC), [2004] N.J. No. 105 (Prov. Ct.). and Regina v. Jamieson (1989), 1989 202 (NS CA), 48 C.C.C. (3d) 287 (N.S.C.A.).

See also R. v. Herdsman, 2012 ONCJ 739, at paras. 67-70; R. v. Sanchez (1994), 1994 5271 (ON SC), 20 O.R. (3d) 468 (Gen. Div.), at paras. 41-42. [Citations in original.]

Standard for Warrant Review

[20] The standard to be applied by a court tasked with reviewing an issued warrant was summarized in Sadikov, at paras. 83-84 as follows:

Warrant review begins from a premise of presumed validity: Wilson, at para. 63; and R. v. Campbell, 2010 ONCA 588, 261 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 45, aff’d 2011 SCC 32, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 549. It follows from this presumption of validity that the onus of demonstrating invalidity falls on the party who asserts it, in this case, Sadikov.

The scope of warrant review is narrow. The review is not a de novo hearing of the ex parte application. The reviewing judge does not substitute his or her view for that of the issuing judge: Garofoli, at p. 1452; R. v. Ebanks, 2009 ONCA 851, 97 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 20, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2010] 1 S.C.R. ix; and R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 40. The standard is whether there is sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to find reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that evidence of that offence would be found at the specified time and place of search: Morelli, at para. 40. Said in another way, the test is whether there was reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on the basis of which the warrant could – not would – have issued: Morelli, at para. 40; Araujo, at para. 54; and Garofoli, at p. 1452. [Citations in original.]

[21] In R. v. Campbell, 2010 ONCA 588 at para 54, Juriansz J.A., speaking for the majority, noted:

[I]t is essential that the grounds for believing there is evidence in the place to be searched are based on the operation of reason and not on mere suspicion. The standard is necessarily qualitative and reasonable people can differ in some cases about whether the authorization should have been granted. In this context the question for the reviewing court remains could the justice of the peace have issued the warrant.

Analysis

[22] As noted by the court in Sadikov, a court tasked with reviewing the validity of a search warrant must commence its analysis assuming that the warrant is valid. The burden of establishing invalidity is that of the party seeking to quash the warrant. In this case, that party is the Applicant, Mr. Aubrey.

[23] I will therefore begin by reviewing the Applicant’s submissions, followed by the Respondent’s submissions. I will conclude with my own review and analysis of the ITO.

Position of the Accused / Applicant

[24] The Applicant submits that the redacted ITO does not meet the statutory prerequisites for issuance under s. 11(1) of the CDSA. In support of this position, the Applicant argues that the court must consider the following evidentiary deficiencies:

a. The main entrance to 145 Riverside was at the back of the residence and was not visible from the roadway. Investigating officers never observed anyone enter or exit the residence using the back entrance. Likewise, investigating officers never observed anyone enter or exit the residence through its front entrance, which was at least partially visible from the roadway. No observations were made of any of the doors of the residence opening or closing.

b. If anyone did enter the residence, the police were unable to say whether they accessed the residence using a key or whether they were given access by someone inside the residence.

c. Mr. Aubrey did not possess a driver’s licence and was never observed operating a motor vehicle. During surveillance, the driveway of 145 Riverside was often empty, making it impossible for investigating officers to say whether anyone was present in the residence.

d. Persons other than Mr. Aubrey attended at 145 Riverside, including one individual who was present in the residence when the warrant was executed and was arrested, as well as Brandon Tupling who was a target of the police investigation.

e. No interactions were observed between the Applicant and the police agent, nor is there any evidence in the ITO that the police agent had any knowledge about the potential involvement of the Applicant in any offences.

f. No evidence was obtained, either through forensic examination or other investigatory methods, which connected the Applicant to any of the transactions between the police agent, Keith Earle, and Brandon Tupling. None of the items observed being carried in the vicinity of the Applicant’s residence were observed being used in the transactions with the police agent.

g. The Applicant was never observed conducting hand-to-hand transactions with any third party, nor was he observed to be in possession of any illegal items.

h. No individuals were ever stopped leaving the Applicant’s driveway and found to be in possession of illegal items.

i. No confidential informants provided any information regarding the Applicant.

[25] The Applicant submits that, at its highest, the evidence in the ITO raises a mild suspicion of his involvement in the listed offences. He argues that this would have been insufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant.

Position of the Crown / Respondent

[26] The Crown argues that the redacted ITO establishes an “overwhelming case” that Keith Earle and Brandon Tupling were, between April 7, 2019, and July 31, 2019, engaged in large scale trafficking of controlled substances, including cocaine and fentanyl. That case, the Crown submits, is confirmed by the purchases made by the police agent, as well as by surveillance and recordings.

[27] The Crown argues that the visits to the Applicant’s residence by Brandon Tupling, and the communications between Keith Earle and the Applicant organizing the attendance of Darren Gerrard at 145 Riverside, must be viewed as a whole and in the context of the drug trafficking activities of Keith Earle and Brandon Tupling. It is the Crown’s position that it was a reasonable inference open to Justice of the Peace Phillips that these attendances and communications connected the Applicant to the illegal activities of Keith Earle and Brandon Tupling. The Crown submits that this inference is capable of being drawn even after the redactions from the ITO.

Analysis of the ITO

Scope of Review

[28] In conducting my analysis of the ITO, I am mindful of the direction of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Sadikov that it is not my task to conduct a de novo hearing of the application to obtain the search warrant. My scope of review is narrow; I must assess whether the ITO disclosed, “sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to find reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence [was] committed and that evidence of that offence would be found at the specified time and place of search” (Sadikov, at para. 84).

[29] I am also mindful of the offences alleged to have been committed by Mr. Aubrey in the ITO. He is alleged to have conspired with Keith Earle, Brandon Tupling, and Darren Gerrard to traffic cocaine. He is further alleged to have committed an indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization.

Nature of the Evidence and Overall Finding

[30] The Applicant conceded in argument, properly in my view, that the ITO provided reasonable and probable grounds in relation to Keith Earle and Brandon Tupling. The evidence in the ITO regarding their involvement in drug trafficking was not merely sufficient to support the issuance of a warrant it was, as the Crown suggested, “overwhelming”.

[31] The evidence in the ITO pertaining to the Applicant was unremarkable by comparison. There were no “smoking guns” in the ITO regarding the involvement of the Applicant in illegal activities. He was not observed engaging in hand-to-hand drug transactions; indeed, he was not observed engaging in direct contact with any of the other targets of the investigation, with the exception of an exchange of texts with Keith Earle on July 10 and 11, 2019. Instead, the ITO relied primarily upon indirect evidence, opinion evidence, and inference to establish reasonable and probable grounds with respect to the Applicant.

[32] Although the evidence as it pertained to the Applicant was more subtle, in the context of the ITO as a whole, I find that it disclosed sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of a search warrant with respect to the Applicant’s residence at 145 Riverside.

Opinion and Belief of the Affiant

[33] As much of the salient evidence in the ITO pertaining to the Applicant was connected to the investigation as a whole by the opinion and belief evidence of D/C Rawson, this would seem to be the most appropriate starting point for analysis.

[34] In the ITO, D/C Rawson tendered the following opinions related to the Applicant and his residence at 145 Riverside:

a. That it was his belief that 145 Riverside was a location in Sudbury that was used to store and process drugs.

b. That it was his belief that meetings set up by Keith Earle between Darren Gerrard and Brandon Tupling were drug transactions.

c. That it was his belief that Keith Earle engaged in coded communication with Darren Gerrard when setting up a meeting between Darren Gerrard and the Applicant.

d. That it was his belief that Darren Gerrard’s sole purpose in attending 145 Riverside was to pick up drugs.

e. That it was his belief that Keith Earle used stash houses.

[35] In my view, D/C Rawson’s opinion and belief evidence was capable of being reasonably accepted by Justice of the Peace Phillips. The ITO disclosed that D/C Rawson not only had extensive enhanced training, but that he also had significant, specific operational experience in drug-related investigations including the conduct of surveillance, the monitoring of private communications, and the preparation of ITO’s. D/C Rawson was involved in Project Skylark as a member of the investigative team; his ITO was informed by evidence obtained in his role as an investigator and through his review of evidence obtained by other members of the investigative team. His opinion and belief evidence was informed, reasonable, and supported by the factual evidence as disclosed.

Substantive Evidence in the ITO

[36] The Applicant correctly noted in argument that there was no evidence that the Applicant was present at 145 Riverside when Brandon Tupling attended the residence on April 16, 2019 and April 27, 2019, prior to conducting drug transactions. There is also no evidence that Brandon Tupling entered 145 Riverside during those attendances, or that Mr. Aubrey was aware of his attendance.

[37] If this were the only evidence connecting Mr. Aubrey and 145 Riverside to the drug trafficking activities of Keith Earle and Brandon Tupling, I agree that it would be insufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant. It is not, however, the only evidence.

[38] In my view, it is the Applicant’s text communications with Keith Earle and the subsequent attendance of Darren Gerrard at 145 Riverside on July 11, 2019, that sets the evidentiary foundation connecting the Applicant to Keith Earle and Brandon Tupling’s drug trafficking activities. This was “sufficient credible and reliable evidence”, that supported the issuance of a search warrant with respect to 145 Riverside. I find that, even with the redactions from the ITO, there is sufficient, credible, and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrant.

[39] Viewing the evidence in the ITO, “as a whole, [and] approaching the assessment on a common sense, practical, non-technical basis” (Sadikov, at para. 82) the communication and attendance on July 11, 2019 formed an evidentiary foundation for the following observations, inferences, and conclusions:

a. The evidence in the ITO as a whole corroborates Darren Gerrard’s involvement in drug-related transactions with Keith Earle and Brandon Tupling. Specifically, Darren Gerrard was observed under surveillance engaging in hand-to-hand exchanges with Brandon Tupling and Keith Earle. He was also observed meeting with Brandon Tupling in similar circumstances to the known drug transactions conducted between Brandon Tupling and the police agent; that is, the meetings occurred in or near restaurants and they were organized by Keith Earle but attended by Brandon Tupling.

b. Darren Gerrard travelled 332 km (from his residence in Blind River to Sudbury and back) to make a brief attendance at 145 Riverside on July 11, 2019. This was his second trip to Sudbury within two days; the day before, he met Keith Earle. Considering the evidence in the ITO as a whole, this supports D/C Rawson’s opinion that the purpose of the attendance on July 11, 2019 was to pick up drugs.

c. Keith Earle contacted the Applicant directly to organize Darren Gerrard’s attendance at 145 Riverside on July 11, 2019. The Applicant was observed leaving the property following Darren Gerrard’s attendance. This evidence would lead to the inference and conclusion that: (i) the Applicant was present during Darren Gerrard’s attendance; and (ii) the Applicant exercised a degree of control over the premises and the activities conducted on the premises such that Keith Earle felt he had to contact the Applicant to confirm Darren Gerrard’s attendance.

d. The communication between the Applicant and Keith Earle contained coded language. In those communications, Darren Gerrard was referred to as, “father-in-law”; Riverside was referred to as, “home hardware” and “the same place I always see him”. This would lead to the inference that they were attempting to conceal the subject-matter of their conversation.

e. The subsequent communication between Keith Earle and Darren Gerrard confirming Darren Gerrard’s attendance at 145 Riverside also contained coded language. Mr. Aubrey was referred to as “the roofer”. This would lead to the inference that they were attempting to conceal the subject-matter of their conversation.

f. The attendances at 145 Riverside in April 2019 by Brandon Tupling in conjunction with contemporaneous known drug transactions, Brandon Tupling’s use of counter-surveillance measures when attending at the residence, and the subsequent attendance at the residence on July 11, 2019 by Darren Gerrard at the direction of Keith Earle, most likely to pick up drugs, supports the inference that 145 Riverside was being used as a stash house or otherwise fulfilled an important role in Brandon Tupling and Keith Earle’s drug trafficking activities.

[40] I did consider the Applicant’s submission that Keith Earle represented to associates that all of his, “safe houses” were in Niagara, and that this evidence contradicted the police theory that 145 Riverside was a stash house. In my view, there is little weight that can be placed on this representation by Keith Earle.

[41] Keith Earle went to great lengths conceal his business activities; this would have been apparent to Justice of the Peace Phillips upon reviewing the ITO, and reasonably would have been considered by him in putting this evidence into context. Further, viewed in the context of Keith Earle’s discussions two days prior with his associates in Sudbury who were beginning to question the trustworthiness of the police agent, it would have been reasonable to infer that Keith Earle had reason to distrust his known associates and to misrepresent his business activities to them.

Currency of the Information

[42] In my view, there was sufficient current information in the ITO to support the issuance of a warrant to search 145 Riverside. The evidence demonstrated that the residence was used for drug trafficking activities on more than one occasion over a span of several months, that the activities took place even when Keith Earle and Brandon Tupling were not present at the residence, and that the activities were continuing to take place in the weeks leading up to the issuance of the warrant.

[43] I find that the information in the ITO supported the conclusion that evidence of the offences alleged against the Applicant (drug trafficking and criminal involvement in organized crime) would be found at 145 Riverside during the date and times specified in the warrant.

Disposition

[44] Having found that the ITO disclosed sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of a search warrant with respect to the Applicant’s residence at 145 Riverside Drive, Sudbury, Ontario, the Application to quash the search warrant is denied.

The Honourable Madam Justice K. E. Cullin

Released (orally): September 9, 2022