R. v. Vallee, 2018 BCSC 892

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Vallee, 2018 BCSC 892 Date: 20180601 Docket: 25023 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Cory Vallee Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Dillon Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Crown: D. Jardine Q.C. A. Burton H. James E. Rennie B.K. Boland M. Vojvodic Counsel for the Accused: E. Gottardi T. Paisana R. McConchie Place and Dates of Trial: Vancouver, B.C.

November 14, 16-18, 21-25, 28-30, December 1-2, 2016, February 6-10, 14-17, 20-24, 27-28, March 1-3, 6, 10, 13, 15, April 18-21, 24-28, May 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 29-31, June 1-2, 26, 28-30, July 4, 7, 12, 17, August 8, September 11, 14-15, 18-20, October 10-13, 16-19, November 6-10, 14-17, 20-24, 28, December 4, 6, 2017, January 17-19, 22-26, 30-31, and February 1, 2, 5-9, 13-14, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. June 1, 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction .. 6 II. Issues .. 7 III. Overview of The Crown and Defence Theories of the Case .. 7 IV. Background .. 8 A. The United Nations Gang . 8 1.

Membership, associates and hierarchy . 8 2. Culture . 12 3. Business and activities . 14 4. Use of nicknames/terms . 15 5. Communication . 17 6. Use and documentation of vehicles . 21

B. The Bacon Brothers/Red Scorpions Gang . 22 C. The conflict 23 1. Origins . 23 2. The dead and wounded . 23 3. Admitted or charged conspirators . 24 D. Who is Cory Vallee . 25 1. Uncontested facts . 25 2. How and why was Vallee introduced into the gang? . 30 3. Was Vallee a drug dealer with/for the UN? . 37 4. Conclusions . 39 V. The Vetrovec Witnesses .. 40 A. Legal principles in the assessment of unsavoury witnesses . 40 B. The Vetrovec witnesses . 46 1. Witness D .. 46

a) General background in the UN .. 46

b) Extreme caution required . 48 2. Witness A .. 54

a) General background in the UN .. 54

b) Caution required . 56 3. Witness C .. 62

a) General background in the UN .. 62

b) Caution required . 67 4. Witness B .. 77

a) General background in the UN .. 77

b) Caution required . 82 VI. Standard of Proof and Uses of Certain Evidence .. 93 A. Standard of proof 93 B. Uses of certain evidence . 93 VII. Conspiracy to Murder .. 96 A. Legal principles and evidential rules in the law of conspiracy . 97 B. The conspiracy generally . 102 1. The conflict and participation . 102 2. Intelligence gathering . 103 3. The “hit list” and bounty . 105 4. Roles in the conflict 106 5. The death of Duane Meyer and intensification of the conflict 107 C. Key events in the conspiracy . 110 1. February 28, 2008 police stop . 110

2. 9488 Eagle Road farmhouse break-in and arson April 2008 . 110 3. W Hotel intercepts April 2008 . 112 4. Hall and Collier shooting May 9, 2008 . 120 5. Kensington off-ramp shooting May 9, 2008 . 121 6. Johnathan Barber murder May 9, 2008 . 123

a) General 123

b) Chronology of events according to video surveillance evidence . 124

c) Eyewitness statements . 126

d) Forensic evidence . 127

e) Review of the McDonald’s video and photograph evidence . 127

f) Chronology as told by Witness C and Witness B .. 127 7. GM Place incident January 24, 2009 . 130 8. Kevin Leclair murder February 6, 2009 . 131 D. Probable members of the conspiracy . 131 E. Cory Vallee probable membership in the conspiracy . 132 1. Vallee participation with Witness D, Witness A, Witness C and Witness B in the hunt for the Bacon Brothers/RS .. 133 2. The 8 Rinks police stop on February 25, 2008 . 133 3. Attendance at Moe’s house . 137 4. Messages from the Eghtesad BlackBerry written by Vallee . 139

a) Introduction . 139

b) Identity of Fragviper/Lifehammer 140

c) Admissibility of the disputed messages . 143 F. Cory Vallee membership in the conspiracy proven beyond a reasonable doubt 146 1. Is Cory Vallee “Frankie”? . 146 2. Is Cory Vallee “Panther”? . 155 3. Kroitoru call to Sky re “Cory” on June 5, 2008 . 157 4. Vallee’s involvement in the search for the Bacons . 158 5. Statements or confessions of Vallee . 160 6. Circumstances . 161 7. Conclusion . 163 VIII. The Murder of Kevin Leclair .. 164 A. Introduction . 164 B. Overview of position of the parties . 164 C. Legal principles . 164 D. Leclair crime scene evidence . 165 1. Overview of the crime scene . 165 2. The video and photo evidence . 166

3. Exhibits from the scene. 167 E. The eyewitness evidence. 168 F. The fingerprint and DNA results. 174 G. More about the AR-15 and handgun. 177 H. The vehicles. 178 I. The Tim Hortons video. 180 J. The Vetrovec witnesses evidence. 181

a) Intelligence gathered about Leclair 181

b) Early events of the day and the meeting at Tim Hortons. 182

c) The murder of Leclair 185 K. Witness C’s alibi 188

a) The evidence of Witness C and Witness B.. 188

b) The evidence of Peter Redekopp. 189

c) Conclusions. 191 L. The aftermath. 192 M. Admissions. 195 N. Inconsistencies in the evidence of Witness B and Witness C.. 198 O. Conclusions. 201 Appendix A.. 204 Executive

Summary. 204 I. Introduction [1] Cory Vallee (“Vallee”) is charged on an indictment dated September 8, 2015 with conspiracy to murder Jonathan David Bacon,James Kyle Bacon, Jarrod Wayne Bacon and their associates between January 1, 2008 and February 8, 2009.

He is also charged with thefirst degree murder of Kevin Leclair (“Leclair”) on February 6, 2009. [2] On July 29, 2016, the Crown stayed two counts on the indictment related to the murder of Jonathan Barber and the attemptedmurder of Vicki King. [3] The accused made numerous and significant admissions pursuant to s. 655 Criminal Code that saved an immense amount oftime in this already very long trial. Many but not all documents were admitted for the truth of their contents.

The defence admitted theexistence of a conspiracy led by Clayton Roueche (“Roueche”) to murder Jonathan Bacon, James Bacon, and Jarrod Bacon and theirassociates (collectively called the “Bacon Brothers” or “Bacon Brothers/Red Scorpions” or “Bacon Brothers/RS” or “Bacon group”)between January 1, 2008 and February 8, 2009. [4] The Crown led the evidence of four Vetrovec (R. v. Vetrovec, (SCC), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811) witnesses whowere accomplices to the conspiracy and one of whom was an admitted accomplice to the Leclair murder.

Much of the case centeredaround these witnesses who testified that Vallee was a hit man for the United Nations gang (“UN” or “UN gang”), known as “Frankie”or “Panther”, and who hunted for the Bacon Brothers and was a shooter in the murder of Leclair. [5] The defence called no evidence. It was the position of the defence that the Crown had failed to prove that Vallee was theperson known in the gang as “Frankie” or “Panther” and that the four Vetrovec witnesses falsely identified Vallee to appease the policeand to gain personal benefits. II.

Issues [6] The central issue in this case is whether Cory Vallee was a member or participated in the conspiracy with Clay Roueche andothers to murder the Bacon Brothers and their associates. It is not contested that the murder of Kevin Leclair was carried out pursuant tothe conspiracy. The issue in the first degree murder of Leclair is whether Cory Vallee was one of two shooters.

[ 7 ] Narrowing and specifying the issue of identity more clearly, a key factual question is whether Vallee was a hit man for the United Nations gang known as “Frankie” or “Panther”. The key issue in the Leclair homicide is whether Vallee left the scene and participants to the murder before it took place and whether two accomplices falsely implicated the accused. III.

Overview of The Crown and Defence Theories of the Case [ 8 ] The Crown alleged that Cory Vallee conspired with Clayton Roueche and others to murder Jonathan Bacon, James Bacon, and Jarrod Bacon and their associates and that Vallee was guilty of the first degree murder of Kevin Leclair.

Roueche was the acknowledged leader of the United Nations gang and he and others in or associated to the gang sought to kill members and associates of the rival Bacon Brothers/Red Scorpions gang over competing drug business and a string of gang related murders. [ 9 ] The Crown alleged that Vallee was a hired hit man for the UN gang and that he participated in the gathering of intelligence and in the hunt for rival gang members. Both Crown and defence acknowledged that the killing of Leclair was planned and deliberate and the only issue was the identity of the shooters.

The Crown alleged that Vallee was a shooter in the brazen mid-afternoon killing of Kevin Leclair at a mall in Langley, British Columbia. [ 10 ] The Crown’s case rested substantially on the evidence of witnesses A, C, B and D who were members of the UN and, in the case of B, involved in the Leclair murder. All four cooperated with police at various stages. All four received immunity from these and/or other offences and were placed in witness protection.

All four fall within that class of witness whose evidence is inherently untrustworthy and requires special scrutiny. [ 11 ] The defence asserted that the four unsavoury witnesses were so fundamentally tainted, untrustworthy and incredible that their evidence should be rejected. All four falsely implicated Vallee in both the conspiracy to murder and the murder to save themselves and gain advantage in their dealings with police.

The accused maintained that the unsavoury witnesses concocted an elaborate story through rumours, access to disclosure, and the media that Vallee was a hired hitman named “Frankie” or “Panther”. The defence said that Witness B and Witness C fabricated the story about Vallee as the shooter of Leclair to protect the real shooter, Witness C. The defence asserted that Vallee was, at most, a drug dealer for the gang. IV. Background A. The United Nations Gang 1. Membership, associates and hierarchy [ 12 ] The United Nations gang was a criminal organization that came to police attention in the late 1990’s.

The gang was made up of both members and associates. Associates were those known to be close to members and who did regular business with them.

The organization was formed of certain criminal groups who joined with Roueche to form the Global United Nations Syndicate (“GUNS”), then shortened to “UN gang”. [ 13 ] Recognized members of the UN gang included Roueche, Witness A, Witness B, Witness C, Witness D, Barzan Tilli-Choli (“Tilli-Choli”), Troy Tran (“Tran”), Manh Nguyen (“Nguyen”), Amir Eghtesad (“Eghtesad”), Billy Ly (“Ly”), Connor D’Monte (“D’Monte”), Karwan Saed (“Saed”), Jorge Barreiro (“Barreiro”), James Coulter, and Duane Meyer (“Meyer”).

Associates included Ion Kroitoru (“Kroitoru” or “CR” in intercepted transcripts), Dilun Heng (“Heng”), Yong Sung Lee (“Yong Lee”), Trung Nguyen (“Trung”), Ismailaj Kreshnik (“Kreshnik”) and Craig Cameron (“Cameron”). [ 14 ] The UN was divided roughly into groups based on ethnicity, locale, and working associates. The groups were kept together through the common goal of doing business and strength in numbers. Witness D described the groups, by his naming only, as the “Iraqi Kurds”, the “Biker” group, the “Korean” guys, the “City” guys, and the “FK” or “FOB (fresh off the boat) killers”.

Witness A, Witness B, and Witness C confirmed some of these groups. Witness C and Witness B said that there were really two main groups, “city side” and “valley side”, associated with either Vancouver or the Fraser Valley, and who came together in about 2000. Roueche’s bodyguards were from the Iraqi group and then the FOB. The groups were dynamic with movement between groups. [ 15 ] Although there was no formal hierarchy, “bosses” were at the top in terms of money and respect followed by workers and drivers.

Those “higher up” had been “in the game longer”, according to Witness B. [ 16 ] Clay Roueche was the charismatic, recognized leader or “boss” of the gang from the early 2000’s until his arrest on May 17, 2008. He handled day to day operations within the gang generally and kept everyone together. Roueche entered a guilty plea to drug- related charges in the United States on April 28, 2009. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison in the United States.

Above Roueche in the hierarchy of respect and influence was Nguyen and Roy Lee, although the latter was incarcerated. [ 17 ] The core group within the UN, after Roueche’s arrest, included Witness A, Witness C, Witness B, Nguyen, Eghtesad, Saed, Tilli-Choli, Tran, Ly and others. Although Witness D also included himself in this group, Witness C and Witness B did not. According to Witness D, the core group were those who were vocal in their opinions, who were listened to, and who showed “face” and were constant in the gang. Others would have a different perspective on who was at the highest level of the gang.

Witness C said that he, Nguyen and D’Monte decided on the new leaders and structure after Roueche was arrested and announced the decisions to about 30 gang members at a Korean restaurant. [ 18 ] D’Monte was selected as the new leader of the gang. The inner circle was now Nguyen, Tran, Witness C and D’Monte.

D’Monte was known to make lots of money on large drug transactions throughout North America and was active and engaged within the gang. D’Monte put an even harder emphasis on the war with the Bacons group and quarterbacked the conflict. Witness C was close to D’Monte and was a sounding board for D’Monte’s plans for the war with the Bacon group. D’Monte wanted more structure in the gang. Witness B was selected as treasurer. Other “captains” or “bosses” were assigned according to geographic area. Witness C was head of the Vancouver “city group”. Tilli-Choli was the head of the “Kurds”. Tran headed the “FK group”.

Witness D testified that he declined the leadership of the Abbotsford area because he was in the process of moving out of the country at that time. Witness C testified that Witness D was never in contention. There was a plan to collect dues to pay for court cases and targeted murders. [ 19 ] The new organization and proposed collective efforts failed to materialize under D’Monte. There never was the cohesion that existed under Roueche. The gang suffered important membership losses in 2009 following arrests. D’Monte eventually fled the country sometime between January and May 2011.

Witness C was then voted leader of the UN gang but by then the membership was failing and there was no cohesion to drug deals. It was “every man for himself”. By the end of 2015, there were few original gang members left. At the height of the gang, there had been about 30 ring bearers and 150 associates. [ 20 ] Kroitoru appears to have had the confidence of Roueche as they shared accommodation at the W Hotel in Montreal in April 2018 and were the subjects of authorized intercepted communications that introduced the name “Frankie” to police.

From those communications, it is apparent that Kroitoru was one of Roueche’s sycophants, obsequious and manipulative. He wanted to make “big, big money” through Roueche (W Hotel intercept April 19, 2008). He used his good relationship with Roueche to gain status. He admitted himself that he fabulated and exaggerated (W Hotel intercept April 18 and 19, 2008).

Kroitoru was a schemer: he plotted with Roueche to work with someone making methamphetamine to share equally in a cut in the $25,000 per month business by offering them protection (W Hotel intercept April 18 and 19, 2008); he thought it was innovative to have shipped 25 pounds of marihuana in five pound packages in one month through Canada Post (W Hotel intercept April 18, 2008); while in Montreal, he was trying to find marihuana at a cheap price to sell (W Hotel April 18, 2008); he tried to develop a bounty to kill someone named “Moe” and then, when it appeared that the price was right, he offered to do the job himself (April 19, 2008); he offered to share with Roueche the bounty for making someone “back off” (W Hotel intercept April 19, 2008); he tried to cut “Frankie” out of money that Roueche was going to pay Frankie (May 15, 2008 intercept).

Kroitoru was arrested on June 4, 2008 for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. A person named Frank Misiti was arrested shortly after meeting with Kroitoru and receiving three kilograms of cocaine from Kroitoru. [ 21 ] Trung was shot in Mexico on December 30, 2008. He was rendered a quadriplegic as a result. He died in July 2014. [ 22 ] Jesse Adkins (Adkins”) was a mid-level member of the UN gang, under Witness C in hierarchy. He had proved himself as a worker on Witness B’s drug line and became a delivery driver for Witness C.

According to Witness D and Witness C, he became “Frankie’s” driver within a month after Meyer’s murder. [ 23 ] Eghtesad was Tilli-Choli’s “right hand man”, aligned with him and Saed. [ 24 ] Kreshnik was close to Eghtesad, Meyer, Witness C and Witness B. He was associated in business with Witness C as part of the Vancouver group dealing drugs.

This association lasted through to January 2016 when Witness C and Witness B alerted him that he could be arrested. [ 25 ] Yong Lee was Roueche’s bodyguard and driver for a period of time prior to Roueche’s arrest. [ 26 ] Tilli-Choli, Aram Ali, and Saed were arrested in February 2009 for a shooting and were charged with the conspiracy to murder the Bacon Brothers/RS on April 21, 2009. Others were charged with the conspiracy on May 15, 2009. [ 27 ] The term “member” and “associate” may be used interchangeably in this judgment for convenience except if the appellation is in reference to the accused. 2.

Culture [ 28 ] Roueche fashioned the gang along the lines of a Chinese triad or Japanese samurai according to Witness D. Basic rules established by Roueche featured discipline, honour, loyalty and respect. Loyalty was important. It was one of the badges of honour. Roueche was intercepted to say: “You can’t buy loyalty, you get a loyal guy, you take care of him right to the end”. The moto of the gang was “We don’t give a fuck”. [ 29 ] Although there were unwritten rules imbued within the gang, they were mostly honoured in their breaking. The rules included don’t talk on phones, in cars, or in houses.

This rule was mostly broken as evidenced by the number of wiretapped conversations entered into evidence that had taken place both in houses and in cars and in testimony of witnesses about conversations that, according to the rule, should never have occurred inside a vehicle. Every Vetrovec witness testified to breaking this rule, even though they perceived themselves to be scrupulous on this issue.

As a result, just because a conversation occurred within a car or a house, it does not follow that the conversation was unlikely to have occurred because it would have been in violation of this rule. [ 30 ] Another rule was not to steal from a brother: this resulted in death to a friend of Witness C. If you informed on the gang, you would die: if you ran, then your family would pay. Witness D’s experience verified this rule. [ 31 ] One was not supposed to talk about crimes, even amongst themselves. Witness C said that, depending on the severity of the crime, it was not talked about, particularly in front of him.

However, from his evidence, it is apparent that murder was talked about with him, especially in the immediate aftermath. Witness D said, and insisted in cross-examination, that it depended upon to whom you were talking as to whether you would discuss shootings or violence in relation to the Bacon group. If the person was very close, then you would be more likely to talk about this as it was then unlikely that you would be suspected as being an informant. Witness B also said that it depended on to whom you were talking to as to whether one talked about a crime.

He testified that he would talk to people who he trusted and acknowledged that “gossip happened”. He referred to the rule not to talk about a murder, but also said that they did not

always follow their own rules. [ 32 ] It was common knowledge that everyone lied, even to each other. [ 33 ] There were various paraphernalia designed and initiated by Roueche, the most significant of which were UN rings. There were two classes of rings: members’ rings and bosses’ rings. Roueche also had a special ring for himself. UN rings were given out by Roueche for many reasons, including for merit, to ingratiate someone into the group, or just for good business. It meant that you were recognized as one of the group. There were two generations of rings designed by Roueche, the first being around 2002-2004.

There was disagreement in evidence as to which of the first and second generation rings were most deserving: in the end, it is irrelevant. The rings were generally given without ceremony at first but, in the second generation, an event was planned with Roueche and Nguyen present. This was usually a dinner at a Chinese restaurant with some ceremonial speech given, the further details of which are not significant. Witness D got his ring from Roueche after he plead guilty to manslaughter without turning on anyone else. Witness A received his ring ‘right away’ for no particular reason.

Witness C received his first ring in 2007. After Roueche was arrested, Nguyan or D’Monte gave out the rings. [ 34 ] There was an initiation type of ceremony started by Roueche around 2002 that was Buddhist inspired. There was also clothing, hand gestures, and even a song. [ 35 ] There were social gatherings from time to time, mostly shows of force to get the UN name known. One gained respect and trust within the UN by being seen at shows of force and with higher UN members. The gang sometimes met in Mexico, both for business and for pleasure. 3.

Business and activities [ 36 ] The UN business was running drug lines or supplying drug lines run by individual drug dealers who were not affiliated with the UN. The drug dealing expanded throughout the 2000’s with dealings throughout the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and connections into Calgary, the interior of British Columbia, the United States and Mexico. By 2006, the UN was organizing large shipments of marihuana and money by land and air to the United States in return for large shipments of cocaine from Mexico.

There were also return shipments of guns. [ 37 ] Just about the time of Roueche’s arrest, business had taken a downturn due to arrests. Witness A was aware of heightened police surveillance. There was a further drop in business after the arrest of Roueche. [ 38 ] The UN was known to operate their business from apartments or condominium housing units which they called “offices”. This was where drugs and sometimes firearms were kept.

These were separate from personal residences but would have someone living there to cover their rent and lessen suspicion upon the condition that they not have another person in the house and not consume drugs. [ 39 ] There was also business in firearms. Witness D sold semi-automatic pistols, sub-machine guns, and assault rifles, including the AR-15, within the gang. Witness A and Roueche imported firearms from the United States via helicopter on at least one occasion. Most gang members had firearms. [ 40 ] Witness C described how firearms were prepared for storage and use.

Each gun and magazine was wiped using brake cleaner to remove any DNA, oils, or fingerprints before storage and before use. The ammunition was cleaned before each shell was loaded onto the magazine. Latex gloves were worn. Gloves or at least one’s sleeve was used when the weapons were otherwise handled or fired. The guns were usually carried in duffle bags. These were commonly used within the gang for carrying guns or drugs and changed hands frequently. [ 41 ] There were various precautions taken to avoid detection by police.

Some included leaving phones in cars while engaging in serious talk outside, going for “walk and talks” in the open air away from houses or buildings, leaving cell phones outside a meeting, and jamming radio and cell phone frequencies. Some vehicles were customized with “spots” for storing weapons. Licence plates were stolen from similar makes and models of vehicles and then put onto the vehicle to be used in a serious crime.

Gloves were worn when transporting drugs or other merchandise in common generic black gym or duffle type bags. [ 42 ] Violence was a known part of the business to set an example, to pay for stealing, to settle a debt, to “set the record straight”, or for vengeance. [ 43 ] It was common to have meals together to talk business. Social events were more likely to be in nightclubs when Roueche expected everyone to be out for a show of force to establish dominance. The different groups intermingled at these affairs and got to know one another.

Attendance was a matter of pride to be included but, police often attended and noted licence plates. As a result, certain individuals, who the gang did not want police to know, were not expected to be at these events. [ 44 ] In 2008, Barreiro, Meyer, Witness B, and others started a tax case against Revenue Canada for illegally sharing tax information with the RCMP. It was only at this time and for this purpose that Witness B learned the real names of some UN members.

The applicants were successful and shared $200,000 in damages. [ 45 ] In about 2010 or 2011, the “wolf pack war” started between a new group within the UN and outsiders. The original UN groups remained aloof of the conflict but Witness C provided intelligence. 4. Use of nicknames/terms [ 46 ] Persons working within the UN were referred to by nickname as a matter of security. It was unusual to learn of someone’s real name. Witness B did not learn the real names of key members of the UN until he did the tax case.

Witness D and Witness A did not learn Vallee’s real name until just after a stop by police in February, 2008. Witness B did not learn Vallee’s real name until he read it in

the media after Vallee had left the lower mainland. Witness D did not learn the last names of many until he started to cooperate with police. Nicknames changed but some names remained over a longer period. Different people might use a different nickname for the same person. There was some overlapping in nicknames with several “B’s” and “Nam’s” and “Shrek’s”. [ 47 ] Most of the nicknames identified by the four Vetrovec witnesses were consistent and uncontested, except for two nicknames that the witnesses associated with Vallee.

Contested nicknames associated with Vallee were “Frankie” and “Panther”. “Frankie” and “Panther” are discussed below at paragraphs 496-522. All of the Vetrovec witnesses also knew Vallee as “Tooth” (he was missing upper front teeth and wore a denture), but Witness D did not use the name in association with Vallee. He was also called “Specs” (he sometimes wore glasses).

Other nicknames used by Witness C and Witness B in reference to Vallee were “Fang”, “Tooth Fairy”, and “Babysitter”. [ 48 ] Some relevant nicknames include: “Dog”, “Dawgy” or “C” for Roueche; “V” or “Versace” for Nguyan; “Devil”, “Benzo” and “B” for D’Monte; “DW” and “D-Dub” for Duane Meyer (“Meyer”); “Dirty” for Witness C; “Skinny Dan” or “Lazy” or “Lazy Ass” for Witness A; “Barz” for Tilli-Choli; “Fabio” or “Fabs” or “Fabz” or “Blinky” or “Sticks” for Witness D; “Miyo” or “Miyamoto” for Yong Lee; “Shrek” for Billy Ly; “Shrek” and “Fat Chris” for Chris Funaro (“Funaro”); “Niko” and “Soldier” for Kreshnik; “Korean Jay” for Jay Yoo; “Primo” for Barreiro; “Blackie” for Mark Kim; “Egon”, and “Egg” and “Ghost” for Adkins.

The Vetrovec witnesses most often referred to persons in their evidence by their known nicknames. The correct names have been used in this judgment with the applied rigour to not err significantly. [ 49 ] The UN also had nicknames for the Bacon group whom they generally referred to as the “Bacons”, “Pigs”, “goofs”, “Porks” or “Porkx”. “Smurf” referred to Sean Murphy and “Whitey” referred to Ryan Richards.

There were hand signals holding up one, two or three fingers representing Jonathan, Jarred, and Jamie Bacon respectively. [ 50 ] The UN also had nicknames for certain locations associated with the Bacon group. “ML1”, “ML2”, or “ML” referred to known locations where Michael Le had an apartment or frequented. [ 51 ] Other terms frequently used included: to “buzz” someone, was to use the encrypted BlackBerry; to have or use “eyes” meant that surveillance was wanted somewhere or someone was conducting surveillance. 5. Communication [ 52 ] UN members and associates communicated through encrypted BlackBerry devices.

Sean Geransky, the IT manager for the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of B.C., was qualified as an expert. He examined the seized phones of Roueche, Meyer and Kroitoru and reported on his findings at trial. He also had Witness A’s BlackBerry in hand after Witness A was arrested and witnessed the phone being “scrubbed” remotely so that there was no data left on the phone. He described how the phones were set up generally for security.

From his examination of the seized phones and his evidence, the following is known about the security that UN members and associates had on their phones. [ 53 ] Each phone had an IT policy set up by an administrator to set restrictions on each device and manage its use. These restrictions could include use of a password, required encryption, and the inability to use the phone as a phone, camera, for internet, for texts, or for email. A phone could be set to wipe all data upon certain command such as repeated attempts at a password or the administrator could wipe the phone remotely.

An additional layer of protection enabled a phone to be “scrubbed” to ensure that no data was left on the phone in certain circumstances. The administrator assigned email addresses for use by the server. A BlackBerry server sent encrypted messages back and forth and could further restrict use of the device. The encryption application generally used was called ‘X-Shield’ or PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). X-Shield allowed contact lists to be encrypted. Only the user of the phone could decrypt an encrypted message by use of a private key.

But a public key could be shared among certain internal users and had to be used to send a message. X-Shield needed to be manually loaded onto a device. A device with X-Shield could be remotely wiped if the administrator had the user’s password. Each BlackBerry had a PIN number assigned whereby each phone was connected to a specific server and not to regular cellular networks. Once a phone was set up, it was confined to the use as set by the administrator. [ 54 ] Email or PIN messages could be sent to a named person on a contact list created by the user.

A message would show the name chosen by the user but not the senders’ or receivers’ email address or actual name unless the actual name had been chosen by the user of the phone. A receiver would know the name that the user of the device had assigned to him and visa versa. Nicknames were commonly, but not always, used as email handles until about 2009 when it was realized that this was a bad idea. Sometimes a handle name was assigned arbitrarily by the person who set up the phone. [ 55 ] Typically, features on the phones would be turned off so that they could not be used except for email and PIN messaging.

D’Monte was the person to contact to activate a phone and to obtain a separate encryption key. Once a person had an email or PIN, he could be added to a contact list. Email addresses, PINs, and passwords changed very often, sometimes more than once a month. Phones were changed frequently, sometimes up to 25 times in a year. Phones were destroyed if someone was arrested or if an identifying feature such as a birthday was referred to. As a result of the frequency with which user names were changed and of the end of using nicknames, it was challenging to remember who was who, especially after a period of time.

Emails were used to conduct drug transactions, to provide intelligence on enemies, and to organize UN murders. [ 56 ] It was frowned upon to have a regular phone in use. [ 57 ] Meyer’s BlackBerry had been wiped by the time that Geransky looked at it but he could not determine by what command. A second phone was examined after the password was retrieved. It had PGP protection but some data was collected. [ 58 ] An example of the use of an encrypted BlackBerry is the Roueche BlackBerry seized from his home on May 18, 2008 and the BlackBerry found in Roueche’s possession upon arrest.

The BlackBerry seized from the residence was password protected and had both X-Shield and PGP. Police were able to download the recipient cache which were all protected by PIN numbers or coded email addresses. The BlackBerry found upon arrest contained names of contacts in an address book by nickname or a handle moniker including “Fabs”

(Witness D), “Dirty” (Witness C), and “Panther”. There was no contact named “Frankie”. There was no communication with any phone number linked to the accused. [ 59 ] Several Vetrovec witnesses identified certain of the email addresses in Roueche’s phone as connected to various UN members and associates. None of these included “Cory Vallee”. However, all of the Vetrovec witnesses associated the name “Panther” found in Roueche’s BlackBerry address book with Cory Vallee.

All of the other identifications were consistent with one another and with the nicknames that the witnesses had associated with each UN member. [ 60 ] When Ion Kroitoru was arrested on June 4, 2008, he had a BlackBerry and a Motorola phone with him. Geransky was able to take photos of an address book, emails, and some PIN messages on the unlocked BlackBerry. The X-Shield protected address book contained the names “Panther”, “Lazyass”, “Bald John”, “Snakeman”, “dirty”, “Devil”, and others.

The PIN messages protected by X- Shield could not be opened but the in-box revealed that there were several messages delivered to and received from “Panther” and some from “Cyrus” and “Devil”. Geransky was able to download unencrypted messages between “Oden” and “Little” dated May 11, 2008.

No further information could be obtained because the BlackBerry was remotely wiped through mishap while Geransky’s examination was ongoing. [ 61 ] All four Vetrovec witnesses identified “Panther” as Vallee from the Kroitoru message list screen and contact list. [ 62 ] Geransky was able to download information from Kroitoru’s unprotected Motorola. Included in the address book was “Corey” with a phone number that was the same number given by Vallee to police following an incident associated to a North Vancouver address.

There was also an Ontario listing for “Frank”, determined by police to be a Frank Marrelo. [ 63 ] In 2011, police seized a BlackBerry from Eghtesad that had the encryption and other hallmarks of a UN phone. As discussed below at paragraphs 468-486, some communications obtained from this phone were from Vallee. [ 64 ] This expert and other evidence was consistent with the evidence of the Vetrovec witnesses generally who described how their BlackBerrys worked. The devices were disabled except for email and messaging features. Devices were changed frequently and old ones discarded.

User names were also changed frequently. [ 65 ] Police obtained judicial authorization to search the server for the domain name xwired.ca and certain accounts that police believed were used by Roueche, Tilli-Choli and two others in 2008. Police were able to search for the periods from April 3-6, 2008 and June 10-July 4, 2008. While many emails were obtained, there were specific problems that need not be specified here but that limited accessibility to stored material. Also, the dates that could be accessed were limited as set out. The email address panther@xwired.ca was not found in any of these searches.

The Crown’s theory was that the user names changed after Meyer’s murder when his BlackBerry was seized by police and that the April 3-6 time period was limited. While this is a reasonable inference on the evidence, it is also apparent that the number of accounts reviewed was very limited. [ 66 ] Witness A consented to have unencrypted emails sent and received prior to July 2008 searched following his cooperation with police in 2013. These related to a three month period. He could not remember using the email handles “Shock” or “Anthem” at first because these names changed frequently.

Police partially listed the email addresses that Witness A communicated with and asked Witness A to identify the persons. He was uncertain in the identification of numerous email handles. While none of these appear to be related to “Frankie” or “Panther” or to Vallee, Witness A explained that he mostly communicated with Vallee through encrypted emails and none of these emails were encrypted. The emails also related to only a partial list and time constrained period. 6.

Use and documentation of vehicles [ 67 ] From surveillance and ICBC records, it is apparent that members and associates of the UN gang changed registered owners of cars, licence plates on cars, rental and users of cars frequently. Often, cars were leased or owned by numbered companies or rented. The occupants and drivers of a car could change throughout a day and Roueche, for one, was known to drive several cars, often in one day.

Ly had rented the Jeep used in the GM Place incident described below for a month. [ 68 ] A white Chevrolet Impala was first observed through police surveillance in the early morning hours of February 19, 2008 as the unidentified occupant of the Impala met with unidentified occupants of a blue Caravan that was known to police to have been used by Witness A and Roueche only an hour before. On March 10, 2008, Roueche and Witness A met with someone in a white Impala but the licence plate was not the same and the driver was not identified.

The first of these occurrences was on a date coincident with when Vallee had taken approved leave from work and the second occurred at a time when Vallee would not have been at work. [ 69 ] ICBC records confirm that the white Impala seen on both of these dates is probably the same vehicle as the licence plate from February 19 reveals that the car was registered to “Bo Jiang” from January 29, 2008 to April 28, 2008 and then the licence changed to be registered to Yong Sung Lee from April 28, 2008 to December 10, 2008.

Another vehicle registered to “Bo Jiang” at the same time as the white Impala was observed at a meeting between Roueche and Witness A on March 25, 2008 but the occupant was unidentified. [ 70 ] Surveillance records show that the white Impala was used by Roueche and others. Roueche was seen in the vehicle on April 28, May 7, 8, 9, and 10, 2008 and the car was parked at Roueche’s residence on April 21, 22, 27, 28, and May 9, 2008. Witness A and Craig Cameron were also seen to drive the vehicle.

At other times, the driver of the vehicle could not be identified. [ 71 ] Adkins owned a 1995 green Chevrolet Tahoe on May 9, 2008. The vehicle disappeared from the registration books as at May 11, 2008. This vehicle was used in the murder of Jonathan Barber as described below at paragraphs 410-415 and 425-429. [ 72 ] Troy Tran’s father was the registered owner of a white Toyota Tundra from 2007-2010. Tran was found to be driving that vehicle in May 2008 and in 2009.

It is reasonable to conclude from the evidence that Tran had the use of this vehicle which was observed on video at the scene of the Barber murder on May 9, 2008. When the vehicle was inspected by police some years after the Barber murder, there were no signs that it had ever been in a rear end collision.

[ 73 ] Witness D testified that Vallee and Adkins drove together in a dark blue coloured minivan, either a Caravan or a Ford. He identified their van as the same as the van depicted in the video taken from the Thunderbird Village Apartments on February 6, 2009. Witness A also said that Adkins drove a dark blue Caravan and he saw them together in that Caravan. [ 74 ] Witness D testified that Kreshnik was known to drive a Nissan Murano, like the vehicle shown in the Thunderbird Village Apartments video on February 6, 2009. B.

The Bacon Brothers/Red Scorpions Gang [ 75 ] The Bacon Brothers and the Red Scorpions (or “RS”) were criminal organizations active in British Columbia during the indictment period. The Bacon Brothers were Jonathan Bacon, Jarrod Bacon, and James Bacon. The RS was led by Michael Le who was believed to supply large quantities of cocaine to the Bacon Brothers. [ 76 ] The Bacon Brothers and the RS began cooperating with each other around 2007, although they also continued independent operations.

Through the collaboration, the Bacon Brothers and the RS were able to expand their size and their control over the drug supply in the Lower Mainland. Violence and intimidation were part of business. [ 77 ] Associates of the Bacon Brothers included Dennis Karbovanec, Cody Haevischer and Matthew Johnston. [ 78 ] Kevin Leclair (“Leclair”) was a former member of the UN gang but had left and joined the Bacon Brothers.

He was thereafter known within the UN gang as ‘Traitor’ and was considered to be a high risk to the UN because he knew members of the gang and their addresses. [ 79 ] Police conducted surveillance of the Bacon Brothers and their associates between August 2006 and May 2009.

The details of that surveillance are not significant here except for the fact that certain of the addresses and vehicles with licence plate numbers as recorded to be associated to the Bacon Brothers were also addresses and vehicles that were known to the UN, were the subject of surveillance or planning, and/or were found on a list in Roueche’s home upon search. Jarrod Bacon was known to reside in a building at 2345 Madison Avenue in Burnaby and the Bacon Brothers were seen at that location by police. C. The conflict 1.

Origins [ 80 ] Disputes arose in about 2006 between the UN gang and the Bacon Brothers/RS over drug trade territory in the Lower Mainland. The conflict was violent. [ 81 ] The conflict came to a head on May 8, 2008 when Meyer was shot and killed. Members and associates within the UN believed that Meyer was killed by the Bacon Brothers/RS. 2.

The dead and wounded [ 82 ] Charndev or Dave Tumber, a drug dealer with the Bacon group, was murdered on March 3, 2006. [ 83 ] Jonathan Bacon was shot and wounded on September 21, 2006. [ 84 ] Ciaran D’Monte, the brother of Connor D’Monte, was shot in September, 2007 but survived. [ 85 ] Mark Kim was killed on December 31, 2007. [ 86 ] Meyer was shot and killed on May 8, 2008. [ 87 ] Michael Gordon was murdered on August 25, 2008. [ 88 ] Kevin Leclair was murdered on February 6, 2009. [ 89 ] Both Sean Murphy (“Smurf”) and Ryan Richards (“Whitey”) were found dead in March 2009.

Richards had worked for the Bacon group but changed to receive supply from the UN. [ 90 ] Teddy Kim was shot on September 27, 2009 but survived. [ 91 ] Raj Soomel was murdered on September 29, 2009. [ 92 ] Naname Katoaka was murdered in Argentina on October 28, 2009. [ 93 ] Jonathan Bacon was murdered on August 14, 2011 in Kelowna and others in the vehicle sustained gunshot injuries. [ 94 ] Jesse Adkins was presumably murdered in Mexico in 2011. 3.

Admitted or charged conspirators [ 95 ] Witness A, Tilli-Choli, Saed, Kroitoru, Yong Lee, and Heng were charged, among others, with conspiracy on the first direct indictment that was laid in June 2009 (the “UN8”). That indictment also named “Frankie” and “Panther” as co-conspirators. Witness A

plead guilty to the conspiracy on April 19, 2013. Yong Lee, Saed, Till-Choli, Heng and Kroitoru plead guilty to the conspiracy on July 8, 2013. [ 96 ] Eghtesad was arrested and separately charged with the conspiracy on August 21, 2011. A BlackBerry phone was seized from him upon arrest which is the subject of further scrutiny below at paragraphs 468-495. Eghtesad plead guilty to the conspiracy on April 3, 2014. [ 97 ] Tran and Ly were charged with the conspiracy on January 22, 2016. Their trials are pending. [ 98 ] The first indictment charging Vallee and D’Monte with the conspiracy was dated January 24, 2011.

The indictment no longer included “Frankie” and “Panther” as co-conspirators. An indictment dated June 9, 2011 named Vallee to also be known as “Frankie” and “Panther”. The indictment upon which Vallee stands charged at trial is dated September 8, 2015 and names Cory Vallee. [ 99 ] The defence has admitted that the following persons were members of the conspiracy: Roueche, Tilli-Choli, Saed, Kroitoru, Heng, Yong Lee, Eghtesad, Cameron, Witness D, Witness A, Witness B, and Witness C. D. Who is Cory Vallee 1.

Uncontested facts [ 100 ] Admissions filed with respect to Cory Vallee established independent information about him. Other evidence that is accepted as uncontroversial is included here. [ 101 ] Vallee was 33 years old in January 2008. He was born in southern Ontario and raised there by his grandparents. He spent some time in Florida as a young boy and moved to Vancouver in 1995. He lived in North Vancouver until 2001 when he returned to Ontario for some months.

From June 2001 until September 2009, Vallee lived in North Vancouver or Brackendale near Squamish. [ 102 ] Vallee married Joanna Maple in 2001 in British Columbia. They separated in 2006 but are not divorced. They had no children. Vallee was admitted to have had a relationship with Sarah Lockart between January 2008 and September 2009. She had a daughter aged between one to two years old at this time. From prison canteen records pertinent to Vallee in August 2014, it can be inferred that Lockart maintained a relationship with Vallee to that time. [ 103 ] There is limited evidence about Vallee’s education.

From information given in an application for employment with the District of North Vancouver that Vallee certified as true, it appears that Vallee had a high school diploma. [ 104 ] The admissions state that Vallee was employed as a grocery clerk and as a recycling collector before gaining full time employment as a courier delivery driver in Burnaby from August 2002 to November 2005. However, previous employment information certified to be true by Vallee later to the District of North Vancouver said that he was employed as an order filler in a warehouse from July 2002 to July 2003.

Vallee worked as a bus driver in Whistler from November 2005 to April 2006 before he started full time work as a labourer performing garbage collection for the District of North Vancouver on April 20, 2006. He remained in that employment until October 31, 2008. Thereafter, Vallee had no known employment. [ 105 ] Vallee’s formal hours of work for the District of North Vancouver were from 7:00 am to 3:30 pm, but typically the work ended around 2:30 pm. According to pension records, he earned about $46,500 per year. Performance records indicate that Vallee had attendance issues as at December 2007.

In February 2008, Vallee was the unsuccessful applicant for a position in the utilities department. By this time, Vallee was already involved with the UN gang, a conclusion based upon the February 25, 2008 police stop described below at paragraphs 449-461. Performance records from April 2008 indicate that Vallee disliked having to have the truck ready by 7:00 am. In a letter from his employer on April 28, 2008, notice was given of unapproved leave from work from April 23 to 25, 2008. Vallee had explained that he had been in Kelowna and also explained that he regularly made the trip.

This time off was in addition to nine days of leave granted between February 12-26, 2008 and five days of sick leave since March 31st. On September 18, 2008, a letter from Vallee’s employer concerning an unacceptable level of absenteeism noted that Vallee had missed 11 days of employment from January to June 30, 2008 and had 11 approved leave days. This was an unacceptable difference from his 2007 employment. On October 14, 2008, the employer notified Vallee of an unacceptable failure to attend for work on September 22, 2008. Vallee’s employment was terminated on October 23, 2008.

His last day worked was October 24, 2008, although the termination information gave the last day worked as October 31, 2008. [ 106 ] Vallee had a driver’s licence in British Columbia since 1996 and secured a class 1 licence to drive vehicles with air brakes in 2005. When the latter licence was renewed in 2008, Vallee was described as having brown hair, weighing 118 kg, and being 178 cm in height. That translates into 260 pounds and five feet and ten inches in height. In a declaration for workers’ compensation in August 2007, Vallee stated that he weighed 210 pounds and was five foot, nine inches in height.

There is no record of Vallee ever having a driver’s licence in Ontario or in Quebec. [ 107 ] From January 7, 2008 to June 13, 2008, Vallee was the registered owner of a 1995 Dodge Dakota pick-up truck. Vallee told Cst. Chartrand in November 13, 2008 that he had transferred ownership of this vehicle to Harold Nahanee. Vallee was stopped in this vehicle in Salmon Arm on October 5, 2009, leading to an inference that, although Nahanee was the registered owner, Vallee still had use of the vehicle.

He was the registered owner of a black Dodge Caravan from October 27, 2008 until February 10, 2009, having changed licence plates on the vehicle in late November 2008. He was the registered owner of a black Nissan Pathfinder from February 10, 2009 to October 5, 2009. [ 108 ] Vallee had three run-ins with police prior to October 2007, all of which were alcohol fueled and minor. There were two alcohol related incidents on November 9, 2008 and January 23, 2009, the latter while Vallee was driving his black Dodge Caravan. He was given a roadside suspension.

[ 109 ] Vallee was known to associate with members of the UN gang from 2008 to 2011. He knew Roueche, Meyer, Kroitoru, Adkins, Witness D, Witness A, Witness C, and Witness B. [ 110 ] While there are no intercepted communications identified as being to or from “Cory Vallee” between November 2007 and March 2009, police were unable to obtain any or most of the communications that would have been stored in the BlackBerrys of Roueche, Kroitoru, Meyer and Eghtesad. Communication between Eghtesad and Vallee was obtained upon police search of Eghtesad’s BlackBerry in 2011.

From the 2011 communication, it can be inferred that Vallee had an encrypted BlackBerry in 2011. [ 111 ] Vallee was stopped by police on February 25, 2008 in a vehicle driven by Witness D and with Witness A and Tony Hua, more about which will be described below at paragraphs 449-461. [ 112 ] Vallee was a friend of Meyer. He was a witness in Kelowna for Meyer when he married on April 15, 2008 and signed the marriage registration. His Dakota pick-up truck was parked in front of the residence where Meyer was murdered on May 8, 2008. In conversation with Cst.

Chartrand on November 13, 2008, Vallee explained that he had loaned the truck to Meyer whom Vallee knew to have two dogs. [ 113 ] He was observed with Roueche, Witness A, and Funaro at a Keg restaurant on May 1, 2008. He was at the restaurant for about 20 minutes before he drove away from that meeting in a grey Toyota Camry that was registered to a numbered company with no named principal driver.

He drove in tandem with a vehicle occupied by Roueche and Witness A to the 4100 block Halifax Street in Burnaby where the men talked together for about 12 minutes before they all left the scene. [ 114 ] Vallee was captured on video camera along with Witness B at a Tim Hortons on February 6, 2009. This was the day of the murder of Leclair, about which more is said at paragraphs 617-621. [ 115 ] On May 21, 2009, Vallee met with Witness C, Witness D, and John Sheaves at a Milestones restaurant. [ 116 ] Police surveillance of Vallee intensified in September 2009.

He was seen on four occasions at the residence of Sarah Lockart with a small female child who Vallee was looking after without the mother present. He took the child in his car and for a walk in a stroller. From overheard conversation, he appeared in a familial role. He drove the black Nissan described above. [ 117 ] On September 17, 2009, Vallee was observed meeting with Adkins, Eghtesad, and others at a coffee bar on Hastings Street in Vancouver.

After just over an hour, Vallee left with Eghtesad and the two men remained together for almost four hours, the last sighting being of Vallee standing outside 4132 Halifax Street in Burnaby. The next day, Vallee was observed to receive a package from Johnathan Sheaves. On the final observation, Vallee obviously noticed the surveillance as the male that Vallee was with approached the police officer and asked what he was doing. [ 118 ] At 4:00 a.m. on October 5, 2009, Vallee was stopped by police speeding east through Salmon Arm.

He was in his old Dodge pick-up that had been left at the scene of the Meyer murder and which was now registered in the name of Nahanee. This was the same day that the registration for his Nissan Pathfinder ended. Vallee told the officer that he was headed to Ontario to move in with his grandmother. The officer issued Vallee a warning for speeding. Vallee did not go to Ontario and did not move in with his grandmother. [ 119 ] On November 11, 2009, police arrested Adkins and Vallee in Calgary after police were called to a bar because two men were fighting staff and punching in ATM machines.

Adkins gave a false name to police. Vallee and Adkins were issued tickets for disorderly conduct in a licensed premise, summonsed to appear on December 10, and released. A short while later, the same police officer attended to a complaint that a construction site had been broken into. Vallee was spotted nearby but ran from police. He was subsequently arrested using a taser and charged with breaking into the construction site, assault of the security guard, and assault of a police officer. Vallee was not impaired by alcohol during this event.

He was released on $200 cash bail, a condition that he remain in Alberta, and a recognizance to appear on November 27, 2009. [ 120 ] Vallee and Adkins left Canada for Mexico sometime before his appearance date. According to the uncontested evidence of Witness C and Witness B, Vallee and Adkins left Canada for Mexico in November 2009. Vallee was arrested in Mexico and returned to Canada on August 14, 2014. [ 121 ] Upon return to Canada, Vallee’s tattoos were photographed by police. The photo of the tattoo on his right leg was in evidence. On his right leg is a black tattoo of a cat like animal.

Although a police officer noted the tattoo in July 2007 as being of a lion, the pouncing black cat lacks a full mane. A black male cat of this depiction is more likely a panther. [ 122 ] Vallee was remanded to the Surrey Pretrial Centre after his arrest where records are kept of deposits into each inmate’s account (his “canteen”). Sarah Lockart and Witness C put money into Vallee’s account in August 2014. Lockart gave Witness C $100,000 of Vallee’s cash for safekeeping about six months later. 2.

How and why was Vallee introduced into the gang? [ 123 ] The evidence established that Vallee was most certainly introduced to the gang and he most probably was introduced by Kroitoru. The question, then, is why was Vallee introduced, especially to Roueche? Why was he introduced in 2008? [ 124 ] Witness D testified in direct examination that Roueche had told Witness D that he was going to meet someone from ‘back east’ to take care of the Bacon situation. This person had experience in this sort of thing from working with the Hell’s Angels person known as “Boucher”. He was going to be in and out of town.

He was going to be a hit man, although Roueche never said so specifically. In cross- examination, Witness D confirmed a statement to police that Roueche had told him to be ready because he was bringing out someone who used to do work for the bikers and the name “Boucher” came up. The idea was that the person was coming out from the east and would leave right away. Roueche wanted everyone to know that he was taking care of the Bacon problem. Witness D was selected by Roueche to look after “Frankie” because Witness D had a low profile with police.

[ 125 ] The best recollection of when Witness D was first introduced to Vallee was connected to a time after the death of Mark Kim on December 31, 2007. This timing fits with the February 25, 2008 police stop of Witness D, Witness A, Hua and Vallee and with the content of the W Hotel intercepts as regards “Frankie”. [ 126 ] Witness D testified in direct examination that he was introduced to Vallee as “Frankie” at Kroitoru’s residence in North Vancouver. It was the first time that Witness D had been at Kroitoru’s residence. Roueche and Kroitoru were there.

Witness D believed that “Frankie” knew Kroitoru from southern Ontario and that Kroitoru had introduced Vallee to Roueche. Witness D said that, at this first meeting, he arranged to meet Vallee at the Lonsdale Quay because Vallee didn’t appear to know other locations that Witness D suggested to subsequently meet. [ 127 ] In cross-examination, he said that this first meeting was between January 1, 2008 and February 25, 2008. Although he later agreed that possibly it was as early as the summer of 2007, this is unlikely.

Witness D was also questioned that it was Kroitoru who suggested that Witness D meet “Frankie” at the Lonsdale Quay. But, who suggested that they meet at the Lonsdale Quay is a detail of no significance. [ 128 ] Witness D’s evidence established that Roueche had told Witness D that Vallee had previously worked “back east” for the notorious gangster, Mon Boucher. Witness D thought that Vallee did not know the lower mainland and did not have family here: but, that was based upon his own

interpretation and not upon anything that anyone had said to him. In cross-examination, Witness D said that he thought that this story about Mon Boucher was exaggerated and he didn’t believe it. Vallee did not seem like a hit man to Witness D. [ 129 ] Witness D testified that Roueche asked him to try to find a place for “Frankie” to stay and to put money aside to pay him. Witness D was to be his handler: he would share information and drive him around to known Bacon locations. Witness D said that he arranged with Saed for an “office” to be assigned to “Frankie” in Burnaby.

Witness D wasn’t pleased with this request from Roueche as the job would take away time from Witness D’s business. [ 130 ] Witness D testified that he met Vallee as planned at the Lonsdale Quay McDonald’s. He drove Vallee to the apartment that had been arranged. Vallee had only a light duffle bag. Witness D said that he left Vallee there with the key and gave him $4,000-$5,000. He met up with Vallee after about three days to show him Bacon locations and to give him a BlackBerry. He also gave him a firearm, a 1911 style semi-automatic pistol. He showed Vallee how to disassemble and lubricate it.

Witness D said that Vallee admired the gun and thought that it was “cool”, a reaction that Witness D thought was strange for a hit man. Witness D testified that Vallee was not very happy about being left for this time and told Witness D that he had not left the apartment except to go to the Taco restaurant. [ 131 ] In cross-examination, Witness D insisted that he had given Vallee a gun, albeit not a great one. Witness D said that he wasn’t interested in the gun or in the conflict.

He also confirmed that Vallee had an encrypted BlackBerry, that Vallee used the BlackBerry to contact Heng and himself, and that he remained in contact with Vallee until he cooperated with police. [ 132 ] Witness D said that he arranged “very shortly” after he met Vallee at the Lonsdale Quay for Zubin Ling to show him Bacon locations. Witness D said that he then met with Vallee when he could, driving him around known Abbotsford and Langley locations. He gave Vallee the Bacon group photos and kept conversation to a minimum.

Ling lasted only a short time and then Dilun Heng from Mission was brought in. [ 133 ] In cross-examination, Witness D said that he saw Vallee almost daily at first, but not for breakfast. This lasted less than two weeks before he introduced Zubin Ling to Vallee on Roueche’s arrangement. Witness D was frustrated that Vallee had to be driven around and resented the time taken away from Witness D’s business interests. He was following Roueche’s orders but had no stake in the Bacon conflict. [ 134 ] Roueche directed Witness D to get a car for Vallee.

Jay Yoo took care of obtaining and registering a white Chevrolet Impala that Witness D and Heng picked up from Jay Yoo at his apartment where Jay Yoo was living with Yong Lee. Witness D testified that he didn’t actually see Vallee drive the vehicle but was with Heng and Vallee at a Tim Hortons when Heng was driving the vehicle. Witness D thought that the optics of the car, an old police vehicle, weren’t good. Vallee was supposed to be below the radar as only Witness D, Roueche, Kroitoru, Ling and Heng knew about Vallee, soon followed by Yong Lee.

A white Impala with an unidentified driver was seen in surveillance first at about the time that Witness D testified that he arranged for such a vehicle for Vallee. Witness D didn’t know how Yong Lee got involved with Vallee but said that he saw Vallee together with Heng and Yong Lee. [ 135 ] Witness D testified about the February 25, 2008 police stop at 8 Rinks which is detailed below at paragraphs 449-461. [ 136 ] Witness D testified that some time after Meyer’s death and funeral in May 2008, Vallee expressed dissatisfaction with Heng and Yong Lee.

He was then seen in the company of Adkins and the two of them drove a dark blue minivan, a Caravan or Ford. The Impala was no longer used. By the time of Roueche’s arrest, Vallee also had stopped using the “office” apartment and told Witness D that he lived in North Vancouver. Surveillance of Vallee in September 2009 and admissions confirmed that Vallee lived in North Vancouver during this time. Witness D said that he continued to see Vallee “up and down”. They kept touch over the BlackBerry. [ 137 ] Witness A testified that he first met Vallee near the beginning of 2008.

Heng, Roueche, D’Monte, Barreiro, and Vallee were at Heng’s house in Mission. Vallee was introduced by Roueche as “Frankie”. Roueche told Witness A that Vallee was out from Ontario to help them shoot the Bacons, that he had worked for Boucher, and that he was a friend of Kroitoru. [ 138 ] Witness A testified that Roueche asked him and Witness D to show Vallee around. Vallee appeared unfamiliar with the Abbotsford/Mission area when Witness A took Vallee to known Bacon Brothers/RS locations.

Witness A testified that Roueche arranged for Vallee to be given a white Impala for his use in the search for the Bacons; but, the car was also for community use. Witness A testified that he drove around with Vallee, especially at the beginning of their relationship, but was unsure how many times he did this. [ 139 ] Witness A confirmed the details of his initial meetings with Vallee in cross-examination. He also said that Vallee was unfamiliar with the lower mainland generally.

[ 140 ] Witness A said that he became friends with Vallee but never knew him to be involved in the drug business. He testified that he met with Vallee about four or five times a week before Witness A moved to Richmond in July 2008 following the arrest of Roueche. After that, he generally saw Vallee weekly. The meeting was typically in a restaurant and many topics were discussed, including the status of the conspiracy and recently gained information. This was generally a common topic and there was no suggestion that Vallee was screened from it in any way or for any purpose.

Vallee led Witness A to believe that he had a legitimate job somewhere, driving a truck or “something like that”, the details of which were never discussed. Witness A did not know where Vallee lived or other details of his personal life, consistent with the gang relationship and Vallee’s role. He knew Vallee to be friendly with Roueche, Witness D, and Meyer. He also knew Heng and Yong Lee. Witness A met Adkins through Vallee. Witness A communicated with Vallee through an encrypted BlackBerry until Witness A was arrested in May 2009. [ 141 ] Witness C was with Roueche in Montreal at the UFC fights in April 2008.

Around this time, Roueche told him that he had an out of town “hitter”, who had been involved with Boucher in the biker wars, to take care of the Bacons. Witness C said that he met this person named “Frankie” within a month or two after being in Montreal with Roueche. He identified Vallee as “Frankie”. He could not recall his first meeting with Vallee but immediately thought that Vallee was far too young to have been involved in Boucher’s biker wars. [ 142 ] In cross-examination, Witness C was brought to a statement that he gave police in which he stated that he first met Vallee as “Fang” or “Panther”.

He later told police that Vallee was called “Frankie”. For reasons discussed at paragraphs 256-257, it is concluded that Witness C did not remember the name “Frankie” at first when asked by police. [ 143 ] Witness C subsequently knew Vallee to be associated with Heng and Yong Lee in the couple of dealings that he had with Vallee prior to the Meyer murder.

After the Meyer murder, Adkins, who had been Witness C’s driver, agreed to be Vallee’s driver, to help him look for the Bacons. [ 144 ] Witness C testified that, as he got to know Vallee better, he learned that he grew up in Texas and had lived in North Vancouver where he went to Carson Graham School. He knew him to live in North Vancouver with his girlfriend who had a newborn female child. Witness C didn’t think that Vallee had children of his own. He knew that Vallee had worked as a garbage man for North Vancouver.

Witness C also knew Kroitoru to live in a house in North Vancouver. [ 145 ] Witness C testified that, after Adkins was involved with a failed attempt to kill Randy Nackyr, killing Randy Soomel instead, police pressure was so intense that Adkins was told to leave town. Vallee agreed to act as Adkins’ ‘babysitter’ before a human smuggling transportation for Adkins and Vallee could be arranged. Witness C said that Vallee and Adkins were together in Calgary and were arrested.

Shortly after, arrangements were in place and Vallee and Adkins met with the human transportation smuggler in Osoyoos who took them over the border. According to Witness C, they hiked over the border carrying bags of marihuana and then contacted Witness C on the BlackBerry to let him know that they were in the U.S. From there, the plan was to bus to Los Angeles where they would meet with Mexican cartel personnel for transport to Mexico. [ 146 ] Witness C testified that he kept in contact with Vallee and Adkins through BlackBerry after they were in Mexico.

He informed Vallee when he was charged on the January 24, 2011 indictment. It was only at that time that Witness C learned Vallee’s real name. After about a year, Vallee informed Witness C that Adkins was getting upset, erratic, and wanted to come home to see his child. Witness C subsequently learned from Vallee that Adkins was killed in Mexico by the Mexican cartel. He could not recall exactly when this occurred in relation to Vallee and Adkins leaving Canada, but thought that it was in 2010 or 2011. Witness C’s relationship with Vallee continued through the BlackBerry, sometimes talking daily.

He informed Vallee that Witness D and Witness A had cooperated with police. After Vallee was arrested and brought back to Canada in 2014, Witness C paid for Vallee’s canteen account in jail. He also met with Vallee’s sister and mother and gave his mother $2,000 at Vallee’s request. [ 147 ] Witness B first heard about someone named “Frankie”, who was tasked with causing havoc with the Bacon group, when he was working with Meyer and Roueche on the transport of drugs to the U.S. After Meyer’s murder, Roueche wanted Witness B to meet “Frankie”. Witness B asked Witness C about him.

In that conversation, Witness C referred to the person as “Panther”. Roueche arranged through BlackBerry contact for Vallee and Witness B to meet and they did first meet at a Starbucks in Langley. Witness B testified that he immediately liked Vallee and, as he got to know him, he considered Vallee to be one of his closest and best friends within the UN gang. Witness B learned from Vallee himself that Vallee had come into the group through Kroitoru. He eventually asked Vallee about the rumour that he was a “hitter from back east”.

Witness B said that Vallee laughed and said “No, where the fuck did you hear that from”? Witness B knew from Vallee that he was from back east but did not know when he had come from the east. He confirmed in cross-examination a police statement in which Vallee had told Witness B that he still had family back east. Witness B knew Vallee to be a garbage man for North Vancouver and had also been a delivery driver at one point.

He learned that Vallee lived in North Vancouver and had taken on a fatherly role with the young child of his girlfriend. [ 148 ] The impression that Witness B had was that Vallee was initially brought in to do drug business and to cause trouble with the Bacons, but he said that this changed after Meyer’s murder. Witness B testified in direct examination that he and Vallee drove around together looking for the Bacons a “handful of times” after Meyer’s murder.

Mostly, they socialized: but, strategy regarding the Bacon group and other gang issues were always a topic of discussion. [ 149 ] Witness B testified that he observed police surveillance of Adkins when he met with him after the Soomel murder and advised him to leave town. He was worried that Adkins would be arrested and cooperate with police. Witness B also knew that Vallee was under police scrutiny by then. He suggested to Vallee that he leave town and asked that he ‘babysit’ Adkins. Witness B testified that he believed that they left the next day.

He learned via BlackBerry communication that they went to Calgary and had trouble there with police. Arrangements were made for Adkins and Vallee to go to Mexico by hiking into the U.S. and then crossing into Mexico with the assistance of UN connections. Witness B stayed in touch with Vallee through encrypted BlackBerry after he was in Mexico. He stated that he purposefully stayed in touch and ensured that they were taken care of because they were a liability. [ 150 ] Witness B testified that Vallee informed him, while in Mexico, that there was a problem with Adkins.

They had fought, Adkins had said “fuck the crew”, and Adkins wanted to come home to see his child. Witness B was concerned that Adkins would make a deal

with police to come back to Canada. This would put not only Witness B and Witness C at risk, but also Vallee, Tilli-Choli, Tran, D’Monte and others. Witness B relayed this information to Kamela Wong who had known contacts with the Mexican gangs. Witness B testified that Adkins was killed in Mexico around Christmas 2011. 3. Was Vallee a drug dealer with/for the UN? [ 151 ] Witness A denied that Vallee was a drug dealer when he first joined with the UN or thereafter. Witness A said that neither he nor anyone that he knew dealt drugs with Vallee.

Witness A testified that he was with Vallee four or five times a week between January and May 2008 and probably weekly thereafter. This was not related to drug business. While the defence suggests that this evidence cannot be accepted because of the number of times that Witness A was observed by police during this period, it is noted that most of the police surveillance of Witness A during this period was with Roueche and that Roueche appears to have been the target of the surveillance and not Witness A. Police did not follow Witness A except when he was with Roueche. He had opportunity to meet with Vallee.

Vallee also had opportunity as most of the surveillance of UN members was after two o’clock in the afternoon, after which Vallee could have been available regardless of work. [ 152 ] Witness B testified that his impression gained from Vallee was that Vallee’s original business with the UN was in drugs with Kroitoru, although he did not know the specifics of either Vallee’s or Kroitoru’s drug operations. Witness B was not aware of any drug business between Vallee and Meyer even though he was a good friend of both and had worked with Meyer over a period of time in the transport of drugs to the U.S.

He had a vague recollection of Vallee developing a drug line in North Vancouver. Witness B said that it was difficult to “make a consistent paycheque by just trying to get the Bacons”. Witness B knew through Witness C that Vallee was involved in drug transactions in Mexico after he had left Canada in 2009. [ 153 ] Witness C testified that Vallee engaged in drug dealings after the Bacons were arrested in 2009 and after D’Monte stopped paying an allowance to Vallee for the hunt for the Bacons. Vallee set up a drug line in North Vancouver with his girlfriend’s brother to earn his living.

Witness C showed him how to cook cocaine into crack and possibly advanced him drugs. This was likely the failed business dealing that left Witness C feeling entitled to some of the $100,000 of Vallee’s cash that he received after Vallee’s arrest and return to Canada in 2014. Witness C testified in cross-examination that, in June 2009, Vallee drove one of his chessboards, presumably that he had constructed with Peter Redekopp, to Calgary for shipment outside Canada. He did a drug related “collection” in Kelowna in the spring/summer of 2009.

He agreed that Vallee had possibly been involved in a shipment of ecstasy to Calgary in the fall of 2009. [ 154 ] Witness D’s drug business was widespread across the gang and he knew the details of Roueche’s business. He also did some drug business with Kroitoru. Witness D would have known if Vallee was dealing drugs with Kroitoru or Roueche. Witness D testified that Vallee’s role was to kill or take violent action against the Bacon group and was paid to do so. He said that after Roueche’s arrest, Vallee was not expected to maintain a regular job. He was maintained on the payroll by D’Monte for that purpose.

Witness D said that he gave Vallee another source of income by picking up small quantities of drugs for him and that Vallee had met a North Vancouver drug dealer that he started to supply. From the evidence of Witness C, it is concluded that the North Vancouver drug business did not start until some time in 2009. [ 155 ] Drug dealing was not something that the Vetrovec witnesses were contradicted about in their testimony, except for Witness C’s dealings with Peter Redekopp on the particular date of February 6, 2009. Neither was it something that they particularly had to hide in the circumstances of this case.

Generally, their evidence is accepted about drug dealings and with whom. In all of the surveillance and wiretaps entered into evidence, there is not a hint of a drug transaction or business association involving Vallee and illicit drugs and the UN gang. Given the otherwise limited evidence about Vallee’s drug dealings, it is concluded that he was not involved with drug dealings with Witness A or Witness B. It is not probable that he was involved in drug dealings with Roueche because Witness D would have known and it is unlikely that Roueche would be involved with Vallee at that level.

It also cannot be found as likely that Vallee was involved in drug dealing with Meyer in the Okanagan in April 2008. The involvement of Vallee with drugs in North Vancouver and with Witness C was in 2009, after he had stopped legitimate work and after he had stopped receiving payment from either Roueche or D’Monte. 4. Conclusions [ 156 ] From all of this evidence, it is concluded that Vallee was an outsider who was brought into the group by Kroitoru. There is no evidence that Vallee was involved in drug dealing before this time. From the beginning, he interacted at a high level within the gang.

Given his attendance record at work and surveillance evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Vallee would have had time to and did participate in gang activity, especially after October 2008. Given the scant evidence of his drug dealing, the timing of it, and his associations within the gang especially prior to Meyer’s murder, it is unlikely that Vallee was brought in as a drug dealer. [ 157 ] Vallee was provided with a car for his use with gang work, likely the white Impala seen to be used by Roueche and others for a time.

But, Vallee also drove other vehicles frequently, including a vehicle registered to a numbered company. [ 158 ] More will be said below about the introduction of Vallee as “Frankie” and the story about him being a hit man from back east. Generally, however, the introductions to Vallee and the development of relationships occurred as the witnesses described. V. The Vetrovec Witnesses A.

Legal principles in the assessment of unsavoury witnesses [ 159 ] Both the Crown and the defence acknowledge that Witnesses A, B, C, and D are disreputable and untrustworthy characters whose evidence is important to the Crown’s case such that a warning, known as the “Vetrovec” warning, is required to alert the trier of fact to the risks of adopting the evidence of each of these witnesses without more ( R. v. Brooks , 2000 SCC 11 at para. 3 ). All of these

unsavoury witnesses are accomplices to the conspiracy to murder the Bacon brothers and their associates and Witness B and arguablyWitness C are accomplices to the Leclair murder. While accomplices are no longer deemed inherently untrustworthy as a rule, they areeach in a particularly compelling position to provide a story that falsely implicates the accused (R. v. Bevan, (SCC),[1993] 2 S.C.R. 599 at 611-612; R. v. Smith, 2009 SCC 5 at para. 15 (Smith SCC)).

There are other characteristics that impair the worthof each of these witnesses which will be examined, but it is fair to say that each of these witnesses are the type of witness for whom theunsavoury witness designation was designed (R. v. Smith, 2007 NSCA 19 at para. 18 (Smith NSCA), aff’d Smith SCC). [160] According to the principled framework established in R. v. Sauvé, (2004), (ON CA), 182 C.C.C. (3d) 321(Ont.

C.A.), this evidence, having been identified as requiring special scrutiny, then requires identification of the characteristics of eachwitness that brings his evidence into serious question and then an appropriate caution to be brought to mind that it is dangerous andunsafe to act upon his unconfirmed evidence (Sauvé at para. 82; Smith NSCA at para. 111; R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4 at para. 37).

While itmay be dangerous to convict without confirmatory evidence, the trier of fact may still do so if satisfied that the Vetrovec witness istelling the truth. [161] Counsel in this case carefully reviewed the cases and then listed the characteristics of a witness that may draw special scrutiny.These include: • Did the witness have any motive to lie or to mislead the court? (Bevan at para. 35; Brooks at paras. 8, 10 and 20; R. v. Drabinsky,2011 ONCA 582 at para. 34; R. v

[…]