R v Quinn, 2013 ABQB 667

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Quinn, 2013 ABQB 667 Date: 20131122 Docket: 100845551Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Curtis Arthur Quinn Accused Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _ ________________________________________ ______________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice L.D. Acton _________________________________________ ______________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] Curtis Arthur Quinn faces three charges on a two count indictment, all which relate to events on July 11, 2010: 1. Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46, s 348(1) – breaking and entering a dwelling place occupied by Alicia Page, 2. Criminal Code , ss 265, 267 – assault causing bodily harm of Codi Lyn Maki, and 3. Criminal Code , ss 265-266 – common assault of Alicia Page. [ 2 ] The charges flow from a scenario whose general outline is consistent among those present at the basement suite occupied by Alicia Page.

Five adults were in that suite and asleep: Codi Lynn Maki, Alicia Page, and Matt Lazarenko in the living room area, with Courtney Gladue and Jade Anzures in a bedroom.

[ 3 ] In the early morning a person broke down the door to the suite and entered. This intruder then physically attacked the occupants of the living room. Codi Lynn Maki received the most severe injuries. One occupant of the bedroom observed the attack but was not apparently detected by the intruder. The intruder then left. [ 4 ] There is no real dispute that on July 11, 2010 someone kicked down the door of the Page residence. The injuries to the complainants are also well documented. The principle issue in this matter is whether the Accused, Curtis Quinn, was that intruder. The Crown witnesses say it was him.

Mr. Quinn however claims he was at home and asleep at the time of the attack, and therefore is falsely accused. II. Evidence [ 5 ] The relevant evidence in this matter chiefly focuses on the events of July 11, 2010 and the subsequent aftermath. Most comes from the in-court testimony of persons involved, particularly the individuals in the Page basement suite. I will first review their accounts and those of the other Crown witnesses, and then the evidence of the Accused, Mr.

Quinn. [ 6 ] I am not going to detail the entire narratives provided by the Crown witnesses because on non-relevant subjects their evidence is effectively the same. The Defence has pointed out there are certain discrepancies between the testimony of some of these witnesses, for example in timing and events of the day prior to the intrusion, such as what time various persons arrived at Ms. Page’s residence. Those distinctions are immaterial simply because they have no relation to the intrusion and attack.

I put very little weight on the relevance of discrepancies of that kind. [ 7 ] In brief, the day before the alleged misconduct, a group of friends and social acquaintances gathered at Ms. Alicia Page’s residence, including Alicia Page, Codi Lynn Maki, Matt Lazarenko, Courtney Gladue, and Jade Anzures. They socialized, hung out, watched T.V. and documentaries, and had some drinks. Eventually they fell asleep. During the night an intruder entered the property. The assault followed. [ 8 ] The scope of Ms. Maki’s injuries is not in dispute.

The court received two sets of photographs (Exhibits 2 and 3) that document those injuries, as well as corresponding medical records (Exhibit 5). Similarly, Ms. Page’s injuries were documented by photographs in Exhibit 4. A. Crown Witnesses [ 9 ] The Crown witnesses can be divided into three groups: 1. Alicia Page and Codi Lyn Maki: who were in the living room of Ms. Page’s basement suite when the attack occurred, 2. Courtney Gladue and Jade Anzures: who were in the bedroom of Ms. Page’s basement suite and clandestinely observed the intrusion and attack, and 3. Brian Page, Detective Jeffrey Resler, and Ms.

Maki’s parents: persons who became involved in or aware of the intrusion and attack after the fact. [ 10 ] Matt Lazarenko by all accounts was present in the living room during these events. He did not testify. Ms. Page said that Matt has been to gaol so he would not give a statement as he is part of “the system”. [ 11 ] The persons in the first two groups were not eager witnesses. Alicia Page, Courtney Gladue, and Jade Anzures only appeared after they were the subjects of witness warrants. Alicia Page arrived late but did testify. Ms.

Gladue only appeared as a witness after having been detained and held in Remand overnight. 1. Alicia Page [ 12 ] On July 11, 2010 Alicia Page was the occupant of the basement suite at [...]-130 Street in Edmonton where the offences took place. Ms. Page was a single mother with her three-year-old son Ethan. At that time, she was taking a legal assistant course at CDI College, with classes from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Ms. Page rented the suite from her father Brian Page. She described her relationship with her father as not close. [ 13 ] Ms.

Page testified that she had met Curtis Quinn on one occasion, at her home, prior to the July 11, 2010 intrusion. Ms. Page testified that she understood Ms. Maki and Mr. Quinn were romantically involved. [ 14 ] She and Ms. Maki were very close friends, and on the day before the attack the two had discussed Ms. Maki’s relationship with Mr. Quinn. Ms. Maki was upset over what appeared to be the end of a reasonably long romantic relationship, even if the circumstances of that relationship had been less than idea. [ 15 ] Ms. Page was candid about the fact that she had a history of methamphetamine use.

Under cross-examination, she testified that she had used methamphetamine on her birthday, June 5, 2010 and had used it a few times in 2010. a. The Intrusion and Attack [ 16 ] Ms. Page described the events she observed during the intrusion. Everyone was asleep, with herself, Matt Lazarenko, and

Codi Lynn Maki on couches in the living room area. She woke up when she heard a bang from the vicinity of the side door, like a boot to the door. She then heard wood snapping. At this point she found Curtis Quinn standing over her. Throughout the invasion Mr. Quinn was breathing fast and hard. Ms. Page described Mr. Quinn as having an intimidating appearance, with a bulky body, and his arms and chest bulging. Ms. Page described this body type as one of a person who misuses steroids. Ms. Page did not think Mr. Quinn was under the influence of either alcohol or non-steroid drugs.

She did not smell alcohol. [ 17 ] Mr. Quinn immediately demanded all three occupants of the living room give him their cell phones. [ 18 ] Matt Lazarenko tried to sit up. Mr. Quinn delivered approximately ten closed-fist punches to Matt Lazarenko’s chest or face and said, “Don’t try to get up.” Ms. Page testified that she said to Mr. Quinn, “Please stop,” and he said nothing. [ 19 ] Ms. Page then tried to “turtle” Matt Lazarenko to protect him. That meant her back faced Mr. Quinn as he continued his attack. Ms. Page estimates she received about 15 punches to her back which left her winded; she could not breathe.

Mr. Quinn said, “Stay down”. Ms. Page explained she said nothing at this point, which makes sense given she was unable to breath. [ 20 ] Codi Lynn Maki got up from the other couch and approached. Ms. Page describes the attack on Ms. Maki that followed. Mr. Quinn said to Ms. Maki: “You should have answered your phone – you answer your phone when I call.” Ms. Page describes this statement as being made in a firm, loud, controlling voice. Mr. Quinn then took Ms. Maki’s head at the top holding it as if he was cupping a football. Ms. Maki’s legs were bent. Mr. Quinn then kneed Ms. Maki in the face with full force. Ms.

Maki fell back onto the floor. Ms. Page reports she saw Ms. Maki’s eyes had rolled up in her head, and she did not get up. Ms. Maki appeared to have been unconscious for about a minute. [ 21 ] At that point, Mr. Quinn was walking in circles around the living room, indicating to Ms. Page and Matt Lazarenko to stay down. Mr. Quinn was shaking, he looked angry. Ms. Page testified that she then said, “Can you please leave now.” [ 22 ] Ms. Page reports Ms. Maki again began to move and tried to get up. Mr. Quinn then resumed his attack on Ms.

Maki, first grabbing her hair, then delivering approximately 30 “Ninja kicks” to Ms. Maki’s head and shoulders. The kicks were delivered using the side of Mr. Quinn’s shin. Ms. Maki said “please stop, please stop”, and tried to protect her face with one hand while the other hand was behind her head, where Mr. Quinn had grabbed and was pulling her hair. [ 23 ] Mr. Quinn called Ms. Maki a bitch, a cunt, and repeated that she should have answered her phone. [ 24 ] Ms. Page testified that she asked Mr. Quinn to stop, and explained that she needed to check on her son. When Ms. Page then tried to get up, Mr.

Quinn took his foot and pushed her back down on the couch. Mr. Quinn stated: “I have to hit you because she (meaning Ms. Maki) did not answer her phone.” [ 25 ] Ms. Page testified that at this point Ms. Maki had blood running down her head, but she came over to Ms. Page and put her head on Ms. Page’s chest. Ms. Page held her and sat Ms. Maki down. At that point, Mr. Quinn tried to grab Ms. Maki’s legs to pull her towards him. Matt Lazarenko said: “Just leave her. The police are going to be here.” Mr. Quinn replied “I’ll be back for you, you’re going to get it.” Mr. Quinn then exited the basement suite. [ 26 ] Ms.

Page testified that she did not know Courtney Gladue and Jade Anzures were still in the residence at the time of the intrusion. She never saw them. b. The Aftermath [ 27 ] Ms. Page testified that after the assault she was sore, particularly her hips, which made sitting impossible for a long period of time. However, Ms. Maki’s injuries were more severe. Ms. Page reports massive swelling on Ms. Maki’s face, a gash on the back of her head, and a cut under her eye. Ms. Maki’s arms and chest were red and starting to bruise. [ 28 ] The door had been broken during Mr.

Quinn’s entry, and the wood piece around the door was completely broken away. [ 29 ] At this point Courtney Gladue and Jade Anzures emerged from the suite’s bedroom. Ms. Maki was assembling her possessions and planned to drive herself to the hospital. Instead, she only drove around the block and returned to the suite. Matt Lazarenko then drove Ms. Page and Ms. Maki to the Sturgeon Hospital in Ms. Maki’s car. Ms. Maki’s parents were called and they immediately attended the hospital. Ms. Page told Ms. Maki’s parents what had happened. Other persons arrived and spoke to the group. [ 30 ] Ms.

Maki did not want to lay charges. Her father and Ms. Maki’s friend “Sharkie” (real name David Morgan) wanted her to do that, but Ms. Maki refused. [ 31 ] Ms. Page and Ms. Maki returned from the hospital to Ms. Page’s basement suite. The broken door was repaired by her friend Mark. [ 32 ] Ms. Page testified that Mr. Quinn continued to make threats by phone, threatening harm to her son Ethan and other family members if Ms. Page or Ms. Maki spoke to the police about the July 11 incident. Mr. Quinn sent Ms. Maki photographs of Ms. Maki’s parents’ home with these threats. [ 33 ] Ms.

Page had her sister April care for Ethan. Ms. Page and Ms. Maki remained at the suite, but took turns sleeping in shifts. Ms. Page was afraid to go to school. [ 34 ] Ms. Page’s father subsequently arrived on July 14, having learned about the incident from Ms. Page’s sister. Ms. Page characterizes her sister as an unreliable person who cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Ms. Page’s father entered without warning and yelled at Ms. Maki, telling her “to get the fuck out of the house.” Ms. Page said her father then called the police. Ms. Page gave a videotaped statement to the police.

[ 35 ] Ms. Maki wanted Ms. Page to revoke her videotaped statements. Ms. Maki told her that Mr. Quinn was really dangerous and people would get hurt. Ms. Maki even drove Ms. Page to the west end Police Station to get Ms. Page to revoke her videotaped statement. 2. Codi Lyn Maki [ 36 ] Codi Lyn Maki testified on the events in July 2010 and her relationship with Mr. Quinn. Ms. Maki acknowledged that she too had been a daily user of methamphetamine and had been using that drug for a long time. She testified that at the time of the trial she had been clean for six months. [ 37 ] Ms.

Maki also has criminal convictions for fraud, credit card theft, impersonation, and 57 outstanding charges for similar offences. Under cross-examination, Ms. Maki acknowledged that methamphetamine use was expensive, especially if you are addicted to it. [ 38 ] Ms. Maki’s evidence was that she and Curtis Quinn were in a troubled romantic relationship at the time, and had another spat. Ms. Maki testified that Mr. Quinn was mad at her but she did not know why. This was not atypical, as she reported that he would get mad at her and say that he did not know why. At the end of this spat Mr.

Quinn had told her he was not going to hurt her, but that their relationship was over and he was not going to see her anymore. Ms. Maki got in her vehicle and drove over to visit her friend Alicia Page. Ms. Maki testified that she and her close friend Ms. Page discussed her relationship with Mr. Quinn. a. The Intrusion and Attack [ 39 ] Codi Lyn Maki testified about the intrusion and attack. Her account parallels that of Ms. Page. She says she fell asleep on the other couch in Ms. Page’s residence and the next thing she remembers is her phone was ringing and there being a loud bang at the door.

She testified that Mr. Quinn had kicked the door in and he came into the living room. He first went over to Ms. Page and Matt Lazarenko. Ms. Maki asked him what he was doing. [ 40 ] Mr. Quinn then approached her and hit her a couple of times. Ms. Maki remembers him hitting her in the head and she ended up on the floor. Ms. Maki specifically remembers then trying to get back up on the couch but the room was spinning. She knows she lost consciousness at least once, because she regained consciousness on the floor. [ 41 ] The violence described matches that reported by Ms. Page. Ms. Maki testified that Mr.

Quinn grabbed her head on each side with his hands and then he brought his knee up into her face. She does not know how many times he might have kneed her in the face. Ms. Maki reports that Mr. Quinn was wearing shoes. He also kicked her, although she does not know how many times. The kicks landed on her head or on the backs of her arms. Mr. Quinn also punched her in the face with his fist. [ 42 ] Ms. Maki then saw Mr. Quinn go over to Ms. Page and Matt Lazarenko and remembers Ms. Page saying, “Curtis no, please, my baby.” She also remembers Mr. Quinn saying to Ms.

Page, “She made me do this,” meaning herself, Ms. Maki. [ 43 ] The end of the incident is described in a manner similar to the report of Ms. Page. Ms. Maki remembers that Mr. Quinn tried to take her with him, but Ms. Page intervened, saying that he was not going to take her without Ms. Page. Ms. Maki also remembers Mr. Quinn saying something about how Ms. Maki had been hiding in Ms. Page’s residence, because her truck had been parked in the back rather than out front. Mr. Quinn then left, but took Ms. Maki’s cell phone. b. The Aftermath [ 44 ] Ms.

Maki testified that she saw Courtney Gladue and Jade Anzure after Mr. Quinn left. Everyone was in shock and disarray. Ms. Maki remembers that she got into her truck and drove it to the end of the alley but stopped because she was so jumbled. Ms. Page and Matt Lazarenko then arrived, and ultimately Matt Lazarenko drove the two women to the hospital. Ms. Page called Ms. Maki’s parents and they met her at the hospital. [ 45 ] Ms. Maki acknowledged that she did not tell the truth of the night’s events to the intake person at the hospital as she did not want the police called. She believed Mr. Quinn would kill her.

The hospital did send in a social worker to talk to Ms. Maki at the hospital. Her mother was present for that interview. [ 46 ] After Ms. Maki was discharged from the hospital she may have gone to her parent’s house with her mother because she believes Ms. Page and Matt Lazarenko may have taken her vehicle from the hospital. Ms. Maki does not recall any discussions with her parents during this period. Ms. Maki returned to Ms. Page’s residence after going to her parents’ house. The door frame was broken at this point. [ 47 ] One of Ms. Maki’s primary goals was to get Ms.

Page and her young son out of that location. She was concerned for their safety and wanted them in a hotel. Her friend Mark met them at Ms. Page’s residence. Ms. Maki testified it was Mark who fixed the door, then Mark drove Ms. Page and Ethan to her sister April’s house. [ 48 ] Ms. Maki testified that she stayed at Ms. Page’s residence that night, but is uncertain how much longer she stayed there. She too reports that Ms. Page’s father later appeared and he yelled at her. Ms. Maki testified that she shot back about Ms. Page’s father having abused his wife. Ms. Page’s father then apologized. [ 49 ] Ms.

Maki also testified that Mr. Quinn contacted her after the intrusion. He told her that if she did not get Ms. Page to recant her statement, he would arrange to have Ethan taken away. He wanted Ms. Maki to come up with a story that someone else broke in, assaulted persons, and caused the damage. Ms. Maki testified that her plan was to go to tell the police and the Crown that they had the wrong guy. She felt that if she told the police her assailant was Mr. Quinn, Mr. Quinn would kill her. Besides, she testified that at that

time she still loved Mr. Quinn. [ 50 ] Ms. Maki’s first interaction with the Edmonton Police Service was several days later when she was at a restaurant where they confronted her. After the police became involved, she picked Ms. Page up from her studies at CDI College and took Ms. Page to the Police Station. She wanted Ms. Page to recant her statement. [ 51 ] Ms. Maki’s bruises from the assault lasted about a month. 3. Courtney Gladue [ 52 ] Ms. Courtney Gladue had been a friend of Alicia Page since junior high. At the time of the intrusion she was in the basement suite bedroom with Jade Anzures. [ 53 ] Ms.

Gladue was one of the witnesses who appeared via a witness warrant. She had spent the night before her court appearance in gaol as she had been arrested, held overnight in the Remand Centre, and then brought to court in a dishevelled state to begin her evidence in this trial. [ 54 ] When Ms. Gladue first appeared in court she claimed to have no memory of the July 11 events. In my view, she was simply so angry about being arrested and incarcerated on the witness warrant that she had initially decided to not cooperate. The court then adjourned to permit Ms.

Gladue to read her Preliminary Hearing transcript and her police statement. She appeared to settle a bit, and then gave her evidence. Under cross-examination, counsel put to her that reading the transcript had caused memories to flood back and Ms. Gladue answered, “I guess” but the smile on her face gave a clear message. Ms. Gladue’s initial refusal to testify was, in my view, her simply being very difficult on purpose. [ 55 ] Under cross-examination, Ms. Gladue acknowledged that she was a methamphetamine user at the time of the incident, and then volunteered that Ms. Page and Ms.

Maki also used that drug at the time. a. The Intrusion and Attack [ 56 ] Ms. Gladue could not say at what exact time the intrusion occurred, and guessed it occurred somewhere around 4:00 a.m. Ms. Gladue was awake when the intrusion began, as she had just been up to use the bathroom and was back in bed getting comfortable, when there was a bang on the window. Ms. Gladue got up and looked out the window but did not see anything so she went back to bed.

Less than a minute later, she heard three bangs on the door which sounded different, like kicks, and then a sound she described as sounding like objects rolling down the stairs into the basement suite. Ms. Gladue then heard someone coming down the stairs and heard loud voices. [ 57 ] At this point Ms. Gladue testified she got up and went out of the bedroom and into the adjacent hallway. She could see into the living room from the hallway. She heard three voices: Ms. Page, Ms. Maki, and an unknown male who said, “I told you I would come.” The male voice was the loudest, he repeatedly called Ms.

Maki “a bitch”. [ 58 ] Ms. Gladue could see the unknown male but his back was turned to her. His face was not visible. Ms. Gladue described the intruder as bald, muscular and stubby, wearing blue jeans and a T-shirt. He was short, about the same height as Ms. Maki. Ms. Gladue could see the other occupants of the living room. Ms. Maki was facing Ms. Gladue, while Ms. Page and Matt Lazarenko were seated together on the couch. [ 59 ] Ms. Gladue testified she saw some of the violence that then transpired. Ms. Maki was standing, saying, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” The unknown male hit Ms.

Maki with his right arm into the left side of Ms. Maki’s face. She was struck with a closed fist. The blow was hard enough to throw Ms. Maki’s whole body back onto the loveseat. Ms. Page repeated over and over, “Please Curtis, don’t, my baby, my baby.” The man turned and looked as if he was looking at Matt Lazarenko who said, “No no man.” The intruder did not respond to the others except to say to Matt Lazarenko, “Are you looking at me man.” The intruder then started to advance on the couple on the couch. At this point Ms. Gladue retreated into the bedroom. [ 60 ] Ms.

Gladue testified she listened to the subsequent events from that location. She heard what she described as slapping noises. Both Ms. Page and Ms. Maki repeatedly spoke the name “Curtis”: Ms. Page perhaps 20 times, Ms. Maki fewer. By now Ms. Gladue had closed and locked the bedroom door. She and Jade Anzures were hugging each other. She was shaking, she testified “it was crazy.” [ 61 ] Next Ms. Gladue testified she heard scuffling noises. Both Ms. Page and Ms. Maki were crying. A male voice said, “You’re coming with me.” Ms.

Page responded by saying, “Don’t take her, don’t take her,” and “My baby, my baby.” [ 62 ] This was followed by sounds that Ms. Gladue described as hits and slaps. The hits had a deeper sound than the slaps. Ms. Page repeated the name “Curtis”. The intruder said, “Where’s your phone?” perhaps once or twice. Ms. Gladue then heard someone walk up the stairs and leave. [ 63 ] Ms. Gladue opened the bedroom window and saw a man walking away from Ms. Page’s residence. It was the same bald and stocky man she had seen in the living room attacking its occupants. He was carrying a pink phone which Ms.

Gladue had seen earlier in the night in Ms. Maki’s hands. [ 64 ] Then she said to Jade Anzures, “Let’s go out,” and she and Mr. Anzures walked out into the living room. Ms. Maki was in the middle of the room and covered in blood. Matt Lazarenko was sitting on the couch. Ms. Gladue does not recall if Ms. Page had any injuries. She inspected Ms. Maki and looked through her hair in an attempt to find where the blood was coming from.

b. The Aftermath [ 65 ] Ms. Maki started collecting her belongings. She wanted to get in her car and drive away. [ 66 ] Ms. Gladue and Ms. Page tried to stop her from driving. Mr. Anzures went to get her car, but in the meantime Ms. Maki walked up the stairs and got into her car. Again Ms. Gladue and Ms. Page told her not to go, but Ms. Maki insisted and would not let Matt Lazarenko drive her vehicle. Ms. Maki drove off. Ms. Gladue and Ms. Page had a smoke outside. They were shaking and worried about Ms. Maki. [ 67 ] At this point Ms. Maki returned in her car.

She had her head down on the steering wheel and said, “I want Alicia to come with me.” Matt Lazarenko drove Ms. Maki and Ms. Page in Ms. Maki’s car. Ms. Gladue observed at this point that the left side of Ms. Maki’s face had three large blood blisters on it. [ 68 ] This left Ms. Gladue and Mr. Anzures at Ms. Page’s basement residence. They had another cigarette, returned to the basement, and cleaned up the blood, wood shards from the door, and mud on the foot of the stairs and landing. That was the only property damage in the suite. [ 69 ] Mr.

Anzures returned to bed. [ 70 ] Not too long after that, Ethan woke up. Ms. Gladue fed him. Ms. Gladue remained at Ms. Page’s basement suite until at least 3:00 p.m., although she is not sure at precisely what time the others returned from the hospital. She does recall that at noon she talked to Ms. Page who told her they were still waiting at the hospital. [ 71 ] Ms. Page and Ms. Maki returned sometime between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. An unfamiliar male arrived and fixed the door. Ms. Gladue and Ms. Page discussed the intrusion, including details that Ms.

Gladue had missed, for example that the intruder had taken Ms. Maki’s head in his hands like a football. [ 72 ] Ms. Gladue testified they stayed at Ms. Page’s residence until about 8:00 p.m. It was getting dark so she and Mr. Anzures went home. When they left there were five people at the Page residence: Ms. Page, Ms. Maki, Ethan, the male who had repaired the door, and another unfamiliar shorter male. 4. Jade Anzures [ 73 ] Jade Anzures testified he had accompanied Courtney Gladue to the Page basement suite. That was the first time he had been inside Ms. Page’s residence.

He was just there to hang out and watch T.V. with his girlfriend Ms. Gladue. He was in the bedroom asleep when the events in question took place. He heard noise and testified that Ms. Gladue left the bedroom to see what was going on and returned shaken. He locked the bedroom door behind her. [ 74 ] Mr. Anzures otherwise had no evidence on the intrusion itself. 5. Brian Page [ 75 ] Brian Page, father of Ms. Page, testified. He owned the bungalow in which Ms. Page lived with his grandson Ethan. Mr. Page described the property and its furnishings in detail. [ 76 ] Mr.

Page first learned of the intrusion when his oldest daughter April phoned him about the basement suit and Ms. Page. Mr. Page then drove to the basement suite. [ 77 ] Mr. Page testified that when he arrived, Ms. Page, Ms. Maki, “Mark”, and a pit-bull were at the suite. The doorjamb and associated framing were broken and there was nothing to hold the latch or deadbolt to the suite door. Mr. Page observed the damage and concluded the missing and damaged parts were projected into the house; in other words someone had broken into the residence. [ 78 ] Mr. Page observed that Ms.

Maki was injured: she had a black eye that covered almost half of her face and her face was swollen. Mr. Page testified that he urged Ms. Page and Ms. Maki to press charges against Mr. Quinn, however both women were terrified. Mr. Quinn was so much bigger than these small girls. [ 79 ] Mr. Page testified that he cannot remember seeing Ethan there. “Mark” repaired the residence door while he was present. 6. Ms. Maki’s Parents [ 80 ] Ms. Maki’s mother and father, Corrine Maki and Ronald Maki, testified. They explained they met their daughter at the hospital after the intrusion.

Corrine Maki testified that when she got to the hospital all she did was cry. She said to her daughter: “I thought I told you not to answer the phone.” Corrine Maki testified that she had met Curtis Quinn. He had visited her house once after Ms. Maki had attended the Henwood Treatment Centre, an Edmonton addiction treatment facility. In total Corrine Maki said she had met Mr. Quinn two or three times. [ 81 ] Ronald Maki testified that during the time in question Ms. Maki had been living on and off at their house and with friends. He

confirmed that she had no injuries when he saw her the week before. [ 82 ] Ronald Maki confirmed that at the hospital Ms. Maki was both distraught and crying. His evidence was that he recommended to her that this time we have to do something about it and that they should phone the police this time. However, Ronald Maki testified that Ms. Maki was scared to do so. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that Ms. Maki was also afraid for her father’s safety. 7. Detective Jeffrey Resler [ 83 ] Detective Jeffrey Resler testified about an interview he conducted with Ms. Maki on July 14, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. At that time Detective Resler worked in the Domestic Offender Crime

Section (DOCS), a police unit which investigates high end domestic violence. He explained the DOCS

section is designed to deal with both the victims and offenders in high-end domestic violence situations. In this scenario his focus in interviewing Ms. Maki was to be sensitive to her emotional state and do the best he could to get her to tell her story. [ 84 ] Detective Resler classified Ms. Maki as a reluctant witness, and he believed if he tried to obtain a sworn statement from her that she would “bail” on him. Therefore he just sat and talked to her, and eventually Ms. Maki did relax and started to talk with him. That testimony was recorded on video tape. Detective Resler reported Ms.

Maki would relax, begin to talk, then catch herself and stop talking. [ 85 ] During the interview Ms. Maki admitted that at the time of the assault she was deeply involved in methamphetamine use. She and Mr. Quinn were co-dependent in using methamphetamine during this time frame. [ 86 ] Ms. Maki expressly told Detective Resler that she did not want to be a “rat”. He recorded that word in his notes. Under cross- examination he explained that he had ensured that the RCMP had put safety measures into place to ensure that Ms.

Maki and her friends were secure and safe because they could not locate the Accused at the time and that this was a complicated matter. Detective Resler stressed that the DOCS program works to put in place safety measures to prevent the possibility of future incidents occurring. [ 87 ] Detective Resler also commented on Ms. Maki’s physical condition. He testified that he was in close proximity to Ms.

Maki as she was telling her story to him and it was evident to him that she had: 1. a black left eye, 2. abrasions to the back of her head, 3. an abrasion on the left side of her face, and 4. a broken nose - looking at her he noticed that her nose looked bent the way a boxer’s or a hockey player’s broken nose would look. Detective Resler also took the photographs which have been marked as Exhibit 3. [ 88 ] Under cross-examination he admitted that he was aware of Ms.

Maki’s attempts to retract her statement and commented that an attempted retraction was a normal behaviour in these situations. [ 89 ] Detective Resler was asked what he would have done if Ms. Maki had given him the name of a person other than Mr. Quinn. Detective Resler confirmed that he would have investigated that person. Under re-direct he confirmed that to his knowledge he was never given the name of another person as the intruder in Ms. Page’s basement suite. B. Defence Witness – Curtis Arthur Quinn [ 90 ] The Accused, Curtis Arthur Quinn, testified for the Defence.

The Defence did not call any other witnesses. [ 91 ] Mr. Quinn is 42 years old. In brief, Mr. Quinn says he was not involved in the July 11, 2010 incident, and instead that the intruder must have been someone else. 1. Background a. Injuries and Health [ 92 ] Mr. Quinn spoke at some length about his background. He testified that in 2009 he was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in his being in a coma and he received an ultimate diagnosis of cognitive brain damage that causes him to be a concrete thinker. He also has PTSD that relates to that accident.

He is now on AISH as a result of that motor vehicle accident. He testified he began to receive financial support as of September or October 2012. [ 93 ] When asked about whether his injuries have affected his memory, Mr. Quinn testified that it was simple for him to remember things but he is not totally accurate on dates, for example, he knows only the month he went to Henwood for treatment, not the specific dates. [ 94 ] Under cross-examination he testified that he was told the injury that he suffered in the motor vehicle accident was the equivalent of falling 16 floors and hitting the ground. Mr.

Quinn said he had been in an induced coma for just under two weeks but again stressed that he does not feel inferior. He reports he has been told he just takes things literally. I believe that is what Mr. Quinn meant

when he said he was a “concrete thinker”. [ 95 ] Mr. Quinn also reported other psychological issues. He testified that tests at the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital indicate he had some disorder he referred to as “pre-exposure”, which is not Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, but instead something related to his mother consuming alcohol when she was pregnant with him. Now that he is aware of it, it does not bother him. [ 96 ] Mr. Quinn also reported that he has been told his IQ was somewhere in the 140s or genius level. He then re-emphasized under cross-examination that he does not feel like a social retard.

He still feels like an intelligent person and is a positive thinker. He stressed that if it takes 31 days to believe something, then he can put his mind to viewing the world in this way. He will not look at negative things. He offered that every morning he writes out five positive things to focus upon. b. Body Building and Appearance [ 97 ] Mr. Quinn testified he is 5’7” tall and was a personal trainer for a while. In court Mr. Quinn’s appearance was compact, broad, and muscular. [ 98 ] Mr. Quinn says he has a strong interest in body building and is a “health fanatic”. He was a competitive body builder in 2004.

Mr. Quinn further testified that he was not muscular in July 2010. He says he has small bones. In July 2010 he was not working out and he was not more muscular at that time than he is now. He denies he was heavily into body building in the 2010 period and explained that a photograph that was used in an online profile of himself instead dates from 2003. [ 99 ] When asked about his steroid use, he maintained that he has not used steroids since he was a competitive body builder in 2004. He testified that it is not against the rules to use steroids in amateur body building.

He has never heard of anyone being asked or accused of using steroids when he was involved in body building. He admitted knowing the term “roid rage” but denies suffering from roid rage in 2010. [ 100 ] Mr. Quinn acknowledged that he was at Popeye’s, a store that sells body building supplements, when Mr. Brian Page phoned him to talk to him about these matters, but he explained that by saying he’s been there lots of times because he is a health fanatic. [ 101 ] Mr. Quinn explained that the Mohawk haircut he is wearing at present is a very recent style. He does not remember that he was bald in 2010.

He did not have a Mohawk in 2010. He testified that in July 2010 he had a short army haircut. c. Mr. Quinn’s relationship with Ms. Maki [ 102 ] Mr. Quinn acknowledged that he is acquainted with Ms. Maki, though he describes their relationship in a different manner. He testified that he met Codi Maki in early September 2009 through friends. She seemed nice. They ended up in a sexual relationship and Ms. Maki stayed at his mother’s house with him for two to three weeks in December of 2009. Mr. Quinn lived at that location. [ 103 ] His mother evicted Ms. Maki on January 1, 2010. Mr. Quinn also left when Ms.

Maki was told to leave. He felt badly about how his mother was treating Ms. Maki. Mr. Quinn and Ms. Maki stayed in a hotel for three days after which he told Ms. Maki that he was breaking off the relationship. Mr. Quinn says that was the end of his relationship with Ms. Maki and the couple had broken up. [ 104 ] Mr. Quinn testified that he then went home and talked to his mother. He moved to Red Deer and in February 2010 applied to go to Henwood. He reports Ms. Maki contacted him at this point and said if he was going to Henwood she wanted to go to Henwood as well. Mr. Quinn did not think this would work.

He explained that he would be kicked out of Henwood if she was there at the same time. Mr. Quinn explained that Ms. Maki had attended Henwood at another time; he attended her graduation from that facility. [ 105 ] Mr. Quinn admitted that he took Ms. Maki to the theatre and to activities with his mother in the springtime of 2010 but stressed he was not dating her and he did not refer to Ms. Maki as his girlfriend. They were not in a serious relationship and he had not been seeing her since January of that year. [ 106 ] He admits knowing that Ms.

Maki had a cellphone in July 2010 but denies trying to contact her on her cellphone after the weather got nice in the spring of 2010. He is adamant it is not possible his memory is faulty on this. His evidence was that the last time he actually saw Ms. Maki in person was months prior to charges being laid against him. 4. Crown Witnesses [ 107 ] Mr. Quinn testified the occupants of Ms. Page’s suite on the night of the intrusion were strangers to him, except for Ms. Maki whose acquaintance he acknowledged. [ 108 ] He says the first time he had ever physically seen Ms. Page was the first day of trial.

Similarly, the only time he had ever seen Courtney Gladue or Jade Anzures was here in the courtroom. Mr. Quinn did admit that he knew Ms. Maki had a friend named Alicia Page but denies ever having been to Ms. Page’s residence. He adamantly denies ever being to Alicia Page’s house. 5. Charges / Incident [ 109 ] As I have previously noted, Mr. Quinn denies any involvement in or knowledge of the July 11, 2010 intrusion. His evidence was that in July 2010 his mother told him that the police wanted to see him about a ‘break and enter’ and assault, or something of that kind. Mr.

Quinn then went to his bank and took out $3,500.00 to pay an outstanding traffic fine. He then went to the police station with

his girlfriend of six years to pay the traffic fine and find out what the police wanted to talk to him about. [110] Mr. Quinn reports he was in shock, devastated, confused, and overwhelmed when he was told that he was being arrested for thematter that is before the Court. [111] Mr. Quinn was emphatic that he could not have been the intruder: he was at home and asleep. His evidence was that at 6:00a.m. on July 11, 2010 he was home in bed, sleeping.

He testified that he was home in bed before 3:00 a.m. and he got up between 10:00and 11:00 a.m. to go to the Victoria Golf Range that Sunday to hit balls. [112] He testified that there had been no texting between himself and Ms. Maki on July 10, 2010. He had not been drinking or doingdrugs on July 10, 2010. He denies assaulting Ms. Maki or Ms. Page. He testified that he has no idea where Ms. Page even lived and hedid not go to Ms. Page’s house. He further testified that he has never taken Ms. Maki’s cellphone. He testified he had no contact withAlicia Page nor did he threaten Ms.

Maki after July 11, 2010. [113] In brief, Mr. Quinn said the Crown witnesses’ narratives were incorrect, they misreported who was the intruder - it was nothim. [114] Mr. Quinn expressly stated that Ms. Maki has falsely accused him in the past and gave the example of a call he received fromMs. Maki when he was in his truck and his mother took the phone and told Ms. Maki not to call him again. Mr. Quinn was on bail at thattime and was trying to rebuild his life. His mother spoke very sharply to Ms. Maki about being in communication with her son. [115] Mr.

Quinn testified he has a history of substance abuse, including use of methamphetamine, steroids, and alcohol. He explainedthat in July 2010 he considered himself an alcoholic and therefore cut that out of his life. He is now not using drugs either. Mr. Quinnsaid he did not use drugs until after he stopped drinking. He explained that addiction is a behaviour and he transferred one drug for theother drug. [116] Mr. Quinn testified that he had been off methamphetamine. However, he explained that he was denied bail because of acomplete lack of remorse. He ended up in the Calgary Remand Centre before he obtained bail.

He found detention to be “torture”: therewas no one on his social level. [117] Afterwards he had a relapse. Mr. Quinn testified that he was sober today but that his mother went to Vancouver taking him withher and she tried to get funding for him to go to a rehabilitation clinic called the Last Door. He testified that even though his mother wasnot able to get the funding from Laurie Hawn for him to go to take the program, he was able to stay in that clinic for a while. He startedto get out of his depression and he achieved a change in his behaviour.

He explained he has been really good for the last nine to tenmonths. Mr. Quinn testified that his mother noticed this wonderful dramatic change in him. [118] Mr. Quinn expressly stated that he could produce documentation to show what precisely happened to the complainants andstated that everyone on the street knows what happened. III. Analysis A. Witness Credibility and Reliability [119] This case will be decided on the testimony of the witnesses and the Accused. The Crown witnesses and Mr.

Quinn provide twoincompatible accounts of what happened on the morning of July 11, 2010. [120] This analysis will revolve on my evaluation of the credibility and reliability of these witnesses. I remind myself of the correctapproach to evaluate witness testimony provided by Justice Estay in R v White, (SCC), [1947] SCR 268: The issue of credibility is one of fact and cannot be determined by following a set of rules that it is suggested have the force of law and,in so far as the language of Mr. Justice Beck may be so construed, it cannot be supported upon the authorities.

Anglin J. (later ChiefJustice) in speaking of credibility stated: by that I understand not merely the appreciation of the witnesses' desire to be truthful but also of their opportunities of knowledge andpowers of observation, judgment and memory – in a word, the trustworthiness of their testimony, which may have depended very largelyon their demeanour in the witness box and their manner in giving evidence. Reymond v. Township of Bosanquet [(1919) (SCC), 59 Can. S.C.R. 452, at 460]. The foregoing is a general statement and does not purport to be exhaustive.

Eminent judges have from time to time indicated certainguides that have been of the greatest assistance, but so far as I have been able to find there has never been an effort made to indicate allthe possible factors that might enter into the determination. It is a matter in which so many human characteristics, both the strong and theweak, must be taken into consideration. The general integrity and intelligence of the witness, his powers to observe, his capacity toremember and his accuracy in statement are important.

It is also important to determine whether he is honestly endeavouring to tell thetruth, whether he is sincere and frank or whether he is biassed, reticent and evasive. All these questions and others may be answered fromthe observation of the witness' general conduct and demeanour in determining the question of credibility. [Emphasis added.] B. W.D. Analysis [121] Mr. Quinn testified on his own behalf. This means the Court must apply the methodology identified by Justice Cory in R vW(D), (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742, 63 CCC (3d) 397 [“W(D)”]

[ 122 ] The W(

D) procedure is necessary to ensure that the burden of proof of an accused’s guilt remains with the Crown, and is not inappropriately shifted to the accused. In R v JHS , 2008 SCC 30 at para 13 , [2008] 2 SCR 152, Binnie J stressed that: W.(D.)’s message that it must be made crystal clear to the jury that the burden never shifts from the Crown to prove every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt is of fundamental importance but its application should not result in a triumph of form over substance. ... [Emphasis in original.] [ 123 ] Simply stated the W(

D) procedure has three steps. 1. if I believe the Accused I must acquit; 2. if I do not believe the Accused but am left in a reasonable doubt by his evidence, I must acquit; 3. if I do not believe the Accused, nor am I left in a reasonable doubt by his evidence, then I must review all of the evidence and determine whether on all of the evidence offered before the Court I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the Accused. [ 124 ] My first step is therefore to evaluate Mr. Quinn’s testimony. He says he had not seen Ms. Maki for some time prior to July 11, 2010.

He says on that morning he was in bed, asleep. He says he did not text or phone Ms. Maki during the period around the July 11, 2010 intrusion. [ 125 ] I do not believe the Accused. I did not find him a credible witness. His testimony was glib, marked by dramatics, and what I can only conclude was exaggeration. For example, Mr. Quinn testified that the trauma of the 2009 car accident “tore my aorta off my heart.” I believe I may take judicial notice that this injury, as described, would be nearly immediately fatal.

This is an exaggerated version of another and more plausible account of this injury, that there had been a tear to that blood vessel. The same is the case for how detention in Remand was “torture” for someone of his intelligence and social class. [ 126 ] Other aspects were improbable or inconsistent. I will mention a few examples: 1. Mr. Quinn claimed he could produce documentation to show he was not involved in the intrusion and assault, and said everyone on the street knows what happened. Yet no such evidence was produced.

Evidence of this kind would have prevented this entire matter having gone as far as to preliminary inquiry, let alone trial. 2. Mr. Quinn could recount a detailed timeline of his activities on July 10-11, 2010, putting himself first in the residence of his friend Paul, then in bed and asleep, then rising to play golf. This all being the case even though Mr. Quinn testified he was totally unaware of the intrusion and assault at Ms. Page’s residence, and that for Mr.

Quinn this was just another unexceptional weekend. “I know exactly where I was.” However, this is the same person who testified that his brain injuries leave him unable to readily track time and date information, and who was uncertain in what year (2009 vs. 2010) he had begun dating Ms. Maki. 3. He would have the Court believe he had been dating Ms. Maki and living with her at his Mom’s house during the time he was in a relationship with a girlfriend of six years as of July 2010. 4. Mr. Quinn stated he had no criminal convictions in the past 14 years. When subsequently shown his criminal record, Mr.

Quinn acknowledged in 2001 he had pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death and received a two year sentence. He also acknowledged a 2008 conviction for driving while disqualified, and two August 2011 breaches of pre-trial release conditions. [ 127 ] Mr. Quinn persistently attempted to portray himself in an artificially sympathetic, yet elevated light, as a victim more than anything else. In this sense he was not consistent, but rather his self-characterization was opportunistic. For example, at one point he testified he had no father. However Mr.

Quinn had earlier said that after his near fatal car accident that his parents were contacted by authorities. Yet he testified repeatedly about his close relationship with his mother and her support of him. It is an implausible slip here. His accounts also had elaborate but tangential elements, such as the explanation for why he had withdrawn a large sum of money to pay for a motor vehicle insurance offence prior to attending the police station to deal with what any reasonable person would consider an entirely separate line of police enquiry. [ 128 ] Similarly, Mr.

Quinn explained he had been denied bail because he had failed to show remorse for his actions, which of course is not a factor in the determination of pre-trial detention. Mr. Quinn then continued to contrast himself with “a serial killer had a three- year trial and killed 20 people and that’s what you would say, he showed no remorse for my actions.” [ 129 ] Mr. Quinn made broad statements concerning his mental condition and impairments that resulted from various factors. No evidence was tendered, documentary or otherwise, to support those claims. Again, Mr.

Quinn portrayed these factors in a dramatic manner: that he overcomes his infirmities by the power of positive thinking. [ 130 ] My conclusion is that some of the wandering, ill-focussed responses by Mr. Quinn to questions during his testimony were an attempt to divert the court and Crown’s attention to irrelevant subjects. This pattern is particularly obvious when Mr. Quinn was confronted by contrary evidence, such as his actual criminal record. [ 131 ] As I do not accept Mr. Quinn’s evidence, that concludes the first step of the W(

D) analysis. [ 132 ] The next question is whether Mr. Quinn’s evidence, in isolation, raises a reasonable doubt even if it not believed. It does not raise such a doubt. C. W(D) – third step [ 133 ] The final step in the W(

D) process is for me to evaluate Mr. Quinn’s guilt in light of all evidence, both Crown and Defence. I have previously commented on my assessment of Mr. Quinn and his evidence. As that evidence is all but worthless I will now review

whether the Crown has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 1. Credibility and Reliability of Crown Witnesses – R v Vetrovec [134] This again is a question of credibility and reliability. The Defence has argued on the basis of R v Bevan, (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 599, 104 DLR (4th) 180 that the Crown witnesses who directly observed the intruder and assault should beconsidered suspect because they are persons of disreputable character, and therefore subject to the caution identified in R v Vetrovec, (SCC), [1982] 1 SCR 811 at 825, 830-831, 136 DLR (3d) 89 [“Vetrovec”].

The trial judge must be cautious about theevidence of any witness, not just accomplices, who might be untrustworthy, and give herself a Vetrovec caution and look to detailedevidence which is capable of corroborating the evidence of potentially untrustworthy witnesses. [135] The defence submits that here the complainant, Ms. Maki, meets the test of being an untrustworthy witness. She lied to thepolice, and has a history of drug use and a criminal record.

Other witnesses also were admitted drug users. [136] Secondly, the defence looks to the Supreme Court decision in R v Burke, (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 474, 194 NR247, where the Supreme Court cautions a trial Judge to consider all circumstances when evaluating the reliability of evidence, includingthe possibility of collusion or collaboration.

Defence counsel stresses that the three female witnesses to the assault had the opportunity toconcoct the evidence in this case and it is therefore incumbent on the trial judge to examine their evidence with special care. [137] I note that a finder of fact may accept evidence from ‘Vetrovec’ witnesses where they are confirmed by other ‘Vetrovec’witnesses: R v Winmill (1999), (ON CA), 131 CCC (3d) 380 at para 120, 116 OAC 201. In this instance thatcorroboration is provided by Ms. Maki, Ms. Page, and Ms. Gladue. [138] I also discount the possibility of collaboration among these witnesses.

When one reviews the narrative that evolves from thetestimony of these three women, the similarities and differences that emerge are consistent with the manner in which persons remembermundane versus unusual events. [139] The details that are inconsistent, such as the time of certain events, who arrived when, are every-day social activities of little orno importance until they are magnified through cross-examination. Memory cannot nail down such details with any accuracy at this latetime.

It is not surprising that witnesses, making their best efforts to provide details of everyday social activities, provided conflictingdetails which vary from witness to witness when the subject matter are items which were inconsequential at the time and, on the issue ofidentification, are inconsequential today. [140] What remains constant and consistent between the accounts are the details and sequence of the intrusion and assault, certainmemorable comments, and evocative sounds. Here, the absence of collaboration is readily established by the pattern of what is not thesame.

Further, if this was truly a scheme to entrap Mr. Quinn then I would not have expected Ms. Gladue to report only seeing the backof the intruder, but rather to provide a different and more definitive account and identification. [141] I also note these women were not by any means eager witnesses. They had to be quite literally dragged to court. That, too, isinconsistent with a planned effort to incriminate Mr. Quinn for someone else’s wrongdoing. [142] I therefore generally accept the evidence of Ms. Page, Ms. Maki, and Ms. Gladue as being credible and reliable. 2.

Another Assailant [143] Before I make findings of fact, I note several factors. First, I reject any suggestion that some other person, especially someentity by the name of “Warren Malcolm”, a name that was bandied about throughout the course of this trial, was the mysteriousperpetrator of this action and crime. I accept the testimony of the Crown witnesses that Mr. Quinn instructed them to provide a coverstory to screen his actions.

Any statements by the Crown witnesses that relate to Warren Malcolm or some other alternative explanationfor the July 11, 2010 intrusion and attack flow from that instruction. [144] The theory of the Defence is that the women were using methamphetamine and had incurred a drug debt of $6,200.00. Someonecame over in the middle of the night, broke the door down and beat up Ms. Maki and assaulted Ms. Page because of this drug debt. Thatintruder was not the Accused, Mr. Quinn. [145] I accept that the women had been methamphetamine users and Ms.

Page’s evidence that Ethan’s father was a methamphetaminedealer, but also that Ms. Page stopped or very substantially reduced her use of methamphetamine when Ethan was born in 2007. While Iaccept that Ms. Page may use methamphetamine from time to time, I also accept that she does not pay for it and does not know what itcosts when she does have an opportunity to use it. [146] Neither the complainants nor any of the witnesses in the trial adopted any of the allegations about this matter having somethingto do with some alleged $6,200.00 drug debt.

There was no evidence offered to support any business of a drug debt or even debtcollection offered in the trial of this matter. I reject this suggestion as being in any way related to the matter before the court. 3. Crown Witness Credibility - General [147] I in general accept the evidence of the Crown witnesses. a. Ancilliary Witnesses and Evidence [148] I will first comment on the credibility of the witnesses who were not present during the July 11, 2013 intrusion. [149] I found Ms. Maki’s parents to be credible and forthright witnesses. Their evidence is principally relevant in two ways: to

confirm the narrative of the direct witnesses to the assault, and also to the identity of the assailant. Ms. Maki’s father saw her at the hospital. In his testimony before the Court he was clearly upset about his daughter’s condition. He testified that Ms. Maki was obviously afraid for his safety as well and he kept recommending to her that she had to contact the police. His evidence before this Court was and I quote: “ this time we have to do something about it” you have to “phone the police this time ” [emphasis added].

It is impossible not to draw the obvious inference from his evidence that the Makis had earlier encountered problems that involved Ms. Maki and Mr. Quinn, and that had led to earlier parental concerns for Ms. Maki’s safety. This is particularly relevant since Mr. Maki testified that he was aware that his daughter was romantically involved with Curtis Quinn, and Mr. Maki had met Mr. Quinn at his house about a month before the incident in question, contrary to Mr. Quinn’s evidence. [ 150 ] I accept the evidence of Ms. Maki’s parents that they had prior contact with Mr. Quinn. I also accept Ms.

Maki’s mother’s testimony that she said to Ms. Maki, “I thought I told you not to answer the phone.” Ms. Maki declined to do that because she was afraid of Mr. Quinn. She too had met Mr. Quinn two to three times and testified that there was no one else named “Curtis” in her daughter’s life. She acknowledged that she had not been close to Ms. Maki prior to this event but they were close now. She admitted under cross- examination that she knew Ms. Maki was returning to Ms. Page’s residence. Ms. Maki’s mother decided not to call the police because Ms.

Maki had begged her parents not to do so. [ 151 ] I conclude both Mr. and Mrs. Maki’s evidence is credible and reliable. It is relevant in that it supports both the narrative of the primary witnesses and their identification of Mr. Quinn as the intruder. This evidence also supports Ms. Maki’s reported fear of Mr. Quinn. [ 152 ] It is clear that Brian Page was far more interested in his grandson and the basement property rather than his daughter. He even testified that Ethan was not there when he arrived. (Mr.

Anzures’ evidence is obviously wrong on the Sunday morning events.) I accept that Ethan was at his Aunt April’s from Sunday afternoon forward for several days. In his examination, it came out that it was Brian Page who contacted the police about the intrusion and assault, and the police then became involved on July 13, not July 11. That corroborates Ms. Page’s version of events as well. It is also clear from the evidence that Ms. Maki did not have a black eye on Sunday that covered almost half her face - it was developing and became one by the time the police became involved on the 13 th .

This is evident from the contrast between the photos in Exhibit 2 and Detective Resler’s Exhibit 3 photos. [ 153 ] I reject the evidence that Mr. Page ever saw the doorjamb and the framing of the door broken. He owned the house and it is inconceivable to me that he would just testify that some friend of Alicia’s repaired the door when it would have been his responsibility to call the insurer to arrange for repair of the door or arrange for repair himself and reimburse Mark for the cost of the repair.

I accept Alicia Page’s version of events in the circumstances. [ 154 ] Detective Resler was also a credible and reliable witness. I consider his evidence relevant in particular to establish the extent of Ms. Maki’s injuries, and her very obvious and intense apprehension about discussing what had happened to her and her friend Ms. Page. b. Primary Witnesses [ 155 ] Those who were present in Ms. Page’s residence provide a generally consistent narrative of events. All comment on an unexpected, early morning intrusion. Their accounts of the details of the intrusion and subsequent assault line up.

All these observers placed reasonable limitations on their claimed knowledge. [ 156 ] For example, Ms. Maki testified that her report is incomplete because she was unconscious. Similarly, Ms. Gladue stated that she only saw the back of the intruder, and limited her explanation of the elements of the attack to those in a specific period: while she was in the hallway. If Ms. Gladue’s account is a fabrication then there would be no reason to limit her description of Mr. Quinn as she did. [ 157 ] Exhibit 6 in the trial is a very telling piece of evidence that supports Ms. Page’s credibility.

This includes a text message sent by Ms. Page to police officer Constable Fradley in which Ms. Page attempts to recant the statement she gave to the police. In it she refers to Curtis by name and she attempts to get the police officer to allow her take back her statement because Ms. Page feels she is looking over her shoulder. In my view, this is certainly a logical step for her to take if indeed she is being threatened by Mr. Quinn, and logically Mr. Quinn would only have threatened Ms.

Page if he was the person who committed the original break and enter and assault that is before the Court today. [ 158 ] The various responses to the intrusion, both at the time and after, flow logically from the narrative. In my view, the possibility of methamphetamine use by these witnesses is a red herring. I conclude that if they had used that drug in the relevant period then it did not substantially affect their perception or memory of the intrusion and assault.

That is demonstrated by the consistency among the key elements of these accounts. [ 159 ] Similarly, the discrepancies are the kinds that emerge from the usual manner in which honest witnesses make errors as they recall minor points. For example, from her view at the bedroom window, Ms. Gladue saw Mr. Quinn leave with Ms. Maki’s phone in his hand, but Ms. Gladue reported an incorrect telephone colour. Again, this error is precisely the kind one would anticipate given that Ms. Maki acknowledged that she owned a phone that was pink as well as phones that were beige and red. [ 160 ] The nature and extent of Ms.

Maki’s injuries is not in dispute. The narrative provided by the primary witnesses is consistent with the recorded injuries. The damage to Ms. Maki and the fact that she took a knee in the face is corroborated by the photographs entered as exhibits in this trial. [ 161 ] The identity of the intruder is the chief issue in this case. I am satisfied that Curtis Quinn was that intruder. Two persons who saw him, Ms. Maki and Ms. Page, were able to identify him from prior encounters. Ms. Gladue heard Ms. Page and Ms.

Maki use the name “Curtis” over and over again which is, in my view, significant corroboration on the issue of identity, even though she did not see the individual who was perpetrating the attack face on.

[162] Ms. Gladue’s description of the individual she saw was a bald man, not much taller than Codi, in blue jeans and a t-shirt, whowas muscular and stubby. This matches the descriptions of Mr. Quinn’s physical appearance at that time by both Ms. Page and Ms.Maki. That too corroborates that the Accused was the perpetrator of the alleged misconduct. [163] Mr. Anzures evidence is of less direct relevance, however I note it generally aligns with that of the three primary femalewitnesses. I accept the account of Ms. Gladue on the post-intrusion events where it differs from his. Ms.

Gladue clearly took on the roleof providing Ethan’s care on Sunday morning. 4. Findings of Fact: [164] I therefore find as fact the following: 1. On the morning of July 11, 2010 Ms. Page, Ms. Maki, and Matt Lazarenko were in the living room of Ms. Page’s residence.Courtney Gladue and Jade Anzures were in Ms. Page’s bedroom. 2. Mr. Quinn broke down the door to Ms. Page’s basement suite and entered the living room. 3. Mr. Quinn demanded that the occupants of the living room give him their cell phones. 4. Mr. Quinn at various points attacked all three occupants of the living room:

a) Matt Lazarenko was struck and pushed onto the couch.

b) Ms. Page was struck on the head and back.

c) Ms. Maki suffered the most extensive violence: Mr. Quinn grabbed her head like a football and kneed her in the face. He also kickedand punched Ms. Maki’s face. Ms. Maki lost consciousness due to these attacks. 5. Mr. Quinn’s conduct in the living room was intended to dominate, intimidate, and control its occupants. 6. Mr. Quinn’s actions were partially observed by Ms. Gladue, who was not detected during the intrusion. Ms. Gladue retreated toMs. Page’s bedroom. 7. Mr. Quinn was in an intimate but troubled relationship with Ms. Maki around the time of the July 11, 2010 incident. 8. Mr.

Quinn stated the reason for his presence and his attack on Ms. Maki was that she should always answer his telephone calls. 9. Mr. Quinn was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of the intrusion and assaults. 10. Mr. Quinn attempted to remove Ms. Maki from the basement suite, but abandoned that effort. When he left he took Ms. Maki’scell phone. 11. In the days after the intrusion Mr. Quinn contacted Ms. Maki and Ms. Page and threatened to harm them, Ms. Page’s family andchild, and Ms. Maki’s parents. This was an attempt to suppress disclosure of Mr. Quinn’s misconduct to the police. D.

Has the Crown Proven Its Case? [165] The Crown is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt: R v Starr, 2000 SCC 40 at para 100, [2000] 2 SCR 144. Aperson can be presumed to intend the logical or natural consequences of their actions: Starr v Houlden, (SCC), [1990]1 SCR 1366, 68 DLR (4th) 641. [166] Mr. Quinn is charged with three offences in this two count indictment. I will apply my findings of fact to each. 1. Criminal Code, ss 265, 267 – assault causing bodily harm of Codi Lyn Maki [167] Assault is defined by Criminal Code, s 265(1)(

a) to mean direct or indirect application of force on another person withoutconsent: 265.

(1) A person commits an assault when (

a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; ... [168] Criminal Code, s 267 requires the assault either cause bodily harm or involve use of a weapon. Bodily harm is defined insection 2 of the Criminal Code to mean: “bodily harm” means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merelytransient or trifling in nature. [169] Ms. Maki’s injuries clearly meet this threshold. Mr. Quinn’s actions were obviously deliberate. Mr. Quinn is guilty of assaultcausing bodily harm to Ms. Maki.

2. Criminal Code , ss 265-266 – common assault of Alicia Page [ 170 ] Similarly it is obvious that Mr. Quinn’s attack on Ms. Page involved direct non-consensual application of force. Mr. Quinn is therefore guilty of the assault of Ms. Page. 3. Criminal Code , s 348(1) – breaking and entering a dwelling place occupied by Alicia Page [ 171 ] I have concluded that Mr. Quinn broke down the door to Ms. Page’s residence and then entered. [ 172 ] Breaking and entering is defined in Criminal Code , s 348(1): 348.

(1) Everyone who (

a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, (

b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or ... [ 173 ] I have already concluded that Mr. Quinn committed indictable offences in Ms. Page’s residence, which satisfies the 348(1)(

b) elements of the offence. I also conclude he had intended to break and enter to commit those assaults, so that meets the alternative s 348(1)(

a) form. [ 174 ] Mr. Quinn is therefore guilty of the charge of breaking into and entering Ms. Page’s residence. [ 175 ] I therefore find Mr. Quinn guilty of both counts as charged. Heard on the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th , 18 th and 19 th days of September, 2013 . Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21 st day of November, 2013 L.D. Acton J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Mr. Robert A Fata Crown Prosecutors' Office for the Crown Ms. Marissa Tordoff Dawson Stevens Duckett & Shaigec for the Accused