His Majesty the King Respondent - v. -, 2023 SKPC 57

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKPC 57 Date: July 24, 2023 Information: 991218833 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: His Majesty the King Respondent - and - Dawn Walker Applicant - and - Government of Saskatchewan Respondent - and - Saskatoon Police Service Respondent - and - Royal Canadian Mounted Police Respondent Appearing: L. Hnatiuk and T. Olenchuk For the Crown/Respondent J. Brevorka, and T. Boghosian For the Accused/Applicant S. Sinclair For an Affected Party

M. Digout For the RCMP/RespondentA. Smith For the Saskatoon Police Service/RespondentK. McCreary For Saskatchewan Government Ministries/Respondent CORRECTED JUDGMENT: The text of the original judgment has been changed per thecorrigendum released November 15, 2023. (A copy of the corrigendum is appended to thiscorrected judgment.) DECISION ON O’CONNOR APPLICATION B. BAUER, J [1] This is a third-party records Application for records held by the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS), various SaskatchewanGovernment Ministries, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) (the “Third Parties”). [2] From the RCMP, Ms.

Walker (Applicant), is seeking documents relating to any complaints by her in relation to her ex-partner, any subsequent investigation of those complaints, as well as records relating to her in-custody transportation from the US Borderto Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on August 24-26, 2021. [3] From the SPS, the Applicant is seeking documents relating to the transportation of male and female prisoners from theSaskatoon Police Station to Provincial Correctional centres, documentation in relation to the conditions for prisoners being held in theSaskatoon Police headquarters, and duty rosters of SPS officers and supervisors during the time the Applicant was in custody in SPScells.

She is also seeking documentation relating to any complaints made by her to the SPS in relation to her ex-partner and subsequentinvestigation of those complaints, and SPS records relating to services provided by SPS Victim Services to Ms.

Walker. [4] From the Government of Saskatchewan, Ministry of Corrections, documents regarding transportation between SPS andProvincial Correctional Centres during the time the Applicant was in custody, records relating to the Applicant during the period whenshe was in custody at Pine Grove Correctional Centre (Pine Grove) (including policies regarding strip searches, recreationalopportunities, hygiene, bedding, medical care, access to resources, lockdowns, number of persons per cell, records of interactions withstaff, and privacy), statistics relating to capacity of Pine Grove and actual prisoner numbers during the time of her incarceration, andrecords regarding the number of Indigenous persons in relation to the total number of persons in custody. [5] From the Government of Saskatchewan, Ministry of Social Services, all records of complaints relating to her child from anysource, including the disposition and action taking regarding such complaints. [6] From the Government of Saskatchewan, Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, the Applicant is seeking “…all recordsreflecting Saskatchewan’s steps taken (or intended steps) toward implementing Recommendations, Best Practices, and Calls for Justicefrom the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (2019) in relation to preventingviolence against Indigenous women and girls and addressing systemic racism against Indigenous women and girls in the justice system,including, but not limited to, meeting minutes, policy documents, emails, and programming records.” [7] The Application was filed by Ms.

Walker’s counsel, Marie Henein. It was supported by an affidavit of a law clerk with Ms.Henein’s law firm. [8] All counsel for the Third Parties took the position that the affidavit was defective in form and did not comply with the law inrelation to matters that could be proven in an affidavit. They also took the position that the evidence provided did not disclose that thematerial was likely relevant to the criminal prosecution. [9] Applications for production of third-party records are governed by rules set out by the Supreme Court in R v O’Connor, (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 411 and refined in R v McNeil, 2009 SCC 3.

The relevant procedure was set out in detail inparagraph 27 of the decision in McNeil: [27] Stated briefly, the procedure to be followed on an O'Connor application is the following.

(1) The accused first obtains a subpoena duces tecum under ss. 698(1) and 700(1) of the Criminal Code and serves it on the thirdparty record holder. The subpoena compels the person to whom it is directed to attend court with the targeted records or materials.

(2) The accused also brings an application, supported by appropriate affidavit evidence, showing that the records sought are likely tobe relevant in his or her trial. Notice of the application is given to the prosecuting Crown, the person who is the subject of the recordsand any other person who may have a privacy interest in the records targeted for production.

(3) The O'Connor application is brought before the judge seized with the trial, although it may be heard before the trial commences.If production is unopposed, of course, the application for production becomes moot and there is no need for a hearing.

(4) If the record holder or some other interested person advances a well-founded claim that the targeted documents are privileged, inall but the rarest cases where the accused's innocence is at stake, the existence of privilege will effectively bar the accused's applicationfor production of the targeted documents, regardless of their relevance. Issues of privilege are therefore best resolved at the outset ofthe O'Connor process.

(5) Where privilege is not in question, the judge determines whether production should be compelled in accordance with the two- stage test established in O'Connor . At the first stage, if satisfied that the record is likely relevant to the proceeding against the accused, the judge may order production of the record for the court's inspection. At the next stage, with the records in hand, the judge determines whether, and to what extent, production should be ordered to the accused.

THE AFFIDAVIT [ 10 ] In relation to the defects in form, the first issue raised by counsel was that none of the 600+ pages of exhibits to the affidavit were properly exhibited. They were referred to as tabs in the affidavit and not properly exhibited by the Commissioner for Affidavits. [ 11 ] This was corrected by filing an amended application and motion with the word “tab” replaced with “exhibit” in the affidavit and the exhibits noted as being exhibits to the affidavit. [ 12 ] The next issue raised was that neither the original affidavit nor the amended affidavit was properly sworn.

The jurat on the affidavit read as follows: SWORN BEFORE ME at the City of Toronto In the Province of Ontario on June 26, 2023 ____________________________________ Commissioner for Taking Affidavits (or as the case may be) Rachelle Catherine Bennett a Commissioner, etc. Province of Ontario, for Henein, Hutchinson LLP. Solicitors and Barristers Expires April 28, 2025 [ 13 ] Section 4(4) of the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act R.S.O. reads as follows:

(4) A commissioner shall be styled “A commissioner for taking affidavits in and for the courts in Ontario”. [ 14 ] In this case, the commissioner did not commission it using the proper style. By not using the proper style, the commissioner failed to bring to the reader’s attention that the oath was valid for the courts in the Province of Ontario, but not the courts in Saskatchewan. [ 15 ] To correct this, the Applicant filed an amended, amended application and affidavit sworn before a member of the Law Society of Saskatchewan.

That affidavit also had an improper jurat, resulting in the Applicant filing an amended, amended, amended application and affidavit. [ 16 ] However, this fourth iteration of the affidavit did not address any of its remaining issues. [ 17 ] The next issue was that the affiant was a law clerk with the law firm representing the Applicant and swore to matters that were beyond procedural or uncontroversial in nature. This practice is contrary to both the Code of Professional Conduct and established case law.

Law Society of Saskatchewan Code of Professional Conduct 5.2-1 A lawyer who appears as an advocate must not testify or submit his or her own affidavit evidence before the tribunal unless permitted to do so by law, the tribunal, the rules of court or the rules of procedure of the tribunal, or unless the matter is purely formal or uncontroverted. [ 18 ] In Beauchamp v Beauchamp, 2023 SKKB 88 , the Court held that it was a “well-established proposition that lawyers should not be advocates and witnesses in the same manner, and that “the entire firm is bound by this ethical rule.” This rule equally applies to law clerks.

In the first paragraph, the Affiant describes herself as a law clerk with the Applicant’s firm. [ 19 ] As in Beauchamp the affidavit in this case addresses matters that are not purely formal or uncontroverted. It is improper and should not have been filed . [ 20 ] Not only were there procedural issues with the Affidavit, there were also serious substantive flaws.

The affidavit contains extensive hearsay and opinion without referencing any source, or even if the information comes from a third party. [ 21 ] The issue starts with paragraph 1 of the affidavit, which read as follows: [1] I am a law clerk with the law firm of Henein Hutchinson Robitaille LLP and as such, I have direct knowledge of the matters to which I herein depose, except where from the context it appears that I have received the information from a third party, in which case I verily believe such information to be true. [ 22 ] The Affiant states that she has direct knowledge of the matters that follow; however, she fails to indicate how she comes to have direct knowledge of any of the matters to which she has deposed.

In addition, she leaves it up to the reader of the affidavit to determine when she has received the information from a third party and seldom discloses the source of the information. [ 23 ] It is trite law that where an affidavit may be based on information and belief, the source of the information and belief must be stated.

[ 24 ] The Affidavit comprises 69 paragraphs; 28 paragraphs start with either: “I am aware” or “I understand”. In only 5 of those paragraphs does the affiant disclose a source for that statement. [ 25 ] Paragraph 46 provides an example of this deficiency where she states: “I am aware that Ms. Walker was placed into a dirty cell in a unit that was undergoing a Covid-19 lockdown.” The only source she exhibits for the assertion that Ms. Walker was placed into a dirty cell during her incarceration in August and September 2022, is a December 2022 newspaper

article reporting complaints made by other Pine Grove inmates published in Battlefords Now . [ 26 ] In another paragraph she states: “I am aware that of all the Canadian provinces, Saskatchewan has consistently maintained the most disproportionate number of Indigenous people in custody when compared to their proportion of the population.” In support of this statement, she has attached Exhibit C which is comprised of two pages of statistics from Statistics Canada setting out custody admissions by Indigenous identity for Saskatchewan only. [ 27 ] In addition to the problems noted above, the Affiant also purports to prove facts through the exhibiting of affidavits of others, including one from a sealed King’s Bench file, submissions to a government inquiry from third parties, and letters from the Applicant’s counsel to various parties.

All problematic for differing reasons including use of the opinions of others as a basis for a fact, breaches of court sealing orders, and double hearsay. [ 28 ] In relation to the requirements for affidavit material, counsel for Ms. Walker suggests that the rules regarding the filing of affidavits have evolved from civil case law and that the same standards should not be used in the criminal context. In fact, these same standards are upheld extensively in the criminal courts.

Production orders under s. 487.016 of the Criminal Code are very similar to O’Conner Applications in that they are applications to obtain documents in the possession of third parties in which someone other than the third party, has a privacy interest. The affidavits on production order applications are, for the most part, prepared by peace officers without formal legal training who are held to a high standard by the Justices and Judges who issue the Orders and by the courts who hear challenges to those warrants.

There is no reason to not apply this same standard to an affidavit that was prepared by a legally trained law clerk, supervised by a lawyer, and filed by a law firm. [ 29 ] There are also credibility and reliability issues with the affidavit. Beginning at paragraph 5, the Affiant states: “in this affidavit, I set out the relevant facts.” She then alleges mistreatment by the authorities. These statements are obviously not within the Affiant’s personal knowledge and so would be required to be on information and belief accompanied by the source of that information.

In others she makes a statement about what happened to the Applicant and attaches an exhibit. However, the attached exhibit does not reference the specific event; rather the document exhibited is simply a policy document from the institution where she was being held and makes no mention of the Applicant. [ 30 ] Paragraph 31 is a significant problem with respect to credibility and reliability. It reads as follows: [ 31 ] Ms.

Walker was put in a straitjacket at Alouette Correctional Centre and placed in segregation for the day, based on the recommendation of one of the RCMP officers who had transported her, as set out in Exhibit R attached hereto, which is a document received from the British Columbia Correctional Health Authority. [31] However, a review of the document reveals no support for those statements. The report indicates that while in custody in the British Columbia correctional facility, the Applicant was attended to by a Mental Health and Addiction Supervisor. There is no mention of a recommendation by an RCMP officer.

The report indicates that the applicant was wearing a suicide smock, not a straitjacket. A smock is a loose-fitting garment whereas a straitjacket is a tight fitted garment with long sleeves used to confine a person’s arms in a hugging motion. [ 32 ] This is a significant misrepresentation of the facts contained in that report. A straitjacket is a significant restraint and the false accusation in relation to its use could be considered as an attempt to garner unmerited sympathy for the Applicant.

As no further source is mentioned for these statements of “fact” it leaves me with significant concerns regarding the credibility of the affiant. It also raises concerns relating to the credibility and reliability of the statements of “fact” where the affiant does not provide supporting documents. [ 33 ] In

summary, the affidavit suffers from the following problems: 1. It contravenes the rule that lawyers and their firms should not be advocates and witnesses in the same matter and it thus improper, 2. It is riddled with unsourced hearsay and opinion, and 3.

It contains at least one serious misrepresentation of fact which affects the credibility and reliability of the many unsourced statements. [ 34 ] Despite these significant deficiencies of both form and substance, and my concerns with the reliability of the Affidavit, I have combed through the Applicant’s materials and determined that there is a basis upon which I can proceed through stage one of this Application.

In my view, proceeding in this fashion is in keeping with the direction of the SCC at paragraphs 19 and 20 of R v O’Connor that third party records applications can be determined on the basis of submissions of counsel and a relaxing of some formalities in the interests of justice. The Applicant filed in excess of 600 pages in her 40 exhibits.

From these, I have determined that the following are reliable; documents that were created by the Third Parties themselves, documents that are certified by a court, court documents, documents created by the federal and provincial governments and an affidavit sworn by third party in relation to the Applicant’s release. [ 35 ] From the affidavit, I accept: ▪ That the Applicant is an Indigenous woman based on the Affidavit of the Kathy Walker (Exhibit A); ▪ That on August 23, 2022, the Applicant was in custody in Portland, Oregon, and agreed to be extradited from the United States based

on a certified transcript from the Oregon District Court (Exhibit N); ▪ That on August 26, 2022, she was in custody in the Alouette Correctional Centre based on a Client Profile Report from that centre(Exhibit R); ▪ That between August 26 and August 29, 2022, she was in custody in the Saskatoon Police Service Station based on a certifiedtranscript of an interview conducted in the Saskatoon Police station (Exhibit

W) and from an occurrence report from the SaskatoonPolice Service indicating that she was in their cells (Exhibit V); ▪ That she was released from custody on September 2, 2022, based on the Release Order, a Saskatchewan Provincial Court documentthat is attached to the Information; ▪ That when the door is closed on cell 51 at the Saskatoon Police Service Station, it may be possible that use of the toilet may bevideotaped based on photographs from the Saskatoon Police Service cells (Exhibit T); ▪ That while in the custody of the Saskatoon Police Service, she was interviewed by a SPS officer who asked her questions relating towhat advice she received from her lawyer based on a certified copy of a transcript of that interview (Exhibit W); ▪ That inmates in Saskatchewan Correctional Facilities are subject to strip searches based on the Inmate Orientation Manual, apublication of the Government of Saskatchewan (Exhibit X); ▪ That she made a complaint of sexual assault to the Saskatoon Police Service based on a copy of an SPS occurrence report (ExhibitBB); ▪ That SPS determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges in relation to her complaint based on an SPSoccurrence report (Exhibit CC); ▪ That she made a complaint of sexual assault to the RCMP and that the RCMP concluded the file without charges being laid based onan RCMP occurrence report (Exhibit FF); ▪ That an SPS officer did not wish to take statements from people she told about the assaults from a copy of an SPS occurrence report(Exhibit CC); and ▪ That a complaint was made to Ministry of Social Services regarding her child (Exhibits HH). [36] Also, in the interests of justice, reference will be made to the submissions of counsel to see if the “likely relevance” standardis met. [37] The likely relevant standard has been addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in O’Connor and McNeil.

The test has beensummarized by Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832: [117] In the third party/O'Connor production setting, the phrase "likely relevant" designates the standard or threshold to be met at thefirst stage or step. … [127] The standard "likely relevant" imposes a significant, but not an onerous, burden on an applicant: O'Connor, at para. 24; McNeil, atpara. 29.

This threshold plays a meaningful role in screening applications to prevent the defence from engaging in speculative, fanciful,disruptive, unmeritorious, obstructive and time-consuming requests for production: R. v. Chaplin, (SCC), [1995] 1S.C.R. 727, [1994] S.C.J. No. 89, at para. 32; O'Connor, at para. 24; McNeil, at para. 29. … [129] Under the third party/O'Connor production regime, "likely relevant" means that there is a reasonable possibility that theinformation is logically probative to an issue at trial or to the competence of a witness to testify: O'Connor, at para. 22; McNeil, at para.33.

An "issue at trial" includes not only material issues concerning the unfolding of the events which form the subject matter of theproceedings, but also evidence relating to the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of other evidence: O'Connor, at para. 22; McNeil,at para. 33. … [138] Fourth, the applicable standard in the third party/ O'Connor production regime is more demanding than the "whether theinformation may be useful" criterion for first party/Stinchcombe disclosure.

That a more stringent standard applies is consonant with theunderlying policy considerations and the gatekeeper function assigned to the trial judge. [38] I accept counsel’s submissions that the Applicant intends to raise the defence of necessity.

I also accept counsel’s submissionthat the Applicant intends to apply for a Stay of Proceedings based on breaches of her rights under the Charter and that to support herapplication she intends to establish that these breaches are a systemic problem. [39] Based on the submissions of counsel and the evidence that I accept, I find that some of the information in the possession ofthe RCMP and SPS meets the “likely relevant” test in relation to her necessity defence. That includes the allegations of assault on herperson, the investigation of those allegations, and the police response to those allegations.

These materials likely will assist her defenceby demonstrating her efforts to seek assistance from authorities before resorting to self-help. [40] The same reasoning applies to information regarding any complaints by her to Social Services regarding her child, the

investigation of those complaints and the results of any investigation. [41] Information relating to her transportation from British Columbia to Saskatchewan by the RCMP as well as to her time spent incustody in SPS, and Pine Grove Correctional Centre has also met the likely relevant test to her application for a stay of proceeding.

These materials are likely relevant to her allegations of breaches of her Charter rights by the state. [42] From the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, the Applicant seeks “All policies, budget expenditures, or proceduralmanuals for programs or initiatives records reflecting Saskatchewan’s steps taken (or intended steps) toward implementingRecommendations, Best Practices, and Calls for Justice from the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and MurderedIndigenous Women and Girls (2019) (MMIWG) in relation to preventing violence against Indigenous women and girls and addressingsystemic racism against Indigenous women and girls in the justice system, including but not limited to meeting minutes, policydocuments, emails, and programming records, from the date of publication of the Report until September 2, 2022.” [43] The Applicant submits that materials requested will demonstrate a systemic failure of Indigenous women and girls by theSaskatchewan Government. [44] I find that the Applicant has not met the likely relevant test in relation to these records. [45] This is a very broad request.

It could very well encompass communications from government employees in almost everyMinistry as the steps taken to address the MMIWG report could involve the Ministries of Finance, Education, Social Services and manyothers. Programming records could involve information from third parties engaged by the government to implement programs. Thesearch for these two items alone could involve hundreds or thousands of pages. In fact, during oral submissions, counsel for the Ministerof Justice and Attorney General pointed out that he would not know where to begin to search for all these documents. [46] In World Bank v.

Wallace, 2016 SCC 15, at para 30, the Court noted that: [30] …broad third party production requests can derail pre-trial proceedings. Sweeping disclosure requests are a common cause ofdelays…A narrow relevance threshold is therefore needed to prevent “speculative, fanciful, disruptive, unmeritorious, obstructive andtime-consuming” production requests (R. v. Chaplin, (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727, at para. 32, quoted by Lamer C.J.and Sopinka J., who were in the majority on this issue, in O’Connor, at para. 24).

The Applicant has failed to establish how this broad sweeping request for materials advances her defence. [47] Furthermore, this trial is not the forum to evaluate, compare and pass judgement on the policy choices of the Government ofSaskatchewan. The determination of such policy choices is very complex. An example from the Applicant’s own materials illustratesthis point.

In relation to the policy documents requested, the Applicant’s submissions included an economic metric to suggest that thegovernment’s MMIWG response regarding funding of a MMIWG’s community response fund was insufficient as compared to a policythat provided funding for electronic monitoring. There is a compelling argument that funding electronic monitoring in this provinceassists in addressing problems identified by the MMIWG Commission. Electronic monitoring allows offenders to serve custodysentences in the community thereby reducing the number of incarcerated individuals.

As the Applicant points out, there is an over-representation of Indigenous men, women, and youth in Canadian jails. The electronic monitoring policy would likely provide asignificant benefit to Indigenous youth, women, and men. [48] A denial of the application on this point does not leave the Applicant without resources to assist her defence. The materialsfiled by the Applicant demonstrate that public resources are available and already in her possession.

Those include the MMIWG reportitself, Statistic Canada Reports and authors who have submitted reports to the government regarding the treatment of Indigenous Womenand Girls by the Saskatchewan Justice system. [49] In finding that some of the requested records have met the likely relevant test, I find that the first stage of the O’Connorregime has been met. I order the production of the following records to the Court for review. Such notes to be filed with the Court on orbefore noon on August 3, 2023. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: (

i) All logbooks, notes, or any other records created by RCMP Special Constables while transporting Dawn Walker (DOB:February 5, 1974) from the U.S. border to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan between August 24-26, 2022. (ii) All records reflecting the conditions in which Ms. Walker was transported from the U.S.

Border to Saskatoon, Saskatchewanbetween August 24-26, 2022. (iii) All records relating to any and all complaints made by Dawn Walker against her ex-partner, [redacted], to the Fort Qu’appelleDetachment of the RCMP and to the Saskatoon Detachment of the RCMP and any resulting investigation between 2018 and the present,including but not limited to occurrence reports; officer notes; witness statements; all documents, photographs, and other records thatMs.Walker provided to police; Ms.

Walker’s statement(s), including any video and audio footage, as well as any summaries, of herstatement(s); all communications (including electronic and non-electronic) with Ms. Walker; all communications (including electronicand non-electronic) with all other witnesses or potential witnesses or their counsel (including electronic and non-electronic); the ultimatedisposition of the complaint(s), and police board discussions regarding Ms. Walker’s complaints and the investigations. From the Saskatoon Police Service: (

i) All schedules, agreements, or contracts reflecting the frequency of transportation available to transport women held in custodyat SPS Headquarters to Pine Grove Correctional Centre or any other correctional facility for women, in place or effect in August andSeptember 2022.

(ii) All schedules, agreements, or contracts reflecting the frequency of transportation available to bring men held in custody at SPS Headquarters to Saskatoon Correctional Centre or any other correctional facility for men, in place or effect in August and September 2022. (iii) All policies and procedures in effect between August 26, 2022 and August 29, 2022 reflecting, governing, or applying guidelines, rules, or mandates for the conditions of persons in custody at SPS Headquarters, not limited to conditions of the cells, as well as conditions reflecting these persons’ access to food, hygiene products (such as tooth brushes and toothpaste), showers, recreational opportunities, bedding (such as a bed, mattress, pillow, and blanket), medical care, and privacy screens for using the toilet in their cell and any logbooks notes relating to that period of time. (iv) All logbooks, notes, or other records from any officer who interacted with or observed Ms.

Walker while she was in SPS custody between August 26-29, 2022. (

v) A list of all officers on duty working in detention, including those officers supervising those working in detention, at SPS Headquarters between August 26-29, 2022. (vi) All SPS records relating to any and all complaints made by Dawn Walker against her ex-partner, [redacted], between 2018 and the present, including but not limited to occurrence reports; officer notes; witness statements; all documents, photographs, correspondence, and other records that Ms. Walker provided to police; Ms.

Walker’s statement(s), including any video and audio footage, as well as any summaries, of her statement(s); all communications (including electronic and non-electronic) with Ms. Walker; all communications (including electronic and non-electronic) with all other witnesses or potential witnesses or their counsel (including electronic and non-electronic); the ultimate disposition of the complaint(s), i.e. whether the file was closed without charges; and internal memorandums regarding Ms.

Walker’s complaints and the investigations. (vii) All records from SPS Victim Services relating to Dawn Walker, including but not limited to records of Ms. Walker’s referral to SPS Victim Services; notes from all calls or meetings between Ms. Walker and any Victim Services staff member or volunteer; reports from any such calls or meetings; and all electronic and non-electronic communications with Ms. Walker. From the Saskatchewan Ministry of Corrections, Policing, and Public Safety: (

i) All agreements, schedules, or contracts reflecting the frequency of transportation available to bring individuals held in custody at SPS Headquarters to Pine Grove Correctional Centre in place or in effect in August and September 2022. (ii) All policies, procedures, memoranda, guides, notes, instructions, rules, schedules, or any other records in effect between August 26, 2022 and September 2, 2022, reflecting, governing, or applying guidelines, rules, or mandates for the strip searching of persons entering or in custody at Pine Grove Correctional Centre, including but not limited to the Correctional Facility Search Plan and other records reflecting when such searches are to take place; the location of the searches; the means that may be used to conduct the searches; and all routine circumstances for searches. (iii) All records of Dawn Walker’s (D.O.B.

February 5, 1974) time in custody at Pine Grove Correctional Centre between August 29, 2022 and September 2, 2022. (iv) All records pertaining to Ms. Walker’s access to all services at Pine Grove Correctional Centre, including the yard, showers, telephones, medical care, as well as any programming. (

v) All records pertaining to any lockdown periods that occurred between August 28, 2022 and September 2, 2022, and the details of how those lockdowns were implemented. (vi) All records pertaining to all strip searches conducted of Dawn Walker at Pine Grove Correctional Centre between August 28, 2022 and September 2, 2022. (vii) All records pertaining to the number of people per cell shared with Ms. Walker between August 28, 2022 and September 2, 2022. (viii) All logbooks, notes, and any other records relating to any officer’s interaction with or observation of Ms.

Walker during her time in custody at Pine Grove Correctional Centre between August 29, 2022 and September 2, 2022. (ix) All available records reflecting statistics of Indigenous women versus non-Indigenous women in custody at Pine Grove Correctional Centre in August and September 2022. (

x) All records reflecting the inmate capacity of Pine Grove Correctional Centre and the actual number of inmates housed there between August 25, 2022 and September 2, 2022. (xi) All schedules, agreements, or contracts reflecting the frequency of transportation available to bring men taken into custody at SPS Headquarters to Saskatoon Correctional Centre or any other correctional facility for men in place or in effect in August and September 2022. From the Saskatchewan Ministry of Social Services: (

i) From 2018 until the present, all records relating to all complaints or tips made in relation to Dawn Walker’s child, Vincent Jansen; any file opened as a result; and any resulting investigation. This request includes but is not limited to complaints regarding an occurrence of physical injury (such as bruising) or sexualized conduct. This request includes, but is not limited to, all records of any anonymous complaints made over the phone or electronically; any notes or reports from investigative interviews; any correspondence with involved parties; and the ultimate disposition of the complaint(s), i.e. whether the file was closed with or without action.

___________________________ Judge B. Bauer IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKPC 57 Date: July 24, 2023 Information: 991218833 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: His Majesty the King Respondent - and - Dawn Walker Applicant - and - Government of Saskatchewan Respondent - and - Saskatoon Police Service Respondent - and - Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Respondent Appearing: L. Hnatiuk and T. Olenchuk For the Crown/Respondent J. Brevorka, and T. Boghosian For the Accused/Applicant S. Sinclair For an Affected Party M. Digout For the RCMP/Respondent A. Smith For the Saskatoon Police Service/Respondent K. McCreary For Saskatchewan Government Ministries/Respondent CORRIGENDUM TO THE FIAT OF JULY 24, 2023 B. BAUER, J November 15, 2023 [1] M. Henein was listed as appearing for the Accused/Applicant. That is incorrect. Although the Third Party Records Application and the three amended applications were filed under her signature, M. Henein did not appear on the matter. ___________________________ Judge B. Bauer