Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2019 SKPC 35

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2019 SKPC 35 Date: June 10, 2019 Information: 991072358 Location: Saskatoo n _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Lee Ryan Appearing: D. Howarth For the Crown Self -Represented For the Defendant JUDGMENT B.G MORGAN , J Introduction [ 1 ] In May, 2018, Mr. Ryan went into a local medical imaging office, complaining that an x-ray they had taken of his chest area some time prior to that date was defective.

He was threatening to sue the company, and was insistent that they had to repeat the x-ray. This led to a confrontation between the business manager and Mr. Ryan, following which each party called the police. When Mr. Ryan left, the business manager locked the doors. Mr. Ryan is charged with committing mischief by willfully damaging, obstructing, interrupting or interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of that business.

Issues [ 2 ] The sole issue is whether or not Mr. Ryan is guilty. Background [ 3 ] Mr. Ryan had had a medical image done by that business some time prior to April. There was a minor issue in April, 2018 when Mr. Ryan went to that same business, and wanted copies of his results. He was advised there would be a small charge which caused him to become quite upset. He had a discussion with the same business manager that day, and was provided with the requested material free of charge. On that day the business manager noted he was “mildly aggressive, perturbed and argumentative”.

On May 15, he came back, and again asked to see the business manager. Mr. Ryan testified that the report was wrong, he was going to sue the radiologist, and that he needed more imaging done. The manager explained that he should go and see a doctor and get a requisition, which apparently was not sufficient for Mr. Ryan. According to the manager, he “got very agitated”, reached across his desk and picked up a piece of paper, on which he wrote the word “murder” in capital letters. He was then told to get out. The manager called the police as the staff and he were “concerned”, and as soon as Mr.

Ryan left, the doors to the business were locked for approximately 10 minutes until the police arrived. [ 4 ] Mr. Ryan stated that he had gone to inquire as to who was responsible for further medical work and stated that he wrote the word “murder” after the business manager insisted he needed something in writing in order to do another medical image. He says he himself called the police as he was leaving, because the manager said he was calling the police. That evidence of Mr. Ryan is confirmed by the second Crown witness, Constable Mike Graver, who was the police officer dispatched to the scene.

He had been advised by the dispatch that Mr. Ryan had phoned police to have them investigate the company’s alleged murder of him, that is, by refusing to take further medical imaging, they were contributing to his inevitable and untimely death. [ 5 ] Generally speaking, I accept the business manager’s version of events as being more credible and reliable. Certainly he was frustrated with the questioning by Mr. Ryan during the trial, but he was firm on the main points. Mr. Ryan, on the other hand, was what I would call a very focused and insistent witness.

He was convinced that the medical imaging firm had made an error (there is simply no evidence of this although it is a firm belief in Mr. Ryan’s mind), and I have no question that there was a heated discussion. [ 6 ] However, although the manager may have felt concerned, there were no threats at any time made by Mr. Ryan (I will return to the word “murder” shortly). The meeting of May 15 was approximately 5 to 10 minutes, and the manager was clear that although Mr. Ryan’s voice was raised, he “wasn’t shouting and wasn’t yelling”. He agreed in cross-examination that Mr.

Ryan’s actions did not deprive him of the use of his office, although the Crown argues that the general disruption would extend to the entire office area. I completely reject Mr. Ryan’s evidence that he wrote the word “murder” on the piece of paper because he was told by the business manager that the firm would need something in writing. Although there was no imminent threat to harm anybody, I accept the business manager’s evidence that he interpreted that word as a threat of some kind. [ 7 ] There was also much discussion about what actually occurred between the parties. Mr.

Ryan states that he explained his concerns respecting the alleged erroneous medical image, although the business manager does not recall specifics of what was said. [ 8 ] For the purposes of determining this case, I generally accept the business manager’s evidence. I also find that Mr. Ryan did in fact phone the police, made a quick return visit to the business manager’s office to inform him of that, and then promptly left the building. The doors to the business were then locked and the police came within 10 minutes. [ 9 ] This offence of course has both an actus reus and a mens rea component.

The “wilfully” part of s. 430 is defined in s. 429 and requires that Mr. Ryan knew or was reckless that his actions would probably cause “the occurrence of the event”. [ 10 ] I am not able to conclude that either the actus reus or the mens rea have been met in this case, for the following reasons.

[ 11 ] With respect to the actus reus , this would require Mr. Ryan to damage, obstruct, interrupt or interfere with the use, enjoyment, or operation of the medical imaging firm. This could of course be done in any number of ways. However, until such time as the word “murder” was written on the piece of paper taken from the manager’s desk, this was simply a customer asking for service. Mr.

Ryan was invited into the manager’s office to discuss this, he had been there before, and although he was somewhat agitated and, I have no doubt, acting unreasonably and refusing to accept the answers he was getting, this was simply a business complaint. [ 12 ] The real issue is whether or not the landscape changed when the word “murder” was written on the piece of paper. [ 13 ] The Crown’s position is that there are actually two mischiefs in this scenario. The first is the actual writing of the word and damaging the piece of paper, although Mr.

Howarth’s argument is that when you take that in context with all of the other events that occurred, the fact of the manager locking the premises to obviously prevent Mr. Ryan from returning is mischief, again in context of all that had gone on before that. As he puts it, was the response of the business manager “unreasonable” in all of these circumstances?

Specifically, the interference with property is argued to be the shutting of the doors and locking of them. [ 14 ] The defence argument is that the perception the manager may have had is on him; this was simply a misunderstanding. [ 15 ] Dealing specifically with the actus reus , as indicated, I am not satisfied it has been made out. I am satisfied the locking of the door was done by the manager because he was told by his staff that they were as concerned as he was himself. However, I have no evidence from any of the staff members, and whereas I accept Mr.

Ryan was in the reception area when he was speaking to the police, I have no evidence to contradict his evidence that he had no real interaction with them. [ 16 ] Further, I am not able to conclude that the locking of the doors constitutes an interference with property that can be attributed to Mr. Ryan. To some extent his argument makes sense; it was the manager’s decision to lock the door, and whereas it may not be an unreasonable thing to do, it wasn’t mischief caused by Mr. Ryan nor attributable to him.

Further, I have no evidence that, during the period of time that the door was locked as the firm awaited the arrival of police, anything was interfered with. I do not know if any customers were turned away, if staff were unable to return to their duties, etc. [ 17 ] In the circumstances of this case, I am not able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this was anything more than a civil matter that did not cross the line into criminal conduct. [ 18 ] Specifically with respect to the piece of paper, I find that to be de minimus and I am not prepared to convict Mr. Ryan on that.

That piece of paper itself was a statement of account, that covered approximately the first third of the paper itself. Mr. Ryan wrote “murder” in the middle portion of it, which is blank, and someone wrote directly under the word murder “2:50 p.m. May 15/18”; this was presumably done by the business manager. In any event, it would be a simple matter if one were so inclined to restore that statement of account to its original pristine condition by simply placing a blank piece a paper over that and photocopying of the invoice.

It’s not like he wrote all over that invoice and whereas his use of the word “murder” is rather novel in the circumstances (if the firm did not immediately re-do his medical image, he would die, i.e. be “murdered”), the damage was de minimis . [ 19 ] With respect to the mens rea for this offence, I am not satisfied that that either has been made out in this case. Mr. Lee certainly willfully got into an argument with the business manager; however, he then left when asked to do so, or within minutes of being asked to leave.

I do not think he was of the mind that the doors would be locked, nor do I think it can be said he was reckless of that, and as I said earlier, prior to matters escalating, with the writing of the word “murder”, this was a somewhat unusual event in an otherwise normal business day. It undoubtedly did not help matters that Mr. Ryan, who is a rather tall man to start with, was wearing rollerblades throughout this event and mirrored aviator sunglasses that he did not take off.

His unconventional attire may have caused some alarm to the people he was dealing with, but that in and of itself, and in combination with all of the other factors here, does not constitute criminal conduct. [ 20 ] I therefore find Mr. Ryan not guilty of this offence. _______________________ B.G. Morgan, J