R. v. Dhillon, 2014 ONCJ 292

Information No. 13-1031 Citation: R. v. Dhillon , 2014 ONCJ 292 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. SUKHVINDER DHILLON R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B. PUGSLEY on June 5, 2014, at ORANGEVILLE, Ontario APPEARANCES:

R. Fetterly Counsel for the Crown P. Locke Counsel for S. Dhillon R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T PUGSLEY, J. (Orally): The defendant, Sukhvinder Dhillon, faces a single count of failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a sample of his breath for analysis by an approved screening device. On September 5 th , 2013, Constable Greer of the O.P.P. Caledon Detachment, was on general patrol with his partner in the Town of Caledon, in this judicial region.

As they drove south on Airport Road, near the southern boundary of Caledon, at 8:38 p.m., they saw a motor vehicle, later found to be driven by the defendant, turning eastbound from southbound Airport Road onto Mayfield Road. The vehicle was seen to swerve and touch the shoulder as it turned. The defendant then activated his right turn signal, although there was no nearby road that the vehicle could be turned right into. The vehicle then slowed and swerved slightly left and right, as it drove eastbound on Mayfield, before turning right onto Maisonneuve Boulevard. Constable Greer and his partner stopped Mr.

Dhillon’s motor vehicle to investigate his driving. Constable Greer went to the driver’s side door. He saw that Mr. Dhillon was leaning across the vehicle and opening the glove box. He was the driver and only occupant of the vehicle. As Mr. Dhillon opened his driver’s window, Constable Greer smelled a faint odour of alcohol. He asked the defendant for his documents, and the defendant produced his ownership and insurance and a valid photo driver’s licence. Upon the officer’s inquiry, the defendant admitted to having consumed some alcohol.

Constable Greer then had grounds to suspect that the defendant had consumed alcohol and had been driving a motor vehicle, and at 11:39 p.m., Constable Greer made an approved screening device demand of Mr. Dhillon. Mr. Dhillon advised that he understood the demand and at the officer’s request, he exited his vehicle and went to the rear passenger side of the police car for testing. Constable Greer had an Alcotest 7410 GLC approved screening device which had been calibrated within the past two weeks. He plugged the device into the power supply of the O.P.P. cruiser and the device was seen to do some self-tests.

He testified that he did not believe that the device took long to warm up before it was ready to be used. Its readiness was indicated by a green light. Constable Greer testified that he explained to the defendant what was expected of him to provide a suitable sample and gave Mr. Dhillon a new mouthpiece wrapped in plastic. Mr. Dhillon removed the mouthpiece from the plastic and tested that it wasn’t blocked by blowing air through it. The defendant then inserted the mouthpiece into the grommet on the top of the approved screening device.

Constable Greer testified that he then told the defendant to give a strong, steady, constant breath sample and that he would tell him how long to blow by telling him to keep going until no more breath was needed. He also told the defendant that when he was giving a proper sample the defendant would hear a tone, and that as long as he heard the tone he was to keep going. Constable Greer and the defendant communicated in English, and Constable Greer testified that he had no issue with language when dealing with the defendant. The defendant communicated that he understood the officer’s explanation. Mr.

Dhillon had an accent but they understood each other. Mr. Dhillon had also told Constable Greer about an O.P.P. officer or officers whom he knew and that he knew the Mayor of Caledon, too. These were unsolicited statements by the defendant to the officer.

After the defendant inserted the mouthpiece into the grommet on the device, Constable Greer made sure that the mouthpiece was properly seated, told the defendant to take a deep breath and to provide a sample. The approved screening device screen then displayed an E0 error code. PC Greer understood that this meant that either the defendant was not blowing hard enough into the device or had stopped blowing altogether.

Constable Greer had observed this first attempted sample and on this occasion and all subsequent tries, he saw the defendant take a deep breath and then, before putting his mouth on the mouthpiece, exhaling almost all of his breath. The actual time that the defendant blew into the device was very brief. Constable Greer told the defendant that he was not giving a proper sample and that refusing to provide a suitable sample had the same potential penalty as blowing over the legal limit.

As the defendant was giving this first sample, Constable Greer stated that he coached the defendant, telling the defendant to keep going, but instead, the defendant blew for a very short time and then stopped, and the tone from the device stopped. Constable Greer told the defendant that he had to put all of his air into the device. The defendant again took a deep breath and again blew most of his air out, before starting the sample and again, the result was an unusable sample. On this occasion as well, the officer coached the defendant to keep blowing.

Again, an E0 result happened before Constable Greer told the defendant to stop blowing. Constable Greer again told the defendant what he had to do: To make sure that his tongue was not near the opening of the mouthpiece, that he only touch the mouthpiece with his lips and that he not bite the mouthpiece with his teeth. On the third attempt, Mr. Dhillon was seen to take a deep breath, again exhale, and what breath he had left was then put into the device. Mr. Dhillon stopped blowing while being coached to keep going. The tone stopped and the device again read E0.

Before the fourth attempt, Constable Greer again cautioned the defendant about not providing a proper sample and the defendant stated that he understood. The defendant did not change his method of blowing into the device, and again there was an E0 reading. Before the fifth attempt, Constable Greer cautioned the defendant that if he did not provide a proper sample this time, he would be charged. Mr. Dhillon did not change the method he blew into the device and a fifth error code of E0 was the result. Once again, the defendant stopped blowing before being told to do so.

At about 11:43 p.m., Constable Greer arrested the defendant for failing or refusing to provide a proper breath sample. Mr. Dhillon was processed and released from the scene. His home was nearby and he declined the offer of a ride home. In cross-examination, Constable Greer conceded that he did not note parts of his dealings with the defendant in his notebook, and supplemented his notes with his independent recollection and his usual practice in such cases.

For example, he did not note that the defendant removed the mouthpiece from the plastic wrapper, that he blew air through the mouthpiece, nor that the defendant inserted the mouthpiece into the grommet on the approved screening device. He also did not note that he himself made sure that the mouthpiece was properly seated, testifying that he does this routinely in every case. Constable Greer also did not make note of what he said to the defendant when explaining what to do to provide a sample, nor the defendant’s responses to his explanation.

The officer did not make a note that the defendant exhaled most of his air before providing a small sample, but testified that recalled that this is what the defendant did on each occasion. He noted that the defendant did not blow enough air. It was neither long enough nor hard enough and hence, resulted in the error code E0. Constable Greer agreed that he never told the defendant to inhale modestly and exhale modestly. He told him to take a deep breath.

Constable Greer agreed that he would make notes of each attempt and each explanation in the future. Constable Greer did not demonstrate to the defendant how to blow into the device with a self-test. He testified that sometimes he does so and sometimes he does not do so. On this occasion he did not do so. Defence counsel read some parts of the Owner’s Manual for the approved screening device to the officer. The officer is trained to tell test subjects to take a deep breath and to blow for a minimum of four seconds. Constable Greer held the device while the defendant gave his attempted samples.

All the defendant had to do was lean forward and place his lips on the mouthpiece to provide a proper sample. On each occasion the officer could hear the defendant exhale before he put his mouth on the mouthpiece. The officer knows that there is an exhaust hole on the device, but did not recall where it was, nor did he know if his hands blocked the vent as he held the device near its base. Constable Greer did not know if he had to push a button to reset the device after an E0 reading or whether the device reset itself. He knew that he had to wait for a green light before doing the next attempted test.

Constable Greer produced the mouthpiece that the defendant used on the night in question. He denied that the defendant told him that the defendant was trying his best. The defendant said he would cooperate and provide a breath sample, but not that he was trying his best. The defendant blew for a brief period on each test. The tone sounded and then the defendant stopped and so did the tone. The second Crown witness was Constable Readman. Just before 11:51 p.m., on the date of the alleged offence, this officer and his partner attended at the location of Constable Greer’s vehicle stop.

Constable Greer’s police vehicle had no rear seat cage and so Constable Readman came in his cruiser to securely lodge and, if necessary, transport the defendant after arrest. Mr. Dhillon was placed in the rear of Constable Readman’s cruiser. He was seen to be jovial and giggling. When the defendant was in Constable Readman’s car there was a strong odour of alcohol within the cruiser. He, too, was cross-examined as to his familiarity with the approved screening device. Constable Dudzinski was Constable Greer’s partner on the night in question. It was Dudzinski’s cruiser and he had an approved instrument with him.

At 11:36 p.m., he saw the defendant’s motor vehicle make a wide turn onto eastbound Mayfield and to veer slightly. The vehicle then weaved slightly within its lane, causing both officers to comment about how the vehicle was being driven. They stopped the defendant to investigate whether he was possibly impaired by alcohol. Constable Greer spoke to the defendant while Constable Dudzinski observed. The defendant admitted to having consumed beer.

When Constable Greer took out his approved screening device demand card, Constable Dudzinski returned to the cruiser to warm up the approved screening device so it would be ready. Constable Greer brought the defendant back to the cruiser. He took a mouthpiece, popped the tip of it out of the plastic wrapper for the defendant to take, and explained to the defendant how to give a proper sample. Constable Greer held the device and PC Dudzinski stood by and watched. He testified that the defendant had trouble at first, extracting the mouthpiece from the plastic wrapper.

The defendant blew through the mouthpiece and showed that the mouthpiece had no obstructions. The defendant then inserted the mouthpiece into the device. Constable Greer told the defendant to give a long, deep breath directly into the instrument while Constable Greer held it. The defendant provided a small puff of air into the device and then stopped and the tone stopped. Constable Dudzinski saw Constable Greer pull the device back and again tell the defendant how to give a proper sample. He told Mr. Dhillon to take a long, deep breath and to blow long and continuously until Constable Greer told him to stop.

Again, the defendant started to blow into the device and then stopped. The tone stopped and so no air was, therefore, going into the device. Constable Greer again told the defendant how to provide a proper sample. Before the fifth attempt, Constable Greer warned the defendant about the consequences of failing or refusing to give a proper sample. Constable Dudzinski saw no apparent issue with language. He observed that the defendant appeared to want to cooperate. The defendant was in a good mood and said it was his first experience and that he knew the Mayor and Reeve of Caledon.

In his view, the defendant appeared to be trying to comply with the demand.

On the fifth attempt the defendant again gave a small puff of air and immediately stopped. Constable Greer arrested the defendant for refuse breath sample. Constable Dudzinski was asked about his experience with the approved screening device. He agreed that the device has a vent and that you have to be careful not to cover the vent or typically an E0 error code would come up. PC Greer told the defendant to blow hard until PC Greer told him to stop. Each sample the defendant provided was a very brief blowing of air into the device and then the defendant would stop and the tone was heard to start and then stop.

Constable Dudzinski thought that perhaps the defendant was blocking the mouthpiece with his tongue. He did not mention this to the defendant. After the fourth failed attempt, Constable Greer told the defendant that he had one last chance. Mr. Ismail Moftah gave evidence for the defendant as an expert witness in the working of the approved screening device. He noted that the instruction manual indicated that after several failed attempts, a demonstration of the device should take place.

He also described how a deep breath and hard exhalation runs the risk that the breath sample will be under four seconds, and that if the exhaust vent at the bottom of the device was blocked, an E0 result would be displayed. He also described what would happen if the vent hole was partly blocked or if there was debris from the grommet blocking an inlet hole. In cross-examination, Mr. Moftah agreed that if an officer held the device, such that he could see the screen on the device, the vent would be below.

Further, if the vent was blocked, there would be an almost immediate E0 code because there would be an immediate deficient sample. No air would go in and no displayed reading would result. He agreed that it was a good idea to make sure the mouthpiece was properly seated in the grommet so that no air escaped through the side. There was no further evidence for the defence and no reply. The defendant submitted first that Constable Greer’s notes were scanty and blended specifics and generic aspects.

The defendant noted that Constable Greer and Constable Dudzinski both described how the defendant blew into the device in different ways. The arresting officer said the defendant exhaled then gave a small sample. Dudzinski said that the defendant provided a small puff. Neither officer told the defendant what he was doing wrong such that he could correct it. Further, the device was not given a self-test and the police did not demonstrate to the defendant how to give a proper sample when he repeatedly failed to so.

The defendant submitted that perhaps Constable Greer had blocked the exhaust vent and that had led to the error code. The defendant further submitted that the entire test procedure was rushed and unfair, that there was no reason why the defendant couldn’t have been given further tries at the test. They noted that Constable Dudzinski’s observation was that the defendant was apparently trying to provide a proper sample and was outwardly cooperative. The defendant submitted that perhaps the defendant was nervous or upset.

The defendant also submitted that while the officer stated that he smelled alcohol, he did not identify that it was on the defendant’s breath and didn’t state that he formed a suspicion of any kind. In other words, it was submitted that there was no evidence of any objective basis to make the ASD demand at all. The defendant, in

summary, submits that I should have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. The Crown submits that the officer’s attention was drawn to Mr. Dhillon’s vehicle due to the defendant’s inaccurate driving. They stopped him, as they are allowed to, to investigate his sobriety. Constable Greer testified that he smelled a faint odour of alcohol from the vehicle and asked the defendant if he had consumed alcohol. Mr. Dhillon admitted to alcohol consumption and this was sufficient, it is submitted, in totality to allow for the ASD demand.

The Crown submitted that all of the officers were able to communicate properly with the defendant and that both Constable Greer and Constable Dudzinski described the defendant’s failure to provide a proper breath sample based upon their individual perspective and any differences were inconsequential.

There was no evidence of any blocked vent. The defendant was told to blow multiple times, told how to blow, made five attempts and at no time provided a proper sample of his breath. Further, the Crown noted Mr. Moftah’s evidence was that if the vent was blocked there would be an almost instant E0 code. The Crown submits that the evidence here shows a short sample with the tone before the E0 code was displayed. The Crown submits that the charge is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The first issue that I will address is the question as to whether the arresting officer had a suspicion that the defendant had operated a motor vehicle with alcohol in his body, such that he could make the breath demand. In my view, the officer had grounds objectively and subjectively to make the approved screening device demand. Both officers had seen Mr. Dhillon’s vehicle being driven inaccurately late at night, to the point where they both commented on it.

Among their observations was that the turn was wide, the vehicle weaved slightly within its lane, the defendant activated his turn signal long before there was any road to turn into, he drove slowly and pulled over slowly when he was stopped. The officers properly stopped the defendant’s vehicle to investigate his possible impairment. Constable Greer noted a faint odour of alcohol when Mr. Dhillon put his window down. He asked the defendant if he had consumed any alcohol and the defendant admitted to having consumed a couple of beers. He was the only person in the car. He had been driving the car seconds before.

Constable Greer stated in his evidence that he had grounds to suspect that the defendant had consumed alcohol and he made the ASD demand. Constable Dudzinski also heard the admission of alcohol consumption. There is certainly sufficient evidence to support Constable Greer’s ASD demand. Further, unlike the defence submission, there were signs of possible impairment by alcohol here, not that this is required.

The inaccurate driving, the strong odour of alcohol observed by Constable Readman while the defendant was in the rear of his police car, the fact that there was no alcohol found in the defendant’s car and the defendant’s carefree and giggling attitude, could all be signs of the defendant’s alcohol consumption. I do not give effect to this defence submission. The key issue here is whether the acts of the defendant represent criminal conduct sufficient to amount to a breach of the charging section. A very recent decision of Justice Durno, sitting as a

summary conviction appeal judge in the Superior Court, sets out a detailed review of the law with regard to refusing an Intoxilyzer breath sample. I found this case to be of great help here. In Regina v. Grant , 2014 ONSC 1479 , a decision released on March 11 th of this year, Justice Durno examined commonly occurring aspects of alleged breath sample refusals where there was an apparent, but unsuccessful attempt to provide a breath sample by the test subject. In that case, the context of those attempts were that they were made at the station, on video, and into approved instrument.

In my view, His Honour’s decision is worth quoting at length. At paragraphs 81 and 82, Justice Durno states the following: “What is required in each case is a fact-specific analysis to determine whether the elements of the offence have been established beyond a reasonable doubt by the Crown. Those elements are:

i) a valid demand, ii) the failure or refusal of the detainee to provide a suitable breath sample, and iii) that the detainee intended to refuse to provide a suitable breath sample.” Continuing in paragraph 82: “The determination of whether the last element above, the mens rea component, is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt will require a case-specific analysis of all the circumstances, including the following:

i) the words and actions of the detainee from which the officer concluded he or she intended to refuse to provide a suitable sample; ii) the number of opportunities the officer provided to the detainee; iii) the instructions provided to the detainee by the officer including any reference to the applicable law, how to provide the sample, and whether the detainee was told they were being given one last chance to provide the breath sample; iv) the detainee’s state of intoxication and attitude;

v) the availability of the technician and Intoxilyzer; and vi) where the detainee has been told that he or she has refused to provide a suitable sample and will be charged, and indicates [that] they want another opportunity, the time between being told of the charge and the offer, the number of opportunities to provide a breath sample and previous “last chance” offers, and the manner in which the offer is made.

These criteria will assist in determining whether the request was bona fide .” In Grant , the defendant was given numerous attempts to provide a proper sample and on each occasion only blew for a second or two and then stopped without being told to do so. In the instant case, Mr. Dhillon’s breath tests were not video recorded.

I pause for a second to ponder how long it will be, given the state of what we call modern technology, that courts will still be required to parce officers and other witnesses’ verbal descriptions of what they saw happen, whether it was a weave or a drift and how far over the centre line, what they wrote down versus what they recall and so on, when solid state digital cameras and recording devices are now ubiquitous and generally used in other jurisdictions. Breath room videos have long been recognized as being valuable to the Crown, to the defence and to the courts.

How long do we need to wait until roadside interactions are also similarly recorded in Ontario? Here the officers both testified that the defendant displayed no language difficulty at all. There is no other evidence on this point, so I conclude that this evidence is an accurate statement of the officers’ perception here. Accordingly, the defendant’s understanding of what he had to do to provide a proper sample will parallel the officers’ evidence of what they said to explain that process.

Both officers testified that they explained to the defendant what the defendant had to do and how he was to accomplish that task. These instructions were not complicated: Take a deep breath and blow into the mouthpiece. Whether the defendant failed to follow this advice because he exhaled air and then blew only a little into the device as Greer testified, or because the defendant gave short puffs of air or short samples of air, as Dudzinski described, this is a subtle and ultimately irrelevant difference.

At no time did the defendant do what he was told to do to give a proper sample: “Take a deep breath and blow into the mouthpiece until I say stop.” In each attempt he started and stopped, while still being coached by the officer to keep going. Mr. Moftah’s evidence about the manual advising that a moderate breath be taken and a moderate exhale be made, is not relevant. First, Mr. Moftah did not testify that the procedure used here, which he had heard during the evidence, was incorrect and would not result in a proper sample.

Rather, he stated that if an accused blew out too fast they might not be able to sustain the four second sample the instrument needed for analysis. Here there is no evidence of such too fast blowing. Further, the officer testified that this is what he is trained to do to communicate to a test subject how he or she ought to blow into the device. The O.P.P. may be presumed to instruct its officers on how to properly communicate to test subjects how to provide samples collected by the thousand every year by this police force. Further still, the manual makes recommendations that do not amount to legal requirements.

In a similar category is the recommendation that the police demonstrate the device to the test subject. This may be, and probably is a good tactic to use if an officer believes that a defendant simply does not understand what he or she is to do. It is not, however, a legal requirement. Rather, it is part of the entirety of evidence that a court must consider. Finally, with regard to Mr. Moftah’s evidence as to the potential blockage of the exhaust vent in the device, his evidence was that if this vent was blocked, an E0 error code would take place virtually instantly.

This does not parallel what both officers described as happening on each of the five chances Mr. Dhillon had to give a proper sample. Plainly put, Mr. Dhillon had five chances to give a proper sample and at no time came close to doing so. While other officers may have taken more samples, made a demonstration and approached the defendant’s failed attempts in a different fashion, the procedures used here were proper and more than adequate, given that Mr. Dhillon never at any time followed even the clearest of instructions properly.

Mr. Dhillon was told to take a deep breath and blow into the mouthpiece until he was told to stop. He was coached by Officer Greer on each attempt but stopped in any case. Each attempt started a tone, but the tone and the defendant stopped without the officer telling them to do so. The defendant was warned about the consequences of a failure to provide a proper sample. The defendant was given a final warning before the last try. He seemed to Constable Dudzinski to be trying to give a sample. I conclude otherwise on the evidence here. Mr.

Dhillon was carefree and unconcerned about the need to provide a proper sample and the consequences of a failure to provide such a proper sample, and even after he was charged remained carefree and giggling. To summarize the facts as I have found them in the context of Justice Durno’s helpful structure from Grant , there was a valid ASD demand, the defendant failed five times to provide a suitable breath sample and the defendant intended to refuse to provide a suitable breath sample. With regard to that intent, there was no overt refusal to provide a breath sample here. The defendant failed to do so, however. Mr.

Dhillon was given five attempts. The fact that these attempts took place quickly, one after the other, is not of significant moment here, although other officers may have been slower in their test procedure than Greer was. Here essentially, the defendant was asked to provide samples when the device was ready. I accept the evidence that the procedure was explained to Mr. Dhillon before and during the test process. I accept the officer’s evidence as to what took place here. Not every aspect of an investigation needs to be the subject of detailed or any notes in the officer’s notebook.

A lack of notes cannot be equated as being equivalent to the event not happening. The lack of notes is an aspect to be considered when assessing the credibility and reliability of the officer’s evidence. Here on the total evidence before me, I accept the officer’s evidence as being accurate on the essential elements of this refusal. Mr. Dhillon was warned at least twice of the consequences of not providing a proper sample. He was also warned that he had one last chance to give such a sample. Each of his failed samples were identical and non-responsive to the officer’s direction. Mr. Dhillon had been drinking.

There is no evidence, however, that he was so impaired by alcohol that he could not understand the task presented to him. His attitude as already described was carefree. The device and operator were on hand. The device was a properly calibrated approved screening device. There is no evidence that the officer did not operate that device properly in this case. And finally, there was no offer by Mr. Dhillon to give a proper sample at any time after his arrest.

In the event after five attempts and after not at any time following the officer’s direction on how to provide a proper sample, the defendant was charged with the offence before the court. On the whole of the evidence before me, I conclude that the defendant’s said failure was intentional. The Crown has proven each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant must, therefore, be convicted of this charge. Is the Crown alleging a record? MR. FETTERLY: No, we’re not, Your Honour. There is a clean criminal record and a, a negligible HTA record.

THE COURT: The Crown position on sentence then, please. MR. FETTERLY: It should be dealt with by way of a fine in the usual range, followed by usual range of prohibition. THE COURT: The Crown takes no position on the remaining Interlock availability? MR. FETTERLY: I’m gonna leave that to the Court.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms Locke? MS LOCKE: Yes, Your Honour. I’m advised that Mr. Dhillon is 59 years old. I’m advised that he has his own trucking company. This finding and subsequent conviction’ll obviously have an impact upon his business. What I would recommend is a fine, perhaps in the range of $1200, with, I recommend 60 days to pay. Is that appropriate, sir?

And in terms of the Interlock eligibility, given the Court’s ruling and given the lack of antecedence, I can’t see that there is anything which would take him out of a Stream B recommendation, or the Court could remain silent, but I don’t recommend that he be marked ineligible for any kind of streaming. THE COURT: The Crown is not seeking that... MS LOCKE: Yes. THE COURT: ...and I won’t... MS LOCKE: Yes. THE COURT: ...comment negatively on that option. MS LOCKE: Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Dhillon, will you stand up, please? Is there anything you’d like to say to me before sentencing?

You don’t have to, but now’s your chance if you wish to do so. MS LOCKE: I think he indicated no, thank you. INTERPRETER: No. THE COURT: Thank you. The Crown and the defence agree that this is a matter that can be dealt with by way of a fine. I accept that joint recommendation and I agree with Ms Locke that the fine should be $1200. There is an associated victim fine surcharge and 60 days to pay the fine and the surcharge.

In addition, you are prohibited from operating a motor vehicle anywhere in Canada for one year, although if you apply to the Interlock program and are accepted into that program, you’ll be able to drive under certain conditions before that year is up. Does the defendant have a driver’s licence in his possession? If so, please surrender it, Ms Locke. MS LOCKE: It’s being surrendered, Your Honour. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. There will be some paperwork for your client to sign in the main court office upstairs. It will take a few minutes to type that paperwork up.

I would ask Madam Interpreter to remain so that she can interpret the paperwork to you, sir. Thank you. MS LOCKE: Thank you, sir. THE COURT: Thanks, Ms Locke. WHEREUPON THIS MATTER CONCLUDES ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ​ENTERED ON PAGE Reasons for Judgment 1

Transcript Ordered: June 5, 2014 Transcript Completed: June 12, 2014 Ordering Party Notified: June 12, 2014