2022 QCCQ 1644, 2022 QCCQ 1644

R. c. Al-Akraa 2022 QCCQ 1644 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU TOWN OF GATINEAU Criminal and Penal Division No.: 550-01-111410-199 DATE: March 21, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE ALEXANDRA MARCIL, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v.

SAMER SATTAR AL-AKRAA Accused ______________________________________________________________________ REVISED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RENDERED ORALLY ON MARCH 9, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ This judgment was revised to improve the presentation and understanding of the reasons given orally on March 9, 2022, in application of Kellog’s Company c. P.G.Q ., [1978 ] CA 258 -260. [ 1 ] Samer-Sattar Al-Akraa is charged with one count of aggravated assault under

section 268 of the Criminal Code , one count of assault using a weapon under

section 267 (

a) of the Criminal Code , and a count of uttering threats under

section 264.1 of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] On April 6, 2019, the accused was in a nightclub in Gatineau. At some point, there was an altercation, during which the complainant was thrown out of the nightclub. The accused physically intervened in this process. While doing so, he left his jacket with one of the bouncers. [ 3 ] After this first incident, the accused realized that the bouncer had mistakenly given his jacket to someone else, namely, Amine Essaataoui, who left the nightclub wearing the said jacket in the company of Mr. Hadi, the complainant.

The accused followed the two men, expecting to get his jacket back. [ 4 ] According to the Crown’s evidence, the accused came very close to the complainant Mr. Hadi and his friend Mr. Essaataoui, and started shouting at them. There was an argument between them. Then the accused stabbed the complainant. [ 5 ] Afterwards, the accused tore the jacket from Mr. Essaataoui, and while backing away, he threatened to kick or kill the two men if they approached him. He then walked away at a brisk pace. [ 6 ] The accused testified that he thought that one of the men may have had a gun.

Also according to him, one of the men seemed suspicious. The accused had a knife in his pocket. He took out the knife but kept the blade closed. He got near the two men and stopped about a metre from them. [ 7 ] According to the accused, the complainant was on his right and his friend holding the jacket was on his left. [1] The accused made that specification twice during his testimony. [2] [ 8 ] He said to the men, “Excuse me. This is my jacket”. The one wearing the jacket answered, “No, it’s not”. The accused kept demanding his jacket, pointing out that his wallet and keys were in the pocket.

Suddenly, one of the men rushed towards the accused. At that point, the accused opened the blade of the knife. [ 9 ] The accused testified that he was punched in the face two or three times and that one of the men pushed his jaw all the way up, while the other one held his left arm. He was scared for his life. He tried to push Mr. Hadi away with his right hand, while holding the blade open. This is how he stabbed the complainant. [ 10 ] The accused testified that he managed to free his left arm.

The man wearing the jacket took it off and handed it to the accused, and he held the complainant back to prevent him from going after the accused again. The accused backed off and walked away. He denies that he uttered threats before leaving.

[ 11 ] The Court must determine whether the facts give rise to self-defence and whether all the elements of the offences are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The analysis will lead the Court to address the following: Question 1: Did the accused have reasonable grounds to believe that force was being used or threatened against him? Question 2: Were the accused’s acts committed for the purpose of defending or protecting himself? Question 3: Were the accused’s acts reasonable in the circumstances? Question 4: Are the elements of aggravated assault demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt? Question 5: Are the elements of uttering a threat demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt? ANALYSIS

PART I —THE LAW [ 12 ]

Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides the following: A person is not guilty of an offence if:

a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances. [ 13 ] It should be noted that these three conditions are cumulative. If one is not met, then self-defence fails. [ 14 ] Section 34(2) of the Criminal Code sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that may be considered when determining whether the acts committed by the accused were reasonable in the circumstances :

a) the nature of the force or threat;

b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

c) the person’s role in the incident;

d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

g) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

h) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

i) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful. [ 15 ] When this defence has an air of reality, the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self-defence. The prosecution will succeed if one of the three conditions is not met.

PART II — APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED [ 16 ] The accused’s testimony contains many contradictions and inconsistencies. In these preliminary remarks, the Court will limit itself to mentioning a few of them. [ 17 ] The reason why the accused initially intervened when the complainant was thrown out of the nightclub seems illogical and implausible. Also his version about him trying to protect the complainant in the nightclub seems doubtful and implausible.

After reviewing the images from the surveillance cameras in the nightclub, the Court considers the accused’s version, according to which he was trying to protect the complainant, is not corroborated. These images show the opposite. [ 18 ] The accused claims that, after the complainant was thrown out of the nightclub, he went to the complainant and offered to call an ambulance for him. This is hard to reconcile with the accused’s later conduct. First, almost immediately afterwards, he admits that he head-butted the complainant.

Second, shortly after that, on Leduc Street, the accused did not call an ambulance after stabbing the complainant several times with a blade. He did not do so even after seeing the complainant’s blood on his blade. [ 19 ] The accused claims that, after the stabbing incident, he wanted to speak to the police. This is inconsistent with his prior and later conduct. When he left the scene, instead of going to the police, he went to his house. He sent some text messages to witness Jonathan

Larabie, asking him to point the finger at another suspect. When the Ottawa police came to his house, the accused made no statement. Having been informed that the Gatineau police were looking for him, he did not contact them. Instead, he got rid of the knife, throwing it in the trash. He was arrested only three weeks after the events, with a warrant. [ 20 ] The accused appeared to have trouble answering several questions. His story was uncertain. He often repeated the same statements, using the same words.

He tried to present himself in a gentle and peaceful light, which is inconsistent with all of his actions and conduct that evening. The accused omitted too much information for his entire story to be intelligible. As we will see throughout this judgment, his account is implausible and inconsistent in many respects. [ 21 ] Consequently, the accused’s credibility is very low. QUESTION 1: DID THE ACCUSED HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT FORCE WAS BEING USED OR THREATENED AGAINST HIM? [ 22 ] Mr.

Al-Akraa must have believed that force was being used or threatened against him, and his belief must have been based on reasonable grounds. His conduct must be acceptable to society at large. As explained by the Supreme Court in R. v. Khill : “… the accused actual belief must be held “on reasonable grounds.” Good reason supports the overlay of an objective component when assessing an accused belief under s. 34(1)(

a) and in the law of self - defence more generally. As self - defence operates to shield otherwise criminal acts from punitive consequence, the defence cannot depend exclusively on an individual accused perception of the need to act. The reference to reasonableness incorporates community norms and values in weighing the moral blameworthiness of the accused actions ( Cinous , at para. 121). It “is a quality control measure used to maintain a standard of conduct that is acceptable not to the subject, but to society at large” …. [3] [ 23 ] The accused played an important role in the incident.

He left the night club and followed the two men in possession of his jacket, as well as his wallet, keys and personal belongings. He testified that, while walking after them, he was wondering if his jacket had been taken by mistake or stolen. But instead of calling the police with the cellphone he was carrying as he followed them, he decided to walk towards the two men. According to his testimony, he walked in their direction slowly. [ 24 ] He says that he thought, “They could be having a weapon or something like that”. He testified that he was “a little afraid”.

But his testimony, apart from suggesting that a shooting had occurred somewhere at another date in a vague manner, provides no convincing indication as to why he thought these two men could have “a weapon or something like that”. Also, according to him, one of the two men was “really suspicious”. He therefore decided to take the knife out of his pocket, as he says, “in case”: “He was acting really suspicious, he was not acting normal. He, like he’s looking down, up and then he’s looking to his friend, then me, so I try not to pay attention to him, but I also remember that there’s a knife in my pocket.

So, hmm, in case , I just put the knife in my hand, just like that, to see what will happen. So, I was just like that, the knife wasn’t open. I got close to that, to the guy on my left, like a meter between me and him.” [4] [ 25 ] The accused did not explain what was suspicious about the men’s behaviour. The accused knew he had recently head-butted the complainant and was now following the two men in a dark street at night, knife in hand. According to his testimony, he took the knife out of his pocket while walking towards the two men, before he was very close to them and before he talked to them.

It is the accused’s conduct that would have appeared threatening to a reasonable observer, and not the one of the two men. [ 26 ] Was the accused really scared? In light of the images captured by the surveillance cameras in the nightclub and his own account of the head-butt he gave to the complainant, the accused does not seem scared to fight. [ 27 ] While the accused was sober, he knew that both the complainant Mr. Hadi and his friend Mr. Essaataoui were highly intoxicated. In fact, they were staggering [5] . The Court also notes that the accused is much beefier than the complainant.

And the accused was aware he had a weapon in his hand. [ 28 ] The accused’s conduct does not show that he was scared that they had a gun. If we werer to believe the Crown’s evidence, the accused arrived from around the corner and started to shout at the complainant and his friend. [6] He spoke loudly to them to get their attention. [7] [ 29 ] In addition, the accused testified that he stopped at a metre from them. He is corroborated by witness Mr.

Davidson-Willis, according to which the accused came and “got into the plaintiff like he got really close to him”. [8] This would be seen by a reasonable observer to be a threat by the accused. The Court notes that a meter from the two men is a very short distance for someone who claims to be scared. [ 30 ] Clearly, the accused already had the knife in his hand while walking towards them, as confirmed by Mr. Essaataoui, according to which the accused showed up from behind, asking for the jacket with a blade. [9] [ 31 ] We note that the accused’s explanation for carrying a knife is odd.

He claims that, the week before at the same nightclub, he had helped the doorman search customers and that this was when he collected the knife of a customer who did not come back for it afterwards. The accused allegedly kept the knife in case the client returned. This explanation raises too many questions. Why did he not give the knife back to the nightclub staff right away, so that its owner could get it back, instead of keeping it for a week and walking around with it? How did the accused manage to enter the nightclub with it? Was he not searched before entering, like everybody else?

Also, the accused is unable to provide the client’s name. He admits that he did not even try to find this client in the nightclub. In sum, the accused’s explanation for carrying a knife is not believed. [ 32 ] Were there any reasonable grounds to fear that the complainant or his friend would pull out a gun? Due to his previous physical altercation with Mr. Hadi that very evening, the accused had no reason to believe that Mr. Hadi would have a gun. Also we recall that Mr. Hadi and Mr. Essaataoui had just exited the nightclub where, according to the accused’s testimony, customers were searched before

entering. This is corroborated by the surveillance cameras, which show that all customers are searched before entering the nightclub. [ 33 ] Consequently, the Court is convinced that the belief that the complainant or his friend would pull out a gun has no rational basis. [ 34 ] The accused’s conduct when, at night on a dark street and with knife in hand, he approached the man he had just head-butted, coming as close as a metre from him, is surprising and would certainly be seen by a reasonable observer as threatening.

As explained by the Supreme Court: “Where an accused opts to stand their ground or, as in this case, advance while armed towards a perceived threat rather than de- escalating or reassessing the situation as new information becomes available, a trier of fact is entitled to account for this role when assessing the reasonableness of the accused’s ultimate act.” [10] [ 35 ] Self-defence is not meant to be an insurance policy or self-help mechanism to proactively take the law—and the lives of other citizens—into one’s hands. [11] [ 36 ] The accused claims that as soon as he asked for his jacket, one of the men rushed quickly towards him.

This is when, according to the accused, he opened the blade of the knife. His purpose was the following: “I did open it to, maybe like, scare him and pushed him away from me, something like that”. [12] According to the accused, as the complainant was shouting at him, Mr. Essaataoui was holding his left arm. He says that he was hit two or three times by the complainant. He tried to push him away with his right hand, which was holding the blade. This is how he stabbed Mr.

Hadi. [ 37 ] The Court considers that the assertion that one of the men rushed towards the accused is doubtful because the accused admits that, at that stage, he already had a knife in hand. [ 38 ] In addition, while the defense suggests that it must have been the complainant who rushed towards the accused, the accused’s version is uncertain and unclear about who rushed towards him. When asked which man it was, he spontaneously answered: the guy on his left. [13] This seems to refer to the man holding the jacket, who was Mr. Essaataoui, not the complainant Mr. Hadi.

But his counsel immediately asked another question suggesting that it was Mr. Hadi who rushed towards him, and the accused’s version seems to have changed. [ 39 ] Therefore, the Court does not believe the accused’s version according to which the complainant rushed towards the accused. [ 40 ] The accused took the stand but did not comment on the testimonies of the two independent witnesses. This is worth mentioning since, if we were to believe them, it was the accused who attacked Mr. Hadi, not the opposite [14] . Indeed, both described an aggressive discussion between the accused, Mr. Hadi and Mr.

Essaataoui, and then described a motion by the accused with his right hand towards Mr. Hadi. Witness Davidson-Willis in particular saw the onset of the incident, and he has a very clear and reliable memory of it. During his testimony, he described the accused as the third man or the one wearing a red piece of clothing.

Several times, he testified spontaneously that it was the accused who attacked the complainant, not the opposite. [15] [ 41 ] The accused testified that he opened the blade of the knife for the following purpose: “I did open it to, maybe like, scare him and pushed him away from me, something like that”. The Court notes that, according to his version, he opened the blade before being hit and before any force was actually used against him. [ 42 ] The accused’s version is unclear about what was done to him exactly. His account is inconsistent.

First, he claims that he was punched in the face a couple of times and that his jaw was pushed all the way up. But later in his testimony, it seems that there were no punches at all. He testified, “When he jumped on me, he was all over me and pushing my jaw all the way up”. [16] And later again during his testimony, he summarized the incident in vague terms: “… he actually got physical with me and we were not even having any space, like literally no space between me and him.

He was all over me and I was trying to push him away from me because I just want to leave.” [17] [ 43 ] We note that although the accused claims that he was hit, when asked how hard he was hit, he could not answer. Avoiding the question, he answered, “I was afraid”. Therefore he is not believed. [ 44 ] Also the accused’s assertion that Mr. Essaataoui was holding his left arm is not believed. Indeed, it seems unlikely that, being aware that the accused had a knife in his right hand, Mr.

Essaataoui would hold the accused left arm and take the risk of being stabbed. [ 45 ] The accused is not believed when he claims that he was scared for his life. The Court finds beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not have reasonable grounds to believe that force was used or threatened against him. Question 1 is answered in the negative. QUESTION 2: WERE THE ACCUSED’S ACTS COMMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING OR PROTECTING HIMSELF? [ 46 ] In view of the answer to the first question, it is not necessary to answer the second question.

As each of the three conditions of self-defence is cumulative, if the first one is not met, self-defence must fail. [ 47 ] The Court adds the following. The second condition of self - defence relates to the accused’s personal purpose in committing the act that constitutes the offence. As explained by the Supreme Court in R. v. Khill : “Section 34(1)(

b) requires that the act be undertaken by the accused to defend or protect themselves or others from the use or threat of force. This is a subjective inquiry which goes to the root of self - defence. If there is no defensive or protective purpose, the rationale for the defence disappears (see Brunelle v. R ., 2021 QCCA 783 , at paras. 30–33 ; R. v. Craig , 2011 ONCA 142 , 269 C.C.C. [3d] 61, at para. 35; Paciocco (2008), at p. 29). The motive provision thus ensures that the actions of the accused are not undertaken for the purpose of

vigilantism, vengeance or some other personal motivation.” [18] [ 48 ] Mr. Al-Akraa must have acted for the purpose of defending himself against the person using or threatening to use force against him. [ 49 ] At the very end of his examination in chief, counsel for the accused asked the accused if he stabbed the complainant while defending himself: “Question: And you’re defending yourself with the arm. Answer: I, I, because I was just trying, like, not to get hurt and just go home, because it was scary for me. The week before that was a shooting at the bar there.

Hmm, so, at the beginning I thought that he has a gun, then when he actually got physical with me and we were not even having any space, like literally no space between me and him. He was all over me and I was trying to push him away from me because I just want to leave. I even forget about the jacket, I just want to leave but I couldn’t. He was, he was, he was really tough to push him away.” [19] [ 50 ] This is a leading question, and the answer is not convincing. [ 51 ] The reason why he was carrying a knife is not believed. His assertion according to which he was scared is not believed.

The accused said he took out a knife “in case”. He opened the blade mainly in order to frighten the complainant. This accused’s version is vague as to what exactly the complainant did to him. He is not believed. [ 52 ] The Court also notes that the accused did not fall down. He was not bleeding. The next day, he had no black eye and no bruises. Nothing. He cannot say if he was hit hard. [ 53 ] The Court concludes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was not defending himself against the use or threat of force. He did not stab the complainant for the purpose of protecting himself from him.

QUESTION 3: WERE THE ACCUSED’S ACTS REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES? [ 54 ] It is unnecessary to answer this question since the first and second conditions have not been met. However, even if the Court believed that the accused was attacked and was defending himself, his response must have been reasonable under the circumstances. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that it was not. [ 55 ] We recall that the two men were highly intoxicated and staggering. The accused was bigger than the complainant, he was sober, and he had a knife.

He played an important role in the stabbing incident. [ 56 ] The accused used great force against the complainant. The accused’s reaction cannot be considered reasonable. On the contrary, he used lethal force that was inordinate. This conclusion is based not only on the examination of all the photographs of the complainant’s injuries filed into exhibits, but also on the medical report files under exhibit P-10 and on the complainant’s testimony. [ 57 ] The accused stabbed the complainant not once but several times. He stabbed him not only on one part but on many parts of his body.

The complainant’s body had several lacerations caused by stabbing: on the nose, on the left cheek, beside the left ear and a big cut on the left flank. When the complainant arrived at the hospital, his internal organs were exposed. He had to undergo emergency surgery. The surgery revealed that an artery and a vein had been severed by the blade of the weapon. There were three perforations in the small intestine. There was also a deep cut on the face. [ 58 ] Mr. Hadi is lucky to be alive. He testified that he is practically disabled. He cannot breathe normally. His skin tingles. His face is disfigured.

He also suffers from psychological after-effects. [ 59 ] Consequently, even if the Court believed that the accused was attacked and was defending himself against the complainant, under the circumstances, the Court is persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the accused’s response was not reasonable. It was disproportionate. The Court finds that the conduct of the accused is unacceptable to society at large. QUESTION 4: ARE THE ELEMENTS OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT DEMONSTRATED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? [ 60 ] The accused admits that he stabbed the complainant. [ 61 ] Just before the stabbing, according to Mr.

Davidson-Willis, the complainant’s behaviour showed a state of confusion, as “if he didn’t really know what was going on.” [20] According to this witness, the complainant’s conduct was not threatening. [ 62 ] According to Mr. Courchesne and Mr. Davidson-Willis, the accused attacked the complainant first. The defense argues that these two independent witnesses may have had a poor view of the scene due to distance. The Court notes that they were not very far from the incident. According to Mr. Courchesne, they saw the incident while they were about 20 feet away. According to Mr.

Davidson- Willis, they may have been about 40 feet away, referring to the distance between the judge’s bench and the courtroom door. It is possible to make reliable observations from this distance. The two independent witnesses were not far from the incident. Although it was dark, they had a clear view. Each of them, especially Mr. Davidson-Willis, testified in great detail and seems highly reliable. Even during the cross-examination carried out by an experienced lawyer, the version of witness Davidson-Willis was not shaken. [21] These two witnesses are considered reliable and credible.

They are independent and have no reason to lie. [ 63 ] The complainant denies that he ran or moved quickly towards the accused. [22] We note, however, that he has an impaired memory of the incidents. But Mr. Essaataoui’s testimony is considered reliable. He testified that, after they heard the accused saying, “my coat, my coat”, they turned around and Mr. Hadi walked towards the accused at a slow pace. [23] He did so because he wanted to

know why the accused was still after him after what had happened earlier in the night club, and why he was following them while pointing a knife. But, according to Mr. Essaataoui, Mr. Hadi made no gesture at the accused. [24] Based on his evidence, the complainant did not threat or use force against the accused. [ 64 ] There was an altercation between the accused and Mr. Hadi, in the sense that both men approached each other closely. Mr. Essaataoui said that he tried to separate them by just standing between them. [25] But he also testified that he did not see any blows. [ 65 ] Mr.

Essaataoui denies that he held the accused’s left arm. [26] This seems to be confirmed by witness Davidson-Willis. According to his evidence, the complainant’s friend was not holding the accused’s left arm. Indeed, when asked how the complainant’s friend intervened, this witness just stated that Mr.Essaataoui intervened only after the jacket was taken from him, [27] so after the stabbing. [ 66 ] On the basis of the evidence of Mr.

Essaataoui and the two independent witnesses, the Court finds that the accused was not threatened, nor hit or hold. [ 67 ] The defence argues that the assault was inflicted by the accused involuntarily. When asked by his counsel, “Was that intentional?” the accused simply answered “no”. We note that this was a leading question. [ 68 ] Clearly, the accused’s physical motions were intentional. He took out the knife deliberately. He also opened the blade on purpose. He pushed the complainant away voluntarily, while being perfectly aware he had an open blade in his hand. Serious bodily harms were very foreseeable.

Aggravated assault is not a crime requiring a specific intent. Clearly, the accused deliberately used force against the complainant, contrary to complainant’s will. By doing so, the accused seriously wounded, putting his life at great risk. [ 69 ] Consequently, on count one, all the elements of the aggravated assault are demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. QUESTION 5: ARE THE ELEMENTS OF UTTERING THREATS DEMONSTRATED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? [ 70 ] The Court notes that, on the one hand, the accused denies that he uttered a threat against Mr. Hadi and Mr.

Essaataoui, [28] while on the other hand, his lawyer argues that the accused’ threat was a reasonable response to ensure that the two men would back down, on the premise that the accused was struck. [ 71 ] The Court takes into consideration the low credibility of the accused and the fact that most of his testimony is not believed, including his version stating that he was held and hit. [ 72 ] The evidence on count 3 is established by the testimony of Austin Courchesne [29] and Matthew Davidson-Willis. [30] [ 73 ] As explained, these two independent witnesses are considered credible and reliable.

On the basis of their testimony, the Court concludes beyond reasonable doubt that the accused uttered a threat to cause death or bodily harm to the complainant Mr. Hadi and his friend Mr. Essaataoui. [ 74 ] The threat against Mr. Hadi and Mr. Essaataoui was uttered immediately after the stabbing. In these circumstances, his intention flows from the evidence. Obviously, the accused’s intention was to be taken seriously and, of course, he was taken seriously. [ 75 ] As a result, the Court concludes that all elements of the offence of uttering threats are demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSIONS [ 76 ] In relation to count 1, for the reasons mentioned above, the Court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defence is inapplicable. None of the three conditions have been met.

Besides, all elements of the offence of aggravated assault are demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. [ 77 ] In relation to count 3, the Court concludes on the basis of the testimony of Austin Courchesne and Matthey Davidson-Willis that all elements of the offence of uttering threats are demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. [ 78 ] In relation to the count of assault causing bodily harm, in light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Dubourg , [31] and on the basis of the written submissions of both parties, the Court concludes that the Kienapple rule applies.

Consequently, due to the prohibition against multiple convictions, the Court will order a conditional stay on count 2. FOR THESE REASONS On counts 1 and 3: The Court finds Mr. Al-Akraa guilty. On count 2: The Court orders a conditional stay of proceedings. __________________________________ Alexandra Marcil, J.C.Q.

Mtre Stéphany Robitaille For the Prosecutrix Me Marino Mendo For the accused Date of hearing: May 11, May 12, October 8, 2021, and January 25, 2022