Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2012 SKPC 120

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKPC 120 Date: July 20, 2012 Information: 45562481 Location: Regina _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Efe Omene Appearing: Mitch Crumley, Esquire and Mr. S. M. Syed For the Crown Adam A. Fritzler, Esquire For the Accused JUDGMENT B.D. HENNING , J [ 1 ] The Accused, Efe Omene, is charged with three counts of theft contrary to

section 334 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The offences alleged all concern the taking of money from wallets belonging to patrons of a nightclub in Regina known as “the Drink” at 2424 Dewdney Avenue, and this establishment will generally be referred to in this judgment as “the bar”. Currency is alleged to have been taken from three persons who each separately had their identification checked by the Accused on the evening of March 26, 2012 and the early morning of March 27, 2012, in the course of his employment as a security person at the establishment. Mr.

Omene and two other employees of the bar who gave evidence referring to either as security persons or “bouncers”. [ 2 ] The trial occurred on the dates of January 24 th and March 14, 2012, with argument presented on April 17, 2012. A transcript of the proceedings on the earlier dates was available and was referenced during argument. It was adjourned to the present date for

decision. [ 3 ] This case is a factually-based case and turns on the credibility of witnesses, although the facts are not simple. No arguments were submitted on the law with respect to theft, but the applicability of similar fact evidence was argued, as were potential inferences from such evidence. Although the complainants were questioned on the issue of identity, identity of the person whom they identified as the perpetrator was not an issue at the close of the trial. Evidence was given by the complainants, police investigators, Mr. Omene, two other employees of the bar, and by a friend of Mr. Omene.

Security videos were also introduced as evidence in the form of a DVD, P-1. [ 4 ] The first witness to give evidence was Constable Priscilla Johnstone. She indicated that she and her partner, Cst. Turner, received radio calls relating to three thefts that had occurred at the Drink bar on Dewdney in the late evening of the 26 th . The first complainant they spoke to was Zade Nadon, but they did not take a statement until another date due to his intoxication at that time. The second complainant did not remain at the bar. The third complainant, who they did speak to, was Chris Hamann. Cst.

Johnstone stated she spoke to Mr. Hamann, who was not intoxicated, in a patrol car, and that he was very angry over what had occurred. In speaking to her, Mr. Hamann identified a person by name as the perpetrator. Cst. Johnstone also obtained a surveillance video which was exhibited as P-1. [ 5 ] The next witness was Cst. Johnstone’s partner that evening, Cst. Jonathon Turner. He gave evidence to a similar effect as Cst. Johnstone, but added some details, including that the bar was very crowded and busy that night.

He indicated that he spoke with the complainant Zade Nadon, who had been too intoxicated to interview at the initial meeting, on April 2, 2011. Cst. Turner took a photo line-up to his interview with Mr. Nadon, and this was exhibited as P-2. Mr. Nadon chose the #3 person in that line-up. [ 6 ] The first complainant to testify was Mr. Chris Hamann, who had been interviewed by police on the night in question, and had been observed not to be intoxicated. He indicated that he had gone to the bar with $300.00, and later after using a VLT, he had $200.00.

He stated the Accused came up to him and asked him to show him identification. He handed him his wallet, and the Accused walked away with the wallet. He followed the Accused to the washroom, and he said this happened at about 1:30 a.m. He said that he realized his money was gone immediately when he received the wallet back, and demanded it from the security person. He said that the Accused then turned on him, accusing him of being racist (Mr. Omene is black skinned), and ordered him out of the bar. [ 7 ] Mr.

Hamann provided further details indicating that he had handed over his wallet near the front entrance, and had to follow the Accused some distance to the washroom, and when his wallet was returned his money was missing. A short discussion occurred in the washroom, and the Accused pushed him out of the washroom. This is shown on the surveillance video of the washroom scene which is described in more detail in the course of Mr. Omene’s evidence. This is the first of three video clips on P-1, identified as the “bathroom”. Mr. Hamann identified himself and the Accused in the video. Mr.

Hamann also indicated that he had just arrived at the bar when this incident had occurred, and he had played a VLT and ordered a beer. When he spoke to the police investigators that night, he said that he identified the Accused as the perpetrator. Mr. Hamann was cross-examined with respect to his statement and discrepancies between his evidence at trial and in the statement. These discrepancies are not of significance, in my opinion, and could easily be the result of a state of fatigue, tension and excitement at the time of giving the statement, and the passage of time, all of which can affect details.

He stated that the only money left in the wallet was a torn part of a $20.00 bill, which could be consistent with hasty removal of the rest of the bills from the wallet. It is a small detail which is not, in my opinion, likely to be one that would occur to any but the most calculating witness, if it was fabricated. Mr. Hamann, however, did not appear to be a calculating witness, and gave his evidence in a credible manner. [ 8 ] Derek Warrack was the next complainant to give evidence.

He gave his evidence in a clear and unaffected manner, and appeared credible in providing as much detail as he was capable of giving. He indicated that he and a couple of friends had gone to the bar, and had been there about 45 minutes when he became involved in some type of incident that involved shoving and pushing with a person he was acquainted with. He was immediately escorted outside of the bar by two bouncers, and one of them asked for his wallet for identification. He received it back quickly, but with $150.00 missing.

One of the bouncers had spoken to him, in his opinion, to distract him, while the other handled the wallet. He indicated he had four or five drinks that evening, but only one at the bar where this happened. He was able to identify the Accused in Court as the person who had handled his wallet. He elaborated that the other bouncer had spoken to him in an unusually close to his face manner, and he could not see the wallet. He said that he tried to follow the bouncers into the bar after he realized his money was missing, but he was prevented from doing so.

He indicated that five $20.00 bills and one $50.00 bill were missing. He demonstrated the wallet in question in Court, which was a tri-fold type that opened easily. [ 9 ] Mr. Warrack was cross-examined extensively, but his evidence about the money he had, and what was missing was not diminished. He was questioned regarding details of a statement he gave to police on the night in question, of which he recalled little, and one he gave the next day. Further, in cross-examination it was brought out that the witness had seen the Accused some weeks after at the apartment of a friend. A Mr.

Shawn Thompson, who was acquainted with the Accused since high school, and was slightly acquainted with Mr. Warrack from a gym, gave evidence about this incident, as did Mr. Omene. The incident was contrived by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Omene to give the Accused the opportunity of a meeting with Mr. Warrack.

[ 10 ] At this meeting, Mr. Warrack indicated that the Accused had identified himself as the one who was charged in the incident, and engaged him in a long conversation over the incident. He stated that the Accused had asked him to please say that it was not him who did it. Mr. Warrack refused to indicate what he would or would not say. This incident will be discussed further in relation to the testimony of Mr. Omene and Mr. Thompson. [ 11 ] As this area had been introduced in cross-examination, the Crown was allowed to re-open examination on it, and Mr. Warrack elaborated somewhat on the conversation. Mr.

Warrack said in re-direct examination that he had been offered free access into the bar. He was unsure if the Accused, or “they”, offered to repay $150.00. Mr. Warrack did not indicate that he was threatened, and evidence of a possible bribe is not clear. In recounting this event, Mr. Warrack did not give any indication of exaggeration, fabrication or bearing a grudge. It is clear that this meeting was not by chance, that it was for the purpose of bringing the Accused and one of his accusers together, and was for the purpose of exerting some type of influence on the complainant. The Accused and his friend, Mr.

Thompson, are both large and muscular young men and the situation was clearly intimidating. [ 12 ] The next witness was Cst. Pascal Chagnon. He and his partner Cst. Davies had been dispatched to the Drink after several similar complaints had been received. It was not clear how many patrol vehicles went to the bar that evening, but he indicated that besides his and his partner’s vehicle there was a Sergeant Tate there who did not travel with either of the two police patrol vehicles whose occupants have given evidence. It is apparent there was a large police presence at that location that evening. Cst.

Chagnon stated that he effected the arrest of the Accused at the scene of the events, and that when the Accused was searched, only two $5.00 bills were found on his person. [ 13 ] The final Crown evidence was given by Mr. Zade Nadon on the second trial date. He indicated that he had been at the bar on the night in question and had poor recall of the events, and was unable now to identify the persons at the bar who he had contact with. He had been asked to leave by two black persons who he could not identify, but he adopted his earlier statement where he had identified the person he dealt with as “Efe”.

He had earlier been shown a photograph line-up by the police and had identified person #3 in the line-up. [ 14 ] He indicated that the two persons had demanded everything in his pockets, which included a number of items, including $20.00 bills folded together. The bills were not returned with the other items. He demanded the money back, but it was not returned. He was taken out of the bar, and tried to return, but could not, so he called 911 and made a complaint.

His friends were still in the bar, but he did not remain and walked to his home quite some distance away. [ 15 ] The Accused, Efe Omene testified as the first Defence witness. He indicated that he was 37 years old, and was originally from Nigeria, but had been in Canada since 2004 on a work permit. He described his duties as a security person or “bouncer” for two years “on and off”, indicating that he was responsible for seeing that drugs were not in the premises.

He described this aspect of his responsibility in some detail, and indicated that an unidentified police inspector had impressed this responsibility on him. He indicated that searching persons, and particularly their wallets, was part of this responsibility. He indicated that he had found ecstasy pills and cocaine on occasion and had discarded the drugs and sent the persons away, without referring anything to the police. [ 16 ] Mr. Omene indicated he did searches in plain view and had been threatened during some searches. He stated that he recalled Mr.

Zade Nadon, and saw him do something that appeared, to him, to be consistent with passing something, impliedly drugs, and that Mr. Nadon was very intoxicated and abusive. He recalled that Mr. Nadon had accused him immediately of theft. He said that he invited him to call the police, and heard him do so, and all of this occurred at the front entrance. Another bouncer was present at the time. He indicated that he had searched 20 or 25 persons that day, although he had said earlier that in the two years’ time at the bar he had only searched about 45 persons. [ 17 ] Mr.

Omene described the washroom incident, and said that person was abusive to him, accusing him of theft, to which he had retaliated by accusing the person of being racist. He indicated he had a friend who worked with him in security at the same time who was present when this happened. He did not recall the third incident, and repeated again that he had searched 20 or 25 people that night. Mr. Omene watched the video of the event in the washroom and identified himself, another bouncer, and a third employee, who was a cleaner, as well as the complainant. The video showed him dealing with the person being searched.

A dispute of some sort is clearly apparent. No sound is heard in any of the videos. A second video was also shown to Mr. Omene of a scene outside the bar, wherein the door opened and the Accused walked through it with another patron and second security officer. [ 18 ] Mr. Omene then discussed the incident with Mr. Warrack with the contrived meeting at an apartment. He said that Mr. Warrack said that he was too “hammered” to remember anything. He was extensively cross-examined about this incident, but with little effect, except that he maintained that Mr.

Warrack made this remark, which has not been dealt with formally as a previous inconsistent statement.

[ 19 ] With respect to Mr. Hamann, the person who followed him into the washroom, Mr. Omene stated again that he had authority from the police to conduct these searches. He had never discussed his actions in searching persons and finding drugs with the management of the bar and had not referred any cases to the police. He stated he found no drugs on Mr. Hamann. Mr. Omene indicated that it was necessary to take Mr. Hamann to the washroom because the light was better there, but the video shows a lighted area on the other side of the door to the washroom. Mr. Hamann had said that Mr.

Omene had his wallet during the relatively long walk to the washroom, and it was only returned to him there. The video shows no type of search other than the handling of a wallet, but Mr. Omene said he may have patted Mr. Hamann down outside of the camera range in the hallway, where the light, according to him, was not as good. He indicated that he was accused of stealing in the washroom, and the video does show anger by Mr. Omene with aggressive pointing and gesturing with his hand at close range in Mr. Hamann’s face. He indicated Mr.

Hamann was “dead drunk” and “staggering”, but that is not consistent with police observations, and does not show in the video where Mr. Hamann’s walking and other movements are within the normal range. [ 20 ] Mr. Omene said that he did not know Zade Nadon, but did know his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend, and speculated that this might be the basis of a grudge by Mr. Nadon against him. He identified Mr. Nadon in a video, identified as the second one on the DVD exhibit. In the video, a person, who is Mr. Nadon, leaves with two bouncers, which includes Mr. Omene. Mr.

Omene said the search was in the area of the door, but the video shows them proceeding out of camera range to a darker area, then Mr. Omene returning to the lighted area with something in his hand which he appears to examine, and then retreating again out of camera range, and then the parties returning and entering the building. (Mr. Nadon was never shown this video during his evidence, and his recollection of the event had many gaps, and he did not describe this sequence of actions in any detail.) Mr. Omene in cross-examination again insisted that he saw something done by Mr.

Nadon that he implied might constitute a drug transaction. [ 21 ] Mr. Omene admitted he had discussed this case with a number of people, but not with potential witnesses, and that he had described his situation as “fighting for his life”. [ 22 ] The next Defence witness was Mr. Osarodion Iserhienrhin who was also from Nigeria and had worked with Mr. Omene at the Drink for eight months. He now had other employment, but had worked as cleaner and was that person shown in the video in the washroom.

He stated that he recalled the incident, and that the Accused and another person came in, with another security person, and conducted a search. He indicated he did not pay very much attention. He stated he recalled the Accused check the wallet. He indicated he had never seen anything like this occur before. He admitted that he might not have seen the whole incident, and that he had a brief contact with the Accused over the incident. His evidence adds little to the narrative. [ 23 ] The next witness, Mr. Shawn Thompson, was the person who facilitated the meeting with Mr. Warrack and the Accused.

He had been talking to the Accused about the incidents at the bar on the evening in question, and Mr. Omene had found out that Mr. Thompson had connection, through a mutual friend named Bruce, with one of the complainants, Derek Warrack. This person named Bruce brought Mr. Warrack to the place where he would meet the Accused. On entering the apartment, Mr. Thompson indicated that Mr. Omene offered Mr. Warrack a drink, and asked him if “he knew who he was”, saying he “was the guy at the bar”. [ 24 ] Mr. Thompson admitted that Mr.

Warrack became timid and quiet at this point, and that he left after about one half hour. He stated that no bribes or inducements were offered to Mr. Warrack. As noted previously, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Omene are larger than average in stature and appear to have done considerable training with weights. It is not surprising that Mr. Warrack showed signs of being intimidated. [ 25 ] In describing this encounter, it is significant that Mr. Thompson did not quote Mr. Warrack as saying he was too hammered that night to remember things, as Mr. Omene had stated. He did say that Mr. Omene said to Mr.

Warrack that the charges had the potential to “wreck his life”. He admitted that this situation would be stressful to Mr. Warrack. He said that the main conversation was between the Accused and Mr. Warrack, and he spent time talking to the fourth person present, Bruce, and that he would not have heard all that passed between the two other persons. In assessing Mr. Thompson’s evidence, although the situation was a “set-up” of Mr. Warrack, he did not appear to add or deny details in a manner to diminish his credibility, and where his evidence varies from that of Mr.

Omene, I would accept his evidence, as well as the evidence of Mr. Warrack. [ 26 ] The last Defence witness was Mr. Henok Benyene who had originally come from Ethiopia in 1996, but was a Canadian citizen, and had just finished a program at the University of Regina. He had met Mr. Omene at a gym in about 2005, and had also worked with him at the Drink. He also worked in security, and stated that the role of a bouncer was to see that there were no fights. He said that the Accused was the head bouncer, and had gotten him his job there.

There had been incidents over drugs within the past week before the matters that are before the Court. He recalled the evening, and a particular incident, and that the night was busy, but not unusual in any particular way. He indicated that he saw identification being checked.

[ 27 ] Mr. Benyene said that he had been present at an incident when a person had said in the washroom that he lost money. He stated that it was his understanding that the loss had occurred before getting to the washroom. He identified the incident in the video, and himself as the second security person in it. He confirmed that the Accused had the wallet.

He said he did not know what occurred after the incident in the washroom, and also said he was not present at the other incidents that included accusations of theft, although that does not appear to be correct—he is in a video outside the bar with a person who is likely Mr. Nadon that will be discussed further. [ 28 ] Mr. Benyene made a sketch of the layout of the bar, and the washroom is shown at the opposite side to the entrance, across the main interior area. He indicated that he checked identification, and escorted people out of the bar.

He also indicated that there were “drug fights”, but he did not elaborate on how he distinguished such fights from any other sorts of altercations that might occur in a bar. [ 29 ] Mr. Benyene gave his opinion as to why the Accused had the wallet in the washroom: “to see what was lost”; in other words, to see what was not there. He was quite specific in asserting that the money was said (by someone not identified by him) to be missing prior to getting into the washroom. This may indeed have been the case as Mr. Omene had possession of the wallet, but Mr.

Warrack did not get it back until he was in the washroom, at which time he did make the accusation of theft. He could not have known it was missing before he got it back from Mr. Omene. [ 30 ] Mr. Benyene also observed the second video where he and Mr. Omene took a person out of the entrance door, with a male in a checkered shirt or jacket walking between them, and proceeding out of camera range with them. He admitted the light was better by the door, and could offer no logical reason to leave the area of the door, and proceed out of camera range.

Although he had said he was unfamiliar with the other incidents other than the washroom one, he said also that he had been part of the incident shown on the second video. He asserted that he saw nothing taken in that incident, but the video clearly shows that Mr. Omene, after disappearing from camera range with a patron, comes forward with something in his hand, handling it in the better light, and then retreats again out of camera range. Mr. Benyene was not in a position to see that opportunity to take something out of a wallet or out of a handful of items he carried. I conclude that Mr.

Benyene is a friend of Mr. Omene, and that he is trying to be helpful to Mr. Omene, but his evidence does not add anything credible of assistance to Mr. Omene. This concluded the evidence in the trial. [ 31 ] Argument proceeded with reference to transcripts of the case owing to the long period of time between the two days on which evidence was heard, and the day for argument. The Defence argued that similar fact evidence should not be considered in this case. I am in agreement with that proposition, but not for the reasons cited by the Defence. I have considered the cases of R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58 and R. v.

Handy, 2002 SCC 56 , as well as the case of R. v. J.C.B., 2011 SKQB 333 . This is not a case where evidence might be admitted as an exception to the ordinary rules of evidence to permit consideration of events and facts unrelated to the case being tried, but which might assist the Court in considering a particular issue in the case, such as identity. Special considerations apply in such a situation that are discussed at length in R. v.

Handy , supra , and great caution is applied in allowing such evidence, and there is consideration of whether prejudice would outweigh the probative value of the evidence. [ 32 ] In the present case, however, evidence of three similar incidents that all occurred within a short period of time, that are tried together, do not represent an exception to the ordinary rules of evidence. This evidence is before the Court, and no ruling need be made to introduce it.

When charges have been tried together, it is important to note that the Court must be careful to consider the evidence applicable to each charge, and consider whether the criminal standard of proof has been met with respect to each charge. However, the close time and location of the various offences, and the similarities in the manner of commission of the offences are facts that may be considered as relevant in the whole of the evidence on each charge.

This is not to say the evidence of one charge is per se proof of commission of the others, but it may add or subtract from the credibility of other evidence given. [ 33 ] In argument, the Defence suggested that the Court may consider whether the three complainants colluded to fabricate evidence against the Accused. The complainants were not cross-examined on the issue of collusion, and it was not, of course, introduced in direct evidence, or raised by other witnesses. The complainants were not asked if they knew each other, or had ever discussed issues before or after the evening in question.

In argument, it was suggested that because the searches were indeed questionable, that there could be reason to hold grudges against Mr. Omene. However, given the time period in which they occurred, the opportunity for collusion was very limited at best, and there is no evidence of connection between them. [ 34 ] In particular, Mr. Omene asserted that perhaps Mr. Nadon had a grudge against him because of a connection with his girlfriend, but that is very tenuous and speculative and does not represent a credible motive for Mr. Nadon to fabricate a complaint. Mr. Nadon was asked outside for a drug search after Mr.

Omene asserted he saw something that could be a drug transaction, but nothing incriminating was found on his person. This is not sufficient either to provide credible motive for fabrication of a complaint of theft, even when viewed in isolation from the other incidents of the complaints. [ 35 ] Apart from consideration of Mr. Nadon’s motivation by himself, the Defence theory that three improper searches might induce grudges and fabricated complaints does not take into account the fact that the complaints were made spontaneously by each

person. Indeed, they were made almost instantaneously after interaction with the Accused, without opportunity to reflect on the situation, and police were called immediately by each person. Further, if there was fabrication, it is surprising that they each would have chosen the same sort of complaint to immediately fabricate. If each really were fabricating a complaint in response to some misconduct, it is logical that at least one of them might have made an accusation of some other sort, perhaps of assault.

The suggestion that the improper search induced the same immediate reaction in each person that constituted fabrications of theft is far too much of a coincidence to be credible. The far more credible explanation is that the complaints were based upon truth, and there was no collusion or fabrication. [ 36 ] The question of identity of the Accused in interacting with the three complainants, was not argued by the Defence. I am of the opinion that the Accused in his own evidence, and in the evidence of two videos, and the evidence of the complainants, all prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr.

Omene had contact with each of the complainants on the night in question, and conducted searches of their persons, or personal effects and/or wallets, with opportunity to commit the offences charged. [ 37 ] The Defence, in

summary, argued that the complainants were not credible, and that they all appeared to know Mr. Omene by some means (although being able to identify or describe him does raise a very high level of knowledge or acquaintanceship), and could have some connection to each other, and motivation to make false complaints. It was also argued in Mr. Omene’s favour that no evidence of stolen money was found on his person when he was arrested that evening. It was asserted that Mr.

Omene’s denial was credible, at least to the point of being capable of belief, and as a result a reasonable doubt should exist as to his guilt on the charges, and they be dismissed. [ 38 ] In rejecting the Defence arguments, I find that the evidence of the three complainants is credible. In no case did I find points of exaggeration or of “filling in blanks” of memory, and there were gaps in their recollections. With the exception of Mr.

Hamann, the complainants had been significantly under the influence of alcohol, but not sufficiently to be unaware that their money was missing after their wallets or money had been handled by the security person. I accept their evidence, and I find Mr. Omene guilty of the three offences charged. However, there are other points that must be made in explanation for reaching this conclusion. [ 39 ] I specifically find that Mr. Omene’s evidence is not credible. His reasoning for examining wallets for drugs rather than other parts of the person, regardless of whether such search is legal, is not logical.

Checking identification to establish the age of patrons is normal and acceptable, but the more ordinary practice is to ask for identification to be produced. His practice of taking wallets into his own hands, and proceeding out of sight of their owners, is not credibly explained by Mr. Omene’s statement that an unidentified senior police officer had told him to check for drugs. He said that he did search persons, but what that consisted of besides the wallets of male patrons was not stated clearly. Given Mr.

Omene’s explanation, it would have been logical to also search women’s purses, even though that might entail more time to accomplish than a man’s wallet, and opposition from an owner might be greater. [ 40 ] Mr. Omene did say he may have patted Mr. Hamann down before getting to the washroom, but I reject that evidence. I accept Mr. Hamann’s evidence that when the Accused got the wallet he made a direct move to the washroom, with Mr. Hamann trailing after him.

To take a small, simple, and very personal item such as a wallet, and walk through a crowded bar in a manner to prevent the owner observing what was being done with the wallet is highly unusual, and illogical for any legitimate purpose. The torn bill that remained is evidence of hurried removal of the bills. Mr. Omene’s actions are consistent with theft, and not with any other logical investigative purpose. [ 41 ] The fact that Mr. Omene was not found with any of the currency stolen does not, in my opinion, raise a reasonable doubt as to his being responsible for these thefts.

There was opportunity to pass the money to another person or to place it where it would not be found on his person. The large police presence that appeared at the bar would have given some warning of difficulties about to occur and a need to hide proceeds of unlawful activity, if that had not already been done. [ 42 ] Mr. Omene’s assertion that Mr. Warrack said at the apartment that he was “too hammered to remember” is not credible and is not supported by the evidence of Mr. Thompson, although Mr. Thompson did say he may not have heard all of the conversation. However, even if Mr.

Warrack had said such a thing, which was not properly presented in evidence and ruled upon to establish it as a prior inconsistent statement, it would not be surprising if he felt intimidated and said something that would forestall any further confrontation in a threatening situation, whether the statement was true or not. Even if said, which I find it was not, as I accept Mr. Warrack’s evidence as to what he said, it would not in its context, reduce his credibility. The incident at the apartment is an illustration, if something further were required than Mr.

Omene’s own statements of his view of the gravity of his situation, of the lengths to which he was willing to go to try to counter the charges against him by discrediting a witness. [ 43 ] As stated above, I find the Accused guilty of the charges before the Court.

Dated at the City of Regina, this 20 th day of July, 2012. ________________________________________ B.D. Henning, J