R v Steadman, 2018 ABQB 1045

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Steadman, 2018 ABQB 1045 Date: 20181220 Docket: 151221728Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Jason Steadman Accused Restriction on Publication Preliminary Inquiry – See the Criminal Code,

section 539 . By Court Order, this decision and the evidence given in the preliminary inquiry must not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. NOTE: This decision is available from the court file, and it may be published after the accused is discharged after a preliminary inquiry or, if the accused is committed to stand trial, after the end of the trial. Editorial Notice: The restriction on publication ended February 22, 2019. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Sterling M.

Sanderman _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On May 31, 2015, Dwayne Demkiw did not return from his employment as a limousine driver. Although his body was not found in the Innisfail area until April of 2016, Detective Brian Robertson of the Edmonton Police Service had reasonable and probable grounds to charge Jason Steadman with Mr. Demkiw’s murder on October 7, 2015. An Information was sworn on that date.

[ 2 ] It took some time from that date to arrest Mr. Steadman. He was no longer in Canada. He is an American citizen and had returned to the state of Washington sometime after May 31, 2015. He was arrested on November 12, 2015, in Seattle, Washington for outstanding warrants in that state. They related to charges of breach of probation. Mr. Steadman had been placed on probation years before. The last time he reported to the probation office in relation to that commitment was July 25, 2012. He failed to attend his next scheduled meeting set for August 3, 2012.

He came to Canada sometime after his July 25 th attendance. [ 3 ] On December 14, 2015, Mr. Steadman dealt with the outstanding Washington charges. At that time, he received a period of incarceration of seven months. His sentence in relation to those matters expired on June 11, 2016. [ 4 ] When members of the Edmonton Police Service were notified of Mr. Steadman’s status in the state of Washington, they began the process to have him extradited to Canada in order to face the charges preferred by Det. Robertson in relation to Mr. Demkiw’s death. He was returned to Canadian soil on September 22, 2016. [ 5 ] As Mr.

Steadman was a serving prisoner in the state of Washington, members of the Edmonton Police Service did not begin to prepare the documentation for his eventual extradition until May of 2016. Mr. Steadman had counsel in the state of Washington in relation to the charges he was facing there and had been able to discuss the matter of extradition and the charges he faced in Canada with that person. He adjourned his initial court appearance in relation to his extradition hearing for a period of time to consider his position and then made a conscious choice not to oppose the Canadian request. [ 6 ] Mr.

Steadman was not brought directly to Edmonton when turned over to members of the Edmonton Police Service at the border. He had dealings with members of the Vancouver Police Department and the Canadian Border Sevices Agency. Mr. Steadman was a person of interest to the Vancouver Police Department in relation to the disappearance of an individual by the name of Robert Aubrey-Maxwell. Mr. Aubrey-Maxwell had had no contact with his family since the fall of 2012. The Vancouver Police Department was interested in talking to Mr. Steadman as he had assumed his identity while in Canada. Mr.

Steadman held himself out as Mr. Aubrey- Maxwell. He obtained a Canadian passport in his name. He obtained a driver’s license in his name. He opened bank accounts in his name. He incorporated a business using this name. He signed a truck lease as Mr. Aubrey-Maxwell. He was not known as Jason Steadman in Canada. [ 7 ] Mr. Steadman was held in British Columbia until September 28, 2016. He was transferred to Edmonton on September 28, 2016, and lodged at the Edmonton Remand Centre. He made his first appearance in the Provincial Court of Alberta on September 30, 2016. At that time, Mr. Shaigec was counsel of record.

The matter was adjourned to October 25, 2016, and then to November 15, 2016. On the latter date, a preliminary inquiry was set for March 6 to March 17 of 2017. The evidence and argument in relation to this proceeding were concluded on March 15, 2017. On April 10, 2017, Mr. Steadman was committed to stand trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 8 ] His first appearance in the Court of Queen’s Bench was June 2, 2017. At that time, Mr. Shaigec was removed as counsel of record. On June 30, 2017, Mr.

Sprake appeared as counsel of record and a trial date was set to begin January 14, 2019, with a scheduled ending of March 8, 2019. At no time, has Mr. Steadman waived his s.11(

b) rights. It is obvious from the transcripts of his appearances in court that he wanted to have the trial heard as quickly as possible. [ 9 ] It is also obvious that Mr. Steadman, since his first appearance in court, has had the benefit of experienced criminal counsel representing him in relation to these charges. Mr. Shaigec and Mr. Sprake are well known to the court and their competence and diligence in representing their clients cannot be disputed. Even though Mr.

Steadman was taken into custody in relation to these charges outside this province, he has had the benefit of excellent local counsel since the beginning of his journey through the court system. [ 10 ] It is against this backdrop that Mr. Steadman brings his application claiming that the rights guaranteed to him by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated and he asks the court for a judicial stay. This is Mr. Steadman’s application and he has the onus of satisfying the court on a balance of probabilities that his contentions are correct. [ 11 ] Mr.

Steadman alleges that the rights guaranteed to him by s. 7 , 9 , 10(a) , 10(b) , 11(

b) and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated. He chose not to argue the alleged s.7 violation as the Crown and Edmonton Remand Centre authorities are attempting to remedy his complaints. His complaint centers around the quality and capabilities of the computers and monitors at the Edmonton Remand Centre. Mr. Steadman claims that they are insufficient to allow him to adequately review and analyze the disclosure provided to him by the Crown. [ 12 ] Mr. Steadman alleges an arbitrary detention, contrary to s.9 .

He claims that he was held in British Columbia for a period in excess of six days before he was transported to Edmonton for his first court appearance contrary to s.503(3). He claims that although this arbitrary detention was not overly long having regard to the time he has been in custody since November of 2015, it is indicative of the cavalier attitude the authorities have directed towards him. [ 13 ] Mr. Steadman claims that his s.10 rights have been violated in two ways. He was taken into custody in Washington state on November 12, 2015, when he turned himself in to American authorities.

He claims that the Canadian authorities knew where he was and what charges he was facing in Canada. He asserts that they had a positive obligation to inform him of these charges and to let him know that he had a right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. He claims that the Canadian authorities failed in their informational and implementational duties to facilitate his access to counsel while awaiting extradition on the Canadian charges. [ 14 ] Mr. Steadman frames his s.11 (

b) argument in the following terms: The procedural delay suffered by Mr. Steadman in respect of these allegations, is unreasonable. Mr. Steadman initially turned himself into U.S. authorities on November 12, 2015; 37 days after Edmonton Police Services Det. Robertson swore an Information charging him and 37 days after warrants were issued for Mr. Steadman’s arrest. Edmonton Police Service was informed of Mr. Steadman’s location that same day, but Mr. Steadman was not brought to Canada to face these charges until September 22, 2016, 10 months and 11 days after Edmonton Police Services was first notified of Mr. Steadman’s location. The Crown did not proceed with reasonable diligence in the

extradition process. The conclusion of Mr. Steadman’s trial will not occur until March 8, 2019. The anticipated delay between the laying of the first Information and this date is 40 months and 22 days. This delay is unreasonable and ought to result in a stay of proceedings. [ 15 ] Mr. Steadman’s complaints in relation to the alleged violations of s.12 are framed: Since his extradition to Canada, Mr. Steadman has been subject to treatment at the hands of the state that would outrage standards of decency among Canadians. Mr. Steadman has been in Canadian custody since September 22, 2015.

He has been in Edmonton since September 28, 2015. While at the Edmonton Remand Centre, Mr. Steadman has made numerous requests for medical attention relating to vision, physical health, psychiatric health, and dental health. He has received limited attention from medical staff at the Edmonton Remand Centre. Limited resources and bureaucratic blockades including issues of payment and Alberta Healthcare applications have severely restricted Mr. Steadman’s access to healthcare. The conditions at the Edmonton Remand Centre have also compounded the cruel and unusual treatment Mr.

Steadman has received at the hands of the state. Further, Mr. Steadman was subjected to a use of force while arbitrarily detained in Vancouver. [ 16 ] Before dealing with the specific allegations made by Mr. Steadman, it is necessary to comment upon his reliability as a witness. He has to establish the violations and has chosen to do so by giving evidence in relation to them. He has supplemented his oral testimony with transcripts, official court records, requests made by him at the Edmonton Remand Centre, the responses to those requests and business records coming from the Edmonton Remand Centre.

It is his oral evidence that forms the basis for most of his complaints. If his evidence is found to be unreliable, his application must fail. [ 17 ] Put bluntly, Mr. Steadman is not a credible witness. This is a finding that could have been made even before he was cross examined. It is a unique case when a witness has difficulty surviving examination in chief. This is such an instance. [ 18 ] Mr. Steadman’s credibility was seriously compromised by his description of his interaction with Sgt. Leah Tertsma, the member of the Vancouver Police Department who was investigating the disappearance of Mr. Aubrey-Maxwell.

Mr. Steadman claimed that he was physically assaulted by her during her interview of him in Vancouver. He claimed that this large woman assaulted him during their interview. He said he was terrified by this behavior as he interpreted it that she was not satisfied with his non-responsive behavior. He feared that this interview was going to end badly for him and that he would be injured in some fashion. [ 19 ] The audio/video recording of this interview reveals something different. Upon admission to the Edmonton Remand Center, Mr. Steadman was 6 foot 2 inches tall and weighed 260 pounds. Det.

Bilawey estimated that Det. Tertsma was 5 foot 11 inches tall and weighed 135 pounds. During the interview with Mr. Steadman, she was polite and respectful even though he kept his eyes closed and remained mute. She did touch his thigh with her hand in a gentle fashion. There was no pressure applied by her that could be construed as aggressive behavior. Det. Tertsma was merely attempting to get his attention in order to determine whether it was worthwhile for her to continue the conversation. His characterization of this interaction as being aggressive and assaultive in nature is preposterous.

This characterization took place in examination in chief on the first day Mr. Steadman testified. There were other examples of how he misrepresented events to create a better evidentiary basis for his application. [ 20 ] While in Vancouver, he hints at the suggestion that somehow his right to contact counsel was interfered with by Det. Lai when the detective called counsel on his cell phone and handed it to Mr. Steadman in order to receive advice. That was denied by Det. Lai and I accept his evidence. Mr.

Steadman was clearly given the opportunity to consult counsel in private on a phone provided to him in a room designed for that purpose. At times, it appeared as if Mr. Steadman was attempting to spin a narrative that he thought would be of greater assistance to his application. [ 21 ] He claimed that he was legally blind without his glasses but had no difficulty in reading any document placed before him in court. After removing his glasses, he brought the page close to his eyes but he did not claim an inability to read them. It should be noted that many of these documents were photocopies of poor quality.

He had no difficulty in answering any questions put to him although he claims to be hard of hearing. When confronted with records from the Edmonton Remand Center that belied his suggestion that he was being ignored by the healthcare providers, he conveniently could not remember certain things. His memory was one of convenience. When documents were presented to him that suggested something other than what he was claiming, he could not recall the events recorded. [ 22 ] This is a man who assumed the identity of another individual and obtained documentation so he could pass himself off as Mr. Aubrey-Maxwell.

He had no difficulty in falsifying applications forms for a number of official government documents. Yet he claims he refused to sign the consent forms in order to obtain an Alberta Health number to receive treatment while at the Remand Center because he was concerned about breaking the law by providing false or inaccurate information. This is an unbelievable position to take having regard to his earlier behavior. [ 23 ] The evidence given by Mr. Steadman in relation to this application is neither credible or reliable.

Where it conflicts with the evidence revealed by the documents or given by other witnesses, it cannot be accepted. It is evidence that has been crafted in order to support his contentions of the violation of his rights. [ 24 ]

Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Mr. Steadman claims that his holdover in the Vancouver region at the Fraser Valley Correctional Center is a violation of this section. He arrived in Canada on September 22, 2016. His custody was transferred from the United States marshals to members of the Edmonton Police Service. He was flown to Edmonton on September 28, 2016, and was taken to police headquarters in Edmonton, Alberta, and then the Edmonton Remand Center.

He appeared in court for the first time on September 30, 2016. Mr. Steadman’s position is that he should have been brought to Edmonton directly when he entered Canada in order to comply with s. 503(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada . He asserts that forcing him to languish for this period of time in British Columbia violates s.9 . [ 25 ] The evidence shows that members of the Edmonton Police Service were not being cavalier in their dealings with Mr. Steadman.

They knew that he could not be brought to Canada until he had fulfilled the sentence of seven months imposed in December of 2015 and the extradition process was complete. They could not know what Mr. Steadman’s position would be in relation to the proposed extradition. They knew that he eventually became subject to an extradition order and they arranged to pick him up in British

Columbia on September 22, 2016. Prior to that date, they had considered means of bringing him to Edmonton directly. They believed that it would be difficult for him to fly commercial as he had no documents that would allow him to enter Canada. They rejected using the RCMP aircraft to transport Mr. Steadman as it was subject to priority use by that policing agency and therefore irregular. They were also aware that Mr. Steadman was an individual of interest in relation to Mr. Aubrey-Maxwell’s disappearance. They also wanted to interview Mr.

Steadman in the first instance as no member of the Edmonton Police Service had had any contact with him since Mr. Demkiw’s disappearance. For these reasons, they decided to follow the course of action that they did. [ 26 ] This was a considered decision. It was not arbitrary. Mr. Steadman was the subject of a Canada-wide warrant for first degree murder. He had been delivered to the Canadian authorities pursuant to a valid extradition order. His continued detention was proper even though he takes issue with its location. [ 27 ] Unfortunately for Mr. Steadman, he does not get to set the

schedule for his transport after his arrival in Canada. The desire of the Vancouver Police Department to interview him and the fact that the Edmonton Police Service had to rely upon the Alberta Sherriff’s Office to transport Mr. Steadman required him to stay six days in a correctional center in British Columbia. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, this was not impermissible and there is no violation of s.9 . In addition, the suggestion made by Mr. Steadman that this remand time in British Columbia delayed his ability to make full answer and defence is without merit. [ 28 ] Mr.

Steadman’s contention that the Canadian authorities breached their obligations under s.10 is without foundation. He asserts that when he was arrested in Washington, the Canadian authorities had an obligation to inform him of the charges he was facing in Canada and of his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. He was in custody in Washington because of warrants that had been issued in that state in 2012. He then became a serving prisoner. While in custody in the United States, he was informed of the charges in Canada by his American counsel.

He was alerted to the fact that the Edmonton Police Service had charged him and were going to attempt to extradite him to face these allegations. He was well aware of what lay in the future for him. [ 29 ] No member of Edmonton Police Service attempted to talk to or interview Mr. Steadman in relation to the charges they were investigating. Their investigation prior to dealing with him on September 22, 2016, dealt with other avenues. When they first dealt with him on September 22, 2016, his rights both informational and implementational, in relation to s.10 (

b) were protected. His was given rights to counsel and the right to remain silent by a member of the Vancouver Police Department and a member of the Edmonton Police Service. He was also given coincidental rights by the Canadian Border Services Agency in relation to his status in Canada. As an American citizen, he was told about consular help. He was also given his rights under the Vienna Convention [ 30 ] He embraced some of those rights at the border. He embraced others at the Vancouver Police Department. The Peace officers that dealt with Mr.

Steadman on September 22, 2016, were extremely diligent in ensuring that he received the protection guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . His suggestion otherwise is without any evidentiary foundation. His claim that the American authorities were acting as agents of the Edmonton Police Service and had an obligation to apprise him of his rights in the fall of 2015 is similarly without an evidentiary or legal foundation. They were not. The informational and implementational guarantees protected by s.10 (

b) did not come into effect until September 22, 2016, and they were protected. Mr. Steadman’s potential jeopardy in relation to this investigation changed markedly when he came into direct contact with members of the Edmonton Police Service. They ensured that his s. 10 rights were fully protected when he crossed the border. [ 31 ] Mr. Steadman asks for a judicial stay in relation to the charges he is facing as he has not been tried within a reasonable time thereby violating s.11(

b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . On July 8, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v Jordan setting rigid time lines for criminal trials to be completed in this country. The time set for the charges Mr. Steadman is facing is 30 months. Any time taken to complete the trial beyond that limit would normally result in a judicial stay of the charges unless the Crown is able to establish exceptional circumstances. The key in determining whether Mr. Steadman’s s.11 (

b) rights have been violated is to determine when the clock begins to run. Mr. Steadman suggests two dates. The first would be when the original Information was sworn by Det. Robertson on October 7, 2015. If this date is rejected by the court, Mr. Steadman suggests that time began to run when Mr. Steadman completed his sentence in the state of Washington on June 11, 2016. He submits that if either date is chosen, both exceed the 30 month limit established by R v Jordan . This calculation is based on the anticipated end of this trial by March 8, 2019.

The Crown suggests that calculations in relation to Jordan begin on September 22, 2016, when the Canadian authorities take control of Mr. Steadman when he is delivered into their custody. If that position is correct, then the trial will end just under the 30 months suggested by R v Jordan . [ 32 ] What date is to be selected? There are exceptional circumstances in this case that determine when the Crown’s obligation begins in relation to ensuring that Mr. Steadman is tried within a reasonable time. Although Det. Robertson had reasonable and probable grounds to charge Mr.

Steadman in early October of 2015, he could not affect the warrant issued for his arrest as he did not know where Mr. Steadman was. This information came into the possession of the Edmonton Police Service on November 12, 2015, after Mr. Steadman turned himself in on the outstanding American charges. Mr. Steadman left Canada sometime before this date. As he indicated in his evidence, on this hearing, he surreptitiously entered the United States. He was aware that there were outstanding charges for his arrest there. He did nothing about them until November of 2015.

By fleeing the country and then turning himself in on outstanding charges, he made it impossible for the Edmonton Police Service to ensure his attendance in Edmonton. By entering guilty pleas to outstanding charges in Washington and receiving a custodial sentence, Mr. Steadman was insulated from any quick return to Canada. [ 33 ] The only way that members of the Edmonton Police Service could ensure his return was to go through the formal extradition process as the American authorities required this. The Edmonton Police Service began this process by swearing an affidavit for extradition on May 6, 2016.

The Minister of Justice officially requested that Mr. Steadman be extradited to Canada on May 9, 2016. He could not be brought to Canada any earlier as he was serving his lawful sentence in the United States until June 11, 2016. He was brought to court the day before the expiration of his sentence to be informed of the extradition process. He asked that the matter be adjourned so that he could consider his position. He returned to court after having had the opportunity to consult counsel in the United States to indicate that he would not be fighting the extradition process.

Once the Edmonton Police Service became aware of this, the necessary documentation required by the partners in relation to the Extradition Treaty was completed and Mr. Steadman was returned to Canada on September 22, 2016. The matter has proceeded through the court system without delay since then.

[ 34 ] The complicating and exceptional factor in relation to this matter was the flight of Mr. Steadman from Canada and his decision to deal with outstanding matters in that country. The Canadian authorities, although having a great interest in Mr. Steadman, could not do anything to compel his appearance in court in Edmonton until after September 22, 2016. That is the date that the Jordan clock begins to run. The date set for the completion of this trial is within the 30 months mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no s.11 (

b) violation. [ 35 ] It is apparent from the evidence presented on this application that Mr. Steadman made a conscious choice upon his admission to the Edmonton Remand Centre to take full advantage of the universal health care offered in Canada. He started to send Alberta Health Services requests to the staff at the Edmonton Remand Centre upon admission. The first ones were sent September 29, 2016. He sent a number of these requests during the first couple of days. He wanted his teeth fixed, an eye examine and glasses provided to him.

He began to outline a litany of medical complaints that needed to be addressed from his perspective. Over the time that he has been at the Edmonton Remand Centre, in addition to his vision and dental complaints, he has sought treatment for a compromised left foot, bleeding sinus, rectal bleeding, nerve issues in his left arm, chronic regional pain in his right foot, migraine headaches, lower back pain, a plethora of mental health issues and arthritic pain in various parts of his body. Mr.

Steadman was not shy in dealing with health care providers and he readily questioned the decisions they made. [ 36 ] He claimed that he was polite and respectful in dealing with them. This is not born out by the records from the Edmonton Remand Centre. They show that Mr. Steadman at times could be difficult and somewhat aggressive in his approach to them. He was not reticent about threatening to take his alleged mistreatment to the media.

The records show that he could be belligerent at times and certainly was uncooperative with the staff when they wanted him to fill out the application form for Alberta Health care coverage. Even though he refused to do so, the evidence shows that he was never denied treatment that was necessary because of his reluctance in this regard. [ 37 ] The health care providers at the Edmonton Remand Centre were limited in what they could do for Mr. Steadman. His requests in relation to dental and vision care could not be accommodated.

The policy of the Alberta government did not provide these remedies to individuals being held at the Edmonton Remand Centre. Mr. Steadman was treated as all other inmates were. He takes issue with this. [ 38 ] He feels that he is entitled to preferential treatment. He claims that as a long-term resident of the Edmonton Remand Centre, without any support group in Edmonton and still being cloaked with the presumption of innocence that it is unacceptable for the authorities not to give him the vision care, dental care and hearing assistance that he claims he requires.

He says that he needs this care in order to properly digest the disclosure he must review prior to trial. He considers that his case is exceptional and requires preferential treatment. This in essence, is his s.12 complaint. He claims that since his incarceration at the Edmonton Remand Centre he has been subjected to cruel and unusual treatment. [ 39 ] If Mr. Steadman’s evidence could be relied upon, the treatment he alleges does not approach the standard of what would be required before it could be said that it was cruel and unusual treatment.

I have already commented upon the reliability of the evidence given by Mr. Steadman. It cannot be accepted in good conscience. He is a manipulative individual who has attempted to construct a factual underpinning that he believes may advance his position in court. His evidence is incapable of providing an evidentiary basis for any of his complaints. Consequently, his application for Charter relief is denied; there being no basis for it, it is unnecessary to consider any remedy that would be available to him. Heard on the 19 – 23 days of November and the 10 – 12 days of December, 2018.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 20 th day of December, 2018. Sterling M. Sanderman J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ms. Chantelle Washenfelder, Mr. Terry Hofmann Alberta Justice for the Crown Mr. Darin D. Sprake, Cody W. Ackland

for the Accused