Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 489/22 Date: 2023-06-02 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King G. Smith for Provincial Crown, C. Hepburn for Federal Crown

- and -

Allan Clayton Eggleton D. Chou, for Defendant Allan Clayton Eggleton

Heard: May 23, 24, 25, 29, 2023

Reasons for Judgment

The Honourable Justice R. J Harper

Issues

[1] Allan Clayton Eggleton is charged with 17 counts as follows:

I. Count 1: Possession of a Schedule I substance (fentanyl) for the purpose of Trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) CDSA. II. Count 2: Possession of Proceeds Obtained by crime Over $5,000.00 contrary to section 355(a) CCC. III. Count 3: Possession of Schedule I substance (Crystal Methamphetamine) for the Purpose of Trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA. IV. Count 4: Possession of a Schedule I substance (cocaine) for the purposes of Trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA V. Count 5: He did, without lawful excuse, posses a loaded prohibited firearm, namely a sawed-off shotgun, at 43 Niagara Street, St. Catharines, Ontario, without being the holder of an authorization or licence permitting such possession at the place and the holder of a registration certificate for the said firearm, contrary to Section 95, subsection (2) of the CCC. VI. Count 6: He did, without lawful excuse, posses a prohibited firearm namely a Sig Sauer 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, without being the holder of a licence permitting such possession and the holder of registration certificate for the said firearm, contrary to Section 91, subsection (3) of the CCC. VII. Count 7: Did, at the City of St. Catharines, without lawful excuse, possess a prohibited weapon, which was not a replica firearm, namely a Sig Sauer 9mm semi-automatic handgun, without being the holder of a licence permitting such possession, contrary to Section 91, subsection 3 of the CCC. VIII. Count 8: Did without lawful excuse, possess a prohibited weapon which was not a replica firearm, namely a sawed-off shotgun, without being the holder of a licence permitting such possession contrary to Section 91 subsection (3) to the CCC. IX. Count 9: Did, without lawful excuse, store a prohibited weapon, namely, a Sig Sauer 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, in a careless manner, contrary to Section 86, subsection 3 of the CCC. X. Count 10: Did, without lawful excuse, store a prohibited weapon, namely a sawed-off shotgun, in a careless manner contrary to Section 86, subsection (3) of he CCC. XI. Count 11: Did store, without lawful excuse, ammunition, namely 12 gauge shotgun shells, in a careless manner, contrary to Section 86, subsection (3) of the CCC. XII. Count 12: Did, without lawful excuse, possess a prohibited firearm namely a Sig Sauer 9mm semi-automatic handgun, while knowingly not being a holder of a licence permitting such possession and the holder of a registration certificate for the said firearm, contrary to Section 92, subsection (3) of he CCC. XIII. Count 13: Did, without lawful excuse, posses a prohibited firearm namely a sawed-off shotgun, while knowingly not being the holder of a licence permitting such possession and the holder of the registration certificate for the said firearm, contrary to Section 92, subsection (30 of the CCC. XIV. Count 14: Did without lawful excuse, possess a prohibited weapon which was not a replica firearm, namely, a butterfly knife, without being the holder of licence permitting such possession, contrary to Section 91, subsection (3) of the CCC XV. Count 15: Did, without lawful excuse, possess a prohibited weapon, namely a Sig Sauer 9 mm semi-automatic handgun while prohibited form doing so by reason of an order made under Section 109, subsection (3) of the CCC, contrary to Section 117.01, subsection (3) of the CCC. XVI. Count 16: Did, without lawful excuse, possess a prohibited weapon, namely a sawed-off shotgun, while prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made under Section 109, subsection (3) of the CCC, contrary to Section 117.01, subsection (3) of the CCC. XVII. Count 17: Did, without lawful excuse, possess a prohibited weapon, namely, a butterfly knife, while prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made under Section 109, subsection 3 of the CCC.

[2] All of the above noted charges alleged took place at 43 Niagara St. St. Catharines, Ontario on April 20, 2021.

Background

[3] The Niagara Regional Police Services (NRPS) started to investigate allegations of the trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine in or about mid April 2021. The target of their investigation was the accused Allan Clayton Eggleton (Eggleton) and the target residence was the upper apartment located at 43 Niagara St. St. Catharines, Ontario (the subject residence).

[4] The investigating team of the NRPS was made up of a number of constables who conducted surveillance on the subject residence from various vantage points from April 15, 2021 until April 20, 2021.

[5] Each officer took their own notes in their own day book and a central note taker was selected from a member of the team each surveillance day. That note taker received descriptions of events from other team members from time to time during the surveillance and wrote these observations in the central notebook. The officers who testified were allowed to use their daily book and the central notebook to refresh their memories.

The observations made from surveillance from April 15, 19 and 20, 2021

[6] Multiple members of the surveillance team testified to observing similar events of numerous individuals attending at the subject residence and entering the target front door, and exiting only a few minutes later.

[7] The target door was a glass door at the front of the subject residence. Inside that door were stairs that led to the upper unit apartment. On the left upon entering the glass target door, there was a door that led to a main floor unit. I will expand on this unit construct later in these reasons.

[8] The observations by the surveillance team were made on each of the surveillance days of April 15, 19 and 20. All of the police officers who testified noted that frequent and short visits were observed of individuals who entered the target glass door and exited within a very brief period of time. Most of the observing officers described the visits as between 1 to 10 minutes. It was later described by the officers, and the expert police witness who testified, that these types of very short visits of multiple people over an expanded period of time were an indicia of drug transactions taking place. Some of the officers observed some of the individuals who were the subject of these short visits were putting something in various types of bags or in their pockets upon leaving. It was also noted by some of the team that they observed known drug users as some of the individuals who attended the subject residence for a brief period of time.

The Item, that Fell from the Trench Coat

[9] On April 19 Cst. Boldec testified that he observed Eggleton leaving the subject residence wearing a trench coat and a bike helmet. He left on an e-bike that he had parked close to that residence. He returned to the subject residence on the e-bike still wearing the trench coat. Upon getting off the e-bike, Eggleton dropped a long black object, approximately 2 feet in length, out of his trench coat. The item fell out of the trench coat on to the ground. It was either black or dark brown. Eggleton was observed to be startled and he looked around quickly as he bent down and picked the object up and put it back into the trench coat. He then proceeded to go back into the subject residence while still wearing that trench coat.

[10] This evidence is central to one of the items that was seized pursuant to the search warrant that was executed by the NRPS on April 20, 2021. Cst. Boldec testified that he was part of the team executing the search warrant. The apartment was very messy, cluttered with clothes and other objects, garbage and food items were strewn everywhere. To say that it was dirty is an understatement. Cst. Boldec of the NRPS testified that he was part of the team that executed the search warrant and he was afraid to touch anything. However, he also testified that he had to sift through all of the clutter and go through pockets in the clothing and other items that were strewn about. That process took a long time. In addition, he observed at least one rat run by and there were also cockroaches in the unit.

[11] Cst. Boldec testified that, as he entered the subject residence through the glass target door, there was a door to the left as you entered. That door would allow entrance to a commercial unit on the main floor. He stated that the only other unit from the main entrance door in the front was at the top of a stairway. That stairway took you directly up to the subject residence.

[12] During his search of the subject residence, he noticed a small entrance hatch in the 9-foot ceiling of the open living area. The hatch appeared to be an opening to a small attic. He was boasted up by another officer and easily opened the hatch. He located, in plain sight, the barrel of a sawed-off shot gun that was pointed at him. He was concerned that this might be a booby trap. He grabbed the muzzle and took the gun out. It was a sawed-off shotgun approximately 2 feet in length. That gun was sawed-off at the muzzle and at the butt end. The sawed-off shotgun was loaded with two shells inside. One was a 16-gauge shell, and the other was a 20-gauge shell.

[13] Also located in the unit being searched were eighty-two (82) 20 gauge shot gun shells, the two shells that were loaded in the sawed off shot gun and 3 bullets.

[14] Other weapons were also located. There was an air rifle that would shoot pellets and other air guns that would shoot pellets. One gun that was located in the unit appeared to be a 9mm handgun. It had a lever on the top that moved. The officer who located that gun noted it as a gun, not an air pellet gun, due to the lever that moved on the top of the gun. It was later determined to be an air pellet gun.

[15] The Crown filed an exhibit of all of the items seized on the execution of the search warrant that day in that upper unit at 43 Niagara after lab analysis included:

Drugs

a) Fentanyl (13.6g) b) Methamphetamine (47.2g) c) Crack Cocaine (1.2g)

[16] Scott Tait was qualified as an expert witness to give opinion evidence on the street mid-level distribution of cocaine, methamphetamine and fentanyl including pricing, paraphernalia related to the use and sale, modus operandi of traffickers including terminology, weapons and Possession of Proceeds of Crime.

[17] He testified that the totality of the items seized pursuant to the search warrant in this case were consistent with indicia of trafficking at the street level. Some of the items he noted as such were:

a) Multiple drug seizure b) Cellular device c) $5,009.00 Canadian Currency d) 5 digital scales e) Weapons seized noted as sawed-off shot gun, ammo, and number of knives, including a butterfly knife.

[18] The evidence presented by the officers executing the search disclosed that there was a drug processing area with scales and baggies to package the drugs. The baggies were of different sizes.

[19] Detective Tait testified that the price of the drugs seized ranged in amounts as follows:

a) Fentanyl 13.6 x $180 = $2,448 range to 13.6 x $220 = $2,992 b) Methamphetamine 47.2 = 472 points x $10 = $4,720 range to 47.2 = 472 points x $15 = $7,080 c) Crack Cocaine 5.5 = 55 pieces x $20 = $1,100

[20] Det. Tait stated that the price associated with the purchase of drugs is dependent on several factors. Some of these factors include, but are not limited to, risks, locations, weights sold, purity of the drug, supply/demand as well as seller/buyer relationships.

[21] I accept Det. Tait’s uncontradicted testimony that there were many items seized, and when taken together with the drugs that were seized, this was indicative of drug trafficking. Not only were there multiple controlled substances seized but there were also digital scales, currency, cell phones and weapons.

[22] I also accept Det. Tait’s evidence that the types of weapons seized were the types of weapons that street traffickers would use to protect themselves. Individuals would saw off a shot gun at both ends in order to make it easier to conceal.

[23] I also accept Det. Tait’s testimony that street level traffickers would almost always deal in cash and that it is not unusual for a trafficker to have $5,000 cash on his person depending on whether he was at the point in which he or she had not just replenished his inventory of drugs.

The Law and the W(D) Analysis

[24] The accused, Mr. Eggleton, testified at trial. I will comment on his testimony shortly. However, before I do, I point out that I am guided by the comments of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Smith, 2020 ONCA 782. In that case, the OCA reminded us of one of the central points to consider when referencing what has become known as the W(D) analysis. The court stated at para. 11:

D. Analysis

[11] The purpose of the W.(D.) test is to assist the trier of fact in “evaluating conflicting testimonial accounts” to determine whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, at para. 9. The W.(D.) test is not a “magic incantation”: R. v. S.(W.D.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521, at p. 533. It is the substance of the test that must be respected: R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788, at para. 23. The test is a reminder that the “burden never shifts from the Crown to prove every element of the offence”: J.H.S., at para. 9.

[12] The W.(D.) test applies not just to an accused person’s testimony, but to any defence evidence and to any potentially exculpatory evidence whether led by the defence or the Crown: R. v. B.D., 2011 ONCA 51, 266 C.C.C. (3d) 197, at para. 114; R. v. Kirlew, 2017 ONCA 171, at para. 17.

[25] I emphasise that, in my consideration of the evidence in this case, the burden never shifts from the Crown to prove every element of the offence. The accused does not have to prove anything.

[26] The Supreme Court goes on to state in W(D) the analysis that is necessary:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

[27] Mr. Eggleton testified. His testimony was short and confined to only a couple of issues in this case. His testimony centred around the issue of whether he had possession of the residence in which the drugs, the weapons, ammunition and the drug paraphernalia was located in the execution of the search warrant. He also testified as to why he had $5000 on his person when he was arrested. He did not comment on any other evidence that was presented by the Crown.

[28] At this trial, Mr. Eggleton stated that he did not live in the upper-level apartment at 43 Niagara. He stated that his girlfriend, Kaitlin Best, lived in that apartment. According to Mr. Eggleton, he stayed in, what he referred to as, the basement unit at 43 Niagara. According to him, that unit could be accessed from the front glass door and from the back of 43 Niagara. He stated that, once you went in through the glass door at the front of 43 Niagara, there was a door to the left where you could enter the “basement unit”. He testified that he had lived in that basement unit for a few months. At first, he stated that he was a squatter. He later changed that testimony to state that, although he lived there, he did not pay rent and stayed there because the landlord wanted someone there as the unit had been broken into as of late.

[29] He also stated that he must have had a key to that unit.

[30] I find that his testimony with respect to where he resided was inconsistent and not credible when taken together with all of the evidence. I will elaborate later in these reasons.

[31] It is important, at this point, to indicate that I am mindful of the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. with respect to how courts must treat circumstantial evidence at paragraph 37:

[37] When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider “other plausible theor[ies]” and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt: R. v. Comba, [1938] O.R. 200 (C.A.), at pp. 205 and 211, per Middleton J.A., aff’d R. v. Comba, [1938] S.C.R. 396; R. v. Baigent, 2013 BCCA 28, 335 B.C.A.C. 11, at para. 20; R. v. Mitchell, [2008] QCA 394 (AustLII), at para. 35. I agree with the appellant that the Crown thus may need to negative these reasonable possibilities, but certainly does not need to “negative every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused”: R. v. Bagshaw, [1972] S.C.R. 2, at p. 8. “Other plausible theories” or “other reasonable possibilities” must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation.

[32] There were multiple police officers who were part of the surveillance team who were conducting their surveillance of 43 Niagara St (the Subject Property) on April 15, 19 and 20 of 2021. None of the police officers stated that they observed anyone occupying the premises on the main level of the subject property. That main level unit could be accessed through the door on the left upon entering the glass front door. The testimony from more than one officer was that that ground floor unit was commercial space. Cst. Landry testified that the apartment at the top of the stairs, when entering the front glass door of the subject property, was residential, whereas the unit on the main floor was commercial.

[33] None of the officers on the team ever saw anyone coming or going into or from the unit on the main floor. They did not see any evidence that the unit was occupied, and no one ever saw anyone going in or out of that unit, or any other unit, except for the upper-level apartment at 43 Niagara.

[34] Cst. Dan Bieldy stated that when you entered the glass door of the subject property, you could see that there was a stairway immediately in front of you and a door immediately to the left. He stated that door led to a vacant unit on the main floor. He went on to state that you could see through the large bay glass window into that main floor unit and there were no window coverings, and he, therefore, believed that there was nothing in that unit.

[35] Cst. Boldec testified that he did not look into the main floor unit. However, he stated that the upper apartment unit at the subject residence could not be accessed from any other point other then entering the glass door at the main floor and going up the stairs.

[36] The police testimony was that there may have been other units in the 43 Niagara building but none of them could be accessed, nor had access to the upper-level apartment in question.

[37] Mr. Eggleton testified that he was in a boyfriend and girlfriend relationship with Kaitlin Best. He stated that they were both drug addicts. He only used cocaine and she used opioids. They both learned that Kaitlin was pregnant with Mr. Eggleton’s child. She was trying to get clean of drugs and he wanted to support her in this endeavor. However, she would constantly regress and start taking drugs. In fact, according to Mr. Eggleton, she overdosed some 20 times in and around April 2021.

[38] Mr. Eggleton changed his testimony about living in a basement unit of 43 Niagara after his counsel showed him a picture of 43 Niagara that had been filed in evidence. It was at that time he stated that he was mistaken when he said he lived in the basement unit. He meant to say the ground floor unit. He indicated that, because his girlfriend’s unit was on the upper level, he was wrong when he referred to the main floor as the basement.

[39] I do not find that Mr. Eggleton’s explanation of this inconsistency to be credible nor plausible. There is no way that the ground floor unit could be mistaken as a basement unit.

[40] The Crown called evidence prior to the testimony of Mr. Eggleton about a police involvement at 43 Niagara Street on April 7, 2021. The police were called to assist in, what is referred to as, an ambulance assist drug overdose.

[41] When police arrived, that soon turned into a police officer assist in a sudden death. Kaitlin Best, Mr. Eggleton’s girlfriend died of an overdose of drugs. She was 5 months pregnant at the time. Mr Eggleton was present as well as one of his friends. Cst. Gifford and Santana testified that Mr. Eggleton was never considered a suspect of any kind and he volunteered that the female in distress was his girlfriend Kaitlin Best. He gave his name and his phone number to those officers.

[42] Later that evening, Det. Davero attended to investigate the sudden death of Kaitlin Best. She interviewed Mr. Eggleton. After a voire dire, the interview audio was admitted as a voluntary statement. All of the testimony on the voire dire, except for the testimony of Mr. Eggleton, was admitted as evidence at the trial on consent.

[43] In an audio taped interview, Mr. Eggleton made numerous references to him leaving his home to get breakfast and returning to his home at 43 Niagara. He also stated that he returned home later that evening to find Ms. Best in the state of overdose. He told Det. Devero that both he and Ms. Best lived in the apartment.

[44] Taken together with all of the other evidence of the police surveillance officers who described the building layout and did not observe any other egress or ingress to the upper apartment other than the one door to the left, no officer saw anyone coming or going from the subject property. In addition, the testimony of the officers described the ground floor unit as not being occupied. All of this evidence I find leads to only one reasonable conclusion and that is that Mr. Eggleton lived in the upper apartment with his girlfriend Kaitlin Best on April 7, 2021.

[45] After Ms. Best died on April 7, 2021, Mr Eggleton testified that he resided in the basement unit, later referring to that as the ground unit. I do not accept this testimony. Once again, I accept the testimony of the officers who testified that no one occupied that ground floor unit. His evidence is simply not plausible that he would want to stay at 43 Niagara St., after the death of his girlfriend in order to protect her belongings, and still stay in the basement/main floor unit.

[46] In addition, when he was arrested, Mr. Eggleton had on his person the keys to the upper unit with the key chain that had the name Kaitlin on it. However, Kaitlin had been deceased since April 7, 2021. The keys were on his person at the time of his arrest on April 20, 2021.

[47] During the surveillance of April 15, 19 and 20, 2021 Mr. Eggleton was seen coming and going from the glass door that led to the upper unit of 43 Niagara during the period of time where there were multiple very short visits to that address.

[48] Mr. Eggleton parked an e-bike at the back of the premises and sometimes at the front of the residence. He was also observed coming out of the glass front doors of 43 Niagara, getting on his e-bike and returning between April 15 and April 20, 2021.

[49] All of this evidence must be taken together, and upon considering all of the evidence, I reject Mr. Eggleton’s evidence that the upper unit at 43 Niagara was not his residence. I find that it was his residence, and he was solely in possession and control of this residence from the time that Ms. Best died on April 7, 2021.

[50] With respect to the sawed off shot gun, I accept that evidence of Cst. Boldec that that weapon was easily accessible. It was just inside the hatch to a form of attic that could be reached easily. Mr. Eggleton was observed coming out of 43 Niagara through the glass door wearing a trench coat, riding an e-bike, on a day that was observed by the surveillance team only to be cloudy. It does not seem at all believable that he would ride an e-bike in that manner. When he returned to 43 Niagara, he was observed getting off the e-bike with an item falling out of his trench coat that was described by the observing officer as about 2 to 3 feet long. He was described by that officer as quickly bending over and looking around as he picked up this item and put it back into his trench coat.

[51] The observing officer testified, while holding the sawed-off shotgun, that this was very similar to, if not the actual item, that fell out of Mr. Eggleton’s coat that day he was observing Mr. Eggleton.

Cash

[52] With respect to the cash found on the person of Mr. Eggleton, he testified that he had that case on him as he had been saving money from certain sources that he had received in order to attempt to relocate with his girlfriend, Kaitlin Best, and try to break her drug addiction since finding out she was pregnant. He filed as an exhibit what was represented to be a ledger print out from a “Money Mart” to demonstrate where he got the cash.

[53] I agree with the submissions of the Crown that there is nothing in that ledger exhibit to indicate that it came from “Money Mart”. The tile at the top of the exhibit shows that it is a central authorization fraud check system C@LiveLink. The document indicates the name of Allan Eggleton. It appears that it shows an account number with all but the last 4 digits x’d out.

[54] The document appears to show that certain amounts of money were received from the Government and certain amounts were paid to the customer. The document is 4 and half pages of entries. Starting on November 24, 2017 and ending on January 14, 2021.

[55] There is nothing in this exhibit that would demonstrate if money was received, where that money would have gone. There are also entries that show money went to and from a law firm. Absolutely no explanation was given about those funds. The last entry in the document was January 14, 2021. Kaitlin Best died on April 7, 2021. It does not make any logical sense that Mr. Eggleton would have $5,000 on his person that was allegedly earmarked to relocate and assist his girlfriend in getting off of drugs, almost 3 months after her death.

[56] I accept the evidence from the expert Scott Tait that the majority of street drug trafficking is done with cash. I also accept his evidence that it would not be unusual for street drug traffickers would have cash in amounts of $5,000 and addicts would not likely have that amount of money since their sole focus is to spend to get their next quantity of drugs in order to get consume those drugs. When taken together with all of the other evidence, including the surveillance demonstrating multiple short visits to the subject residence by multiple people over multiple days and the items located at the subject residence pursuant to the search warrant, the only logical inference is that the money found on his person at the time of his arrest was from the proceeds of his drug trafficking.

[57] The defence conceded at the outset of the trial to the drugs, weapons and paraphernalia as well as the weapons and the corticates filed by the experts with respect to those weapons.

[58] The only issues that are before me are:

a) Was Mr. Eggleton in possession of the drugs, firearms, ammunition and drug paraphernalia? b) Were the drugs he was in possession of for the purposes of trafficking? c) Was the cash found on Mr. Eggleton on his person and in the upper apartment at 43 Niagara St proceeds from crime?

Given my analysis of the totality of the evidence in this case as set out earlier by me, I find that there are no other plausible theories or other reasonable possibilities that are based on logic and experience that can be applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence other than my findings set out as follows:

1. The drugs and drug paraphernalia set out in the certificates and expert reports that were conceded by the defence to be accurate were in the possession of Mr. Eggleton at all material times.
2. I accept the expert evidence of Mr. Tait that the quantity of drugs found were consistent with drug trafficking and not possession. I find that the said drugs were for the purpose of trafficking. It is not reasonable nor logical that a person would have in their possession a year’s worth of drugs in their possession if the drugs were for their own use.
3. I accept the expert evidence of Constable Mike McNeil with resect to the guns seized were:

1. Sig Sauer, P320 M17, 177 pellet, Air spring or gas, manufactured in Japan with a barrel length of 117 mm.
2. Ithaca, Model 37 Featherweight, 16 GA x 2 ¾ pump action shot gun, manufacture in the IUSA with a barrel length of 352 mm and total length of 670 mm.

[59] I accept Constable McNeil’s uncontested evidence that the Sig Sauer is an imitation firearm that includes a replica firearm that is designed or intended to resemble, with near precision, a firearm and that itself is not a firearm but does not include any device that is designed or intended to be an exact resemblance, or to resemble with near precision, an antique firearm.

[60] I accept Constable McNeil’s uncontested evidence that the sawed-off shotgun is a prohibited firearm, being a handgun that (i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length or (ii) is designed to or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge.

[61] I find that all of the weapons as described above are indicia of Mr. Eggleton engaging in drug trafficking when taken together with all of the other evidence.

Summary and Conclusion

[62] As a result of my findings and analysis, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the essential elements of the offence set out in all 17 counts and I find Mr. Eggleton Guilty on all counts.

Justice R.J. Harper Released: June 2, 2023