Supreme Court
Decision Information
Decision information:
Abstract: Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence
Decision Content
R. v. Ekpakohak, 2014 NWTSC 32 S-1-CR-2013-000087 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IN THE MATTER OF: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v - ADAM JAMES EKPAKOHAK _________________________________________________________ Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence delivered by the Honourable Justice L. A. Charbonneau, in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 17th day of March, 2014 _________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: Ms. W. Miller: Counsel on behalf of the Crown Mr. M. Martin: Counsel on behalf of the Accused --------------------------------------------------------- Charge under s. 140(1)(a) Criminal Code of Canada A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc. 1 THE COURT: Mr. Ekpakohak pleaded guilty 2 to a charge of public mischief contrary to 3 Paragraph 140(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and I 4 must now decide what the sentence should be for 5 that offence. 6 The Crown and defence have presented the 7 Court with a joint submission as to what the 8 sentence should be. Sentencing involves the 9 exercise of considerable discretion on the part 10 of the sentencing judge. That discretion is not 11 absolute. It must always be exercised within the 12 framework of sentencing principles that are set 13 out in the Criminal Code. The discretion is 14 narrowed when a joint submission is presented. 15 Judges are required to give a joint submission 16 very serious consideration, and they are required 17 to follow joint submissions unless a judge comes 18 to the conclusion that the joint submission is 19 clearly out of the range of sentences for the 20 type of offence. In other words, it should be 21 followed unless it is clearly unreasonable. 22 I have considered the joint submission that 23 was presented to me this morning and the reasons 24 that were given to me for it. I have come to the 25 conclusion that it is a reasonable suggestion 26 under the circumstances, and I have decided to 27 follow it. A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc 2 1 I do want to put reasons on the record, 2 though, as to why I have concluded that this is a 3 fit sentence for this offence and taking into 4 account Mr. Ekpakohak's personal circumstances, 5 and I think it is important also that certain 6 things be said about the type of offence that 7 Mr. Ekpakohak has committed. 8 To put my decision in context, I will first 9 go over briefly the facts that Mr. Ekpakohak has 10 admitted. The Indictment charges that he caused 11 the RCMP in Ulukhaktok to enter upon an 12 investigation by falsely alleging that his 13 then-spouse tried to murder him. 14 How that came to be was that Mr. Ekpakohak 15 attended the nursing station in Ulukhaktok in the 16 early morning hours of August 22nd, 2012. He had 17 a large injury to his neck going from the front 18 of his neck to the back, an injury that took 16 19 sutures to close. Fortunately, the cut was not 20 deep; it only went as deep as the fat tissue 21 along the neck. Had the wound been deeper, at 22 least in the view of the nurse who treated him, 23 it is the type of injury that could have killed 24 him. 25 The photos that were filed this morning that 26 show the injury demonstrate very clearly just how 27 serious and large a cut this was. These are A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc 3 1 frightening photographs to look at. 2 The police were called to the health centre, 3 and Mr. Ekpakohak told them that he and his 4 spouse had been out in a cabin outside the 5 community approximately ten kilometres out of 6 town, that they had been drinking alcohol, that 7 at some point there was an argument, and that she 8 got mad at him. He alleged that she started 9 beating him up and that he defended himself, that 10 the fight stopped, but the argument resumed 11 sometime after and at that point he decided he 12 would just go back to town. So he got on his 13 quad getting ready to leave. He alleged that she 14 jumped on him and knocked him off the vehicle and 15 then took out a steak knife and slashed at his 16 neck with it. 17 The same day as this accusation was made, 18 the RCMP arrested his spouse on a charge of 19 attempted murder. At that point the police had 20 more than ample, reasonable grounds to believe 21 that this offence had been committed. She was 22 brought into custody, and she spent four days in 23 custody until she was released on terms that 24 included a requirement that she reside in 25 Kugluktuk with her mother. 26 During the course of the investigation the 27 RCMP took a statement from his spouse. She gave A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc 4 1 a very different account of what took place at 2 the cabin. She denied being responsible for 3 Mr. Ekpakohak's injury. On her version of events 4 there was a fight and there was an argument, but 5 she was the one who ended up leaving the cabin on 6 foot, and the last thing she heard Mr. Ekpakohak 7 say as she was leaving was that he was going to 8 kill himself. 9 The police continued to investigate and, to 10 get further clarifications from Mr. Ekpakohak, 11 spoke to him the next day on August 23rd. He was 12 reluctant to speak them. Eventually he said he 13 had a blackout and did not remember what 14 happened. He also said on that date that it was 15 not his spouse who had inflicted the injuries to 16 his neck. The RCMP continued to investigate and 17 tried to get more information from him, but he 18 refused to cooperate and refused to discuss the 19 matter further when they approached him sometime 20 later. 21 Eventually on the 14th of November, the 22 police spoke to Mr. Ekpakohak again, this time 23 advising him he was being investigated for public 24 mischief. He was cautioned and advised of his 25 rights, and then he provided a warned statement 26 where he confirmed that his spouse did not attack 27 him with a knife but that, in fact, he had A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc 5 1 inflicted the injury upon himself because he was 2 angry and disappointed about how the evening with 3 her had turned out. 4 About a week later the Crown stayed the 5 proceedings against Mr. Ekpakohak's spouse. 6 Counsel have advised that she now lives in Inuvik 7 and that the spousal relationship between she and 8 Mr. Ekpakohak is over. I also heard that she was 9 advised of her right to provide a victim impact 10 statement, but there is none on the file. I have 11 to assume that she chose not to prepare one. 12 Mr. Ekpakohak's counsel told me about 13 Mr. Ekpakohak's personal circumstances this 14 morning. I do not propose to repeat everything 15 that was said, but I do want to refer to some of 16 the things I was told. 17 I heard that he grew up in an environment 18 where his parents, who are both residential 19 school survivors who suffered abuse when they 20 were at Grolier Hall, drank to excess. 21 I heard he had an older brother that he 22 respected and admired a lot who looked after him 23 during those years and that he was very close to 24 this brother. Tragically, this brother committed 25 suicide when Mr. Ekpakohak was a teenager and it 26 has affected him deeply, and it continues to 27 affect him. I was able to observe that myself, A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc 6 1 as it was fairly obvious even this morning as his 2 counsel was talking about this topic during his 3 submissions. 4 I also heard that Mr. Ekpakohak has been 5 able to be gainfully employed at various times 6 doing various jobs. He has worked as a labourer, 7 as a gas service person, he has done some work in 8 carpentry, and in addition to that he is a 9 carver. So he is someone who can work and he 10 definitely has some skills. 11 I heard as well that he started using 12 alcohol and drugs when he was 17 and that he 13 recognizes that this is something that 14 contributes to him getting into trouble with the 15 law. That is very obvious from his criminal 16 record which is a lengthy record and includes a 17 variety of convictions for all sorts of 18 different offences between 2004 and 2013. There 19 are driving offences, property offences, drug 20 offences. There are assaults, and there are 21 breaches of various court orders. It is clear 22 that Mr. Ekpakohak has been regularly in trouble 23 with the law although he has never been sentenced 24 to very long jail terms. 25 The types of losses and tragedies and 26 difficulties that Mr. Ekpakohak faced growing up 27 are, sadly, not uncommon in small communities in A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc 7 1 this jurisdiction. There is very little doubt 2 that those circumstances contributed to 3 Mr. Ekpakohak coming to abuse alcohol and have 4 contributed to some of the struggles he has had 5 living a crime-free life. I have taken those 6 circumstances into account in deciding that the 7 proposed sentence is a fit one under the 8 circumstances. 9 But I have to add, and I am sure I am not 10 the first person to say this, Mr. Ekpakohak must 11 realize that as much as this Court and others can 12 have compassion for the circumstances that he 13 faced as a child and as a young adult, nothing 14 can be done to change the past. But he does have 15 control over how he will behave from this point 16 on. 17 He has young children, and it is up to him 18 if he wants them to have a father who abuses 19 alcohol and is in and out of jail and is not 20 there for them or whether they will have a father 21 who will be positive and a strong figure in their 22 eyes. 23 It sounds as though maybe Mr. Ekpakohak did 24 not have that when he was child, and it is up to 25 him to decide whether his children will be in the 26 same position he was or whether he will make the 27 change happen for them, and the Court really A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc 8 1 hopes that he will do so. 2 The last sentence that Mr. Ekpakohak 3 received according to the information that I have 4 been given was in October 2013, and he received a 5 global sentence of eight months' imprisonment at 6 the time. I heard that his release date would 7 have been February 28th, 2014, so the time he has 8 spent in custody since then has been by consent 9 on this charge. 10 I have talked about the offence and I have 11 talked about the circumstances of Mr. Ekpakohak, 12 but now I want to speak more generally about this 13 type of offence. 14 Public mischief can cover a wide range of 15 conduct which, in turn, can have a wide range of 16 consequences. When it involves falsely accusing 17 someone of a serious offence such as in this 18 case, that can be very serious. The offence in 19 this case falls at the high end of seriousness of 20 what this type of charge can relate to. Falsely 21 accusing someone of attempted murder is a serious 22 matter. 23 As the Crown noted, some resources were 24 expended to investigate this matter thoroughly, 25 as all serious charges should be. While they 26 were busy doing that the two police officers 27 stationed in Ulukhaktok, which is a very isolated A.C.E. Reporting Services, Inc 9 1 community, were not able to deal with other 2 investigations and attend to other matters that 3 needed their attention. Police officers are busy 4 enough as it is investigating the offences that 5 have actually been committed. It is a terrible 6 waste of their resources to have to investigate 7 something that did not happen. 8 Even more significantly, Mr. Ekpakohak's 9 actions resulted in an innocent person being 10 charged in her community of a horrendous offence. 11 The impact of that, especially in a small 12 community like Ulukhaktok, with which the Court 13 is familiar, is huge. I have no doubt that news 14 of the type of injury that Mr. Ekpakohak suffered 15 must have travelled very quickly in the community 16 of Ulukhaktok that morning. And because he was 17 seriously injured and there was no question about 18 that, it may well be that many people thought 19 that his spouse was, in fact, guilty of this 20 terrible crime. People may well have found it 21 quite unbelievable that there would be any other 22 explanation for his serious injury. In fact, the 23 truth in this case, the fact that he inflicted 24 this injury upon himself, is incredible. By many 25 standards it would be considered an unbelievable 26 story. So I have no doubt that in the community 27 from the time that this matter was reported and A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 10 1 in the following days, there may well have been a 2 lot of people who thought that this particular 3 woman, Mr. Ekpakohak's spouse, had actually tried 4 to slice his throat. 5 Beyond that effect, she spent four days in 6 custody in the cells of the small detachment, and 7 then she was released on terms that required her 8 to leave the community where she lived for many 9 years. Fortunately, the prosecution against her 10 did come to an end before it had time to move 11 along too far in the process, but the charge was 12 still pending for a number of months. And 13 really, until today, until the day where 14 Mr. Ekpakohak actually pleaded guilty to this 15 charge and admitted publicly that he lied about 16 what she had done, there may well have remained 17 some lingering doubts about whether she had 18 actually hurt him or not. 19 Domestic violence is a very prevalent crime 20 in this jurisdiction. Many complaints are made, 21 and many charges are laid in conjunction with 22 this type of offence involving violence between 23 spouses. And violence between spouses is a very 24 serious social problem. The authorities are 25 expected to take those types of complaints very 26 seriously. Any time the system is abused in the 27 way that it was in this case, when a person A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 11 1 knowingly makes a false complaint whether it is 2 out of spite, revenge, desperation, or whatever 3 drove Mr. Ekpakohak's actions that day, it 4 compromises the whole system. It trivializes the 5 cases of real spousal violence and the 6 devastating consequences that they have. 7 Not so long ago the Territorial Court had 8 occasion to comment on this, dealing with someone 9 who had made a false complaint to police in a 10 different context but had followed through with 11 an application for an Emergency Protection Order. 12 It was later found and established that it was a 13 false complaint. This was the case of 14 R. v. Simmonds [2011] N.W.T.R. No. 8. At 15 paragraph 23 of that decision, the Territorial 16 Court said: 17 "I will start from the premise that family violence is a notorious problem in our 18 jurisdiction, as it may well be throughout the country. We as a community struggle to deal with 19 the many pervasive, long-lasting, harmful effects of family violence. Resources are scarce and the 20 problem is many-facetted and it is complex. The Protection Against Family Violence Act is but one 21 attempt or one tool to try to address the problem and to assist the victims. The legislation is 22 preventive as opposed to reactionary, which the criminal law is. The legislation was enacted to 23 give applicants another tool besides the criminal law to address family violence. Ms. Simmonds 24 abused this legislation. She abused the system for her own end, and, by that, she has harmed the 25 administration of justice, she has tarnished a route provided by the legislation that has 26 laudable goals. She has brought unwarranted criticism to the legislation which might have, 27 still may have, the result of making that legislation less effective for those who truly do A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 12 1 need protection. And if for no other reason, in a jurisdiction where family violence sometimes 2 seems an insurmountable problem with too few resources for the victims of it and it sometimes 3 seems even fewer solutions to deal with it, for that reason Ms. Simmonds' actions have to be 4 denounced." 5 These comments were made in the specific 6 context of the misuse of the Protection Against 7 Family Violence Act, which is legislation that 8 allows people to seek the protection of the Court 9 without necessarily making a criminal complaint. 10 But those comments are equally applicable to 11 people who misuse police resources and other 12 resources by making a false accusation 13 of domestic violence. That type of abuse raises 14 similar concerns and justifies a denunciatory 15 sentence and one that will hopefully achieve 16 deterrence. 17 The seriousness of making false accusations 18 was also underscored by this Court in 19 R. v. Fraser, 2007 NWTSC 13. In that case the 20 accused had falsely accused police officers of 21 having sexually assaulted his girlfriend while 22 she was in custody after having been arrested on 23 a drug charge. At paragraph 6 of that decision 24 the Court said: 25 "Although the Criminal Code terms this offence "public mischief", that is really a 26 misnomer, because the word "mischief" in the English language has the connotation of something 27 minor, or wrongdoing that is merely annoying or irritating. It may be that some crimes of public A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 13 1 mischief are minor, but this one is not. It is a serious offence against the administration of 2 justice. As stated by the Alberta Court in the Ambrose case, the sting of this kind of crime is 3 not so much causing the police to waste their time and resources, but, rather, the real harm 4 done is the danger that innocent persons might be prosecuted and lose their reputations, their 5 jobs, their livelihoods." 6 The facts in Fraser were obviously quite 7 different from what they are here, but the point 8 remains the same about just how serious it is to 9 falsely accuse someone of committing a serious 10 crime. 11 In Fraser the Court was sentencing the 12 accused for the public mischief charge as well as 13 for a drug offence, but in giving his reasons for 14 sentence the sentencing judge said that if he was 15 sentencing the accused only for the public 16 mischief charge, he would have given him 17 18 months' imprisonment. At the same time there 18 is no question that the range of sentences 19 imposed for this serious type of offence can be 20 quite broad. In Simmonds, which I referred to 21 earlier, the ultimate sentence was a conditional 22 sentence of three months' imprisonment. 23 In other cases the Court has refrained from 24 imposing jail at all; for example, in 25 R. v. Tesar [1991] N.W.T.R. No. 159, the 26 Territorial Court judge who was sentencing 27 someone for causing another person to be arrested A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 14 1 improperly said that ordinarily, jail should be 2 imposed for this type of crime, but in that case 3 the Court did not. And similarly in the case 4 that was filed by counsel here, R. v. Lapoleon, 5 2008, B.C. PC 80, in the cases cited in that 6 decision all show that there is a broad range of 7 sentences which can be imposed for this type of 8 crime. 9 It is mitigating that Mr. Ekpakohak has 10 pleaded guilty. I would not consider this a plea 11 at an early opportunity considering that the 12 matter did get to the point of being set for 13 trial. At the same time, I recognize that as a 14 result of his waiver of the preliminary hearing, 15 the complainant never had to testify on this 16 matter. That makes a big, big difference as far 17 as a mitigating effect on the guilty plea. I 18 also accept that because this trial was set to 19 proceed in Yellowknife there were considerable 20 resources that were saved as a result of a guilty 21 plea. Finally, when he was given a chance to 22 speak directly to the Court this morning, 23 Mr. Ekpakohak's words were words of apology to 24 his spouse, to the police, and to his community; 25 and I accept that it was a sincere apology, and I 26 accept that he is truly remorseful for what he 27 has done. A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 15 1 It is deeply disturbing to think that 2 Mr. Ekpakohak, in a state of intoxication, 3 actually cut his own neck. It suggests a level 4 of despair that is hard to imagine. He has been 5 in and out of court for many years. Change is 6 needed, but he is the only one who can effect 7 that change. 8 Given the number of breaches on his criminal 9 record, I would normally be quite reluctant to 10 place him on probation because that sentencing 11 tool has not been helpful to him in the past. It 12 has actually led to more charges and more 13 sentences and more jail for him. But given the 14 unusual facts of this case and the fact that 15 Mr. Ekpakohak will need help to deal with his 16 issues, and also to give his former spouse some 17 level of comfort that he cannot contact her 18 whenever he wants, I have decided that probation 19 is a useful thing to include as part of this 20 sentence. 21 Public mischief is a secondary designated 22 offence. The Crown has asked me to make a DNA 23 order having regard to the seriousness of the 24 offence and to Mr. Ekpakohak's record. Defence 25 does not oppose that request, and I am satisfied 26 that this is a proper case for making that type 27 of an order. A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 16 1 So, Mr. Clerk, a DNA order will be issued. 2 I have discretion to waive the victim of 3 crime surcharge because these events occurred 4 before there was a change in the law that removes 5 the Court's discretion to waive the surcharge. 6 Given that Mr. Ekpakohak has been in jail for 7 some time and will be in jail for some time yet, 8 I will exercise my discretion and will not 9 require him to pay the surcharge. 10 I have heard from his counsel that 11 Mr. Ekpakohak's detention conditions have been 12 more difficult than might otherwise be the case, 13 that he has had problems with other inmates. 14 More specifically I have heard that there have 15 been two recent altercations, very recent 16 alterations where he was injured and that for his 17 own protection he is being held in segregation. 18 Defence counsel asks me to take this into 19 account in two respects; first, in the 20 calculation of how much credit Mr. Ekpakohak 21 should receive for the time he has spent in 22 remand; and secondly, in endorsing the warrant of 23 committal with the recommendation that 24 Mr. Ekpakohak be transferred to another facility. 25 It is a little bit difficult for me to assess 26 these arguments and how these incidents should 27 impact on the credit that I give Mr. Ekpakohak A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 17 1 for remand time. 2 I certainly accept that these altercations 3 took place, but I know very little about the 4 circumstances or the reasons why they occurred, 5 whether there is any shared responsibility on 6 Mr. Ekpakohak's part for some of these incidents. 7 I am not saying he is responsible for them. I am 8 just saying that I do not know, and it is 9 difficult to gauge them with the information I 10 have. I do accept that whatever the cause, as a 11 result of these incidents he has been injured, 12 and I do accept that whatever the cause, it has 13 resulted in him being held in segregation, and 14 that has prevented him from having access to some 15 of the things that inmates in the general 16 population have access to. 17 But at the same time I also heard that while 18 he has been in custody, he has taken the 19 opportunity to take counselling and take part in 20 healing circles. I do not know how much of that 21 took place before or after February 28th, but he 22 has had access to some things while in custody. 23 So I am satisfied that some enhanced credit 24 is appropriate, but I do not think it is 25 appropriate for me to give him the maximum ratio 26 as suggested by counsel. For the 17 days 27 Mr. Ekpakohak has spent in remand, I will give A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 18 1 him credit for 21 days and reduce his sentence 2 accordingly. 3 As for the second request, the 4 recommendation that he be transferred to another 5 institution to alleviate some of the issues, 6 again, I do not feel I have enough information to 7 be comfortable making a specific recommendation. 8 I do not have all the information about various 9 facilities and the types of programs that are 10 available in those facilities and which ones 11 might be more best suited to assist Mr. Ekpakohak 12 for the rest of the time he will spend in 13 custody. 14 I would note that according to what I heard, 15 these altercations that occurred recently 16 resulted in injuries to him; they were not minor 17 incidents. I also take it from what counsel has 18 said that the correctional authorities are in the 19 process of reviewing his placement in light of 20 these recent events, more specifically, the 21 altercations of March 4th and March 7th. I will 22 say this much: The Court is relieved to hear 23 that these are being looked into and that the 24 correctional authorities are considering how best 25 to approach this as far as whether a different 26 placement is appropriate. I think it is best to 27 allow them to carry out their assessment, and I A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 19 1 will not make any recommendations about placement 2 in the absence of clearer information about what 3 has happened. 4 Mr. Ekpakohak can you stand up, please. 5 Mr. Ekpakohak, you heard what I said. I hope 6 that you really are able to get the help that you 7 need and not be in and out of jail for the next 8 10, 15 years while your kids are growing up. 9 There are a lot of things you can do with your 10 time other than drinking, and I really hope that 11 when you are finished serving your sentence you 12 will be able to go back to your community and use 13 those skills in the right way and remember the 14 terrible things that happened, including what you 15 did to yourself that night, and just find a way 16 to stay away from alcohol. It does not sound 17 like it is something that has ever been good for 18 you, and I just hope that this time will be the 19 last time I see you in court. 20 For all those reasons I have been talking 21 about, I am going along with the suggestion that 22 the two lawyers made. For the crime of public 23 mischief that you pleaded guilty to, I will 24 sentence you to a term of eight months in jail as 25 was suggested. I will give you credit for 26 21 days for the time you already spent 27 in custody. So there will be a further jail term A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 20 1 of seven months and one week. 2 In addition to that you will be on probation 3 for one year. You heard what I said. You have 4 breached many court orders before. Probation is 5 not there to punish you; probation is there to 6 give you a little bit of help, perhaps, after 7 your release. So you can take counselling as 8 directed and report to the probation officer so 9 that they can help you. 10 I am also going to put conditions in there 11 about contact with C., and that is for her 12 protection, for both of your protection, because 13 it appears that it is best for the two of you not 14 to be together. The first term of probation is 15 you are to report to a probation officer when and 16 as directed and within 48 hours of returning to 17 your community. 48 hours after your release, 18 basically, you have to report. 19 The second term is that you will take 20 counselling when and as directed. That is 21 something that your probation officer and 22 yourself can talk about, whether it can help you. 23 If there is A.A. in Ulukhaktok, and there 24 probably is, you probably should go, but I will 25 leave the details to you and your probation 26 officer to work out. 27 The third condition is you are to have no A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 21 1 contact with C.K. unless she initiates it. You 2 are not allowed to contact her. But I will put a 3 fourth term in recognizing that you have children 4 together, and that term will be if you have a 5 need to communicate with C.K. regarding the 6 children, then you have to contact her through a 7 third party. 8 THE ACCUSED: Okay. 9 THE COURT: The reason I am breaking it up 10 in two like that is that I do not want you 11 contacting her in general unless she initiates 12 it, but if something comes up with the children, 13 then you should be able to contact her because 14 that is important, but again, not directly. You 15 have to do it through a third party. 16 THE ACCUSED: Okay. 17 THE COURT: Do you understand all that? 18 THE ACCUSED: Yeah. 19 THE COURT: All right. You can sit down. 20 There will be an order for the destruction 21 of any exhibits I have received in this matter 22 once the appeal period has expired. 23 Ms. Miller, is there anything that I have 24 overlooked? 25 MS. MILLER: No. Thank you, Your Honour. 26 THE COURT: Mr. Martin, is there anything 27 I have overlooked? A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 22 1 MR. MARTIN: No. Thank you, Your Honour. 2 THE COURT: Well, I want to thank you 3 both, counsel, for your submissions on this, and 4 I want to commend you for your work in resolving 5 this case. 6 We will close court. 7 ----------------------------------------------------- 8 PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY 9 ----------------------------------------------------- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A.C.E. Reporting Services, In 23 24 1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT 2 3 4 5 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that 6 the foregoing pages are a complete and accurate 7 transcript of the proceedings taken down by me in 8 shorthand and transcribed from my shorthand notes to 9 the best of my skill and ability. 10 Dated at the City of Edmonton, Province 11 of Alberta, this 17th day of March, 2014. 12 13 14 15 16 __________________________ 17 Tiffany Low 18 Court Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A.C.E. Reporting Services Inc. Phone: (780) 497-4223
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.