2017 QCCQ 19421, 2017 QCCQ 19421

Autorité des marchés financiers c. Baazov JM 2240 Video link testimony. Compellability. Fundamental justice. 2017 QCCQ 19421 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Criminal Division No: 500-61-435556-163 DATE: November 15, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SALVATORE MASCIA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS Prosecution- Applicant v.

DAVID BAAZOV et YOEL ALTMAN et BENJAMIN AHDOOT et DIOCLES CAPITAL INC. et 2374879 ONTARIO INC. et SABABA CONSULTING INC. Defendants-Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY BY VIDEOCONFERENCE ( Sections 714.1 and 714.2 of the Criminal Code ) [1] ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On March 22, 2016, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) issued a statement of offence against the Defendants consisting of twenty-three (23) charges under the Securities Act, CQLR c V-1.1.

Essentially, the charges related to trading while in possession of privileged information, influencing or attempting to influence the market price of a stock and communicating privileged information. [ 2 ] The AMF seeks an order pursuant to sections 714.1 and 714.2 of the Criminal Code to adduce into evidence the testimony of 33

of its 39 witnesses via video link. Fourteen of the said witnesses reside outside of Canada (International witnesses) and 19 live in Canada but outside the province of Quebec (Ontario and British Columbia). [ 3 ] The AMF’s application for the said order(

s) was based on the following grounds : • Financial reasons: The costs that would be incurred if the witnesses were required to attend personally in court are significant (airplane tickets, hotel accommodations and daily living and travelling expenses). • Inconvenience for the witnesses: Many of the witnesses are busy executives and financiers. For them, it would be extremely difficult and inconvenient to parcel out a swathe of time to travel to Montreal and to remain in the city till their testimony is completed.

As trials are not well-oiled machines, there’s always the risk that the scheduled testimony of a witness could be disrupted or postponed. Testimony via video link would reduce the aggravation of having out-of-town witnesses wallow in the corridors of the Court house whilst waiting to be called to the stand. • Non-compellability of reluctant witnesses : The reluctance of many witnesses to attend personally in court for their testimony is compounded by the fact that the Court has no power to compel them to do so.

In the absence of such powers, allowing witnesses outside of Quebec to testify by video link would demonstrate a willingness to accommodate those individuals and a respect for the fact that they are volunteering their time in order to help the court fulfill its duty. [2] Even Canadian witnesses (those living outside the province of Quebec ), are beyond the reach of the Court .

While both Ontario and British Columbia (the two provinces in which the AMF’s Canadian witnesses reside) have legislation enabling them to “adopt” summonses/ subpoenas issued in other provinces, this legislation does not apply to summonses/subpoenas originating in Quebec. [ 4 ] In sum, the best means of guaranteeing the reception of testimony in the present matter is by allowing the 33 Canadian and International witnesses to testify by videoconference.

Conversely, an order refusing the application would seriously compromise the ability of the AMF to prosecute the Defendants in a major securities violation case. [ 5 ] As for the Defendants, their opposition to the video link testimony was predicated upon the following grounds : • It will impede effective examination and cross-examination: In light of the huge amount of documentary evidence, conducting the examination and cross-examination of 33 witnesses via videoconferencing will not only be extremely laborious and time-consuming, but confusing as well, thereby seriously affecting the ability of the Defendants’ counsels to properly cross-examine 87% of the AMF’s witnesses. [3] • Want of information regarding the manner in which the virtual attendance of the witnesses will be accommodated : The AMF has provided no details with respect to the location secured for the virtual testimony of the witnesses it proposes to call.

In the absence of such details, there is no assurance that their testimony will be free from outside influences and disruptions during their testimony. [4] • Want of information regarding the technology that will be used : Counsels for the Defendants intend to challenge the credibility of the witnesses called to testify by video link.

Unfortunately, it will be difficult for the trier of fact to assess what impact video link technology will have in terms of capturing and displaying the demeanor or the witness in real time. [5] As well, it will be difficult to know whether this will have any impact on counsel’s ability to cross-examine the witnesses. [6] • Location and personal circumstances of the witnesses : Many of the Canadian witnesses are located in Toronto.

With multiple-hour flights available daily to and from Toronto, it is difficult to take seriously any claim by the AMF as to the inconvenience of travelling to Montreal for these Canadian witnesses. [7] As for the international witnesses, many live in New York which has daily direct flights to Montreal.

While some of the international witnesses live in Europe or elsewhere in the United States, they all reside in areas that are well served by commercial airlines. [8] Generally, the AMF has not provided an evidentiary foundation as to the inconveniences that would be incurred by the witnesses if called to testify in person. • The Cost to the state in having the witnesses appear in person (penny-pinching ): Arguments in favour of video link testimony based on the costs for securing the attendance of witnesses is absurd, especially when one considers that significant resources already allocated by the AMF in pursuing the defendants.

In fact, more than twenty investigators and lawyers have been actively involved (and still are) since the investigation was initiated in 2014. Witnesses have been examined by the AMF in foreign countries such as Isle de Man, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Both Canadian and international witnesses have travelled to Montreal for questioning and more than eighteen million documents have been reviewed and analysed by the AMF. [9] While it seems that the AMF has been willing to use significant financial resources to investigate and prosecute the Defendants, it is now refusing to extend this same generosity to ensuring that they receive a fair trial, including the ability to actually face and cross-examine the majority of the AMF’s witnesses. [10] [ 6 ] In a nut-shell, the various concerns raised by the Defendants all boil down to trial fairness.

Convenience and expediency can never justify the erosion of that fundamental principle which is extended to every Canadian citizen charged with a criminal offence. [11] Analysis 1. With respect to the International witnesses

[7]

Section 714.2(1) of the Criminal Code provides that : A court shall receive evidence given by a witness outside Canada by means of technology that permits the witness to testify in the virtualpresence of the parties and the court unless one of the parties satisfies the court that the reception of such testimony would be contrary tothe principles of fundamental justice. (Emphasis added) [8] The use of the word «shall» indicates that the reception of virtual testimony from witnesses outside of Canada is mandatoryunless one of the parties satisfies the court that the reception of such testimony would be "contrary to the principles of fundamentaljustice." For reasons that I shall set out hereafter, I conclude that the opposing party (the Defendants) have not met their evidentiaryburden.

A. The “principles of fundamental justice” and the need to balance multiple interests [9] In R v Lyons, (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 309, at para. 85, Justice La Forest, stated that « at a minimum, therequirements of fundamental justice embrace the requirements of procedural fairness. »

Subsumed under the category of« proceduralfairness» are all the components of a fair trial, including an accused’s right to make full answer and defense and the right to confrontwitnesses who may testify against him/her.[12] These rights are recognized as integral to the overall objective of the judicial process, i.e.the attainment of truth.[13] [10] However, the principles of fundamental justice are not solely concerned with the rights of the accused: “[t]rial fairness is notmeasured exclusively from the accused’s perspective but also takes account of broader societal interests” and is “ultimately measured byreference to the entirety of the process” [emphasis added].[14] Nor does procedural fairness entitle the accused to “the most favourableprocedures that could possibly be imagined.”[15] A fair trial must be both fair to the accused and sensitive to the needs of those whoparticipate as witnesses.[16] Because of the need to balance multiple interests at once, courts often dismiss claims that an accused’s rightto procedural fairness is infringed by orders made under ss. 714.1 and/or 714.2(1).[17] B.

Face-to-face confrontation is not a necessary criterion of procedural fairness [11] There is no independent constitutional right to face-to-face confrontation between the accused and prosecution witnesses.[18]Courts have long recognized that the right of an accused to confront witnesses who testify against him/her is not to be taken literally: it issimply the right of an accused to be present in court, to hear the case against him and to make answer and defence to it, as guaranteed byss. 7 and 11(

d) of the Charter.[19] These rights reflect the Charter’s focus, which is not on face-to-face confrontation “per se” but on the“effect of any limitation of that confrontation on the fairness of the trial” [emphasis added].[20] Thus, in cases where a witness is notphysically present in the courtroom, procedural fairness is only at risk if his or her absence denies a fair trial to the accused.[21] — Physical presence in the courtroom is not necessary to establish witness credibility. [12] When contesting the validity of witness testimony to be provided outside of the courtroom, a common argument raised by theopposing party is that allowing such testimony will negatively impact the court’s ability to assess credibility.

This argument relies on thenotion that credibility is assessed by observing witnesses’ physical demeanor during the course of their testimony. However, while thereare irrefutable benefits to being able to see and hear witnesses – to assess body language, reactions, facial expressions, tone of voice,responses to questions, etc. – courts have warned against making credibility assessments solely on physical observations.[22] In addition,there are many examples in the criminal justice system where the ability to assess witness demeanor has been intentionally curtailed :

(1) S. 486.2 of the Criminal Code, which allows children to testify behind a screen or by closed circuit television from outside thecourtroom;[23]

(2) Where a party admits a transcript of evidence by a witness who is unable to attend the trial because of a disability;[24]

(3) Where the courts can allow witnesses, even material witnesses, to give evidence by telephone;[25]

(4) Where a witness has physical or medical limitations that make it difficult to assess his/her demeanor, such as a stroke affecting facialexpressions or a speech impairment;

(5) Where the court allows a witness to testify while wearing a hijab;[26] and

(6) Where the court admits evidence through the multitude of exceptions to the hearsay rule.[27] [13] Despite the fact that each of these examples will inevitably hinder or prevent a judge from fully assessing a witness’s demeanor,

courts have recognized that these situations do not in themselves render a trial unfair.

Rather, they are examples of how the judicial system must strive to reconcile competing interests through the use of “constructive compromises” that recognize and respect both the rights of the accused and the rights of witnesses. [28] —Physical presence in the courtroom is not necessary to ensure witness reliability [ 14 ] Another argument that often gets raised by parties opposing s. 714.1 and s. 714.2(1) applications relates to “reliability” concerns, such as : [T]he potential for off-screen coaching; the inability to know and control where the witness goes and what the witness does during breaks; the difficulty of ensuring that the witness appreciates the nature of the oath; and the difficulty of ensuring the integrity and suitability of the video-conferencing site. [29] [ 15 ] At face value, these hypothetical scenarios are understandably problematic.

However, these potential risks can be easily prevented by testing the video link ahead of time and by ensuring that proper safeguards are in place so that the testimony received is equally as reliable as any testimony that would be provided in the courtroom. Upon granting the AMF’s motion, it is the AMF’s duty to ensure that these safeguards are in place ahead of time and to provide this court with information pertaining to the proposed videoconferencing locations and proposed on-site escorts.

These concerns can also be mitigated by requiring all counsel to work with an IT technician in advance of the proposed videoconferencing in order to ensure that the equipment used and the videoconference sites are suitable for everyone. [30] C . Concerns regarding the use of technology in the courtroom must be dismissed [ 16 ] Traditional arguments against the use of videoconference technology in the courtroom can be broken down into three categories: (

i) concerns regarding witness credibility, (ii) concerns regarding the accused’s ability to make a full answer and defence, and (iii) concerns regarding the reliability of technology. However, none of these concerns are relevant to the case at bar. (

i) Assessing witness credibility is not hindered by videoconference technology [ 17 ] As noted above, there are many scenarios in criminal law where a judge is unable to fully assess a witness’s demeanor but videoconferencing does not constitute one of these scenarios.

Sections 714.1 and 714.2(1) require witnesses to be in the “virtual presence” of the court, which means that the trial judge is still able to see and hear the witness’s evidence and consider it for its “probative value.” [31] In fact, it has even been suggested that video technology facilitates the assessment of credibility : Witness reaction and demeanor may already be more effectively scrutinized by the use of technology than by the steely eye of a judge sitting apart and usually at an angle to a witness.

Enlarging the picture, viewing the picture of the witness from different angles and replaying the picture of a witness enhance the court’s ability to assess credibility and determine “truth” [emphasis added]. [32] [ 18 ] Furthermore, it must be remembered that Parliament has already considered the effect that video technology would have on credibility when it chose to include those provisions in the Criminal Code . [33] Thus, the argument that the use of videoconference technology will prevent this court from accurately assessing the witnesses’ demeanor and overall credibility carries little weight. (ii) Videoconference technology does not affect the accused’s ability to make a full answer and defence [ 19 ] The use of video technology in the case at bar will not impede the Defendants’ rights to make a full answer to the witnesses’ testimonies and defence to the charges against them.

The Defendants and their counsel will be present in court, will be able to hear the case against them and will be given the opportunity to respond to witnesses’ testimonies through cross-examination. Furthermore, the sophistication of present technology will ensure that the trial proceedings are conducted as if the witnesses were physically present in the courtroom.

Thus, the Defendants’ concerns about the ability to effectively cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence via video link are unfounded. [ 20 ] In sum, the use of videoconference technology in the present case will not prevent the Defendants from answering the charges against them and therefore will not infringe the Defendants’ Charter -protected rights. (iii) Concerns regarding the reliability of videoconference technology are outdated . [ 21 ] Concerns about the reliability of technology are no longer relevant in 2017.

Indeed, the fact that Parliament enacted ss. 714.1 and 714.2(1) in 1998 demonstrates the assumption that technology was sufficiently advanced nineteen years ago to allow for the reception of testimony of electronic means and technology has drastically improved since then. [34] Canadian courts have already successfully accepted videoconference testimonies by witnesses in India, [35] Venezuela, [36] the United States, [37] Spain, [38] Australia [39] and Germany. [40] If the quality of video link was sufficient to receive evidence from witnesses in countries like India and Venezuela, it would be logical to assume that the quality of the video links in the present case – where the entirety of witnesses are located in urban, developed areas – will be sufficient.

Further, even if the link turns out to be of insufficient quality, this risk does not preclude the court from at least attempting to receive the testimony: the court can always dismiss the attempted testimony if the video link quality is deemed too poor. [41] Ultimately, this court must not forget the underlying reasons why ss. 714.1 and 714.2(1) exist: to modernize the criminal trial process, reduce costs, and improve the truth-seeking function of the court. [42] In a case where thirty-three witnesses reside outside of Quebec and where there is technology that enables these witnesses to testify from afar, there is simply no logical reason for this court to expect these witnesses to attend court in Montreal.

2. For the Canadian witnesses A. The “appropriateness test”at s. 714.1 is a discretionary one [ 22 ]

Section 714.1 of the Criminal Code , provides that : 714.1. A court may order that a witness in Canada give evidence by means of technology that permits the witness to testify elsewhere in Canada in the virtual presence of the parties and the court, if the court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate in all the circumstances , including (

a) the location and personal circumstances of the witness; (

b) the costs that would be incurred if the witness had to be physically present; and (

c) the nature of the witness’ anticipated evidence. (emphasis added) [ 23 ] While the use of the word «shall» at s. 714.2(1) indicates that the reception of evidence from witnesses outside of Canada is mandatory, the use of the word «may» at s. 714.1 indicates that the provision is discretionary for witnesses residing in Canada. [ 24 ] The court’s discretion in such matters, however, is not unfettered. In accordance to the dictates of s. 714.1 , it can only be exercised if the « court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate in all the circumstances . »

Naturally, then, the applicant must provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation to allow a judge to form an opinion regarding the appropriateness of permitting a witness in Canada to testify by video. [43] At a bare minimum, such an evidentiary foundation must provide the court with information regarding the three enumerated factors listed in s. 714.1 – (

i) the witness’s location , (ii) the costs involved if the witness has to be physically present and (iii) the nature of the witness’s evidence – which customarily requires a consideration of such factors as :

(1) Will a video appearance by the witness impede or impact negatively on the ability of defence counsel to cross-examine that witness?

(2) The nature of the evidence to be introduced from the witness and whether it is non-controversial and not likely to attract any significant objection from defence counsel;

(3) The integrity of the examination site and the assurance that the witness will be as free from outside influences or interruptions as that person would be in a public courtroom;

(4) The distance that the witness must travel to testify in person and the logistics of arranging for his or her personal appearance;

(5) The convenience of the witness and to what degree having to attend in person at a distant location may interfere with important aspects of the witness’s life, such as his or her employment, personal life and the like; [44]

(6) The ability of the witness to attend who lives in a country or area that makes it difficult to arrange for travel or travel in a reliable fashion;

(7) The cost to the state of having the witness attend in person; and

(8) A fact to consider also is that the witness is effectively beyond the control of the Court in the trial jurisdiction , and whatever powers a judge may have over such a person, they are certainly extraterritorial. [45] (emphasis added) [ 25 ] While these eight factors (“The Young factors”) do not constitute a binding test, they have been recognized as “ persuasive and complete” and have been applied by judges in several provinces when making a decision regarding s. 714.1 applications. [46] However, it is well-understood that each s. 714.1 application will depend on its particular facts and that not all of the factors will necessarily be applicable; thus, in some cases, a judge might consider only one or two factors to be of importance. [47] Ultimately, the Young factors reflect the important balancing of witnesses’ interests with the interests of the accused that inevitably occurs when a judge assesses a s. 714.1 application.

While this requires an assessment of multiple factors, “ it is not a high threshold to establish the utility and applicability

of [s. 714.1] in appropriate cases ”. (emphasis added). [48] B. The lack of information provided by the AMF does not preclude the Court from granting the AMF’s s. 714.1 request [ 26 ] Here, the AMF did not provide ample information regarding the particular circumstances of each of its witnesses in Toronto and Vancouver, nor did the AMF provide detailed information regarding videoconferencing locations and the technology that would be employed.

However, because the decision is discretionary and factually dependent, there are several cases where judges have granted s. 714.1 requests even where the applicants have not presented evidence regarding the technology to be utilized, videoconference location details and/or details regarding the nature and complexity of the witness’s testimony. [49] In these cases, the judges have based their decision to authorize s. 714.1 applications on the fact that they have previously presided over trials that have effectively used videoconferencing technology and/or know that the court has successfully utilized this technology in previous trials. [50] Furthermore, when a party makes an application under s. 714.1 (or s. 714.2(1) ), it is reasonable to assume that the party has already checked into the feasibility of establishing a video link and is prepared to ensure that the necessary logistics are met. [51] For this reason, the party making the s. 714.1 application does not need to present logistical information in a formal evidentiary hearing: an unsworn statement from counsel can be a sufficient foundation for a judge to make an order. [52] Thus, as long as the AMF fulfills all of the procedural formalities required when arranging videoconferencing at the Palais de Justice and does so at least ten days in advance of the proposed videoconferencing (as per s. 714.2(2) Criminal Code ), there is no reason why this court should reject the AMF’s motion simply because the AMF has not yet provided full details regarding the proposed videoconferencing set up.

C. Witnesses outside of Quebec are not compellable . [ 27 ] When deciding on the appropriateness of granting a s. 714.1 order, most judges do not need to consider the eighth Young factor, i.e. whether the witness is effectively beyond the control of the Court in the trial jurisdiction.

Section 714.1 motions have been predominantly limited to cases where the accused has been charged for an offence under the Criminal Code . In these cases, there is no need to worry about whether a witness is beyond the court’s control because s. 699 of the Criminal Code grants judges the power to issue subpoenas to summon out-of-province witnesses.

Indeed, this appears to be why the discretionary language used in s. 714.1 varies so much from the mandatory terms of s. 714.2(1) : there is an assumption that witnesses in Canada can be compelled to court to testify, whereas it is well understood that there exists no such judicial power to summon witnesses who are outside of the country. [53] However, this does not reflect the reality of the case at bar, where the Defendants have been charged under the Securities Act (a provincial statute) – not the Criminal Code .

This presents a novel jurisdictional issue that can be summarized as follows : • S. 61 of the Code of Penal Procedure provides states that « [t]he rules of evidence in criminal matters will apply to penal matters »; (emphasis added) • The same

section goes on to state that « [ T ] he provisions of the Criminal Code […] relating to video and audio evidence apply […] to the trial of proceedings instituted in accordance with this Code; (emphasis added) •

Section 23 of the CPP states that « A written proceeding may be served outside Québec on a natural person who has no residence in Québec or on a legal person which has neither head office nor place of business in Québec nor any agent having a place of business in Québec…».

In the French version of the law, the legislator uses the term « un acte de procédure» for « a written proceeding »; • However, there is no specific provision in the CPP that applies to the summoning of witnesses who reside in other provinces; • Though there are sections in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure that enable a Quebec court to summon witnesses residing in other provinces (ss. 282, 497 and 498), those sections are not applicable to the present matter. [ 28 ] In sum, there is no legislation that grants this court the legal authority to summon out-of-province witnesses.

Thus, even if this court were to summon the AMF’s witnesses to court in Montreal, these summonses would be unenforceable. [ 29 ] While both Ontario and British Columbia (the two provinces in which the AMF’s Canadian witnesses reside) have legislation enabling them to “adopt” summonses/ subpoenas issued in other provinces, this legislation does not apply to summonses/subpoenas originating in Quebec.

Both s. 3 of the Ontario Interprovincial Summonses Act ¨ and s. 3 of the BC Subpoena (Interprovincial) Act stipulate that courts in Ontario and BC must not adopt a summons from another province if that province does not offer legal immunity to a person [from Ontario and BC] when he or she attends court in answer to the summons. [54] Because Quebec has not passed legislation providing this required immunity-related reciprocity, the strong language employed in s. 3 of both Acts effectively prohibits Ontario and BC courts from enforcing any summonses issued in Quebec.

In addition, the BC and Ontario governments’ intentional enactment of legislation that deals specifically with the enforceability of inter-provincial summonses suggests that courts no longer have a “common law judicial power” to adopt summonses from other Canadian jurisdictions in the sake of “comity.” [55] Consequently, this court cannot rely on the assistance of the Ontario and BC judiciary to ensure the AMF witnesses’ presence in Montreal court. [ 30 ] Because the AMF’s out-of-province witnesses cannot be compelled to attend court in Montreal, the eighth Young factor is highly relevant and must be considered when making a decision regarding the appropriateness of videoconferencing.

In this case, allowing witnesses outside of Quebec to testify by video link would demonstrate a willingness to accommodate those individuals and a respect for the fact that they are volunteering their time in order to help the court fulfill its duty. [56] By paying deference to the witnesses’ interests, these witnesses would be far more likely to cooperate, which is necessary to ensure that all relevant information has been brought before this Court.

Without the power to summon the AMF’s witnesses to court in Montreal, it is in the best interests of justice to accommodate the witnesses by allowing them to testify in their own cities: this arrangement encourages their full participation and consequently best serves the “truth-seeking” function of the court. Although this may result in a more cumbersome cross- examination process for the Defendants, it will certainly not prevent them from cross-examining the witnesses ; therefore, this argument against the use of video link in the case at bar must be dismissed.

Conclusion and

summary —With regards to the International witnesses [31] It is not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice to allow the AMF’s International witnesses to testify byvideoconference. The proposed videoconferencing will not affect the Defendants’ respective rights to a fair trial, to confront thewitnesses, or to respond to the testimony provided and make a full answer and defence to the charges.

The fact that the witnesses will notbe physically present in the courtroom is irrelevant and will not prevent the trier of fact from assessing witness credibility or reliability.Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the video technology will be unreliable or of poor quality during trial. These concerns areoutdated given the sophistication of technology as of 2017. —With regards to the Canadian witnesses [32] It is “appropriate in the circumstances” of this case for the Court to allow the AMF’s witnesses in Canada to testify byvideoconference.

The test under s. 714.1 is highly discretionary and enables the Court to consider a variety of factors, not least of all thefact that out-of-province witnesses in the present case are outside of its jurisdiction and therefore not compellable.

Furthermore, the lackof information provided by the AMF does not preclude the Court from granting the AMF’s motion to authorize witnesses to testify byvideoconference, it simply requires that the AMF respect the requisite procedural formalities in arranging videoconferencing technologyat the Palais de Justice. [33] For all these reasons, I issue orders pursuant to ss. 714.1 and 714.2 of the Criminal Code permitting the AMF to have itsInternational and Canadian (out of province) witnesses testify be video link. __________________________________ SALVATORE MASCIA, J.C.Q.

Mes Geneviève Régnier, Magdalini Vassilikos, Isabelle Bouvier, Annie Fortin,Stéphanie Jolin and Mathilde Noël-BéliveauAttorneys for the Prosecution-Applicant Mes Sophie Melchers, Caroline Larouche et Dominique ShoofeyAttorneys for the Defendant-Respondant David Baazov Mes Stéphanie Lapierre and Nathalie Nouvet Attorneys for the Defendant-Respondant Yoel Altman, Diocles Capital inc., 2374879 Ontario inc.and Sabada Consulting inc.

Mes Julie-Martine Loranger, Nicholas Trottier and Alexandre Mireault Attorneys for the Defendant-Respondant Benjamin Ahdoot [13] R v Schertzer, 2010 ONSC 6686, at para. 37. [16] R v L.(D.O.), [1993] 4 SCR 419, at para. 46, . [21] Schertzer, supra, para. 38. [27] Ibid at paras. 92, 102-105. [36] R v M.M., 2012 ABPC 73. [39] R v D’Entremont, 2009 ABPC 374. [46] R v Mawick, supra, at para. 13. See also R v Belem, 2017

ONSC 2213 .