r v. Chad, 2020 QCCQ 3139

R. c. Ofter 2020 QCCQ 3139 JP 2213 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL N° : 500-01-184922-190 DATE: September 2, 2020 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE YVAN POULIN, J.C.Q. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v. Chad OFTER Accused JUDGMENT NOTE: Pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code , it is ordered that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. [ 1 ] The accused stands charged with one count of sexual assault pertaining to events that occurred on the evening of January 7, 2017.

At the time of the incident, the accused was 21 years old and the complainant was 19. They knew each other as they had been coworkers, had exchanged text messages and chatted online for some time. On the evening in question, it was agreed that they would hang out at the accused’s place to watch a hockey game. It was their first encounter outside of work. [ 2 ] What happened during that evening is central to the present trial. The main issue is the question of consent. The complainant alleges that she was forced to perform oral sex on the accused,

an act that she had never done before in her life. The accused claims that she consented to do so. It is in this context that the Court must determine whether it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant. [ 3 ] The defence argues that the version of the accused is credible and reliable and should at the very least raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. He submits that the complainant consented to the oral sex and that her version of events is not credible nor reliable.

The defence further argues that her conduct is incompatible with that of a sexual assault victim and that she had reasons to fabricate her story. In sum, the defence submits that the accused should be acquitted. [ 4 ] Conversely, the Crown argues that the version of the accused on the central issue of the case lacks credibility and reliability and must be completely set aside. The Crown further submits that it should not leave the Court with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. As to the version of the complainant, the Crown argues that she is sincere, credible and reliable.

In light of all the circumstances, the Crown submits that it has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed a sexual assault. [ 5 ] Given the nature of the allegations and defence, it is important to first review the details of the evidence presented by both sides before proceeding with the analysis. I – THE CROWN’S CASE [ 6 ] At the time of the events, the complainant was a university student and was still living with her parents. During the last weeks of 2016, she had been hired as a seasonal employee at the store where the accused worked. It is in that context that they initially met.

Text messages

[ 7 ] A t the end of December 2016, the complainant sent a friend request to the accused on Facebook. He quickly replied and they started a conversation on messenger. They made small talk for a few days and eventually exchanged phone numbers. They later continued to chat for some time via text messages. As they both had interest in hockey, they agreed to meet to watch a game together. They were both interested in each other. [ 8 ] In her testimony, the complainant explained that the accused insisted that they meet at his place.

Although it was their first date, she accepted to do so as she never had any bad experiences or any doubts about men in general. She acknowledged that she was interested in the accused and found him attractive. She arrived at his place at approximately 7:00 p.m. to watch the game scheduled for 7:30 p.m. The couch [ 9 ] The accused greeted the complainant when she arrived and they immediately made their way to the basement. His sister was on the main floor and his mother wasn’t home. He closed the door behind them and they went to his room in the basement.

They both sat on the couch, which was located at the foot of his bed. As the hockey game had not yet started, the accused suggested that they put on a horror movie. [ 10 ] Within 10 to 15 minutes following her arrival, they started kissing. While the accused made the first move, it was reciprocal and mutual. The complainant willfully consented to kiss him and it continued for several minutes. The complainant testified that at one point she told him to slow down as she was feeling that he wanted to go a little too fast. In any event, they continued to kiss intensely.

The bed [ 11 ] At a certain point, the accused moved to the bed and asked her to join him. After some hesitation, she agreed to do so and they continued kissing. He then started to become rougher with her. He started pulling her hair and holding her wrists tightly while kissing her. The complainant testified that she told him that she did not like that he was rough and pulling her hair. According to her, he would then stop for a minute or two before starting again.

Regardless, they continued kissing and touching for 20 to 40 minutes. [ 12 ] While on the bed, the accused was insistent and tried to undress the complainant in many different ways. He unclipped her bra several times but she would say “no” and clip it back. He tried to put his hand down, under her leggings, to touch her vaginal area, but she stopped his hand and removed it. He further tried to take off her leggings but she refused to let him do so and kept them on. [ 13 ] As regards to him holding her wrists tightly over her head as he was on top of her, the complainant stated that she started to get scared.

She further mentioned that her fear grew every time he would do it again, which happened throughout the time they were on the bed. [ 14 ] At a certain point, as she was feeling that it was “too much”, the complainant stopped kissing the accused and explicitly told him that she didn't want to sleep with him as she wasn't comfortable to do this on a first date. It is following those clear and unambiguous words that the accused would have forced her to give him oral sex.

Oral sex [ 15 ] According to the complainant, the accused pulled down his pants and boxers saying she would have to do something else for him if she did not want to sleep with him. It is worth mentioning that while testifying on this point at trial, the complainant became very emotional and started crying. She explained that she did not want to give him oral sex as she had never had done this before in her life. She mentioned it to the accused but he nonetheless pulled her head towards his penis.

He then started to move her head back and forth. [ 16 ] The complainant testified that she was scared and that she did what he wanted. She thought it was taking a long time. At some point she stopped and told him she didn't want to do it any longer. He replied that she had to continue and finish what she started. He seated himself and put the complainant on the floor next to the bed. He ultimately ejaculated in her mouth. She spat the ejaculate out on him since she had never done this before. The accused became angry and spontaneously said "come on".

After calling her names and telling her she wasn't good, he walked into the bathroom, slamming the door. [ 17 ] The complainant mentioned that she was scared and in a state of shock. She did not know what to do. She sat on the couch and waited for him to come out, about 5 to 10 minutes later. When he came out of the bathroom, he simply told her that she could go. She asked him what he was doing and where he was going, and he replied that he wanted to get food on his own and that she could leave. [ 18 ] The complainant was surprised by that response.

She couldn't believe that he was telling her that she could just leave. He led her back to the front door and gave her a friendly hug that she returned. She then got into her car and left. After-the-fact [ 19 ] The complainant stated that she was in a state of shock following what had just happened. In the minutes that followed, she immediately texted her best friend X and headed to her house.

As other people were present, they went to Tim Hortons to discuss the situation. [ 20 ] The complainant explained that she was feeling embarrassed and ashamed as regards to the situation and that she did not reveal all the details to her friend at that time. In spite of what had really happened, she only told her that she had had a bad date and had oral sex for the first time. She did not get into the fact that he had been rough with her, that he pulled her hair and squeezed her wrists, and that she was forced to give him oral sex.

Nor did she describe how he subsequently treated and what he said to her. [ 21 ] In her testimony, the complainant explained that she could not believe that such a thing could happen to her. On more than one occasion, she stated and described her feelings of embarrassment and shame, even in front of her best friend.

A few days later [ 22 ] A few days after the events, the complainant texted the accused to ask him not to talk about her at work. In her mind, she didn't want him to start telling people that she “wasn't good”. He replied that she should not worry about it. To her knowledge, he in fact did not tell anyone about it. Initial disclosure and criminal complaint [ 23 ] In April 2017, the complainant revealed more details about the events to her friend Y while they were traveling abroad during the Easter long weekend.

It was further to that conversation that she came to the realization that what she had experienced was “not correct”. Shortly after that discussion, she felt strong enough to reveal the missing details to her friend X. She also spoke about it for the first time to her brother and her parents and gathered more information about sexual assault. [ 24 ] In July or August 2017, the complainant went to the police station with her father to get information concerning the procedure to file a complaint.

She wanted to know more about the different steps of the judicial process but the police officer at the counter was, to her mind, not very welcoming. Given that there was no private room available to write her complaint, the police officer suggested that she do so at the counter in the area accessible to the public, which made her very uncomfortable. [ 25 ] The police officer was also unable to provide her with other basic procedural details, including whether she would be obliged to stay in the country for the whole time between the filing of the complaint and the end of the criminal proceedings.

The complainant wanted to inquire about this as she had to leave for Europe shortly thereafter, to complete part of her university degree. In view of all those circumstances, she decided to wait until her return to Canada to file her criminal complaint. [ 26 ] It is when she came back a few months later for the holiday season that she filed a complaint. She presented herself at a different police station to provide the details. In May 2018, she inquired with the police about the progression of the case.

She was finally contacted by an investigator in September 2018 and a meeting was scheduled for November 2018 to obtain her video statement. “Consent” [ 27 ] At trial, the complainant adamantly denied the allegation of the defence attorney that she consented to give oral sex to the accused and that she was in fact the one in control of the situation. [ 28 ] She became very emotional and started crying when it was suggested that she had never said no to oral sex. Her answer was : “ j’ai dit “non”, que je voulais pas. J’ai dit non deux fois… ” [1] .

II – THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE [ 29 ] The accused testified in his defence and explained his version of the events. For the most part, he confirmed the timeline and the general circumstances of the encounter as described by the complainant. However, he claimed that the complainant willfully consented to perform oral sex when he asked her to give him a “blowjob”. [ 30 ] The accused testified that he was at the time interested in the complainant and that he found her attractive. He confirmed that they chatted for a while and eventually agreed to meet at his place.

He agreed that he himself extended the invitation that she come to his place to which she responded favorably. He explained that he cancelled the first meeting as his mother was supposed to be home. Furthermore, he acknowledged that he wanted to have sex with the complainant but admitted that it was at no time explicitly mentioned in the messages they exchanged. [ 31 ] His account of the beginning of the evening is similar to that of the complainant. He confirmed that he initiated the kissing while they were on the couch and that she kissed him back.

He mentioned that he was sometimes on top of her and didn’t detect anything abnormal when they were kissing. He also agreed that they spent between 20 to 30 minutes kissing on the couch before he suggested that they move to the bed. [ 32 ] He stated that he did not perceive any hesitation on the part of the complainant when he suggested they move to the bed.

He testified that they kept kissing and touching more intensely when they got to the bed and that “things escalated”. [ 33 ] On the question of rough sex, the accused admitted that he likes it rough and confirmed the account of the complainant that he pulled her hair and held her wrists tightly while they were kissing on the bed. Although he did not ask her permission prior to being rough, he stated that she did not express any issues with that, as she was kissing him back the whole time. He further testified that he explicitly told her that he likes rough sex.

Contrary to her version of events, he asserted that she at no time told him that she did not like it rough. [ 34 ] When questioned in connection with his actions on the bed, the accused admitted that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with the complainant. Moreover, he confirmed many aspects of her account of events: ➢ He confirmed that he tried to remove her bra by undoing the clasp and that she objected by saying “no” and reattaching it. He testified that he did this at least once and that he “might have tried” a second time.

With regards to that refusal, he testified that he had taken this “no” as meaning “not yet”. ➢ He confirmed that the complainant stopped his hand when he tried to go down under her leggings in an effort to penetrate her with his finger. ➢ He confirmed that she explicitly refused to get undressed when he tried to remove her leggings by rolling them down while he was touching her behind.

➢ And he confirmed that, at one point in time, she explicitly said that she “was not ready to have sexual intercourse” with him. [ 35 ] In reference to the state of arousal of the complainant compared to his, the accused asserted, in spite of all those elements, that “we seemed to match”. Moreover, on the question of consent, the accused testified that he stopped every time the complainant told him not to do something. [ 36 ] As regards to the circumstances that led to the oral sex, the accused laconically described them as being a “sort of a natural progression of things”.

He testified that the complainant started touching his penis after he “gently” guided her hand down while she was touching his abs. He contended that it escalated to oral sex without him being rough, pulling her hair or pushing her head down. He testified that nothing in particular stood out to him when she performed oral sex. He confirmed that he ejaculated in her mouth but stated that she did not spit back at him. He stated that she might have spitted it on the carpet, but he wasn’t sure.

He further denied her telling him that she had never performed oral sex before. [ 37 ] With respect to what happened afterwards, the accused denied making any remarks about her performance but confirmed that he went to bathroom for approximately five minutes. As he walked out of the bathroom, he told her that he was going to go grab some food and that he would prefer going alone. At the time, the accused was not looking for a serious relationship and did not want to go on a date with the complainant. To him, that encounter was a “booty call” for the purpose of sex.

He testified that she looked disappointed and was obviously hurt. He confirmed that they hugged each other on the porch before she left and that she texted him one or two weeks later asking him to keep what happened “between us”. [ 38 ] He was contacted by the police approximately two years later to be charged with sexual assault. He took a leave of absence from work shortly after he received the call. III - ISSUE [ 39 ] It is against this backdrop that the Court must determine whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed a sexual assault.

As already mentioned, the main issue is the question of consent. More specifically, the Court must determine if the lack of consent by the complainant to have oral sex was proven beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to both the actus reus and the mens rea . This question must be answered in light of the applicable statutory scheme and case law. IV - ANALYSIS The presumption of innocence and issues of credibility [ 40 ] It is well established that every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed to be innocent until the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused does not have to prove that he is innocent. The Court may only find an accused guilty if, after considering all the evidence, it is satisfied that the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused arises from the evidence, the absence of evidence, the credibility or the reliability of witnesses, the Court must find the accused not guilty. [ 41 ] In R. v .

Vuradin [2] , at paragraph 21 , the Supreme Court stated: The paramount question in a criminal case is whether, on the whole of the evidence, the trier of fact is left with a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused : W. (D.), at p. 758. The order in which a trial judge makes credibility findings of witnesses is inconsequential as long as the principle of reasonable doubt remains the central consideration. A verdict of guilt must not be based on a choice between the accused’s evidence and the Crown’s evidence : R. v. C.L.Y., 2008 SCC 2 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5 , at paras. 6-8 .

However, trial judges are not required to explain in detail the process they followed to reach a verdict: see R. v. Boucher, 2005 SCC 72 , [2005] 3 S.C.R. 499 , at para. 29 . (My emphasis) [ 42 ] The test for assessing reasonable doubt when credibility is in issue was defined by the Supreme Court in R. v . W. (D.) [3] . First, if the Court believes the evidence of the accused, it must find him not guilty. Second, if the Court does not believe the evidence of the accused, but is still left with a reasonable doubt by this evidence, it must find him not guilty.

And third, even if the Court is not left with a reasonable doubt by the evidence of the accused, it must still ask itself whether, after considering all the evidence, it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. [ 43 ] It must be emphasized that possible or even probable guilt is not enough to convict an accused. The paramount question in any criminal case is whether the Court is left with a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. If the Court is not sure that the accused committed the offence, it has no choice but to acquit him.

However, if the Court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence for which he is charged, it must find him guilty. Sexual assault and consent: the principles [ 44 ] With respect to the offense of sexual assault, the onus is on the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the actus reus and had the requisite mens rea. In the recent case of R. v. Barton , the Supreme Court provided guidance to lower courts on these two essential elements.

As regards to the actus reus , the Court held: A person commits the actus reus of sexual assault “if he touches another person in a sexual way without her consent”. [4] [ 45 ] In reference to the mens rea , the Court added the following: The mens rea consists of the “intention to touch and knowing of, or being reckless of or wilfully blind to, a lack of consent on the part of the person touched”. [5] [ 46 ] “Consent” is defined in the following manner in s. 273.1(1) of the Criminal Code :

273.1

(1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), consent means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntaryagreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question. (My emphasis) [47] In s. 273.1(2) of the Code, Parliament codified certain situations where there can be no consent:

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), no consent is obtained if (

a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant; (a.1) the complainant is unconscious; (

b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity for any reason other than the one referred to in paragraph (a.1); (

c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority; (

d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or (

e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue toengage in the activity. (My emphasis) [48] Moreover, in s. 273.2 of the Code, Parliament codified a number of situations where belief in consent is not a defence: 273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under

section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to theactivity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where (

a) the accused’s belief arose from (

i) the accused’s self-induced intoxication, (ii) the accused’s recklessness or wilful blindness, or (iii) any circumstance referred to in subsection 265(3) or 273.1(2) or (3) in which no consent is obtained; (

b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainantwas consenting; or (

c) there is no evidence that the complainant’s voluntary agreement to the activity was affirmatively expressed by words or activelyexpressed by conduct. (My emphasis) [49] In Barton, supra, at paragraphs 86-113, the Supreme Court reviewed several key principles relating to the defence of “honestbut mistaken belief in communicated consent”.

Among those principles, the Court commented, at paragraph 98, the concept of “impliedconsent”: [98] The “specious” defence of implied consent “rests on the assumption that unless a woman protests or resists, she should be ‘deemed’to consent” (Ewanchuk, at para. 103, per McLachlin J. (as she then was)). Ewanchuk makes clear that this concept has no place inCanadian law. As Major J. stated for the majority, “a belief that silence, passivity or ambiguous conduct constitutes consent is a mistakeof law, and provides no defence” (para. 51, citing R. v. M. (M.L.), (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 3; see also J.

Benedet,“Sexual Assault Cases at the Alberta Court of Appeal: The Roots of Ewanchuk and the Unfinished Revolution” (2014), 52 Alta. L. Rev.127). It is also a mistake of law to infer that “the complainant’s consent was implied by the circumstances, or by the relationship betweenthe accused and the complainant” (J.A., at para. 47). In short, it is an error of law — not fact — to assume that unless and until a womansays “no”, she has implicitly given her consent to any and all sexual activity.[6] (My emphasis) [50] That being said, the Court will now turn to the specific circumstances of the case at bar.

Application to the present case [51] For the most part, the general factual framework of this case is not subject to much debate. It is not disputed that the parties metat the accused's home to watch a hockey game after some back and forth flirting. The complainant’s description of the circumstancesthat led to them meeting is confirmed by both the messages produced in evidence and the testimony of the accused. [52] While both parties were interested in each other, there was no explicit sexting or understanding that sex would happen on thefirst encounter.

Although the accused was in his mind hoping for sex, nothing in the prior discussions made this possibility apparent orobvious.

The defence’s argument that the complainant was inviting herself to the accused’s place is at odds with both the testimony ofthe accused and the content of the messages filed. [53] While it is not disputed that the kissing on the sofa and on the bed were consensual and reciprocal, it is also clear from theevidence that the complainant resisted and refused, by her actions and words, several specific one-sided attempts of the accused to gofurther. [54] On this point, both accounts of events confirm that she refused to let him take off her bra by saying no and redoing the clasp,that she stopped his hand from going down under her leggings to penetrate her with his finger, that she stopped him when he tried to rolldown her leggings to undress her, and that she explicitly said that she was not ready for sex on the first date.

Likewise, both partiesconfirm the accused's interest in rough sex and the fact that he pulled her hair and held her wrists repeatedly throughout the time on thebed.

[ 55 ] After reviewing the evidence in the present case, the Court does not believe the accused with regards to the circumstances that led to the oral sex. Moreover, his version of events does not leave the Court with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. [ 56 ] As pointed out by the Crown, the assertion of the accused that the complainant was at the same level of arousal is untenable. As already mentioned, the evidence showed that the complainant resisted and refused repeated efforts of the accused to undress her.

She further resisted attempts to touch her vagina and to have sexual intercourse. [ 57 ] In those specific circumstances, it is obvious that she was much more reserved than him, and that her level of excitement was much lower. As such, the answers given by the accused on those points are incompatible with the evidence, including his own account of events, and lack common sense. [ 58 ] Moreover, it must be mentioned that the degree of details of his account of the moments that immediately preceded the oral sex contrast with that of the rest of the encounter.

When asked to describe how the complainant came to give him a blowjob after resisting and refusing the way she did, the accused talked about a “natural progression of things”. It must be stressed that the additional details he eventually gave on this point after being pressed by further questions were neither conclusive nor believable. [ 59 ] In the specific context of the present case, it would be irrational to conclude that the complainant would have abruptly moved away from her more reserved demeanor to freely and willingly give a blowjob to the accused when prompted to do so.

It would be even more illogical to conclude that at the same precise moment, the accused would have suddenly stopped being rough with the complainant whereas he had been all along. [ 60 ] Given all the circumstances of the present case, the Court reaffirms that it does not believe the accused concerning the circumstances that led to the oral sex, and that his version of events leaves no reasonable doubt as to his guilt. [ 61 ] That being said, the Court must still ask itself whether, after considering all the evidence it accepts, it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. [ 62 ] As regards to the complainant, the Court emphasizes that her testimony was clear, fluid and detailed.

Her account of the events of the evening in question was precise. Her account of previous and subsequent events as well. And her emotions in relation to the most disturbing events were sincere and vivid. [ 63 ] The Court was able to observe her during her testimony. It must be underlined that she remained unwavering throughout her testimony and that her account of all the circumstances was coherent and credible. She was direct and frank with the Court on all aspects of the events, including those less favorable to her.

For instance, she admitted that she lied to her parents about where she was really going on that evening, an element which in the end doesn’t impact on her overall credibility. [ 64 ] Moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case, the fact that she didn't reveal all the details to her best friend at the outset does not compromise the reliability of her account of the events, nor her credibility. Her explanation as to why she felt embarrassed and ashamed in front of those around her is genuine and believable.

Furthermore, the delay in disclosing the details to the authorities cast no shadow on her overall credibility as it was coherently, rationally and logically explained. [ 65 ] On this point, the comments of Major J., speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court in R. v. D.(D.) , are particularly relevant: A trial judge should recognize and so instruct a jury that there is no inviolable rule how people who are the victims of trauma like a sexual assault will behave. Some will make an immediate complaint, some will delay in disclosing the abuse, while some will never disclose the abuse .

Reasons for delay are many and at least include embarrassment, fear, guilt, or a lack of understanding and knowledge. In assessing the credibility of a complainant, the timing of the complaint is simply one circumstance to consider in the factual mosaic of a particular case. A delay in disclosure, standing alone, will never give rise to an adverse inference against the credibility of the complainant. [7] (My emphasis) [ 66 ] With regards to the immediate after-the-fact reaction of the complainant, the Court does not agree with the defence that it is incompatible with that of a sexual assault victim.

It must be remembered that people react in different ways in the face of being victimized. [ 67 ] In the present case, the Court accepts that she was in a state of shock and did not know what to do in reaction to what she had just experienced for the first time in her life. Again, that part of her testimony was coherently, rationally and logically explained. [ 68 ] On that point, the recent comments of the Court of appeal of Ontario in R. v. Kiss are apposite: As the Supreme Court held in R. v.

D.(D.) , 2000 SCC 43 , [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275 (S.C.C.) , at para. 65 , there is no rule as to how victims of sexual assault are apt to behave. I reject Mr. Kiss's claim that the trial judge erred in relying on D.(D.) for this purpose. The principle in D.(D.) is not confined to delays in reporting. It relates to any stereotypical assumption about how sexual assault victims are apt to behave, and it is stereotypical to assume that sexual assault victims tend to scream for help.

Some will, others will not . [8] (My emphasis) [ 69 ] In sum, after considering all the circumstances of the present case, the Court has no hesitation to conclude that it believes the complainant regarding the events of January 7, 2017. It was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to oral sex and was forced to do so. It was also shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the complainant was not consenting and, hence, had the requisite mens rea . V - CONCLUSION [ 70 ] For all those reasons, the accused is found guilty of sexual assault.

_____________________________ YVAN POULIN, J.C.Q. Me Annabelle Sheppard For the prosecution Me Vincent Rose For the accused Dates of hearing: June 9 th and 10 th , 2020.