R. v. Chang, 2014 ONCJ 703

COURT FILE No.: 12-2428 Brampton DATE: December 3, 2014 Citation: R. v. Chang , 2014 ONCJ 703 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Central West Region BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — taihoon chang Before Justice Richard H.K. Schwarzl Heard on July 25, 2013 and November 4, 2014 Reasons released on December 3, 2014 Ms. Kelly Slate, Ms. Kerry Watson and Mr. Charles Waite.................................. for the Crown Mr. Jason Dos Santos............................................................................................ for the Accused SCHWARZL, J.: 1.0: INTRODUCTION [ 1 .] Mr. Taihoon Chang stands charged with Impaired Driving, contrary to s.253(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code and Driving With Excess Blood Alcohol, contrary to s. 253(1)(

b) of the Criminal Code . A trial was held in which there was a blending of trial and voir dire evidence. There are two issues for me to decide. First, has the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the ability of the Accused to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by the consumption of alcohol? Second, were the Accused’s rights to counsel violated by the police failing to provide the Accused legal advice in Korean? 2.0: THE EVIDENCE 2.1: Prosecution Evidence 2.1.1: Arthur Watson [ 2 .] Mr. Arthur Watson was a long-distance trucker in 2012.

On February 4, 2012 at around 2:30 or 3:00 a.m. he was driving his rig eastbound in the shoulder lane of Highway 401 near Milton. The traffic was light at that time and he was travelling near the posted limit of 100 km/h. At that time and place he noticed a silver Mazda passenger car in front of him driving slowly in his lane. [ 3 .] When Mr. Watson caught up to the Mazda, he changed lanes to overtake it. As he moved into the left lane, the Mazda suddenly, and without a signal, veered in front of him. As he slowed down, the Mazda moved back into the right lane. Mr.

Watson decided to follow the car due to his concerns about how it was being driven. He followed it for between ten and fifteen kilometres. [ 4 .] The Mazda drove with erratic speeds, varying between 40 and 70 in a 100 km/h zone. The car went onto the shoulder and back again without signalling. At one point the car veered all the way over from the right to the far left lane and all the way back again, nearly hitting a cement abutment. There were other instances of bad driving that Mr. Watson could not recall at the time of trial. Mr. Watson feared the driver might be in distress or intoxicated.

The car was being driven so dangerously that he called 9-1-1.

[ 5 .] Mr. Watson disagreed that the driver was likely drowsy or sleepy because if he were, Mr. Watson would have expected the driver to either wake up and correct his driving or pull over to stop, but did neither. [ 6 .] Once they reached Mississauga, the car took the Mavis Street exit. Mr. Watson followed the car and saw it move quickly into the left lane then drive very slowly on Mavis to the controlled intersection at Britannia where it stopped for a red light.

When the light changed, the Mazda turned onto Britannia where it was pulled over by a police car. 2.1.2: Mark Swas [ 7 .] Mark Swas is a constable with the O.P.P. At around 3:09 a.m. on February 4, 2012 he received a call that a transport truck was following a possibly impaired driver operating a Mazda eastbound on the 401 in the Milton area. P.C. Swas was on Mavis when he was told the Mazda had entered that road. [ 8 .] At Mavis and Britannia Road, P.C. Swas spotted the Mazda and followed it on Britannia.

During that time, the officer noticed the car swerving back and forth twice within its own lane over a distance of about one kilometer. The car stopped at a red light allowing the officer to come right up behind it. When the light changed to green, the car hesitated for about five seconds before moving ahead. [ 9 .] At 3:17 a.m. P.C. Swas pulled the car over after it cleared the intersection. When he approached the driver’s door, the officer observed that the driver had rolled down the rear passenger window on his side, not the driver’s window. P.C.

Swas had to knock on the driver’s window to lower it. [ 10 .] The Accused was the driver and sole occupant. He told the officer that he was coming from North York and driving home to Toronto. Although the Accused spoke with a strong accent, the officer had no problems interacting with him in English. The Accused’s eyes were red and bloodshot. His breath smelled of alcohol. His movements were lethargic and slow when producing the requested documentation. [ 11 .] At 3:19 P.C. Swas directed the Accused to get out of his car which the Accused did so without hesitation. While he stood, the Accused swayed slightly.

He was immediately arrested by P.C. Swas for impaired driving. [ 12 .] At 3:20 a.m. the Accused was searched, cuffed, and placed into the rear of P.C. Swas’s cruiser. [ 13 .] At 3:22 a.m. the officer provided the Accused with his rights to counsel. When asked if he understood, the Accused said, “OK. I understand.” When asked if he wished to call a lawyer now, the Accused responded, “Yeah. I have to.” When asked if he had his own lawyer or wanted Duty Counsel, the Accused answered, “Free Duty Counsel lawyer.” [ 14 .] At 3:23 a.m. P.C. Swas read a primary caution to the Accused.

When asked if he understood, the Accused stated, “OK. I understand.” [ 15 .] At 3:23 a.m. P.C. Swas read a breath demand to the Accused. When asked if he understood the Accused said, “Alright.” [ 16 .] At no time did the Accused say or indicate he didn’t understand English. At no time did P.C. Swas believe that the Accused had any linguistic difficulties. [ 17 .] After dealing with the Accused, P.C. Swas called for tow truck to attend the scene. He also called his dispatcher to arrange for a qualified technician to take breath samples from the Accused. P.C. Swas then spoke to Mr.

Watson about what he had witnessed and asked him to send a formal statement at his earliest opportunity.

[ 18 .] At 3:30 a.m. P.C. Swas left the scene with the Accused and drove him straight to the Port Credit O.P.P. detachment for breath testing. On the way to the station, the Accused fell asleep: his eyes were closed and his head bobbed backwards and forwards. They arrived at the station at 3:46 a.m. P.C. Swas noticed that the Accused got sleepier as time passed. [ 19 .] After booking and lodging the Accused in the cells, P.C. Swas called Duty Counsel at 4:00 a.m. [ 20 .] At 4:28 a.m. Duty Counsel called the station. P.C.

Swas did not have any concerns that the Accused might not understand the English speaking lawyer, nor did the Accused raise any such concerns or ask for a Korean speaking lawyer. [ 21 .] Between 4:32 and 4:36 a.m. the Accused spoke with counsel in private. When he was finished the Accused made no complaint about not being able to understand the lawyer. [ 22 .] The Accused was escorted from the phone room to the breath room where P.C. Swas turned him over to the qualified technician, P.C.

Beckers, after giving her the details of his investigation. [ 23 .] At 4:48 a.m. the Accused provided his first of two suitable samples of breath to the qualified technician. [ 24 .] At 4:50 a.m. the Accused was taken to the cells to await the second breath test. He fell asleep in the cells and was awoken by P.C. Swas at 5:22a.m. [ 25 .] At 5:27 a.m. the Accused provided his second breath sample to P.C. Beckers after which P.C. Swas returned the Accused to the cells. [ 26 .] At 6:08 a.m. P.C.

Swas served the Accused with true copies of the Notice of Intention to Produce and the Certificate of the Qualified Technician. It appeared that the Accused signed his name in Korean. [ 27 .] Throughout their dealings, the Accused spoke only English. P.C. Swas never had any concerns about the Accused’s comprehension of English nor did the Accused raise any concerns. P.C. Swas has dealt with people in the past who have had difficulties with English. When they have, or the officer thinks they may have, any language barriers he will take steps to facilitate

interpretation services by taking three steps. The first step is to ascertain their mother tongue. The second step is to find a lawyer who speaks that language. The third step is to use a telephone interpreter service if a lawyer who speaks the person’s mother tongue cannot be found. 2.1.3: Tamara Beckers [ 28 .] Tamara Beckers is an O.P.P. officer and a qualified technician. At 3:34 a.m. on February 4, 2012 she was at a collision scene when she was radioed to go to the station to perform breath tests on the Accused. [ 29 .] At 3:43 a.m. P.C.

Beckers was at the station and took steps to prepare an approved instrument for use. After conducting numerous procedures she was satisfied that the approved instrument was in proper working order. [ 30 .] At 4:36 a.m. P.C. Beckers was introduced to the Accused by P.C. Swas in the breath room. All her dealing with the Accused were audio and video recorded. The only camera angle was a tight shot on the Accused’s upper body while he was seated. While in the breath room, P.C. Beckers spoke with the Accused at length and always in English.

He always spoke English with her. [ 31 .] Of relevance to the issues, the following exchange took place between the Accused and the qualified technician: Beckers: Please spell your name. Accused: T-a-i-h-o-o-n C-h-a-n-g.

Beckers: What is your date of birth? Accused: My date of birth is February 13, 1980 Beckers: Have you spoken with a lawyer? Accused: Yes. Beckers: Did you understand the lawyer? Accused: (after a pause) Yes. Beckers: Are you satisfied with the lawyer? Accused: OK. Beckers: Do you mean yes? Accused: Yes. Beckers: Do you understand your legal rights? Accused: Yes. …. Beckers: I am going to read you a caution. You just need to listen. If you don’t understand it I will try to explain it to you, OK?

If you have spoken to any police officer or anyone in authority or if any such person has spoken to you in connection with this case I want it clearly understood that I do not want it to influence you into making any statements. Do you understand that? Accused: Yeah. …. Beckers: Do you understand that you have to provide suitable samples? Accused: Yes. Beckers: Is there any reason you can't provide a sample right now? Accused: No. Beckers: I am going to put some data in the instrument then explain what you have to do, OK?

Accused: Alright. [ 32 .] On the video the Accused followed all of the instructions and information provided by the qualified technician without question or delay including directions on how to provide suitable samples and the process of having his licence reinstated after the statutory administrative licence suspension. [ 33 .] At the end of the video, P.C. Beckers asked the Accused if he had any questions. The Accused responded, “No. None at all.” [ 34 .] The breath room video also documented the movements and actions of the Accused.

Of note, the video showed the following: ● some swaying at the shoulders as he listened to P.C. Swas provide his grounds; ● the officer had to tell the Accused to wake up just prior to the first test ; ● he appears to struggle to insert the mouthpiece into the approved instrument’s tube; and ● when told he will have to wait to provide a second test, he nods in an exaggerated manner [ 35 .] P.C. Beckers observed that the Accused had the odour of alcohol on his breath; that he was sleepy and appeared to fall asleep while in her custody; and that his eyes were red and a little glossy.

[ 36 .] The Accused provided two suitable samples of his breath directly into the approved instrument operated by P.C. Beckers. The first sample was taken and analyzed at 4:48 a.m., yielding a blood alcohol concentration of 127 milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood. The second sample was taken and analyzed at 5:27 a.m. with a result of 115 milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood. [ 37 .] At no time did P.C. Beckers have any trouble or concerns communicating with the Accused in English, despite the Accused’s obvious accent.

She specifically noted the following: “Accused understood English OK and understood all my instructions.” From time to time, she used gestures and actions to help him understand what to do, but she does this for all subjects. The Accused did not raise any problems with his understanding or comprehension nor did he ask for an interpreter. 2.2: Defence Evidence 2.2.1: Taihoon Chang [ 38 .] The Accused moved to the Vancouver area from Korea when he was 17. He was nearly 30 at the time of this incident. He completed high school in Surrey, taking ESL courses at beginners, intermediate, and advanced levels.

He attended Simon Fraser University before transferring to the British Columbia Institute of Technology where he obtained a diploma in mechanical engineering. He graduated in 2004. All of his education in Canada was in English. While attending post-secondary studies, the Accused had assistance from other Korean-born students as needed. [ 39 .] After graduation, the Accused worked at a Zellers store for six months, speaking only English. [ 40 .] He left Zellers and went back to school, attending a school in Abbotsford for one year to learn how to repair aircraft structures.

When he needed language assistance his teachers were able to help. After completing this programme of studies, the Accused moved to Ontario where he has worked for Field Aviation since 2007. He uses English at work. There are other Koreans in his office and sometimes they help each other translate when needed. [ 41 .] The Accused has a doctor and only speaks English with him.

Over the course of this proceeding the Accused has needed a Korean-English dictionary when speaking to his lawyer. [ 42 .] At the time of this occurrence, the Accused had over a dozen years’ experience speaking English, often at advanced and technical levels. He knows that when he doesn’t understand an English word or term he can and does ask for help. [ 43 .] The Accused lives on Weston Road, which is in Toronto. [ 44 .] On the night in question, the Accused had been working during the day, finishing around 3:30 in the afternoon. He did not drink any alcohol at work.

Around 7:30 p.m. he went to visit friends who live in the Shepherd and Yonge area of Toronto, which is northeast from his home. While visiting he had one bottle of beer between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. [ 45 .] After he left his friends he drove home. He did not believe he was in Milton and could not explain why he was so far west of his home. It was a cold night and he used his seat heater on to keep him warm as he drove. The heat inside the car made him drowsy. He recalled driving slower than usual because he was sleepy and thought it would be dangerous to drive any faster.

He agreed it would have been wiser to pull over to sleep but didn’t think of it. [ 46 .] The Accused wears contact lenses. He usually doesn’t wear them as long as he did that day. The excessive wear irritated his eyes, causing them to be dry and bloodshot. [ 47 .] The Accused explained the swaying observed by P.C. Swas as the product of his sleepiness as well as his nervousness at being stopped by the police. The Accused stated that the police used simple language when they spoke to him. [ 48 .] The Accused agreed with his own counsel that his behaviour that night might possibly have been caused by alcohol. When

asked in cross-examination why this was possible, the Accused stated that it might have been caused by an alcohol cleaning solution heuses at work that may have sprayed accidentally on him. [49.] The Accused was tired and tense in dealing with the police. However, he understood what P.C. Swas said to him. Heunderstood his rights to counsel. The Accused said that when he spoke with Duty Counsel, he could only understand “60 to 70% of whatI was told.” The Accused said he never thought of asking the lawyer any questions. [50.] No one told the Accused he could speak with a lawyer in Korean.

If he had been told, he would have spoken to one inKorean. However, the Accused agreed that he did not complain to the police that he did not understand everything the lawyer said tohim. [51.] The Accused agreed that P.C. Beckers specifically asked him if he understood the lawyer and that he told her that he did. Healso agreed that he told her he was satisfied with the legal advice.

He agreed that the police would not know about his concerns unlesshe told them. 3.0: ISSUES AND ANALYSIS 3.1: Was the Accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle impaired by the consumption of alcohol? 3.1.1: Positions of the Parties [52.] The defence submits that when taking the evidence as a whole, including the explanations offered by the Accused, that theCrown has failed to prove impairment to drive to the requisite standard.

The defence points to an absence of evidence of poorcoordination or slurring of speech and the Accused’s innocent explanations of various signs of intoxication. [53.] The Crown submits the totality of the evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the ability of the Accused to operatea motor vehicle was impaired by the consumption of alcohol. 3.1.2: Applicable Legal Principles [54.] Any degree of impairment by alcohol or drugs of the Accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle ranging from slight to great,establishes the offence: R. v. Stellato (1993), (ON CA), 78 C.C.C. (3d) 380 (Ont.

C.A.); aff’d (1994), (SCC), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 160 (S.C.C.); R. v. Moreno-Baches, 2007 ONCA 258 , [2007] O.J. No. 1314 (C.A.). [55.] “Slight impairment to drive” relates to a reduced ability, in some measure, to perform a complex motor function whetherimpacting on perception or field of vision, reaction or response time, judgment, regard for the rules of the road, and the like: R. v.Censoni, [2001] O.J.

No 5189 (S.C.J.) at ¶ 47. [56.] Impairment may be found if alcohol or a drug is a contributing cause to the impairment, even if the complete impairment iscontributed to by additional causes such as fatigue, medication, paint fumes, or jet lag: R. v. Pelletier (1989), (SKKB), 51 C.C.C. (3d) 161 (Sask. Q.B.); R. v. Connery, [1996] O.J. No. 5037 (Prov. Ct.); R. v. Bartello [1997] O.J. No. 2226 (C.A.); R. v.Spina [1999] O.J.

No. 5130 (S.C.J.). 3.1.3: Analysis [57.] The evidence pointing towards impairment includes: ● erratic driving by the Accused including veering and fluctuating slow speeds on a major highway over a long distance and poordriving on municipal roads ● the belief of the Accused that he was heading west for home when he was heading east ● the Accused lowering the wrong window as the police approached his car

● the strong smell of alcohol on the Accused’s breath ● the Accused’s eyes were red and bloodshot ● the Accused swayed slightly while standing at his car ● the movements of the Accused were slow and lethargic while producing documents ● the Accused fell asleep several times and got sleepier as the investigation went on ● the Accused’s upper body swayed somewhat while seated in the breath room ● the Accused struggled to put the mouthpiece into the approved instrument’s tube ● the Accused nodded in an exaggerated way while in the breath room [ 58 .] The Accused provided evidence in which he gave explanations for some of the alleged signed of impairment including: ● the heat in his car made him drowsy and he thought it would be dangerous to drive at the speed limit ● his drowsiness caused him to weave across the lanes of traffic ● his eyes were red and bloodshot due to wearing his contact lenses too long ● the swaying was caused by fatigue and trembling from nervousness ● his physical symptoms may have been caused by an over spray of alcohol cleaners used at his work [ 59 .] I did not believe the Accused on this issue nor did his evidence raise any reasonable doubt.

While I accept that his eyes may have been red and bloodshot due to contact lenses, the rest of his evidence made little sense, either on its own or when compared to the objective, reliable and credible evidence offered by all the other witnesses. [ 60 .] His evidence that the symptoms of intoxication may have been caused by splashing alcohol-based cleaners at work stretches my credulity beyond the breaking point. This preposterous statement cast a fatal pall over nearly all of his evidence. I accept Mr. Watson’s observation that a drowsy driver will more likely than not either correct his driving or pull over.

The Accused did neither because I find that he did not know he was driving poorly due to his impairment by alcohol. [ 61 .] Being drowsy does not explain the total lack of appreciation as to where he was or what direction he was travelling in. Nor does it explain his lethargic and slow movements while producing his documents or rolling down the wrong window when P.C. Swas approached his car. He swerved all over the highway, drove at low fluctuating speeds, and hesitated inordinately at a green light mainly because of being intoxicated by alcohol. [ 62 .] Nervousness may cause trembling but not swaying.

Neither nerves nor fatigue will cause the strong and persistent odour of alcohol on the Accused’s breath. The Accused’s descent into sleep despite the obvious tension and adrenaline that would flow from being apprehended by the police further illustrates the soporific effects alcohol had upon the Accused. [ 63 .] I found the evidence of Mr. Watson, P.C. Swas, and P.C. Beckers consistent, fair, accurate, reliable and wholly believable.

I accept their evidence without reservation or hesitation. [ 64 .] Taking the evidence that I accept as a whole, I am well satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by the consumption of alcohol.

He may have been fatigued given his long day, however there is no doubt in my mind that intoxication by alcohol was not only a contributing factor, but the predominant reason, for his impaired driving. 3.2: Were the Accused’s rights to counsel violated in this case? 3.2.1: Positions of the Parties [ 65 .] The defence submits that in the circumstances of this case, it should have been obvious to the police that the Accused needed a

Korean speaking lawyer or at least a Korean interpreter to assist him in exercising his rights to counsel. The defence points to theAccused’s pause when asked by P.C. Beckers if he understood the lawyer and submits that this should have triggered further inquiriesby the police regarding the Accused’s language limitations.

They submit that it would have been simple and easy for the police to offerthe Accused legal services in his mother tongue and their failure to do so violated his rights. [66.] The Crown submits that there were no special circumstances in this case to cause the police to take steps to offer Koreanlanguage legal services to the Accused. 3.2.2: Applicable Legal Principles [67.] The police must give a detainee his rights to counsel before breath samples are provided and must give the person both (a)sufficient information and (

b) a reasonable opportunity to exercise those rights: R. v. Brydges (1990), (SCC), 53C.C.C. (3d) 330 (S.C.C.). [68.] Where the police assist the Accused in exercising his rights to counsel, the police must be reasonably diligent: R. v. Wilding,2007 ONCA 853 , [2007] O.J. No. 4776 (C.A.). [69.] The detainee is required to be reasonably diligent in the pursuit of his rights: R. v. Leclair and Ross (1989), (SCC), 46 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.) at p. 135; R. v. Richfield (2003), (ON CA), 178 C.C.C. (3d) 23 (Ont. C.A.); R. v.Clarke (2005), (ON CA), 196 C.C.C. (3d) 426 (Ont. C.A.) at ¶ 31-33; R. v.

Van Binnendyk, [2007] O.J. No. 2899(C.A.). [70.] Unless the detainee expresses to the police dissatisfaction with advice received, he is not entitled to Charter relief: R. v.Neziol, [2001] O.J. No. 4372 (S.C.J.); R. v. Kumarasamy, supra, R. v. Cairns, (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 210 (C.A.);R. v. Burley (2004), (ON CA), 181 C.C.C. (3d) 463 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Traicheff, [2008] O.J. No. 4361 (S.C.J.), aff’d[2010] O.J. No. 5355 (C.A.); R. v. Willier, 2010 SCC 37 , [2010] S.C.J.

No. 37 (S.C.C.) at ¶ 42. [71.] Where "special circumstances" exist, a police officer is required to take further steps to reasonably ascertain that detaineeunderstands his right to counsel. "Special circumstances" may arise where it is clear to the officer that a detainee’s first language is notEnglish and there is difficulty comprehending what is said to him.

Other indicia of "special circumstances" include, but are not limitedto, the following: the detainee's failure to respond to questions dealing with the right to counsel coupled with statements to the effect that"I don't speak the best English"; the necessity of speaking slowly to a detainee who speaks English "a little bit"; the detainee's negativeresponse when asked if the right to counsel is understood and thereafter, the failure to provide verbal or written instruction about thatright in the first language of the detainee; and the failure to honour the detainee's request for an interpreter, an officer, or a lawyer whospeaks his first language.

It is a question of fact and law whether "special circumstances" exist: R. v. Vanstaceghem (1987), (ON CA), 36 C.C.C. (3d) 142 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Barros-DaSilva, [2011] O.J. No. 3794 (S.C.J.) 3.2.3: Analysis [72.] It was clear to the officers that English was not the Accused’s mother tongue. However, it was equally clear to them and methat the Accused spoke English very well. At all times the Accused spoke with the police in English. He never said or otherwiseindicated that he did not understood them or anybody else.

In his evidence, the Accused was explicit that he had no problemsunderstanding his rights or the words used by the police throughout. Mr. Chang understood complex concepts such as P.C. Beckers’secondary caution without hesitation or problem. He understood and followed all police information and directions promptly andappropriately. He further testified that the police would have no reason to be aware of any potential or real language problems he mayhave had. I agree. [73.] Despite some hesitation, the Accused told P.C.

Beckers that he understood his legal rights and that he was satisfied with thelegal advice he had received. No explanation was offered as to why he hesitated before saying he understood his rights. It is importantto observe that he did not hesitate when asked if he was satisfied with the legal advice from duty counsel. The Accused never expressedany dissatisfaction nor did he ever tell the police he did not understand everything the lawyer told him. In fact, he did the opposite. [74.] The Accused had a duty to be reasonably diligent in exercising his rights.

That duty included an obligation to tell the policethat he did not understand Duty Counsel. Mr. Chang failed to meet his duty.

[ 75 .] I find that there were no special circumstances in this case to have required the police to do more than they did. There was no basis upon which the police should have provided Korean-language legal advice to the Accused because it was clear that he understood them and they understood him. He had a duty to tell the police if he had any language or other difficulties with duty counsel. P.C. Beckers could not have been expected to probe the quality of the legal advice given to the Accused or read his mind; that was for him to say and he failed to do so.

In the absence of specific complaint there was nothing in the circumstances to suggest to P.C. Beckers that the Accused was not satisfied with his call with Duty Counsel or that he was experiencing any linguistic problems of any sort. [ 76 .] The Accused has failed to demonstrate that the police probably violated his rights to counsel. His Charter application is dismissed. 4.0: CONCLUSIONS [ 77 .] After carefully considering all of the evidence, the helpful submissions of counsel, and upon applying the relevant legal principles I find the Accused guilty of both charges.

The Crown will advise me upon which count a conviction is to be registered. The other count will be judicially stayed. Original Signed by The Honourable Justice R.H.K. Schwarzl _________________________________ Richard H.K. Schwarzl, O.C.J.