R v Walders, 2024 ABCJ 16

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: R v Walders, 2024 ABCJ 16 Date: 20240118 Docket: 211200548P1 Registry: Calgary Between: His Majesty the King - and - Daniel Jason Walders Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Criminal Code ,

section 486.4 . By Court Order, information that could identify [RR] must not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. NOTE: Identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the ban so that it may be published. Decision of the Honourable Justice J.D. Bascom [ 1 ] Daniel Jason Walders is charged with the following counts on Information ending 548P1: Count 1: Between the 1st day of May, 2017, and the 1st day of March, 2018, both dates inclusive, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did, in committing an assault, cause bodily harm to [RR], contrary to

section 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada . Count 2: Between the 1st day of May, 2017, and the 1st day of March, 2018, both dates inclusive, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully assault [RR], contrary to

section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada .

Count 3: Between the 1st day of September, 2017, and the 1st day of March, 2018, both dates inclusive, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did, in committing an assault upon [RR], carry, use or threaten to use a weapon, to wit:shotgun or an imitation thereof, contrary to

section 267(

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Count 4: Between the 1st day of September, 2017, and the 1st day of March, 2018, both dates inclusive, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did knowingly utter, convey or cause RR to receive a threat to cause death or bodilyharm to [RR], contrary to

section 264.1(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Count 5: Between the 1st day of May, 2017, and the 1st day of March, 2018, both dates inclusive, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully commit a sexual assault upon [RR], contrary to

section 271 of the CriminalCode of Canada. [2] The Information was sworn December 8, 2021 and the Crown proceeded by way of indictment. The trial commenced onFebruary 13, 2023. The trial was adjourned and commenced again on August 21, 2023 and concluded with evidence on August 22,2023.

The matter was then adjourned for argument and the decision of this Court. [3] The five separate allegations arose during the period of May 1, 2017 and March 1, 2018 when the complainant and theaccused resided together at a residence in the city of Calgary. [4] The complaint provided evidence of each of the five allegations outlined in the Information. The Court notes that each countstands on its own and the Crown must prove each alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt. [5] The Court must consider the testimony of RR and the testimony of the accused Daniel Walders.

The issue being credibilityand reliability of these two witnesses. Additionally, there is evidence from both Crown and the accused which could be corroborative oftheir testimony. Legal Framework [6] In R v Lifchus, (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320 the Supreme Court of Canada outlined a template on the issue ofreasonable doubt which applies to all criminal cases in Canada.

As Justice Molloy stated in R v Nyznik, 2017 ONSC 4392, applyingsuch a standard to a case of sexual assault is difficult. [7] At paras 12 – 17, Justice Molloy stated: [12] First of all, the very nature of the act underlying a sexual assault usually means that there are seldom any eye-witnesses apart fromthe complainant and the person or persons accused of the offence. Often, these cases come down to the word of one person against theother – the classic “he said/she said” scenario. In that situation, it would be wrong for the trial judge to decide the case based on whichis the more credible version of the two.

To do so would be to misapply the burden of proof on the Crown to establish guilt beyond areasonable doubt. The correct application of the burden of proof requires the judge to acquit if the evidence of the accused, when seen inthe context of all of the evidence, raises a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. It is possible that the judge might not fully believe thedefendant’s version of the events, and might find the complainant’s version to be more credible, but still be uncertain as to what actuallyhappened.

In that situation, there is a reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must go to the defendant, even where the complainant’sstory is more plausible or more believable than that of the defendant. [13] To assist in the proper application of the burden of proof when there are competing versions of what happened, the Supreme Courtof Canada has recommended that the issue be considered in three steps, as follows: [4] First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit. Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence whichyou do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused. [14] This instruction, commonly referred to as “the W. (D.) instruction,” has become another standard instruction given to all criminaljuries, and criminal trial judges will generally instruct themselves in the same manner.

However, as was said in the W. (D.) case itself,and in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no particular magic in the incantation of these three steps. [5] It isnot essential that the trial judge rigidly follow the three steps in the W. (D.) instruction. What is critical is for the judge to avoid turningthe fact-finding exercise into a choice as to which is the more credible version of the events. This cannot be a credibility contest, with aconviction if the complainant wins the contest and an acquittal if the defendant does.

To treat it as such would be to improperly shift theburden of proof. Rather, if the defence evidence, seen in the context of all the evidence, raises a reasonable doubt, then the trial judgecannot convict. Even in a situation where the trial judge completely rejects the defence evidence and has no reasonable doubt as a resultof that evidence, he or she must then assess the evidence as a whole and determine whether the Crown has discharged its burden ofproving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In some cases, even without any evidence from the defence, it is not possible to be satisfied

beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence of the complainant. [15] Typically, the outcome of a sexual assault trial will depend on the reliability and credibility of the evidence given by thecomplainant. Reliability has to do with the accuracy of a witness’ evidence – whether she has a good memory; whether she is able torecount the details of the event; and whether she is an accurate historian. Credibility has to do with whether the witness is telling thetruth. A witness who is not telling the truth is by definition not providing reliable evidence. However, the reverse is not the case.

Sometimes an honest witness will be trying her best to tell the truth and will fervently believe the truth of what she is relating, butnevertheless be mistaken in her recollection. Such witnesses will appear to be telling the truth and will be convinced they are right, butmay still be proven wrong by incontrovertible extrinsic evidence. Although honest, their evidence is not reliable.

Only evidence that isboth reliable and credible can support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [16] It is sometimes said that the application of these principles is unfair to complainants in sexual assault cases, that judges areimproperly dubious of the testimony of complainants, and that the system is tilted in favour of the accused. In my opinion, those criticsfail to understand the purpose of a sexual assault trial, which is to determine whether or not a criminal offence has been committed.

It isessential that the rights of the complainant be respected in that process and that decisions not be based on outmoded or stereotypical ideasabout how victims of assault will or will not behave. However, the focus of a criminal trial is not the vindication of the complainant. The focus must always be on whether or not the alleged offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In many cases, the onlyevidence implicating a person accused of sexual assault will be the testimony of the complainant. There will usually be no other eye-witnesses. There will often be no physical or other corroborative evidence.

For that reason, a judge is frequently required to scrutinizethe testimony of a complainant to determine whether, based on that evidence alone, the guilt of an accused has been proven beyond areasonable doubt. That is a heavy burden, and one that is hard to discharge on the word of one person. However, the presumption ofinnocence, placing the burden of proof on the Crown, and the reasonable doubt standard are necessary protections to avoid wrongfulconvictions.

While this may mean that sometimes a guilty person will be acquitted, that is the unavoidable consequence of ensuring thatinnocent people are never convicted. [17] Although the slogan “Believe the victim” has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trialwith the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accusedof sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence.

That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justiceenshrined in our constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society. [8] As Justice Molloy stated the Supreme Court of Canada has provide a three-step process as outlined in the decision of W.(D.). Following this three-step process could be considered the easy part, what is more difficult is determining the reliability andcredibility of witnesses in a trial. Reliability and credibility are issues of fact and cannot be determined by following a set of rules thathave the force of law.

Having said that a number of decisions have identified issues for the Court to consider in determining the aspectsof reliability and credibility. [11] As Judge Anderson stated in R v McKay, 2011 ABPC 82, paras 14: “A judge must rely upon his personal experience but also his judicial experience to determine whether a witness’s testimony “hangstogether”. Is the evidence plausible? Not to say how normal, but rather is it logically connected to its context. Is the witness’s evidenceconsistent with other evidence both from that witness and from other sources?

Is the evidence consistent or are there discrepancies andare those inconsistencies or discrepancies honest mistakes or do they reflect a seemingly deliberate distortion?” [12] As previously indicated there is no set method in determining credibility but some factors the Court looks at are as follows: • Is the testimony reasonable when we consider all evidentiary factors; • Is the testimony consistent or does the witness contradict him or herself; • Does the witness answer the questions or are they evasive; • Does the witness make admissions against interest; • Is there independent evidence that contradicts the witness and how does the witness handle questions concerning thatcontradictory evidence: • What is the witness’s demeanor; • Does he or she sound truthful. • Is the witness independent or does the witness have a motive not to tell the truth. [13] It is important to remember that demeanor is the least reliable part of the witness’s testimony.

There are many witnesses that due toexperience present as being truthful when other evidence indicates they are not. [14] The issue of credibility has been discussed by numerous courts. I refer only to a few: R v R.D.S., (SCC), 1997 3S.C.R. 484; R v Ay (1994), (BC CA), 93 CCC (3rd) 456 (B.C.C.A.); R v Lin, [1998] A.J. No. 1516 (ABQB); R vKhosa, 2004 ABPC 115; R v Robinson, 2005 ABPC 326; R v Le, 2008 ABPC 257; R v S.I.C., 2011 ABPC 261; and R v Robinson,2005 ABPC 326. [15] As stated in the decision of R v Currie, 2008 ABCA 374; R v Ryon, 2019 ABCA 36; and R v CJL, 2004 MBCA 126 ,[2004] M.J.

No. 410 MBCA, when accessing credibility the Court must first consider the evidence of the accused when conducting aWD analysis. By assessing the accused’s testimony first, it minimizes the possibility of reversing the Crown’s onus when thecomplainant’s evidence initially appears to be credible. As noted in Ryon, this should not be done in isolation. The Court must consider

all of the evidence, and particular evidence independent from the accused or the complainant, which might support either version. (R vThreefingers, 2016 ABCA 225, at para 67) [16] The final step in the assessment process is enunciating reasons why an accused’s evidence is believed or not believed or does notraise a reasonable doubt. As stated in R v Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26: “An accused person should not be left in doubt about why aconviction has been entered.” In R v D.T., 2014 ONCA 44 , 305 CCC 3rd 526 ONCA, at para 65: “Of course, simply setting outthe WD formula is not determinative.

The critical issue is whether the reasons reveal correct application of the burden of proof: see e.g.,R v Wadforth, 2009 ONCA 716 ...”, R v E.F., 2022 ABCA 9, at para 38 – 51. Defence Evidence [9] Mr. Walders testified in chief that he and the complainant worked at the South Calgary Hospital complex. The relationshipstarted in November of 2016 and went through to 2018. The accused testified that he moved into the complainant’s spare bedroom atthe end of January 2017 and in May of 2017 they entered into a relationship with one another.

The relationship lasted until March of2018, when the accused testified, that he moved out of the complainant’s residence. [10] Defence counsel specifically addressed each of the complaints made by RR that were outlined in counts 1 – 5 in the CriminalInformation. Mr. Walders denied assaulting RR, denied sexually assaulting her, and denied choking her. He testified specifically abouteach incidents in response to each of the allegations. Mr.

Walders’ testimony consisted of a clear denial of the allegation, or analternative scenario which indicated the complainant was the aggressor and he was defending himself or alternatively any injuriessustained by the complainant were the result of an accident. [11] Concerning the allegations of assault causing bodily harm Mr. Walders presented an alternative scenario which suggested RRsuffered the concussion when she was pushed from the bed and hit her head on a kettle bell, located beside Mr. Walders’ bed. AlthoughMr.

Walders acknowledged he physically pushed RR his evidence suggests that her fall was accidental or alternatively it was reasonablyforce in response to RR’s assault upon him. [12] Mr. Walders testified that he was not aware that RR suffered a concussion until his arrest in June of 2021. [13] Mr. Walders testified about an incident where RR bit him in the area of his pectoral muscle. The bite caused bleeding andonce again Mr. Walders admitted pushing RR which resulted in bruising to her arm and a mark underneath her jaw and the side of herneck. [14] Mr. Walders testified about an incident where RR broke her hand.

Mr. Walders testified that this incident started when RRlearned that Mr. Walders was on a phone app known as “Tinder”. He testified that the complainant grabbed the collar of his shirt andpunched him in his collarbone area. She then punched in the top portion of his head “three or four different times”. He testified that oneof the punches ricocheted off the top of his head and hit the drywall behind him. This was followed by one more punch which hit him inthe forehead area. [15] Mr. Walders testified that RR then explained that she thought she broke her hand. [16] Mr.

Walders suggested that they attend the South Health Campus for the purpose of an x-ray. RR declined this offer, notwishing to cancel their dinner at the Keg restaurant. [17] Mr. Walders testified that the next day they went to the South Calgary Urgent Care Centre and learned that RR had broken herhand and she was put in a cast for a period of five or six weeks. [18] During the relationship the complainant became pregnant but miscarried and alleged it was as a result of the accused pickingher up by the throat and slamming her on the ground.

The accused acknowledged that RR miscarried but denied any assault and testifiedthat the last instance of physicality was when RR broke her hand. [19] Mr. Walders related an incident that happened in February of 2018 when neighbours called the police. Mr. Walders testifiedthat there was an argument, there was yelling and slamming of doors but no physical contact between he and the complainant. Mr.Walders left the residence and spent the night at his parent’s. [20] Mr. Walders testified about showing RR his gun, showing how it operated and denied threatening her with the gun as allegedby the complainant.. [21] Mr.

Walders testified there was an incident a few days prior to the police being called where a female dropped off “a carepackage”. Mr. Walders testified that RR became angry and he went to his bedroom. The accused testified that there was no nonconsensual sex at that time. [22] Mr. Walders testified that the last time he and the complainant had sex was the night of the Ross family dinner which occurred near the end of November, beginning of December 2017. He furthered testified that two weeks later on December 16th helearned that RR was pregnant.

He further testified there was no sex during her pregnancy or following her “D and C”. [23] Mr. Walders testified about an incident that occurred between September and October of 2017 when he and the complainanthad consensual anal sex. He testified that this was the one occasion that it occurred and not as alleged by the complainant. [24] Mr. Walders testified that after the incident on February the 17th when the police were called and he stayed the night at his parent’s house he decided that the relationship was over and he spoke to RR about ending the relationship.

On March the 4th, 2018 hemoved from RR’s residence to his parent’s.

[ 25 ] Mr. Walders testified that their entire relationship seemed to be fueled with jealousy which led to the incidents he described as well as other incidents where they were physical with each other which resulted in bruising or marks on RR’s body. [ 26 ] Ms. Dhalla, on behalf of the Crown cross examined Mr. Walders. [ 27 ] The Crown commenced cross examination by pointing out to the accused that he was testifying about incidents that occurred “about five to seven years after these incidents had taken place”. Mr.

Walders agreed with the Crown’s suggestion that memories meld into one another and sometimes memories can get confused. This statement of course is a known fact. I do consider this an admission against interest in that it puts into question the reliability of the witness. [ 28 ] The accused’s testimony showed a good memory of the events with the exception of the exact dates.

His testimony was consistent throughout and he did not contradict himself during cross examination. [ 29 ] During cross examination concerning the incident where the complainant suffered a concussion the accused was asked about a affidavit sworn in these proceedings February 13, 2023. The Crown points out an inconsistency between the affidavit and his testimony. Mr. Walders acknowledges this inconsistency and provided an explanation. I find this inconsistency to be minor and not a suggestion that Mr. Walders was not telling the truth. Crown counsel also pointed out another inconsistency were Mr.

Walders indicated in the affidavit that RR fell off the bed and hit her head on the kettle bell. Once again Mr. Walders provided an explanation. The Court finds this inconsistency to be minor and I accept the accused’s explanation. [ 30 ] When I review Mr. Walders testimony in chief and his cross examination I note no change in demeanor. Often times demeanor changes from an examination in chief and cross examination. This may be in part due to the witness not being prepared for the questions asked of them under cross. In Mr.

Walders case there was no change in demeanor from his evidence in chief to cross examination. [ 31 ] When I review all of the evidence of Mr. Walders, and I consider factors as outlined previously in this decision, I find that Mr. Walders’ evidence is reasonable, consistent and he makes admissions against interest. His evidence sounds truthful. In

summary his evidence “hangs together” and there is nothing in his evidence that would allow me to enunciate why I do not accept his testimony. Mr. Walders provides either a denial or an explanation to all five allegations as outlined in the Information. His testimony provides a defence to each of the allegations. [ 32 ] I put Mr. Walders’ evidence in the first category of W.(D.) , that being evidence that I accept and provides a defence. There is nothing in his evidence which would indicate that Mr. Walders is not a reliable or credible witness. [ 33 ] In addition to the accused’s testimony, Patricia Dere, Mr.

Walders’ manager, testified she noted in 2017 Mr. Walders would come to work with facial bruising and at one time a black eye. Ms. Dere was not able to tell when this was observed. I do not find this evidence to be helpful to the defence concerning each of the numerated charges. The evidence lacks specifics. It does in some way corroborate the accused’s testimony that this was a volatile relationship that involved physicality. [ 34 ] Rosemary Walders, the mother of the accused testified that Mr. Walders moved in with the complainant in February of 2017 and moved out on March 4, 2018. She described Mr.

Walders being emotionally distraught during her conversations with him. She also noticed a bite mark on his chest and bruising on his head. She testified with certainty that Mr. Walders came to their home of February the 18 th , 2018. Once again this witness was uncertain as to the times when she noticed these injuries. Her testimony as to the date of February the 18 th , 2018 and the moving out date of March 4, 2018 is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Walders. The last Defence witness was Magda Walders, a registered nurse working at the Rockyview General Hospital, and not a relative of the accused.

She testified that she noted bruises on Mr. Walders’ face, however could not say when she made these observations. Once again I find her evidence lacks specifics and is not particularly helpful to the specific charges facing the defendant. [ 35 ] Mr. Walders’ testimony explained each and every allegation. His evidence was either a denial or an explanation as to reasonable force in repelling RR’s assault upon him. His testimony provides a defence to these allegations. As a result I find Mr. Walders not guilty of all five counts on the Information.

This is usually the end of the trial analysis, however it is the Court’s usual practice to perform the same analysis with regard to the testimony of the complainant. RR’s Testimony [ 36 ] As previously stated a witness’s evidence must be reliable and credible. Often time the two concepts are connected however in examining RR’s testimony on the question of reliability the Court considers the passage of time effecting RR’s memory.

When first examined by Crown counsel the complainant appeared confused and made comments such as “I’m not a 100% on what exactly transpired, but he kicked me, left a huge bruise on my left leg.” [ 37 ] She further stated “My brain’s kind of jumbled – they’re – they’re all over the place when it comes to everything” [1] [ 38 ] Under cross examination the complainant testified as follows: Q Okay. So I want to talk to you just about -- a little bit more about your memory in general.

So we can agree that if someone had asked you about the broken hand incident for instance the day after it happened, it would have been more fresh in your memory than it is today in court; is that fair? A Yes. Q Okay. We can agree that memories fade over time?

A Yes, and I believe it's a protection mechanism of your brain to not have specific things constantly going through it. Q Sure. And -- and you already agreed with me that, I mean, some of this you're getting flashbacks and dealing with the memories for the first time in 2021. A Yes. Q Okay. And is it fair to say that some of your friends helped you with your memory of what happened once you came forward and talked to the police? A The one incident with the broken hand, I had -- when I was in court -- or not, sorry, court, when I was giving my statement, I hadn't mentioned it at that time.

I had forgotten to bring it up, and so I brought it up later with a constable. Q And -- A But that was -- that was the only thing. Q Okay. Well, and, in fact, I think your word to them in your followup email was I had blocked it out. I'm surprised -- A Yes. Q -- but I had blocked it out; is that fair? A Yes. Q Okay. And so as I understand it from your email, you spoke to your friends about what you had said in your statement and then did they say to you, oh, wait, you didn't mention the broken hand? A No.

One of my friends read his statement to me, and then I remembered and thought that I should bring it forward to the police. Q Okay. Sorry, so you -- your friend actually read their statement to you that they sent to the police? A After I had already given my -- my testimony with the constable, yes. Q Okay. But before you sent your explanation about the broken hand? A Yes. Q Okay. And, in fact, you say to the police, I know a few people have brought it up in their statements regarding the broken hand. So I take it you talked to more than one person? A I believe there's two people that gave statements.

I have talked to other people about their statements after the fact, yes. Q Okay. But the two people before you gave the broken hand statement, those were two people you read their statements? A I have only heard the one. Q Okay. Okay. Okay. So you make a statement on May 6th, of 2021, to police. That's your original statement? A Yes. [2] [ 39 ] This becomes a significant issue when I deal with a concept of reliability.

The witness testified when she first spoke to the police she did not recall the broken hand and it was only after it was brought to her attention by another individual that she recalled the incident. A broken hand is a fact that the Court would expect the witness to recall particularly when it resulted in a cast and a period of time off work. [ 40 ] The complainant further testifies that the broken hand incident was blocked out of her mind but when it was mentioned to her by one of her friends she testifies that the details that she now testifies to were accurate.

Once again the Court must question the reliability of the witness dealing with this incident. [ 41 ] I also find that the complainant was inconsistent in her testimony. With regard to the incident of the broken hand the complainant testifies as follows: Q But can you tell us about how many times prior to punching the wall that you did make contact with his face? A Zero. Q Okay. How then did he get the bruises on his head from that incident? A There was no bruises, that I am aware of. Q Okay.

Well, you would have been aware of them, because you would have seen them as you guys both showed each other your injuries that day and the next day. A I don't believe that happened.

Q Okay. And you say I don't believe that happened -- A That did not happen. [3] [ 42 ] In the above passage the complainant starts off indicating that she wasn’t aware of any bruises, then indicates that she doesn’t believe that happened which I interpret refers to the bruises and then states “that did not happen”. I find her answers to be inconsistent which relates not only to reliability but to credibility. [ 43 ] I further find that the complainant is inconsistent in her evidence as follows: Q That wasn't my question. Didn't say you started it.

I asked if part of the argument included you being upset that he still had a Tinder account. A Not that I remember. Q But it's possible? A It's possible. [4] Q Okay. But nor do you remember a possible jealousy about the Tinder account; is that fair? A I don't -- that did not happen, to my recollection. [5] Q Okay. And I think we can agree there were also some times where you were jealous of him such as Tinder, the Tinder situation?

A Yes. [6] [ 44 ] Page 44 of the complainant’s testimony during cross examination she states the following: Q Isn't it true that the last time the two of you had had sex was in November, of 2017, before the miscarriage? A No. Q Okay. What about the fact that you just told us in court, and you told the police, there was no sexual violence after the D & C? A I had my timeline skewed. I had misspoke there. Q Twice? To police and in trial?

A Yes. [7] [ 45 ] When I examine these particular examples of the complainant’s testimony, as well as others and her evidence as a whole I must conclude that the witness is not consistent, she contradicts herself, sometimes evasive and her answer to contradictory statements is “I misspoke”. RR is not an independent witness. I find RR, the complainant not to be reliable or credible. As stated by Justice Molloy in Nyznik : “Only evidence that is both reliable and credible can support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”.

An Agreed Statement of Facts [ 46 ] Witnesses Joel Roberts and Amy Surez state that they knew RR during the period of time that she was in a relationship with the accused. They noted bruising on RR’s arms, face and neck and that she had a broken hand. They noted she lost a significant amount of weight and looked exhausted and very skinny. Once again I do not find this evidence helpful in that it lacks a specificity. As I indicated previously similar evidence was called on behalf of the accused.

I do not find the statements in Exhibit 1, Agreed Statement of Facts, to corroborate the complainant’s testimony with regard to each of the charges in the Criminal Information. [ 47 ] As previously stated I have accepted the evidence of the accused and even if this evidence was not accepted the evidence of the complainant is not reliable or credible and could not lead to a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the five counts. [ 48 ] In conclusion Mr. Walders is found not guilty on counts 1 – 5 on Information 548. Heard on the 18 th day of January, 2024.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 18 th day of January, 2024.

J.D. Bascom A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Samina Dhalla for the Crown Nicole Stewart for the Accused