r v. IGOR STOLBERG, 2011 QCCQ 7897

Unofficial English Translation — Not Verified by SOQUIJ R. c. Stolberg 2011 QCCQ 7897 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL "Criminal and Penal Division" N o : 500-73-002901-078 N o : 500-73-002948-087 DATE: June 30, 2011 PRESIDING : HONOURABLE DENIS LAVERGNE, J.C.Q. THE QUEEN Prosecutor v. IGOR STOLBERG Defendant JUDGMENT

[ 1 ] The defendant is charged with four counts under the Weights and Measures Act [1] (the Act ). JL 1755 [ 2 ] Three of them relate to section 27(1)

a) of the Act which states:

(1) Every person is guilty of an offence who (

a) alters or adjusts the odometer of a motor vehicle in such a manner that as a result of the alteration or adjustment the total distance indicated on the odometer is other than the total distance traveled by that vehicle; […] [ 3 ] They relate to events which took place on June 11 and June 27, 2007 (file 500-73-002901-078, counts 1 and 2 and on September 6, 2007 (file 500-73-002948-087). [ 4 ] The defendant is also accused to have conspired, in June 2007, with Bahtiar Abduraimov (Bahtiar) to commit this same type of offense (file 500-73-002901-078, count 3). [ 5 ] The investigation of the charges happened simultaneously and the proof of the prosecutor and the defendant apply to both files. 1 – THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE [ 6 ] In the file, there is no direct evidence that the defendant has modified or adjusted the odometer of a vehicle so that the mileage does not represent the distance actually traveled. [ 7 ] As a result, the evidence being essentially circumstantial, the Court needs to determine if the facts establish, as the only rational conclusion, that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. [ 8 ] Regarding the facts, we cannot however disassociate it from the credibility of the defendant’s version who denies categorically having modified in any way the three odometers of the vehicles mentioned in the indictments and having plotted with Bahtiar. [ 9 ] The Court must therefore analyze the defendant’s version with regard to the context and all the circumstances, and apply the rule set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

W.(D.) [2] and reviewed in R. v. C.L.Y. [3] et R. v. J.H.S. [4] 2 – context, highlights and relevant facts [ 10 ] In 2006, Radio-Canada broadcasted a television report (exhibit D-2) featuring fraudulent adjustments of vehicles’ odometers, the technique used, and the easy access on the market to available software able to modify odometers. [ 11 ] More particularly, the TV report targets a company found through an address on an Internet website from which it seems possible to download software to modify odometers. [ 12 ] The company is a general mechanics garage located at 900-B Jean Talon Street.

For a period of time, the defendant owned the garage after he started working there in 1997. In 2006, he sold the garage to a couple who in turn sold it to Bahtiar some time later.

[ 13 ] Even after he sold the garage, the defendant, specialized in electronics and electricity, often went there on demand, to bring solutions to clients’ needs. [ 14 ] The defendant appears in the TV report and seems to be working, according to what the journalist suggests, on the odometer of a vehicle after a so-called client asked to have the odometer of her vehicle moved back 100,000 km. [ 15 ] It is believed that this TV report is not unrelated to the subsequent police investigation. [ 16 ] Regarless, the garage was placed under surveillance. [ 17 ] An undercover agent goes to the garage on May 25, 2007 to take a look at the premises and to establish contact.

He meets with a man named "Bart", probably Bahtiar, and asks if he can lower the odometer’s mileage. After asking a few questions to know how the undercover agent obtained the address of the garage and how he knows that he could have his odometer modified there, "Bart" has a telephone conversation in a foreign language with a person whose identity has not been established. Then, "Bart" asks for the mark of the car, explains to the undercover agent the service agreement procedure, and indicates a price of $200. [ 18 ] The undercover agent goes back to the garage on June 11 and June 27, 2007.

Every time, he asks the service attendant to lower the mileage. First, on June 11, 2007, he asks to lower the mileage of a Honda Civic (the Honda), which odometer displays 300,000 km to less than 200,000 km: the mileage of the odometer will be lowered to 184,822 km.

Then, on June 27, the undercover agent asks to lower the mileage of a Plymouth, model Voyager (the Plymouth) which odometer displays 147,898 km; the mileage will be lowered to 87,502 km. [ 19 ] Each time, the undercover agent pays $200 cash. [ 20 ] In addition, a video recording made on September 6, 2007 (document P-48), which is the result of police surveillance, shows the defendant apparently working on the dashboard of a Ford car, model Focus (the Ford), at 3877, Monselet Street, Montreal.

The defendant comes and goes several times from this vehicle to his own, a Dodge Caravan Minivan which is parked next to the Ford. The video shows, among other things, the defendant using a tool and removing a piece of the dashboard. [ 21 ] The Ford belongs to Mr. Franco Ruccolo or to the company of which he is the main shareholder. This company has an office located at 3877, Monselet Street. [ 22 ] At a date which has not been established, Mr. Ruccolo admits that he asked for the odometer’s mileage of the Ford to be lowered.

On a piece of paper, he wrote a phone number and something which suggested it was possible to have a vehicle’s odometer modified at this number. The facts do not establish how and from whom Mr. Ruccolo obtains this phone number nor the information written on the piece of paper. [ 23 ] However that way be, that same day, the next day, or two days after the phone call, Mr. Ruccolo does not remember precisely, a person he does not know and who he couldn’t identify during the trial, comes to Monselet Street. Mr.

Ruccolo shows him the Ford and asks him to lower the mileage of the odometer by 5,000 - 6,000 km, according to what he remembers. It was a rented car. Mr. Ruccolo wanted to avoid having to pay a penalty at the end of the lease, which allowed him to drive a maximum of 60,000 km with the vehicle. [ 24 ] Once the work was done, Mr. Ruccolo gave the person between $270 and $300, another detail about which the witness is not sure. [ 25 ] However, he assures that he asked the person only to lower the mileage of the odometer.

He did not check the result himself, but paid the individual believing him when he said the work had been done.

[ 26 ] In addition, upon the request of the defendant, Bahtiar testifies. [ 27 ] A mechanic for 15 years, he became the owner of the garage in 2006. He knows the defendant well, who comes to the garage frequently, almost every day, upon clients’ requests, to perform electrical jobs on the vehicles. [ 28 ] Essentially, he denies any consultation, plot, or agreement with the defendant in order to modify odometers. [ 29 ] He admits having lowered the mileage of the Honda’s odometer, and pleaded guilty to the accusation of doing so.

He retracted his statement given to the police on October 17, 2007, in which he accused the defendant.

During the trial, he declared that he said to the police officer whatever came to his mind. 3 – ANALYSIS 3.1 – The facts proved [ 30 ] Several elements in this case are not contested, not disputed or admitted: - direct evidence proves that the odometers of the Honda and the Plymouth have been modified, on June 11 and June 27, 2007, respectively, after the vehicles have been left at the garage located on 900-B, Jean Talon Street, where the defendant works; - the defendant was at the garage on June 11 and June 27, 2007, when the work was performed on the Honda and the Plymouth.

On June 27, he drove the Plymouth into the garage; - two fingerprints, identified as being the right thumb and the left thumb of the defendant, were found on the plastic piece protecting the odometer of the Honda (document P-7); - the defendant is the owner of the Dodge Caravan Minivan, registration number 774 SBG, which has been seen not only at the garage on Jean Talon Street on June 11, but also on Monselet Street, on September 6, 2007, when he worked on the Ford’s dashboard; - a person modified the odometer of the Ford; concerning this fact, there is no direct proof; but given the circumstances, it is the only plausible and rational inference that can be drawn from Mr.

Ruccolo’s testimony; - in 2007, the defendant runs a company under the corporate name of "Auto Stop Service"; his Dodge Caravan vehicle contains notably computer equipment, documents describing various vehicle brands, wires, and adapters; - as an experienced mechanic, specialized in the resolution of electric and electronic problems on motor vehicles, the defendant has the necessary abilities to modify an odometer; he acknowledges that fact, even though he denies having done so; - on October 27, 2007, during a search done at the defendant’s residence and in his Dodge Caravan vehicle, several objects were seized, and in particular four computers, among which were two laptops which were in the vehicle, and two computer towers which were at the residence; - a judicial analysis of these computers performed by the police officer Bernard Hébert, declared expert witness in computer data retrieval and analysis, revealed the presence of various software used to lower the mileage of odometers, in the two laptops and in one of the computer towers as well as in a USB key found in the personal items of the defendant.

3.2 – Event of June 11, 2007 – the Honda [ 31 ] On June 11, 2007, a little before 11:00 am, the undercover agent arrives at the garage driving the Honda that he was given with the mission to ask for the mileage to be lowered. [ 32 ] Two individuals are there. One of them is named "Bart", the person who, during his visit on May 25, gave him information concerning the procedure to modify the odometer. He does not know the other individual. [ 33 ] The undercover agent explains what he wants. The person named "Bart" calls someone and talks with that person in a foreign language.

After the phone call, "Bart" asks him to leave the premises and to come back in an hour. The agent comes back at 12:52 pm. The garage is closed. A person he never saw before opens the door and invites him to be seated in the garage. [ 34 ] A few minutes later, the defendant arrives; he holds a white box, the size of a tissue box, and sits behind the wheel of the Honda. He writes something on a piece of paper after checking the Honda’s serial number. He gets out of the vehicle, goes to the Dogde Caravan, and comes back with a box or an instrument made in red plastic that he connects somewhere in the Honda.

The defendant leaves. "Bart" confirms to the undercover agent that the work is done. The odometer’s mileage has been lowered to 184,822 km. The undercover agent gives "Bart" $200 in $20 bills. 3.3 – Event of June 27, 2007 – the Plymouth [ 35 ] On June 27, the undercover agent goes back to the same place. This time, he is given a Plymouth, with an odometer reading of 147,898 km. Once more, "Bart" welcomes him. The undercover agent asks him for the same thing, in this instance and more particularly, to lower the odometer’s mileage to about 90,085 km.

Once again, "Bart" calls someone and talks with that person in a foreign language. [ 36 ] "Bart" does not want the undercover agent to wait in the garage during the fulfillment of the contract. The undercover agent has no other choice than to leave the premises; he comes back after "Bart" calls him on his phone. "Bart" tells him that the work is done; the odometer’s mileage has been lowered to 87,502 km. He gives "Bart" $200 cash, then leaves with the Plymouth around 12:58 pm. 3.4 – Event of September 6, 2007 – the Ford [ 37 ] Mr.

Ruccolo’s testimony and the video recording showing the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of the Ford and working on the dashboard, which the Court has mentioned previously, constitute the key facts of this event. 3.5 – The defense of Mr.

Igor Stolberg [ 38 ] The defendant denies the allegation that he lowered the mileage of the odometers at issue, and of any other odometer of a motor vehicle, or that he had done so with somebody else. [ 39 ] He strives to demonstrate that the equipment he has, which is suspicious according to the prosecutor, is actually tools used for his work as a mechanic specialized in all kinds of motor vehicles electronic and electric systems. [ 40 ] As such, for example, the software enabling to modify the odometers also have legitimate functions such as exploring, analyzing in detail, and resolving complex technical problems.

At the same time, these explanations underline that it is legal to possess software which can be used to contravene the law, therefore distinguishing the possession itself, which is not illegal, and the use, which can be illegal. [ 41 ] Several questions relate to his business relationship with "Bahtiar". Relevant to the accusation of plotting, these questions are

given laborious, if not evasive answers on the arrangements agreed upon between the defendant and "Bahtiar", whether it is on the service contracts or on the compensation.

We can at least draw the conclusion that first, the defendant works at times on demand to answer the needs of his own clients, and at times to respond to "Bahtiar"’s calls for problems which "Bahtiar" cannot solve himself, and that second, he often goes to the garage on Jean Talon Street. [ 42 ] Now, for the main part, here is the version of the defendant on the three events relating to the modified odometers: - he denies lowering the Honda’s odometer on June 11, 2007, and explains the presence of his fingerprints by saying he verified a motor problem for which he had to remove the lid of the dashboard.

He does not remember exactly why he was at the garage on June 11, but "Bahtiar" asked him to check what was wrong with the motor. He solved the problem. He used a red "scanner", but did not need to use programs or software able to lower the mileage of an odometer. He performed the work for free; - he does not remember either why he was at the garage on June 27, 2007, if it is that he first went to the Jean Talon market. It is possible that "Bahtiar" asked him to perform some task, but he cannot be more precise about the nature of the task.

Even though he himself drove the Plymouth in the garage, he did not work on it and did not see anyone do anything on it; - on September 6, 2007, somebody called him for electronic problems on a vehicle. The person did not tell him anything precise on the phone. He did not know if he was going to have to take a part apart because of the problem. However, he thinks he changed some parts. Finally, he confirms it was an electronic problem, describes the tools used and denies seeing or talking to Mr.

Ruccolo. 3.6 – Assessment [ 43 ] The Court does not believe the defendant. [ 44 ] His version is neither coherent nor compatible with the balance of probabilities characterizing the established facts. [ 45 ] Before looking at the counts of the offense, it is important to make some observations on the defendant’s testimony concerning two elements. [ 46 ] The first one relates to the video recording of the Radio-Canada TV report that the defendant files (document D-2).

This TV report, it’s important to say, establishes that a woman, a fake client, talks to an individual and asks him if he can lower the odometer’s mileage of her car. The report also shows the defendant holding an object hidden under a blanket or a towel, that the context suggests is the dashboard of the woman’s car. [ 47 ] We have to say that the TV report is striking: it puts the garage on Jean Talon Street in general, and the defendant in particular, in the hot seat, showing the Act being violated. [ 48 ] Against all expectations, he does not remember what is the object he was holding.

The video recording is a visual document filed by the defendant, but he does not remember having worked on the vehicle of the fake client nor the nature of the work he was asked to do. [ 49 ] At the time of the trial the event had happened more than three years ago; nevertheless, it is surprising that the defendant, denying having violated the Act , is not able to give the Court explanation on a detail as important as the nature of the work that he was asked to do in a damning context of allegations of modifying odometers. [ 50 ] The Court wants to point out that the offences of which the defendant is accused are not dependant on this TV report, and the latter should not be considered as a similar fact.

However, the defendant’s reaction during cross-examination on the subject of the video recording leaves skeptical as far as the witness’ credibility is concerned.

[ 51 ] A second aspect of the defendant’s version discredits its transparency. [ 52 ] The defendant strongly insists on the fact that the software identified by the expert as a tool to fraudulently modify a vehicle’s odometer cannot perform this task without the use of additional computer equipment or of additional processes. He also dithered over his ability to lower the mileage of an odometer. Given that the defendant is a specialized mechanic, and that the process does not seem that complex according to the evidence presented, such a denial is disconcerting.

To deny having committed an offence does not mean not being able to commit it. [ 53 ] However, in defense of the defendant, he testifies in a language that is not his mother tongue. We cannot exclude the fact that he may not have well understood the meaning of the question as soon as it was asked, even though the Court did not notice anything significant concerning this matter.

In any event, helped by a lawyer, it is difficult to understand why the defendant does not acknowledge straightaway his ability to modify an odometer. [ 54 ] The same observation applies concerning the business relationship that exists between him and "Bahtiar". As mentioned previously, the defendant’s version is vague, as if it were better not to say everything. On this point, it looks like "Bahtiar"’s version which the Court addresses later. [ 55 ] The defendant does not describe in detail what he does on the Honda and the Ford. Does he have a selective memory or does he simply not remember?

Whichever is the case, they both have an impact on the reliability of his version. Of course, there is not much to say about a witness who makes the choice not to remember compromising facts.

And as for the witness who actually does not remember, this might not be enough when a circumstantial evidence strongly suggests the facts that are trying to be demonstrated. [ 56 ] As far as the offences are concerned, the Court does not accept the defendant’s version, which in addition, does not raise any reasonable doubt. [ 57 ] On count number 1, in file 500-002901-078, the Court accepts the following: - the undercover agent’s version for which we have no reason to doubt the credibility; - first, the Honda odometer’s mileage has been lowered on the request of the undercover agent; also, after a phone call of someone named "Bart", and then after the work has been performed by the defendant; - the fingerprints on the dashboard; - the undercover agent does not ask anything other than to lower the odometer’s mileage; - the defendant has the ability to lower the mileage of an odometer, because of the skills he has as a mechanic, and because he possesses the tools and the necessary equipment to do so. [ 58 ] The defendant’s version does not raise, in the circumstances, any reasonable doubt, because his account is not compatible with the balance of probabilities that he actually would have lowered the mileage of the Honda’s odometer.

Besides his testimony, nothing confirms it. Thus, there is no bill or document proving the nature of the legitimate work he claims to have performed. [ 59 ] Let’s now discuss briefly of "Bahtiar"’s testimony.

[ 60 ] In a way, this witness exculpates the defendant because he acknowledges having lowered the mileage of the Honda’s odometer, pleaded guilty to the resulting charge, and was given a fine of $200. In addition, he denies having committed any other offence of this type, and especially having modified the mileage of the Plymouth’s odometer. [ 61 ] He does not remember the defendant coming on June 11, nor does he remember anything concerning the Plymouth or the presence of the defendant at the garage on June 27, 2007.

The cross-examination, during which several questions were asked to try to associate the witness with the defendant in his illegal activities of odometer modification, does not reveal anything tangible. Not remembering the details, the witness denies everything when asked compromising questions. He admits requesting the services of the defendant when he could not on his own resolve electric or electronic problems. [ 62 ] On June 11, 2007, a client actually asked him to lower the mileage of the Honda’s odometer. He is not sure if he saw that person before that date.

He did not ask the defendant to assist or help him in any way, and especially not to lower the mileage of the Honda’s odometer. [ 63 ] The witness’ version concerning the questioning he underwent when he was arrested on October 17, 2007 makes it not reliable. [ 64 ] He first denies meeting the police officer Mr. Frédéric Proulx, and from what we understand does not remember the name, even though he spent four hours in his presence. He quickly corrects himself and admits having been in contact with one or more police officers.

He maintains that he does not remember talking to the police officers, nor does he remember the questions asked to him. He declares that the arrest caught him by surprise, and made him angry and nervous. Consequently, he answered to the questions whatever he came out his mind, even though a few seconds later he declares that he does not remember talking to the officers. [ 65 ] The questioning of the witness was filmed and the video recording has been watched during the hearing. We can hear the witness declare that the defendant asks for $200 to lower the mileage of an odometer.

After denying giving the defendant money paid by the clients for the work performed, he acknowledges the fact when he sees another abstract of his statement to the police officers. [ 66 ] However that may be, the witness does not during the trial reiterate this statement, claiming that he said what he thought was the truth at the time, which would not be the same at the trial. [ 67 ] When he is confronted with the contradictions which exists between his testimony at the trial and his previous statement, the witness gives nebulous explanations that would reveal a poor understanding of the questions. [ 68 ] The Court rejects this testimony which is not trustworthy. [ 69 ] For these reasons, the Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecutor has proven beyond all reasonable doubt all the constituent elements of the offence and declares the defendant guilty under count #1, namely, to have illegally modified the odometer of the Honda. [ 70 ] On count 2, concerning the Plymouth, the same reasons and the same conclusion apply in regards to the defendant’s version. [ 71 ] The undercover agent’s testimony concerning the request to have the mileage of the Plymouth’s odometer lowered and the arrival on the premises of the defendant who himself drives the Plymouth in the garage, as well as the temporal proximity of these two facts make the defendant’s participation to the odometer’s modification likely. [ 72 ] However, penal law does not operate on probabilities; there needs to be a convincing proof beyond all reasonable doubt about the defendant’s culpability, a proof which when circumstantial, does not allow to come to any other conclusion than the person’s culpability. [ 73 ] In this case, the undercover agent does not stay on the premises while the work is performed.

The video recording does not reveal either what happens inside the garage after the door closes on the Plymouth. Even though it establishes beyond all reasonable

doubt the modification of the odometer, the evidence does not identify the author. Therefore, we have to proceed by deduction. According to the evidence, and especially the video recording, two individuals are seen at the garage’s entrance a little bit before the Plymouth is taken out of it. One of them seems to be the defendant. As a result, we can suppose that one of them has lowered the odometer’s mileage. But, we cannot exclude either the presence of other people in the garage.

And last, if we subscribe to the hypothesis that the defendant is not the person who lowered the odometer’s mileage, his penal responsibility can only be at stake if we have proof beyond all reasonable doubt that he took

part in the offence by complicity. The facts in the case do not allow that conclusion to be drawn. [ 74 ] The prosecutor does not demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt the direct or complicit participation of the accused in the offence mentioned in count 2.

The Court acquits the defendant. [ 75 ] On count 3, the allegation of plot, the Court acquits also the defendant for the same reason: the evidences in the case do not establish beyond all reasonable doubt that there was a plot, even if some disconcerting, if not incriminating, elements could suggest it. [ 76 ] For reasons already mentioned, the Court believes neither the defendant nor "Bahtiar" who denies his participation in a plot.

It goes without saying that to not believe a person who denies committing an offence does not mean this person committed the offence of which he is accused. [ 77 ] The prosecutor still needs to prove beyond all reasonable doubt all the constituent elements of the offense. Plot means the co- conspirators have the intention to make an agreement, to accept to act together to realize a common project doing something illegal. [ 78 ] Which are the elements in the file which would reveal a plot? [ 79 ] First of all, we would have to make sure that "Bart", to who the undercover agent talks, is "Bahtiar".

This is not established with certainty. But, if we take for granted that this is the case, we can mention the presence of the defendant on the premises on June 11 and 27, 2007, at a time during which the odometers of the two vehicles were modified, and especially after a phone call in a foreign language from "Bahtiar" to a person which has not been identified. Some elements of the expert’s report suggest the communications where in Russian. "Bahtiar" and the defendant are of Russian origin.

In addition, the frequent presence of the defendant at the garage suggests the existence of a tight business relationship with "Bahtiar". [ 80 ] However, these facts are not sufficient. We have to make the difference between committing an offence and participating in a plot to commit an offence.

These are two different actions, and the fact that a person committed an offence does not mean this person has beforehand plotted to commit the offence. [ 81 ] First of all, we cannot exclude that the defendant was at the garage to perform perfectly legitimate tasks; after all, he is a mechanic; and second, even if the presence of the defendant at the garage on June 11 and 27 coincides with the modification of the Honda’s and the Plymouth’s odometers, the proof does not allow us to conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant has plotted with "Bahtiar" for that purpose. [ 82 ] As far as the file 500-73-002948-087 is concerned, which relates to the event of September 6, 2007, and the Focus, the Court declares the defendant guilty. [ 83 ] As for his version on the event relating to the Honda, the version the defendant gives concerning the Ford is not more compatible with the balance of probabilities: - the defendant cannot describe the nature of the problem and of the repair done to solve it; - Mr.

Ruccolo’s gives a version that the Court believes trustworthy, and of which we have no reason to doubt; - the presence of the defendant at the residence or business office of Mr. Ruccolo after the latter called him to lower an odometer’s

mileage; - the defendant’s position in the Ford, seated on the driver’s seat, behind the wheel, working on the dashboard; - the cash amount, between $270 and $300, given by Mr. Ruccolo to the individual who performed the work. [ 84 ] It is true that Mr. Ruccolo cannot precisely remember the date of the phone call; we could even think he does not remember precisely the date when the individual comes to his place to modify the odometer. Neither does he identify the person who performed the work. [ 85 ] The video sequence showing the defendant working on the Focus’ dashboard compensate for Mr.

Ruccolo’s inability to identify the person who comes to his place on September 6. Besides, the defendant remains vague concerning the nature of the work he performed. On the other hand, Mr. Ruccolo is assertive: he calls someone to lower the odometer’s mileage. [ 86 ] The fact that Mr. Ruccolo does not remember either the date he made the phone call nor the date the work was done would suppose, to raise a reasonable doubt, that he called the defendant on another occasion for another electronic or electric problem.

Nothing in the proof, and especially not in the cross-examination, supports such a hypothesis. [ 87 ] The defendant declares neither seeing nor talking to Mr. Ruccolo when he went to his place to solve, according to him, an electronic problem. That is unbelievable. But even if it was the case, that hypothesis does not change anything to the indisputable fact that we see the defendant working on the Focus’ dashboard. Judging from Mr. Ruccolo’s testimony, there is a correlation between the work requested, the coming of the defendant, and the price paid.

Therefore, if we accept the hypothesis that the defendant neither saw nor talked to Mr. Ruccolo, we would have to conclude that somebody else received the money for the work performed. This would not have an impact on the penal responsibility of the defendant.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: - File 500-73-002901-078: • On count 1: FINDS the defendant guilty to have illegally modified a motor vehicle’s odometer, namely a Honda Civic vehicle, on June 11, 2007; • On count 2: ACQUITS the defendant; • On count 3: ACQUITS the defendant. - File 500-73-002948-087: FINDS the defendant guilty to have illegally modified or adjusted a motor vehicle’s odometer, namely a Ford Focus vehicle, on

September 6, 2007. __________________________________ DENIS LAVERGNE J.C.Q. Me Guillaume Lemay Me Alain Pilotte For the prosecutor Me Marin Guzun For the defendant Dates of the hearings: March 9, 10, 2010; June 28, 29, 30, 2010; December 17, 2010; March 4, 2011; April 21, 2011; June 30, 2011. [1] R.S.C. 1985, c. W-6. [2] (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. [3] 2008 CSC 2. [4] 2008 CSC 30.