Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2021 SKPC 2

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2021 SKPC 2 Date: January 14, 2021 Information: 90202587 Location: Regina _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - James Robert Langford Appearing: Mr. David Belanger For the Crown Self- Represented For the Accused JUDGMENT D. KOVATCH , J BACKGROUND [ 1 ] The accused, James Robert Langford, faces five charges from an incident which occurred on June 16, 2019 at Pilot Butte, Saskatchewan. He is charged with committing an assault on John Rist with a baseball bat contrary to

section 267 (

a) of the Criminal Code [ Code ]. He is also charged with committing assaults on John Rist, Wayne Dixon and Jordan Andrusiak , with a weapon, a 2003 Kia Sorento, contrary to

section 267 (

a) of the Code , and with dangerous driving, contrary to

section 320.13(1) of the Code . The evidence is overwhelming and Mr. Langford essentially admitted that he committed the various acts described in the charges. He argues that at the time, he was very fearful for his personal safety and that his actions were all taken in self defence.

THE EVIDENCE [ 2 ] The first witness was Cst. Michael Lien. He is with the White Butte Detachment of the RCMP. In the early morning of hours of June 16, 2019, he was dispatched to 723 Aspen Crescent in Pilot Butte regarding a possible assault. This was the home of the complainant, John Rist. The officer took statements from various individuals. Witnesses advised that Mr. Rist had been assaulted with a baseball bat. They had the bat. Cst. Lien seized the 34 inch aluminum softball bat, which was marked as Exhibit P-1 in the trial. [ 3 ] The officer later arranged to take a number of pictures of the complainant, Mr.

Rist. Nineteen of these photographs were assembled in a photobook that was entered as Exhibit P-2. The photos clearly show a number of injuries on the complainant, John Rist. One photo depicts a scraping or abrasion type of injury to the complainant’s lower back. There is a photo of a large red mark on the victim’s back left shoulder. That red mark certainly appears as if it could have been made by a baseball bat. There are photos of welts and a bump on the victim’s head. There is bruising to his left ankle.

There is a scrape on one of his shoulders. [ 4 ] The officer testified that in the days following this incident, Mr. Rist advised that he had obtained surveillance video from a neighbour. This surveillance video had been downloaded to a thumb drive. Mr. Rist delivered this thumb drive to the officer. The officer made copies of the surveillance video for disclosure and for filing with the Court. The surveillance video was entered as Exhibit P-3. [ 5 ] The officer testified that he attempted to locate the accused, Mr. Langford. At first, he was not able to locate him.

The officer asked contacts of the accused to advise the accused that the officer wished to speak with him. On July 30, 2019, more than a month after the incident, Mr. Langford came to the White Butte Detachment of the RCMP, and spoke with the officer. Cst. Lien advised that on July 30, when he spoke to Mr. Langford, that Mr. Langford clearly had an injured jaw. His jaw was wired together. [ 6 ] The officer further stated that he was advised that the accused had been working in Ontario, and was to return to work there. As a result, Mr.

Langford was arrested on these charges and immediately released on a promise to appear. [ 7 ] The next witness was the complainant John Rist. He testified that he and his fiancé Skylar Verbeurgt live at 723 Aspen Crescent in Pilot Butte. He advised that he had never met the accused before that night. He was able to identify the accused in court. [ 8 ] He testified that earlier the day before, Pilot Butte had its rodeo and cabaret. He and Ms. Verbeurgt had three friends staying with them that night in Pilot Butte. They and a larger number of their friends all attended the cabaret.

Arrangements were made for a number of their friends to come to their home following the conclusion of the cabaret. He believed that they and their friends got back to his home between 2:00 and 2:30 a.m. He said that he had been drinking throughout the night, and was slightly, but not greatly intoxicated. On a scale of 1 to 10 he placed himself at 5. [ 9 ] Mr. Rist said he never saw the accused at the cabaret, and had definitely not invited the accused to his home. At about 3:45 a.m., all of their friends left the home, except for the three who were staying the night. His fiancé went to bed.

He said he turned the lights off. At this time the front door opened and a dog ran into the house. Two individuals stepped through the front door into the house. He did not know them. Mr. Rist said he asked, “What are you guys doing here?” The accused said he was there for the party. Mr. Rist replied there is no party here, and get out of my house. He said he was surprised and shocked by their entrance. [ 10 ] Mr. Rist said they were probably in the house for about two to three minutes. During this time, he argued with them and he tried to get them to leave.

He agreed that he probably pushed the accused once or twice, trying to get him to leave. One was in the front porchway, right by the front door. The accused did leave through the front door, and Mr. Rist closed the door behind them. Mr. Rist continued to watch the accused through the window. Mr. Rist testified that his fiancé had a big flower pot right near the front door. At this time, the accused picked up the flower pot and took a couple of steps toward his vehicle which was parked in the driveway. This immediately brought Mr. Rist out the front door. Mr.

Rist asked what the accused was going to do with the flower pot, and told him to put it back. The accused did put the flower pot back, and then walked toward his vehicle. Mr. Rist followed him, and was becoming angry. Three or four more times, he told the accused to leave. At this time, the accused opened the driver’s side back door of his vehicle, and reached into the vehicle. He pulled out a baseball bat, turned around and then struck Mr. Rist three times with the bat. Mr. Rist said the first blow was to the head, behind the left ear. It was a full swing of the bat.

He fell to the ground and was struck two more times by the baseball bat.

[ 11 ] Mr. Rist testified that at this time, his cousin (who was staying the night at his home) came out of the house and tackled the accused. The cousin took the bat from the accused. He said the accused went back to his vehicle, and got out another bat. They continued to argue, and Skylar came out. [ 12 ] Mr. Rist testified that then “he lost it”. He said he punched the accused in the face two or three times. He said he was protecting his wife and property. A short while later, some neighbours came by to help. [ 13 ] The accused and his friend got into their vehicle.

The accused then backed up a few feet, put the vehicle in drive, and drove forward very quickly into the crowd of people. Mr. Rist testified that he was struck by the vehicle, came over the front hood and hit the windshield of the vehicle. Two other individuals were struck by the vehicle. The vehicle then quickly backed up off the driveway onto the street and quickly drove away. [ 14 ] Mr. Rist testified that he was taken by ambulance to hospital that night, and later released. He described his injuries. He received a number of bruises from being struck with the bat and struck by the vehicle.

He received abrasions or scraping type injuries from hitting the ground, after being hit by the vehicle. He said he was on pain killers for some time. He continues to have some slurred speech and difficulty remembering. [ 15 ] Mr. Rist testified that the next day he recalled that a neighbour had a video surveillance camera which pointed across the bay to his property. He approached the neighbour, and was given a thumb drive of the video for that night, which was provided to Cst. Lien and played in Court. There is a clear view of Mr. Rist’s home and the time is shown in the corner of the screen. Mr.

Rist identified the various vehicles that were parked about the property. At 3:02 a.m., the accused’s vehicle was driven into the driveway, and parked behind Skylar’s vehicle. The Court was advised that nobody left that vehicle until 3:58 a.m. During this almost one hour period, Mr. Rist did not know the vehicle was parked in his driveway. At 3:58, one can see the accused, another individual and the dog get out of the vehicle. They approached the front door. At 3:59, there is a voice but what was said was inaudible. At 4:01:08, somebody came out the front door. That individual picked up the flower pot.

One can hear Mr. Rist yelling “put that down”. The accused put the pot down right near the front of his vehicle. Mr. Rist came out of the house, and hollered at the accused three or four times, telling him: “Get the fuck out of here.” [ 16 ] At 4:02:08, Mr. Rist pushed the accused. The accused then turned his back to Mr. Rist, and opened the back driver’s side door. He bent down and reached into his vehicle. He emerged from his vehicle with a baseball bat and immediately struck Mr. Rist on the head with the bat.

One can hear the accused holler “Do you want to go again.” At 4:02:34 there was a second strike with the bat. At 4:02:38 there was a third strike with the bat. At 4:03, Mr. Rist’s cousin came out of the house, and tackled the accused. They struggled and the cousin took the bat. At 4:03:25, the accused went back into his vehicle and retrieved another bat. He then told Mr. Rist to “Get the fuck into his house.” At 4:04, Skylar came out of the house. Everyone was yelling. At that time, Mr. Rist grabbed the accused and punched him.

I immediately made a note that: “Now the witness is clearly the aggressor.” [ 17 ] For the next approximately five minutes, there was a prolonged argument or melee on the street in front of Mr. Rist’s house. Others come to join in the incident. I made a note that at least seven people were involved in the yelling and commotion in front of the house. During this time, it was apparent that Mr. Rist was very angry. One can hear him say: “I’ll fucking kill you”. Once can hear him say several times: “You hit me with the bat.” One can also hear the accused say you go in your house and I will leave. Mr.

Rist refused, and told him to get out of there. [ 18 ] At 4:10, the accused, his friend and a dog finally got into the accused’s vehicle. However, the accused did not immediately start it. He sat there for a few seconds. At 4:10:49, he finally started the vehicle, and one can see the running lights come on. However, for a number of seconds then, the accused made no attempt to put the vehicle in gear or start it moving. He sat there. At 4:11:26, others approached the vehicle, and began striking the vehicle. At 4:12:05, the accused backed up quickly, perhaps 15 to 20 feet.

He then put the vehicle in drive, and drove quickly back into the driveway into the crowd. It is clear that some people were struck. He then backed up onto the street and quickly drove away. [ 19 ] The accused cross-examined Mr. Rist. He suggested that Mr. Rist let him into the house. Mr. Rist denied that, and said he was sure the accused let himself into the house. The accused suggested to Mr. Rist that Mr. Rist had become very aggressive, and should not have been so aggressive. Mr. Rist said he was “protecting his stuff”. The accused suggested that Mr.

Rist put his hands on the accused two or three times, and assaulted the accused. Mr. Rist said he was protecting his stuff. The accused asked why he did not just go into his house, and again Rist said he was protecting his property.

[ 20 ] The accused suggested that Skylar was not in danger, and Mr. Rist had committed an unprovoked assault, by striking the accused and breaking his jaw. Mr. Rist said that the accused struck him, and he was not waiting or taking any chances that the accused would again use the bat. [ 21 ] The accused pointed out to Mr. Rist that on a number of occasions he asked Mr. Rist to go back into his house. The accused said he would then leave. [ 22 ] The accused asked why Mr. Rist and others began pounding on the truck. Mr. Rist said it was because the accused was not leaving.

Further, that he was trying to get the accused to leave. [ 23 ] The next witness was Skylar Verbeurgt. She testified that she is the common law spouse of John Rist. On June 15, they planned to have friends over after the cabaret. She saw the accused, Mr. Langford at the cabaret. She had met him when she was in high school, but they were not close. She invited him to their home after the cabaret. [ 24 ] She stated that she and John left the cabaret at approximately 1:30 a.m. Approximately 15 people came to their home. Everyone left. She was upstairs and John and Austin were downstairs.

Austin called her and told her to get down there, as John got beat up with a bat. She went outside and found John and the accused yelling at each other. She intervened and was asking the accused why he hit John with the bat. The accused was standing there with a bat in his hand. John then “let loose” and pushed and punched the accused in the face. She said that, “John beat him up”. The accused then got into his truck, backed up and drove forward running over people. John was on the ground. One individual had his foot run over.

Three were hurt. [ 25 ] She stated that she did not want the accused at her house at 3:30 a.m. Further, that she asked him to leave a number of times. He did not leave. [ 26 ] She agreed that she had been drinking and was slightly intoxicated. Immediately after the accused drove away, the ambulance was called, and police and the ambulance attended. [ 27 ] Under cross-examination by the accused, she agreed that she invited the accused to her home. She also agreed that she had never seen Mr. Rist in an altercation or acting that way. She was trying to calm him down, but it did not work.

She advised that she was not sure how much John drank. She also agreed that she had no idea how many times, he threatened to kill the accused after breaking his jaw. She stated that the accused had many opportunities to leave, but did not leave. [ 28 ] Wayne Dixon testified that he is a neighbour of John Rist’s, living just down the street. His daughter and her friends were at Mr. Rist’s party that night. His daughter and her boyfriend, Jordan Andrusiak, came to his home. Mr. Dixon went outside for a smoke, and then heard a bunch of yelling. He, his son, and Jordan walked towards Mr.

Rist’s home, and were in the driveway near the accused’s vehicle. The vehicle began to back up. He heard a girl yell, noticed the vehicle approaching and put his arms out. He was struck by the vehicle, went on to the hood and then fell backwards and hit his head. He stated that his right arm was swollen and bruised. He had x-rays. His arms are still sore. The Crown’s case was closed. [ 29 ] The first witness called by the accused was Mr. Landon Parisian. He testified that they were at the cabaret, and while there were invited to a party. Later, they drove to the address for the party, and parked in the driveway.

They sat in the driveway talking for quite some time. People were leaving. Mr. Langford suggested they should go in and say “hi”. They knocked on the door a couple of times and were let in. Mr. Rist asked who they were, and said there was no party there. The dog ran down the hallway, and the accused walked after the dog to get it. Mr. Rist then became aggressive, telling them to get out and pushed Mr. Langford. [ 30 ] Outside, Mr. Langford picked up the pot. Mr. Rist came out and told him to put the pot down. Mr. Parisian testified that John Rist was confronting Mr. Langford and at this time another guy came out.

The two of them were then confronting Mr. Langford. He then heard something hit something. Someone pushed Mr. Langford out to the street, and then “the girls came out.” The accused was fighting with someone. Mr. Parisian said he heard Mr. Langford’s teeth “clicking”. “Mr. Lanford’s teeth were bouncing around.” Eventually Mr. Langford got into the vehicle. Mr. Parisian said he saw others coming and approaching the truck. People began hitting the truck and Mr. Langford “got the hell out of there.” [ 31 ] Mr. Parisian said that while in the house, Mr. Langford did nothing to provoke Mr. Rist. Mr.

Rist was the first to raise his

voice in the house. At the front door, Mr. Rist pushed Mr. Langford. Mr. Parisian said at the end he was scared, by the mob mentality, and that Mr. Rist was very loud and threatening. [ 32 ] Under cross-examination, Mr. Parisian said he was 95% certain that Mr. Langford knocked on the door, and Mr. Rist opened the door. Mr. Parisian agreed he saw Mr. Langford pick up the flower pot. He also agreed: “This was a little off.” He said that he and Mr. Langford had been drinking alcohol throughout the day. He did not believe either of them were intoxicated. He agreed that before leaving, Mr.

Langford drove forward into the crowd and some people were hit. [ 33 ] Mr. Langford testified. He said that at around 1:30 a.m., he met Skylar at the cabaret. She told him to stop by their place, and put the address in his phone. He and Mr. Parisian got there and parked in the driveway. They talked in the vehicle for quite some time. People were leaving. Mr. Langford suggested they go in and say hi and then they would leave. The two of them approached the house and were let in by Mr. Rist. Mr. Rist said they were going to bed and told them to go. Mr.

Langford said he called for his dog, that had run into the house. It took a few seconds to get the dog to come. During this time, Mr. Rist became angry and pushed him two times. Once outside, Mr. Rist pushed him again. According to Mr. Langford, he then asked Mr. Rist why Mr. Rist was touching him. Mr. Langford then asked how would you like it if I touched your stuff. He picked up and moved the pot to near his truck. Mr. Rist ran towards him and was screaming and aggressive. Mr. Langford said Mr. Rist pushed him again and he did not feel he could turn his back on Mr. Rist. [ 34 ] Mr.

Langford said that earlier in the year he had suffered a broken hand. He did not feel he could protect himself and needed to get something to protect himself. The bat was in the ball bag in the back seat of his vehicle. He was scared and on the defence. He said he would not turn his back on Mr. Rist. He was in fight or flight mode. He believed he had to do something to protect himself. He denied that he hit Mr. Rist in the head with the bat. [ 35 ] Mr. Langford was very unclear as to when his jaw was broken.

He spoke of being in the street and said he did not feel safe walking through people to get to his vehicle. He feared for his life. [ 36 ] Once inside his vehicle he saw his face in the mirror. His face was a mess. Landon said four guys are coming his way. People began striking the side of his vehicle. He said it scared the hell out of him. He was “absolutely terrified.” He said he panicked and absolutely had to get out of there. He could not say who was in front of or behind the vehicle or how people got struck. [ 37 ] On cross-examination, he said that following the incident, he went to the General Hospital.

Two days later, at the Pasqua Hospital they operated on his jaw. [ 38 ] He stated that he did not drink after 8:00 p.m., and had consumed no drugs. He was not going to drink at Mr. Rist’s home. The only reason he stayed at the home was because his dog was inside. Mr. Langford denied that he said the party was not over. [ 39 ] He said that Rist put his hands on him, and he became defensive. He wondered why Rist was putting his hands on him. He said he became fearful for his life because Rist confronted him in the driveway. He stated he took the pot to make a gesture.

He stated he never got an answer from Rist as to why Rist put his hands on him. He was focused on Rist because he had no idea of his intentions. He did not trust Rist because Rist was aggressive and screaming at him. Counsel suggested that the best protection was to get in his vehicle and leave. He stated he was in fight or flight mode. He stated he made no threats to Rist and kept hollering at Rist to get away from him. He then agreed that Rist never came after him.

He said he felt he had to protect himself with the bat. [ 40 ] Counsel pointed out that it took him eight seconds to locate the bat from the backseat of the vehicle. Counsel suggested that Mr. Langford was angry, and then turned around and attacked Mr. Rist with the bat. Mr. Langford denied this. He also denied that he hit Mr. Rist in the head with the bat. Later he stated that one of the hits may have deflected off of the shoulder and hit Mr. Rist in the head. He agreed with counsel that he said to Rist “You want another one.” Mr.

Langford said on a number of occasions that he had a broken hand, and that he hit Mr. Rist three times in protection. He stated that he has a poor recollection of events after the bat was taken from him. He did not know if anyone was preventing him from going to his vehicle. Later he stated that he did not try to go to his vehicle, because he was scared for his safety. Once back in his vehicle, he took a while before he started the vehicle and attempted to leave. He denied that he was mad when he left. He said he was scared. ARGUMENT

[41] Mr. Langford said that all of his actions were taken out of fear for his personal safety. All of his actions were taken in selfdefence. Mr. Belanger said there was no air of reality to the self defence argument. With respect to the attack by the baseball bat andthe attack with the vehicle, Mr. Langford was not under any imminent or immediate threat from Mr. Rist or anybody else. Further, withrespect to both sets of charges, the Crown submitted that if the actions could be said to be in self defence, the force was used for morethan was reasonable in the circumstances and thus self defence is not available.

ANALYSIS The Defence of Self Defence [42] Subsections 34(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code set out what is required for an accused to avail himself of self defence. Theyread as follows: 34

(1) 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 madeagainst 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 thatuse or threat of force; and (

c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances ofthe person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors: (

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 offorce; (

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 andthe nature of that force or threat; (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident; (

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

h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful. [43] Under this section, an accused person must believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against him or threatenedto be used against him. Further, the accused must then take specific action to defend himself, and lastly, the action or the force used bythe accused must be reasonable in all of the circumstances. The Court is required to ask whether there is an air of reality to the evidenceand the defence advanced.

If so, the Crown must then negative or disprove self defence beyond a reasonable doubt. [44] Crown Counsel, Mr. Belanger, pointed out that Mr. Rist stood a few steps away when Mr. Langford entered the vehicle andretrieved the bat. He argued that Mr. Rist was not then threatening any attack and no attack was imminent, so Mr. Langford cannotpossibly rely on self defence. I agree that no use of force by Mr. Rist was imminent but the lack of imminent use of force is notconclusive of the issue.

Some cases, such as R v Lavallee, (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 852 [Lavallee] and R v Pétel, (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 3 [Pétel], point out that s. 34 of the Code does not expressly require that an attack be imminent. Further, that a lack of evidence of an imminent attack is not necessarily fatal to the defence of self defence. In 2012, Parliamentrevamped and re-wrote

section 34 of the Code. It is quoted above. In R v Khill, 2020 ONCA 151, 149 OR (3d) 639 the Ontario Court ofAppeal reviewed the law before and after Parliament’s revision in 2012. It described the 2012 amendment as a codification andsimplification of the previous law. It specifically referred to the Lavallee and Pétel cases indicating they are still good law today. It alsospecifically addressed the imminence of any attack or use of force in determining cases where self defence is an issue. The imminence orlack of imminence of attack is an important and significant factor that may be considered by the Court.

It may be considered in relationto whether an individual has reasonable grounds to believe force will be used against him. It may also be considered in relation towhether a person took steps to defend himself or for some other purpose. Lastly, it may be considered in relation to whether the forceused was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Charge of Assault on Mr. Rist with a Baseball Bat [45] There is some evidence that Mr. Rist applied some force to Mr. Langford. There is evidence that on at least two or threeoccasions, Mr. Rist pushed Mr. Langford. I would conclude that Mr. Langford had reasonable grounds to believe some force wasapplied to him, and that there was a further threat of some force. However, to that point in time, the force utilized by Mr. Rist was quiteminimal. It constituted two or three pushes. That relatively minimal use of force by Mr.

Rist was probably reasonable and justifiable toget the accused out of his house and off his property at that hour of the night. There was no reason for Langford to believe that he wasunder threat of some further or more vicious attack. Concluding that he was under such a threat, and needed to defend himself, instead ofleaving, was simply not reasonable in the circumstances. As was pointed out by Crown counsel, Mr. Rist stood three or four steps awayfrom the vehicle. At that time, Mr.

Langford opened the back door, and for a full eight seconds, with his back to the accused, wasoccupied in removing the baseball bat and arming himself. He then turned around, walked three or four steps toward Mr. Rist and struckhim with the bat three times. He also said: “Do you want to go again?” In my view, these words are more consistent with a preemptivestrike and attack than with self defence. [46] In my view, the accused was not under any reasonably held belief that he was in danger of a further or more severe attackfrom Mr. Rist. There was no imminent or immediate danger from Mr. Rist.

In my view, the blows were not struck in self defence. Rather, they were a preemptive strike against Mr. Rist. I would not conclude that a preemptive strike can never be justified as selfdefence. However, in all of the circumstances, I cannot conclude that these preemptive strikes were justified as self defence. Lastly,even if I concluded that these blows were struck in self defence, I would still conclude that three blows with a baseball bat were far morethan what was reasonable in the circumstances and thus self defence is not available. Mr.

Langford must be found guilty of Count 1, theassault with the baseball bat. The Assault with the Vehicle Charges [47] It is clear that Mr. Rist assaulted Mr. Langford, and broke his jaw. Mr. Rist said that he did this to defend himself, defend hisspouse, and defend his property. He also said however that “he lost it”. That is much more in keeping with Skylar Verbeurgt’sdescription of his behaviour. In my view, no one was in any immediate danger from Mr. Langford, when Mr. Rist attacked Mr.Langford and broke his jaw. The attack upon Mr.

Langford was taken out of anger and in retribution for previously being hit with abaseball bat. In my view, it is clear that when Mr. Langford entered his vehicle, he had reasonable grounds to believe that force had beenused against him and that further force was threatened. A number of people were striking his vehicle. [48] But Mr. Langford’s action in driving into the crowd of people was not an action taken in self defence. It too was an action ofretribution and designed to inflict injury on individuals because he was angry with them.

He had no one behind his vehicle and waseasily able to back up into the street. He could then have easily driven forward down the street and away from the crowd, exactly as hedid seconds later, after having driven into the crowd. Instead of driving away from the people, he drove into the crowd and recklesslyinjured three individuals. Once again, even if I were to conclude that driving into the crowd was

an act of self defence, I would stillconclude that it was not reasonable in the circumstances and did not provide a basis for self defence. For these reasons, Mr. Langfordmust be convicted of Counts 2, 3 and 4, the assault with a weapon charges. [49] In these circumstances, I could convict Mr. Langford of Count 5, the dangerous driving charge. However, the only dangerousdriving was the act of driving into the crowd and Mr. Langford has been convicted of three charges of assault with a weapon by drivinginto that crowd.

In these circumstances, it seems to me that R v Kienapple, (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729 applies, andthereafter I will impose a judicial stay with respect to Count 5 on the Information. CONCLUSION [50] I find Mr. Langford guilty of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Information. In my view, Mr. Langford faces the very realpossibility that a sentence of actual jail could be imposed. I propose to adjourn for a short period of time and invite Mr. Langford toretain legal counsel to make sentencing submissions on his behalf.

Dated at the City of Regina, the Province of Saskatchewan this 14 th day of January 2021. ___________________________ Kovatch, J