His Majesty the King v. Daniel Ampadu

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-299

DATE: 20221020

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

DANIEL AMPADU

Defendant

COUNSEL:

Dale Ives & Vince Mazza, for the Applicant

Andrew Domacina, for the Respondent

HEARD: July 5, 2022

REASONS ON CROWN HEARSAY & EXPERT OPINION APPLICATIONS

THIS RULING IS SUBJECT TO A BAN ON PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO S. 648(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA AND SHALL NOT BE TRANSMITTED, REPRODUCED OR BROADCAST IN ANY MANNER UNTIL THE JURY IS SEQUESTERED OR A FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT ALLOWS

TRANQUILLI J.

[1] Daniel Ampadu is charged with three counts of possession of controlled substances for the purposes of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Crown brings two applications to determine the admissibility of evidence on his jury trial scheduled to start December 12, 2022. The evidence arises from a tip, surveillance, and an arrest.

Overview

[2] In May 2021, the Ontario Provincial Police acted on a tip that an unknown man was trafficking cocaine from a grey Jeep Cherokee. Police found a car of that description shortly thereafter and put the vehicle under surveillance. In the following month, police say they observed an unknown man conduct a handful of suspected drug transactions from the vehicle at various points around London. The suspect was not the registered owner of the vehicle. Police could not identify him.

[3] Police arrested the unknown male in the Jeep Cherokee immediately after observing another suspected drug transaction on June 8, 2021 and identified him as the respondent. Among other items seized on a search of the vehicle incident to arrest, police found quantities of fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine, drug paraphernalia, a FOXXD cell phone and an iPhone.

[4] The warranted search of the FOXXD cellphone (‘the Cellphone”) yielded a trove of over 11,000 incoming and outgoing text messages sent and received between May and June 2021. Most, if not all, appear to relate to illicit drug transactions concerning the very three substances that were found in the vehicle at the time of the respondent’s arrest (The Court spent some time reviewing the extensive report after the hearing to satisfy itself on this point).

The Issues

[5] The Cellphone was not found on Mr. Ampadu’s person at the time of his arrest. It was found in the centre console of the vehicle. He was not the registered owner of the vehicle, and the registered owner was seen to operate it on occasion during surveillance either on her own, with the respondent as passenger or the respondent driving and the owner as passenger.

[6] The Cellphone also cannot be directly linked to the respondent as the owner or regular user. A prepaid Chattr SIM card operated the data plan, with no account information as to the subscriber. The extracted text messages themselves neither clearly nor conclusively identify the respondent as the author of the outgoing messages on the cellphone. Among the thousands of incoming messages to the Cellphone, only about four messages ask for “D”. No outgoing messages identify the sender’s identity. There is no dispute that “D” could signify the initial of the respondent’s first name or the first initial of registered owner’s surname.

[7] Nevertheless, the Crown contends the text messages align with police surveillance on the dates of the observed suspected drug transactions involving the respondent. That, in conjunction with the items found on his person and in the vehicle at the time of his arrest demonstrates he is a drug trafficker. The Crown’s theory leads to these two applications.

The Applications

[8] The Crown brings two applications on this voir dire relating to evidence it intends to call at trial to establish the respondent was in possession of the controlled substances and that he was in possession of those substances for the purpose of trafficking:

1. Admission of the incoming and outgoing text messages extracted from the Cellphone for the truth of their contents as admissions, adopted admissions, narrative or under the principled exception to hearsay, colloquially known as a Baldree Application; and

2. Qualification of Detective Constable Kristian Pouliot to provide expert opinion on whether the fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine seized by the police from the Jeep Cherokee at the time of the respondent’s arrest were possessed for the purposes of trafficking.

[9] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied by the evidence called by the Crown on this voir dire to allow both applications.

[10] Notwithstanding the questions surrounding the ownership and possession of the Cellphone and the vehicle, the surveillance demonstrates the respondent used the Jeep Cherokee at the material times when the Cellphone was receiving and sending messages for drug transaction. Those communications were consistent with the surveillance of the suspected drug transactions. These are compelling circumstances that demonstrate the substantive reliability of the text messages. Admission of the messages is necessary given the impracticalities and unlikelihood of calling the senders of the incoming messages to testify as to their intentions in sending inquiries to the Cellphone about the purchase of illicit street drugs. Irrespective of whether the outgoing text messages and incoming messages are admissible as admissions or adopted admissions, I conclude they are properly admissible under the principled exception to hearsay.

[11] I also find the opinion evidence is relevant and necessary to the issue of whether the controlled drugs were in the respondent’s possession for the purposes of trafficking. The officer possesses novice credentials; however, I am satisfied the Crown has established that Detective Constable Pouliot is properly qualified to offer the relevant and necessary opinion evidence to assist the trier of fact in determining whether the respondent was in possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Background

The Tip

[12] On May 4, 2021 Detective Constable Golem opened an investigation in response to information that an unidentified male was using a grey Jeep Cherokee to traffic cocaine in London. Police initially thought the suspect was someone other than the respondent and pursued that lead. The officer attended a housing complex on Millbank Drive in search of the other suspect at his last known address. Officer Golem did not find that individual but saw a grey Jeep Cherokee leaving the Millbank housing complex. A licence plate check showed the vehicle was registered to a woman who resided at another unit in the complex.

The Surveillance

[13] Police began surveillance of the Jeep Cherokee the next day. Both the registered owner and the suspect used the vehicle. Surveillance of the unknown man and the vehicle continued over the course of approximately 10 days in a one-month period throughout May and the first part of June 2021. The vehicle was interchangeably used throughout this time by either the registered owner on her own, the unknown male on his own, or on occasion with the unknown male as passenger and the owner as driver and vice versa.

[14] The suspect and the registered owner were seen to attend on various innocuous or routine errands from the residential address during the surveillance period. However, Officer Golem testified he observed the unknown male to engage in suspected drug transactions on May 5, 18 and 27, 2021. Police could not identify their suspect throughout their surveillance. However, they were satisfied the same man engaged in the suspected drug deals throughout their observations. Police determined they had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the suspect on drug trafficking offences. They planned to apprehend him immediately after one further observation of a suspected drug transaction.

The Arrest

[15] On June 8, 2021, the surveillance team observed the suspect drive the Jeep Cherokee alone from the Millbank complex to a parking lot adjacent to the London Music Hall on Queens Avenue in London. A female briefly entered the passenger side of the vehicle, left the car less than a minute later and entered the rear exit of a nearby building located at 200 Dundas Street. Police conducted a traffic stop on the Jeep Cherokee and placed the unknown male under arrest. Upon arrest, police identified the suspect under surveillance as the respondent, Daniel Ampadu.

Search of Mr. Ampadu incident to arrest yielded $2,360 in Canadian currency and a key fob to the Jeep Cherokee. On search of the Jeep Cherokee, police seized 168 grams of fentanyl, 17 grams of methamphetamine and 9.4 grams of cocaine with an estimated value in the range of $22,780 to $53,260, along with drug paraphernalia reportedly consistent with drug trafficking rather than personal use. They also found a loaded handgun concealed in the trunk of the car. Finally, they located two cellphones in the centre console of the vehicle, between the driver and front passenger seats: the Cellphone (FOXXD) and an iPhone.

The Text Messages

[16] Police obtained a warrant to search the contents of both devices.

[17] Detective Constable John Rupert testified he was unable to complete an extraction of the iPhone as the contents are encrypted. At the time of the voir dire the officer advised that a software program was still running on the iPhone in an ongoing attempt to identify the passcode out of approximately one million variables.

[18] However, the officer successfully extracted the contents of the Cellphone and converted the data to a readable form using a variety of recognized software programs designed for this purpose. Officer Rupert produced an extraction report of 5,196 pages, containing 11,123 text messages from the authorized warrant period between May and June 2021.

[19] The Crown seeks to adduce the text messages in the extraction report for the truth of their contents. They are comprised of incoming messages from various individuals and outgoing messages from the person in possession of the Cellphone. The incoming messages use coded language to request purchases of fentanyl, methamphetamine or cocaine and the outgoing messages confirm the availability of the substances in the same coded language, the prices and where the parties should meet to complete the transaction. The Crown submits the circumstances establish that the respondent was in possession of the cell phone and that he was using the device for the purposes of drug trafficking. He was the sole occupant of the vehicle at the time of his arrest, where the phones were found in the centre console. Surveillance shows him engaged in suspected drug trafficking that correlates with the dates and times of text messages setting up the illicit transactions. The clear purpose of the communications are the purchase of the very three drugs found in the vehicle. The outgoing messages are admissible as admissions by the respondent and the incoming messages from the purchasers are admissible as adopted admissions or narrative.

[20] The respondent does not dispute that the text message extraction report complies with the authentication requirements of the best evidence rules under s. 31 of the Canada Evidence Act.

[21] The respondent submits the text messages do not fall under an exception to the hearsay rule as their use would do no more than promote speculative inferences from ambiguous circumstances. He contends there is insufficient circumstantial evidence that links him to the Cellphone. He was not the registered owner the vehicle. The cellphone was not found on his person. Surveillance over the preceding month demonstrated he was not in constant sole possession and control of the vehicle. None of the thousands of text messages expressly identify him by name, beyond three or four incoming text messages that refer to “D”. This is equivocal and could easily refer to the registered owner’s last name.The Chattr account associated with the cellphone provides only the cell phone number, with no information as to the name of the purchaser/account holder. Finally, he submits the Crown failed to establish the necessity of the admission of the hearsay evidence. Police identified at least two of the suspected drug customers observed on surveillance yet failed to take any steps to interview these individuals to determine whether they in fact, intended to contact the respondent to purchase drugs.

Analysis

Admission of the Text Messages for the Truth of Their Contents

[22] The contents of the text messages are presumptively inadmissible. These are out of court statements that are being adduced to prove the respondent’s knowledge and control of the Cellphone, his knowledge and control of the controlled substances seized from the vehicle and that he was in possession of those substances for the purpose of trafficking. In other words, the purpose of those text messages is to ask the trier of fact to infer that the respondent is a drug dealer. The dangers associated with this proposed evidence include that the authors of those incoming messages cannot be tested under cross-examination to ascertain whether those individuals intended to contact the respondent at that Cellphone and that their purpose in contacting him was to purchase illicit drugs. Could the messages have been sent by mistake or to falsely implicate the respondent? Did the senders believe they were dealing with someone other than the respondent? The hearsay dangers are heightened in these circumstances due to the issue as to whether the respondent, in fact, regularly used the Cellphone given the lack of ownership information regarding the device and that it was not found on his person at the time of arrest.

[23] This issue is largely determined by the reasoning in R. v. Baldree, 2013 SCC 35 and R. v. Bridgman, 2017 ONCA 940. Irrespective of whether categories of the messages or certain of the text message exchanges fall under the common law hearsay exceptions as admissions and adopted admissions, it is more practical in the context of assessing thousands of text messages from a cellphone of unknown provenance and which was not in the direct possession of the respondent at the time of his arrest to determine whether the messages are admissible under the principled exception to hearsay. In the circumstances of this case as a whole, I am satisfied the Crown has demonstrated the text messages meet the twin criteria of necessity and reliability on a balance of probabilities, such that the messages are admissible for the truth of their contents.

[24] The phone was not found in his possession, is not linked to his identity as the account holder and none of the messages refer to him by name. Nevertheless, there are four incoming messages to the cell phone asking to buy drugs from “D”. n its own, this fact might be problematic in overcoming concerns about the threshold reliability of the messages. However, the Cellphone was nevertheless found in the centre console, in between the driver and front passenger seat, of which he was the lone occupant and which he was seen operating on previous occasions to other suspected drug transactions. The Cellphone would have been close at hand to the respondent. It seems unlikely that a cellphone would be randomly left by another owner.

[25] Crucially, the congruency of the surveillance of suspected drug transactions and the text messages extracted on those same dates and times are compelling. Taken together, they are of corroborative assistance in establishing the substantive reliability of the text messages to be considered in the trier of fact’s determination of whether the respondent had knowledge and possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

[26] I will now compare the surveillance to the Cellphone extractions to illustrate this point (content of texts are transcribed as written in the texts):

May 5, 2021

[27] At 4:24 p.m., police observed the respondent arrive in the Jeep Cherokee at the parking lot of PJ’s Laundrette on Adelaide Street North. He was a passenger, and the registered owner was the driver. At 4:26 p.m. a male comes up to the passenger side of the vehicle, shakes hands with the respondent through the open window, then leaves and returns to another vehicle parked nearby.

[28] The cellphone extraction for this date and around these times corresponds with the police’s observations of a suspected drug transaction by the respondent at the laundromat, in which the cell phone was used to set up the transaction:

Time	Direction of Message	Content
4:05 p.m.	Outgoing	“Im back wassup”
4:08 p.m.	Incoming	“Ok im at pj’s doing laundry. But if you have a 40 can come by there”
4:08 p.m.	Outgoing	“15min”

May 18, 2021

[29] At 6:05 p.m. the Jeep Cherokee is parked at an A & W restaurant on Wharncliffe Road South. The respondent is the sole occupant. He leaves the A & W and arrives at the Hi-Ya Mini Mart on Wharncliffe Road North at 6:42 p.m. A female walks up to the driver side window and speaks briefly with the respondent. She grabs something from the respondent and walks away. Police observe her holding something that looks like a small ripped off piece of a plastic grocery bag in her right hand as she crosses the road in front of them. She briefly looks at the piece of bag and puts it into her pocket.

[30] The cellphone extraction for this date and time corresponds with the police’s observations and impression of a suspected drug transaction involving the respondent where this phone was used by the dealer:

Time	Direction of Message	Content
6:26 p.m.	Incoming	“tell me when to go down and am.i mwetting u on that side street again”
6:26 p.m.	Outgoing	“Leave in 10 min”
6:31 p.m.	Incoming	“to go whwre ro side street?”
6:32 p.m.	Incoming
6:39 p.m.	Outgoing	“Side”
6:39 p.m.	Outgoing	“Go now”
6:41 p.m.	Incoming	“ok”

May 27, 2021

[31] The respondent is observed leaving the Millbank housing complex driving the Jeep Cherokee at 7:08 p.m. He is the sole occupant. At 7:15 p.m., he enters the Big Bee Variety parking lot in downtown London, at the corner of Wellington Street and Horton Street. A male arrives approximately 5 minutes later and gets into the passenger seat of the Jeep Cherokee. At 7:27 p.m., the Jeep Cherokee leaves the Big Bee Variety parking lot, crosses Horton Street and enters the Tim Horton’s parking lot on Horton Street. The male passenger gets out and walks away.

[32] The cellphone extraction report for this date and time shows the following text messages corresponding to the police observations of a suspected drug transaction:

Time	Direction of Message	Content
6:25 p.m.	Incoming	Hey Brada need hb?
6:26 p.m.	Incoming	“I’m at the salvation army so I can meet you at Timmy’s on Horton’s and Wellington
6:28 p.m.	Outgoing	I’m free after 7

June 8, 2021

[33] The surveillance team observed the car leave the Millbank housing complex at 1:17 p.m., driven by the respondent. The car arrived at a parking lot on Queens Avenue at 1:31 p.m. At 1:32 p.m., a female approaches the Jeep Cherokee and enters the passenger side of the vehicle. She gets out of the vehicle less than a minute later and enters the backdoor of a nearby building at 200 Dundas Street. Police arrested the respondent immediately after this observation.

[34] The cellphone extraction report documents the following exchanges on June 8, 2021, that coincide with the police observations of a suspected and arranged drug transaction:

Time	Direction of Message	Content
12:05 p.m.	Incoming	“Hey are you around? Can you come to steph”
12:12 p.m.	Incoming	“80 f 40 hard”
12:20 p.m.	Outgoing	“30 min”
12:20 p.m.	Incoming	“K. Thx”
1:03 p.m.	Incoming	“Hey hey are you close?”
1:04 p.m.	Outgoing	“Ten minutes”
1:04 p.m.	Outgoing	“I’ll let you know when to come down to the back door”
1:04 p.m.	Incoming	“K cool”
1:31 p.m.	Outgoing	“Here”
1:31 p.m.	Incoming	“K”

[35] I consider the congruency of the times and contents of these messages with the surveillance observations of suspected drug transactions by the respondent on those dates, the convenient location of the Cellphone in the car of which the respondent was the sole occupant at the time of his arrest, the cash found in his clothing, the car key fob also found on his person and the presence of the drugs and related paraphernalia that were the subject of the text communications. It is difficult to think of a competing explanation that brings the accuracy or purpose of those communications into question. Another plausible explanation for the coincidences of the content of the text messages extracted from the Cellphone seized from a car of which the respondent was the lone occupation of the vehicle, the concurrent observations of the respondent’s suspected trafficking activities and the other items seized from his person and the vehicle was not suggested in argument. This court has not arrived at an alternative explanation on its own assessment. This is not surprising as it is difficult to conceive of a plausible explanation for all these coincidences.

[36] As was the case in Bridgman, standing alone, the text messages are very clear and open to little interpretation. This is not a situation where statements could be taken out of context: Bridgman, at paras. 52-53.

[37] For example, on May 6, 2021, a person calling themselves “Brit Side Street” texts the cellphone at 8:06 with the following request: “hey its brit I have 80$ whats the best deal u can do for a 20 hard and 60 of down…that girl thst lives in my building buys hard everyday so if u hook us up a tester piece for her to try I know she will want more she always comes to me looking for it and always has cash” [sic].

[38] Similarly, on May 6, 2021, the following exchange takes place with “Matt Frm Tecumseh:

Time	Direction of Message	Content
10:01	Incoming	“Bro I asked u for it to be all colors ? I can move it alot faster”
10:03	Outgoing	“I told you three colors”
10:03	Outgoing	“Light blue dark blue and red”
10:11	Incoming	“U said red green dark blue and light so that’s 4 Thats why I said ill take a b of each. But its all good man…”

[39] The only likely explanation for the incoming text messages is that they were made by a number of unknown individuals for the purposes of arranging illicit drug deals with the regular user of the Cellphone. That Cellphone was clearly used to set up drug transactions and the respondent was seen to engage in such deals that are referenced within the text messages as I summarized earlier. The corroborative evidence cannot be equally consistent with any other explanation or hypothesis.

[40] The sheer volume of these text communications and the repeating patterns of requests for different types and quantities of drugs are consistent with what was found in the car with the respondent, along with the Cellphone. This finding informs both the necessity and threshold reliability of the contents of the text messages. Logical concern arises where there are only one or two calls or messages. These contacts may be mistaken or even a conspiracy to frame the respondent as a dealer. However, it would defy belief in this instance that all the messengers over the span of a month had made the same error or were all party to a conspiracy to frame the respondent. Police had the respondent and vehicle under surveillance for a month. Only the respondent or the registered owner were seen to operate it. The text messages on four dates are consistent with surveillance in demonstrating suspected trafficking by the respondent. This matrix does not raise a concern of an evidentiary gap or alternative explanation that raises caution on the admission of this evidence.

[41] In these circumstances, the Crown cannot be expected, where there are numerous declarants, to locate and convince most or all to testify at trial, even in the unlikely event that they have supplied their addresses: Baldree, at para. 72.

[42] Admittedly not all the declarants were unknown to the Crown. Police identified at least two individuals involved in the suspected drug transactions with the respondent and linked them as the likely authors of the incoming text messages on specific dates; however, they did not attempt to interview those individuals. The officer testified the practice was to pass on information as to street level users to the London Police Service. In any event, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear in Baldree that there was no categorical rule of producing the source of the incoming calls or messages. In that situation, the police only intercepted one phone call in ambiguous circumstances where it was unclear the caller was, in fact, seeking to purchase drugs from the defendant as opposed to another tenant of the same name. These circumstances are vastly different. As was also recognized in Baldree, it is important to remember that the criteria of necessity and reliability work in tandem: if the reliability of the evidence is sufficiently established, the necessity requirement can be relaxed: Baldree, at para. 72. I have found that the text messages are indeed sufficiently reliable, for reasons previously explained.

[43] Finally, I find that these text messages are highly probative of the material questions as to the respondent’s possession of the cellphone, possession of controlled substances seized from the car and his possession of the drugs for the purposes of trafficking. I cannot conceive of a significant risk of misuse of these text messages given the volume of the messages and the corroborative evidence in terms of the surveillance and the other evidence seized from the respondent and the vehicle. The respondent has not pointed to any real risk of an undue consumption of court time or adverse impact on trial fairness in the admission of the evidence. The respondent is, of course, at liberty to testify and offer his explanation in response to the Crown’s case.

[44] The application to admit the contents of the text messages contained within the extraction report for the truth of their contents at trial is accordingly granted.

The Expert Opinion

[45] This is Detective Constable Pouliot’s first opportunity to seek qualification as an expert to offer an opinion as to the indicia of drug trafficking based upon seized evidence. His curriculum vitae was reviewed in detail in testimony, with a focus on his training and experience in identifying illicit substances, the means of packaging them for street level transactions and his interpretation of the current street terms used by people to covertly purchase these substances through digital messaging.

[46] The officer’s report reviewed the evidence seized upon the respondent’s arrest as well as the text messages later extracted from the Cellphone. In his report, the officer concludes that the variety and amounts of the controlled substances, the packaging, the digital scale, the significant amount of cash, the firearm and the content of the text messages are all consistent with a conclusion that these drugs were in possession for the purpose of trafficking.

[47] This matter would be the officer’s first foray into the realm of expert testimony. However, his curriculum vitae and his experience with illicit drug trafficking proved sound on examination and cross examination. Since his full-time appointment to the force in 2008, he has spent the past four years in the Guns and Drugs Section of the London Police Service, where he has been involved in the execution of at least 70 search warrants, worked undercover and handled informants. In addition to his on-the-job experience, he has regularly engaged in education on the illicit drug trade.

[48] The respondent’s main concern after examination is the officer’s apparently limited formal training on the street language used in drug trafficking. The respondent submitted the court should caution itself in relying upon this expert opinion insofar as it relies upon the interpretation of the extracted cellphone data as supporting an inference the respondent was engaged in drug trafficking. I take this to mean I should consider narrowing the scope of the proposed expert’s opinion.

[49] I am satisfied by the officer’s explanation that he has become familiar with street terms for illicit substances through his training and experience as a police officer. He explained he has become familiar with the street level terminology through working with informants and debriefing members of the street level drug culture. Although he has been with the Guns and Drugs section for four years, he has been exposed to the street level drug culture since his initial days on uniform patrol.

[50] I accept the Crown’s submissions as to Officer Pouliot’s qualifications and the admissibility of his opinion. The opinion evidence is relevant to establishing the essential element that the drugs found in the vehicle were for the purpose of trafficking. I have developed some familiarity from past experience in this court as how these substances are trafficked, such as the street slang used for various names and the typical weights of drugs sought and sold. However, this reinforces the point that the methods used in street level drug trafficking, from the nature of the substances to how one can tell they were destined for sale rather than personal use involve matters outside the experience of the average person and are likely outside the experience of a jury, such that the opinion evidence is necessary. His opinion does not patently trigger any exclusionary rule. The officers who were involved in the investigation, arrest and seizure of the drugs and related evidence will testify to their observations. This officer will simply offer his opinion on the relevance of the seized evidence to the offences.

[51] I agree with the Crown that an expert has to have a first time in which she or he is qualified. The suggestion there is a lack of any formal training on street-level drug trafficking language does not undermine the observation that he clearly has years of practical experience in this area of law enforcement in the illicit drug trade. It was not evident that there is, in fact, such a discreet course.

[52] Finally, I accept the potential benefit of his testimony outweighs any concerns of the harm his opinion may cause to the trial process. Information about the illicit drug trade is essential to the trier of fact’s assessment of the evidence and determination of whether the drugs seized were destined for street level sale. To the extent there is a concern the officer’s opinion usurps the trier of fact’s decision on the ultimate issue, this risk can be managed with proper jury instructions.

[53] The Crown’s application to call the expert opinion evidence of Detective Constable Pouliot in the respondent’s trial on the issue of whether the fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine seized from the vehicle that the respondent was operating were possessed for the purpose of trafficking, including testimony as to the nature and use of these substances, their value, methods of sale, indicia of trafficking and terminology used in the trafficking of these substances to purchasers is granted.

Conclusion

[54] For the foregoing reasons, the Crown’s applications to admit the text messages for the truth of their contents and to qualify Detective Constable Pouliot on the terms previously stipulated are granted.

Justice K. Tranquilli

Released: October 20, 2022

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

DANIEL AMPADU

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice K. Tranquilli

Released: October 20, 2022