r v. DIXON, 2019 QCCQ 139

R. c. Dixon 2019 QCCQ 139 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL « Criminal Division » No: 500-01-127035-159 DATE: January 18, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LINDA DESPOTS, J.C.Q ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Procecutor v. DIXON, Howard Anthony Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] At his trial, Mr.

Dixon faces three counts of accusation for an event that happened on September 16, 2015, to wit: • uttering threats; • obstructing or interfering with the lawful use of a BMO branch; and, • harassment. [ 2 ] Firstly, the Crown recognizes that the evidence does not reveal threats, according to

section 264.1 of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] As for the two other counts, the Court has two contradictory versions to be analysed, according to the Supreme Court’s rules established in R. v. W. (D.) [1] . CONTEXT [ 4 ] Mr. Dixon is a client of the Bank of Montreal, located in a mall called Les Galeries St-Laurent , on Marcel-Laurin Street. [ 5 ] On September 16, 2015, Mr. Dixon went to the Bank to solve a problem he has with his account: according to him, costs were irregularly taken from his account, and he wanted to be reimbursed. [ 6 ] Mr.

Dixon presented himself around 12h10, and took his place in the line. [ 7 ] Mr. Ly, financial manager, saw Mr. Dixon from his office, waiting in line. He recognized Mr. Dixon, because a few months earlier, he met him to open an account. He also saw him a few times in the branch. [ 8 ] Mr. Ly noticed Mr. Dixon, because he was wearing a suit, was sweating, and moving like a nervous person. He also had a suitcase. [ 9 ] Mr. Ly approached Mr. Dixon, and asked if he could help him. Mr. Dixon talked about a closed account, and that someone wanted to kill him. Mr. Ly explained to the Court that Mr.

Dixon pointed his leg, saying “wooden leg”. Then, Mr. Dixon just left. [ 10 ] A short moment after, Mr. Dixon came back, and said to Mr. Ly that if he drops his suitcase, he will die. He also told Mr. Ly something about a bomb. [ 11 ] Mr. Ly advised his manager, who took the event seriously. They called the police, and proceeded to evacuate the bank. [ 12 ] Mr. Eid was waiting in line, and noticed Mr. Dixon, who was sweating, shaking, and looking stressed. [ 13 ] Mr. Eid saw Mr. Ly approached Mr. Dixon, and saw them talk together. He saw Mr. Dixon point his leg, and pull up his pant- leg. Mr. Eid heard Mr.

Dixon say: “If you don’t give me my money, I have something in the suitcase that can blow out the bank”. [ 14 ] According to Mr. Eid, he made eye-contact with Mr. Ly to confirm that they both had heard Mr. Dixon talking about a bomb.

[ 15 ] Afterwards, Mr. Dixon went to the entrance, and sat on his suitcase. Then, the police arrived, put Mr. Dixon under arrest, and evacuated the bank. [ 16 ] Officer Kandiliatis received a call from a man with a bomb at the BMO. When he arrived, he saw Mr. Dixon, who fits the description given. He puts him under arrest, and placed him in a patrol car. [ 17 ] Because of the size of the suitcase, a decision was taken to evacuate the entire mall, meaning over 20 businesses. [ 18 ] Mr. Dixon specified that he was sweating, because he was wearing a suit, and walked for 25 to 30 minutes. [ 19 ] Mr.

Dixon confirmed that Mr. Ly talked to him while he was waiting in line. Mr. Dixon said that Mr. Ly asked him if he has metal objects on him, because it triggered the alarm. He answered that he has keys, sunglasses, and his briefcase. To decrease Mr. Ly’s anxiety, Mr. Dixon suggested to go back to the entrance door. [ 20 ] Mr. Dixon adds that at the same moment, in the presence of Mr. Eid, Mr. Ly asked him if he had any “incendiary” device on him. Mr. Ly also told him that he had suspicions about the possession, of explosives.

He pulled up his pant-leg to show that he had no device on him, except for a knee-bracelet. [ 21 ] Mr. Dixon explained that he felt nervous after Mr. Ly told him about an alarm, because he didn’t hear any. [ 22 ] He specifies that the word “bomb” was never uttered by him. It was only used by Mr. Eid. [ 23 ] Mr. Dixon considers he was the one whose life was threatened. He was shocked and sat on his briefcase to regain his composer. Then, he was arrested by the police. ANALYSIS [ 24 ] Does the Court believe Mr. Dixon’s testimony? [ 25 ] The Court insists on the fact that the assessment of Mr.

Dixon’s testimony must be made taking into consideration the entire evidence. [ 26 ] At some point during his testimony, Mr. Dixon was confused, giving much irrelevant details. The Court could see that he was still emotional by relating the events. [ 27 ] Mr. Dixon said that Mr. Ly talked to him about an alarm and that’s the reason why he asked if Mr. Dixon had any metal device on him. [ 28 ] The video of the branch does not demonstrate anything that could make believe that an alarm was triggered. [ 29 ] On the contrary, the Court can see on the video that everybody in the branch is calm. [ 30 ] Also, Mr.

Dixon’s explanation, concerning the fact that Mr. Ly is the one who asked him if he has explosives on him, makes no sense. According to the evidence, including the video, Mr. Ly had no reason to approach Mr. Dixon with that kind of subject. [ 31 ] The video shows Mr. Dixon’s state of agitation, that’s what draws Mr. Ly’s attention and made him go talk to him. Mr. Ly didn’t mention any alarm. [ 32 ] Mr. Dixon was focusing on his fees issue and was convinced that someone at the bank organised a setup against him. [ 33 ] Considering the evidence and the incoherent testimony of Mr.

Dixon, the Court concludes that his testimony is not reliable and does not raise a reasonable doubt. [ 34 ] Did the Crown prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of Mr. Dixon? [ 35 ] Mr. Ly and Mr. Eid do not testify exactly the same way concerning the words used, but both are clear: they heard Mr. Dixon using the word “bomb”. And both of them explained that they took a look at each other to confirm what they had just heard. [ 36 ] Mr. Ly knows Mr. Dixon as a client of the branch. He never had any problems with him before. [ 37 ] Mr. Eid was present to make a transaction. He does not know Mr.

Dixon, neither Mr. Ly. He testified clearly and after viewing the video during his testimony, was able to clarify certain aspects. [ 38 ] The fact that Mr. Eid experienced traumatic episodes in his past does not affect his credibility. [ 39 ] Both, Mr. Ly and Mr. Eid, are reliable. [ 40 ] Taking into consideration that Mr. Dixon said he had a bomb in his suitcase, does it constitute a mischief and a harassment? [ 41 ] This statement of Mr.

Dixon has to be studied in the context that he is in a branch of a BMO during business hours, with employees and customers around. [ 42 ] In the context described, the Court concludes that Mr. Dixon was, at least, reckless by not considering the consequences of the statement concerning a bomb in his suitcase. He is found guilty on the second count of mischief.

[ 43 ] As for the third count, Mr. Dixon’s behavior and statement in the context bring the Court to conclude that the employees and the customers of the BMO branch had reason to fear for their safety. Mr. Dixon is guilty of this count. [ 44 ] Considering the position of the Crown, Mr. Dixon is acquitted on count 1.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: FINDS the accused not guilty on count 1 of uttering threats; FINDS the accused guilty on count 2 and 3, of mischief and harassment. __________________________________ LINDA DESPOTS, J.C.Q Me Hugo Rousse Attorney for the Prosecution Me Delphine Tremblin Attorney for the accused Dates of hearing: March 22, 2018, June 6, 2018, August 17, 2018 and November 20, 2018.