Decision Content
AMENDED ORIGINAL
R v Lockhartt, 2023 NWTSC 16 S-1-CR-2022-000093
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
-v-
FIIONALYNN LOCKHARTT
________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Deputy Justice L.A. Charbonneau, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 6th day of June, 2023
________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
B. MacPherson: Counsel for the Crown
P. Harte: Counsel for the Defence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges under s. 268 and 267(a) of the Criminal Code
ORIGINAL amended as of July 27, 2023 to correct spelling of Crown Counsel
I N D E X
PAGE
RULINGS, REASONS
Reasons for Sentence 3
(VIDEOCONFERENCE COMMENCES)
THE COURT:
Fiionalynn Lockhartt is before this Court to be sentenced for the aggravated assault of her younger sister Elise. The assault happened in the house where they lived with their adoptive parents, Tom and Rosa Lockhartt, and Fiionalynn’s uncle, Peter Lockhartt. Normally, in a decision, I would refer to people using their surnames. But here everyone involved has the same surname, so I will use their first names to avoid confusion. In doing so I mean no disrespect to any of them.
Fiionalynn suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. In the weeks preceding the assault on her sister, she had not been taking the medication prescribed to assist with her mental health conditions. She had been having dark thoughts. She had been hearing voices in her head. She was behaving strangely, and she was saying strange things.
On March 9, 2022, she got a knife from the kitchen in the house, she went upstairs and knocked on the door of Elise’s bedroom. When Elise answered, Fiionalynn pushed her on the bed, got on top of her and slashed her cheek and throat with the knife. Peter realized what was happening and intervened. He pulled Fiionalynn off Elise. Police were called.
When the police arrived, Fiionalynn was still in Elise’s room. She had blood on her. When police asked whose blood that was, her answer was, “it’s precious.” She was acting strange. She lifted her shirt and slapped her stomach. She took her pants and underwear down to her ankles.
Based on what they observed in the house and the information they obtained, the officers placed Fiionalynn under arrest. Soon after she was taken into custody, they took her to the hospital and she was committed involuntarily. She remained there for a number of months. Eventually in late December 2022, a placement with a residential program called “I Have a Chance,” ("IHAC"), in Stony Plains, Alberta, was arranged for her. She went there and has been living there since.
As for Elise, she was taken to the hospital immediately after the attack. She underwent surgery. The main purpose of that was to determine the extent of the injuries caused by the 10-cm long, 2-3-cm deep cut to her throat. It was determined that, most fortunately -- and I do not hesitate to say, miraculously -- her larynx, trachea and esophagus were not damaged. The knife missed one of her jugular veins by a few millimetres. Her wounds were cleaned and closed with stitches.
This left Elise with visible scars. Also, not surprisingly, these events had a significant emotional and mental impact on her. She suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome, and she has nightmares. Elise has chosen not to prepare a Victim Impact Statement but this information is included in the Agreed Statement of Facts.
The author of the pre-sentence report stated that he had not been able to reach Elise through the phone numbers that he had been given. According to Rosa, Elise has not reached a point where she can forgive her sister. That day may come, but understandably, it may take a long time. My understanding from submissions yesterday is that Fiionalynn, having been herself subjected to considerable trauma in her life, understands the consequences of her actions, understands what it has done to Elise, and is very remorseful about that.
Fiionalynn is now 30 years old. She has no criminal record. She is of Chipewyan descent. As I said, I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report; it is very thorough, and it provides a lot of information about her background.
Fiionalynn grew up in Lutselk’e and was custom adopted by her grandparents when she was still an infant. When she was 15, the family moved to Yellowknife.
She witnessed violence and alcohol abuse when growing up in the community. But she has positive memories of her childhood as well. She spent time on the land with her grandfather and learned traditional skills such as hunting and trapping, fishing and basic survival skills. She says she has since lost touch with those skills but that she would like to reconnect with them someday. Her adoptive parents’ home was, and remains, alcohol and drug free, and is a loving home.
Fiionalynn started to get into drugs after the move to Yellowknife and developed a serious substance abuse problem. At one point she went to live in Edmonton with her boyfriend, got introduced to crack cocaine, and became addicted to it. This made her problems spiral down even more.
She has faced considerable trauma and loss in her life. I will not go into all the details of what is referred to in the pre-sentence report, but among other things she had to cope with two significant deaths in the last few years. Her biological father was beaten to death in Fort Smith in 2018, and a cousin who she was very close to committed suicide in 2021. It was sometime after her cousin’s suicide that she suffered her first psychotic episode, which led to a hospitalization in 2021.
Aside from the pre-sentence report, I also have the benefit of materials filed by her counsel. They include a consultation report and discharge summary pertaining to that earlier instance of hospitalization in 2021. In that instance, she was admitted to hospital in in early August and discharged in September, so she was in hospital for six weeks.
The discharge summary lists various diagnoses, including "schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type", and several substance abuse disorders described for the most part as being in "early remission". The material filed by defence also includes information about the IHAC program and reports about how Fiionalynn has been doing in that program. There is reference to that in the pre‑sentence report as well. It does not seem to be an exaggeration to say that the IHAC program has been a life changer for her.
She started that residential program in late December 2022. Through it she started going to Alcoholics Anonymous. It is reported that she has made significant improvements in her overall lifestyle. She has remained alcohol and drug free. She has begun focusing on areas of her life that need work and has begun the grieving and processing of her past traumas as well as of the terrible event that brings her before this Court today. The program manager at IHAC confirms this in the report filed by the defence.
The materials refer among other things to her increased awareness about situations where she may be tempted to relapse in substance abuse and how she has coped with her cravings. According to the report, she has been honest and open about those challenges and with help has developed some strategies to address them. This is the very real long‑term work that is key to her rehabilitation.
In short, Fiionalynn is on the right path, and although one can expect that this is a process that will take time, on the evidence before me, she has already been able to effect very meaningful changes in her life. I heard as well that she is currently enrolled at the Academia of Esthetics in West Edmonton Mall, that she has completed a third of the program and is very enthusiastic and motivated about it.
She is fortunate in that she continues to have also support from her family. She speaks to her biological mother regularly; she is in regular contact also with her adoptive parents, and her mother Rosa has visited her on several occasions. In the pre‑sentence report, Rosa is reported saying that Fiionalynn sounds and looks much healthier and happier than before.
Aggravated assault is a very serious offence, as I think everyone acknowledges. This is reflected in the fact that the maximum sentence that can be imposed for it is 14 years imprisonment. There is no minimum sentence. In R. v. Morgan, 2007 NWTSC 30 (affirmed on appeal, 2008 NWTCA 12), (which also involved a stabbing although in very, very different circumstances), this Court reviewed case law from this jurisdiction and concluded that the general range that emerged from that case law at that point for an aggravated assault involving a stabbing was between 30 months imprisonment and five years.
That sentence was upheld on appeal, although the Court of Appeal did not make any comments about the range evoked in the sentencing decision. The Morgan decision is now somewhat dated, but the same range has been referred to in several cases since and was specifically adopted in more recent decisions of this Court. Just as two examples, there was R. v. Hodges, 2015 NWTSC 59 in 2015 and more recently, R. v. St. Croix, 2021 NWTSC 12.
There certainly has not been a noticeable decrease in violence in this jurisdiction, or in crimes of violence involving stabbings in particular, over the past decade. On the contrary, there has been a steady stream of them, including, tragically, cases where the victim of the stabbing died. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the range evoked in Morgan has become excessive. On the contrary, there may be good reasons to argue that the need to denounce and deter knife attacks is more pressing than ever. That does not mean, of course, that there can never be a sentence below - or above - that range. Sentencing is a highly individualized process.
The fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. A sentence has to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the degree of responsibility or blameworthiness of the offender. This case is a very good example, as counsel have said, of the immense challenge in applying this sentencing principle when a very, very serious crime is committed by an offender whose blameworthiness is significantly reduced by various factors.
There are aggravating features in this case. The first is that a weapon was used, a knife. Not all aggravated assaults involve the use of weapons. The second is that the victim was attacked in her own bedroom in her own home, which is the place where she should have been able to feel the safest. It is an immense loss to lose that sense of security. The third is that there is a familial relationship between the offender and her victim. There was an element of breach of trust here. This attacked came from the victim’s older sister, someone she should have been able to count on for protection.
There was a significant impact on the victim. She has physical scars, which remind her every time she looks in the mirror of what happened. There are also emotional scars. I do not doubt that it will take her a very long time to recover emotionally from what happened. I can only hope that she can have access to the help that she will need to make her way through that long process.
There are also mitigating factors. The first is the guilty plea. It did not come at an early stage. At one point a preliminary hearing date had been scheduled, It was later cancelled. But there are some things in this case that go some distance in explaining this delay.
First, Fiionalynn’s counsel was trying to gather information needed to build a case for a conditional sentence request. This I think is fair to say is a highly exceptional disposition to be seeking for an offence this serious. So it is not surprising that counsel needed time. Perhaps more importantly, until not long ago, conditional sentences were not available on an aggravated assault charge if serious bodily harm was inflicted. While this matter was pending, the government was in the process of amending the Criminal Code such that a conditional sentence would be available again in a case like this one. Counsel, understandably, wanted to wait for the amendments to come into effect before proceeding with the sentencing hearing.
In addition, there may have been triable issues here. Because of the direction that the case was taking and the resolution discussions, the Crown did not retain an expert to examine issues related to Fiionalynn's mental capacity at the time of the attack on Elise. That said, some the behaviour observed before the events and at the time of arrest, as well as the evidence about Fiionalynn's psychiatric history, suggests that there may have been triable issues linked to her diagnoses and mental state at the time of these events. I am not saying that she would have been successful if she tried to raise those defences, but I think there is enough in the facts before me to suggest that her mental state could have been a live issue. By pleading guilty, she gave up her opportunity to pursue any argument or defence she might have had in this regard.
For all those reasons I accept that she should get considerable credit for her guilty plea, and I accept that that guilty plea is further evidence of her genuine remorse.
The next mitigating element is the reduction of her blameworthiness because of her circumstances as an Indigenous offender and the various struggles and losses that she has faced. These factors are outlined in detail in the pre-sentence report. I have already talked about some of them, and I will not repeat them. I will just say that following the principles elaborated in the cases of R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 788, R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433 and countless others, her circumstances as an Indigenous offender and the effect that those circumstances have on her blameworthiness has to be taken into account.
Third, her moral blameworthiness is reduced by the serious mental health issues that she has struggled with for some time.
The fourth, and in my view, very significant consideration when assessing what the sentence should be -- whether we call it a mitigating factor or just a circumstance -- is the progress that she has made in her rehabilitative efforts.
Ultimately, the best way to protect the public is for Fiionalynn to continue doing what she has begun doing: address her past trauma and all the underlying issues that have gotten her where she is today, continue her treatment and work towards leading a healthy, productive, happy life. When rehabilitation is possible, it is the ultimate way to protect the public. It is a win-win for the offender, for the community, and for society at large.
No doubt having taken all of this into account, the Crown has joined the defence in asking that a conditional sentence be imposed. This means the jail term has to be under two years, and it means that giving the offender permission to serve it not in a jail, but in the community under a regime of conditions.
Because this is a joint submission, it engages the well-known principles set out in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. That restricts my discretion considerably.
The sentence being proposed is below the usual range for an offence as serious as the one that was committed here. The cases filed by the Crown show that it is not unheard of, but I think it is fair to say that it is exceptionally lenient. As I have already noted, this was a few millimetres away from being a homicide case, and it was completely unprovoked. It is pure luck and only pure luck that this attack did not have even more devastating consequences. And I think everyone needs to understand that even on a guilty plea, and even with mitigating factors, one should expect a penitentiary sentence would be imposed for slashing someone’s throat.
Often times this Court has the very sad task of sentencing a person for a very serious offence, and the evidence before the Court makes it easy to see how the offender came to become dysfunctional and violent. The background of many offenders who come before the Court is that they were themselves victims of abuse, grew up in dysfunction and violence and that some never really had a chance.
While this reduces their blameworthiness, understanding the causes of the problems often does not assist with the objective of protecting others from being victimized by these offenders because all that does is to move the cycle along to another group of people in another generation. This is why so often, significant jail sentences are imposed despite the sympathy that the circumstances of an offender may evoke and the fact that these circumstances do reduce their moral blameworthiness.
Here, however, the fundamental difference is that there are very real and tangible indications that Fiionalynn has taken significant rehabilitative steps, with some help, and truly is on a path of recovery. I am not faced with someone who is simply expressing the wish or the hope to make changes or address their issues. Those expressions of a will to change are, I am sure, always or almost always sincere. But the truth is that they often do not materialize and translate into real action, real change.
Here, it is different. What I am faced with here is someone who has made considerable strides in that direction. Under those circumstances, and taking into account the other factors I have talked about, a sentence of two years less a day, although lower than the usual range of sentence for this type of crime, represents in my view a position of restraint, which is appropriate and justified under the circumstances.
In light of the significant rehabilitative efforts that Fiionalynn has already deployed and in light of the conditions that are being proposed, significantly the continuation of residency at the IHAC program, I am satisfied that a conditional sentence will not endanger the safety of the community, and I am satisfied that it adequately addresses the principles and objectives of sentencing. What is being jointly proposed represents a delicate and careful balancing of those principles and objectives. It has, in my opinion, a very high likelihood of being far more effective in the long-term protection of the public than taking this offender out of the program and situation she is currently in to put her in a jail for any length of time.
Given all of this, I will follow this joint submission. I do so not only because of the principles set out in Anthony-Cook, but because I agree with it completely. In my opinion it is a just and fit sentence in the circumstances. I commend both counsel for having arrived at this resolution. And I also commend and thank all of those who have evidently worked very hard to assist Ms. Lockhartt in accessing the services that she needs to address her issues and rehabilitate herself.
So often we see offenders struggling with serious issues and seemingly without there being anyone who can truly help them, any program available that can meet their needs. In this case people appear to have found a way, and that is what serves the public interest the best.
I do want to add, because I think it is important to note, that in saying all of this and in agreeing with counsel’s suggestion, I have not lost sight of the terrible consequences that these events had for Elise Lockhartt and other family members. I hope that they too are able to access the help that they will need to address the trauma they have suffered as a result of all of this because it must have been awful. I hope that in time there can be healing and repaired relationships within the family.
Finally, there is one more thing I feel must be said. Fiionalynn is not responsible for her mental health issues, but she is now on notice, the clearest notice possible, the most brutal notice imaginable, of what can happen and the level of harm that she can cause if she does not do what she needs to do to keep herself physically and mentally healthy.
This means staying away from substances that can induce her psychosis, and it means following the advice and prescriptions of the health professionals who are trying to help her. Everything I have heard at the sentencing hearing and that I have read in the materials filed suggests that she is very compliant and motivated to keep herself healthy, and that is very positive and encouraging. But it has to continue, and it has to continue for the rest of her life.
I will begin with the ancillary orders. There will be a DNA order because aggravated assault is a primary designated offence. There will be a firearms prohibition for a period of 10 years. There will not be a victim of crime surcharge as I am satisfied that to impose it would cause Ms. Lockhartt hardship, given her present situation, the fact that she does not have income at the moment and that she still needs to finish the course before she can go work and make some money.
As for the sentence itself, on the charge of aggravated assault there will be a jail term of two years less one day, and it will be served as a conditional sentence. I am going to include in the order the conditions that were suggested by counsel. Mr. Clerk is going to prepare an order that has all of these set out, Ms. Lockhartt, and a copy will be sent to you as soon as the order is ready. There are a lot of conditions and you will be bound by those conditions for two years less a day.
There are conditions that have to be included in every conditional sentence order, the Criminal Code makes them mandatory.
The first statutory condition is you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
Next, you must appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court.
Three, you must report to your conditional sentence supervisor within 48 hours and thereafter as required.
Four, you must notify the Court or your supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the Court of any change in employment or occupation; however, such change must be made in accordance with the other terms of this order. This is a statutory condition which, if I had the choice, I would not put in because in this case I am including a residency requirement in the order. So in fact, Ms. Lockhartt does not have permission to reside anywhere else, but it is a statutory condition and so it will be included.
I would say the same for the fifth statutory condition, which is that you must remain within the Northwest Territories unless you have prior written permission from the Court or the supervisor to leave. In this case you are under an order to remain at the IHAC facility, so that condition has no practical application in this case.
The next conditions will be as follows: you must live as directed at premises operated by I Have a Chance Support Services Limited and follow any written rules you are directed to follow by IHAC, your supervisor and your Northwest Territories case manager from the Division of Adult Services.
Next condition, you must be inside your residence, which means within 5 metres of the entrance to your residence, at all times unless you are travelling directly to or from a scheduled appointment with your supervisor or you are at or going directly to or returning directly from a healthcare facility because of a medical emergency. And if asked, you must provide your supervisor or IHAC with proof of your attendance at the facility.
Or if you are working or travelling directly to or from a scheduled work commitment, and you have provided your work schedule in advance to your supervisor. Or if you are attending an educational program or travelling directly to or from the program, and you have provided your program schedule in advance to your supervisor.
Or if you are attending counselling or travelling directly to or from a counselling appointment, and you have provided your travelling appointment schedule in advance to your supervisor, or you have permission from your supervisor to be outside your place of residence for specified purposes.
The point of this is that you are not free to go where you want when you want; there are specific situations when you are allowed to be outside of your residence. This is intended to be strict but at the same time flexible enough to be workable.
These were the conditions drafted by your counsel and agreed to by the Crown. I am relying on the fact that those were the people in the best position to craft a set of conditions that will work in your present circumstances.
The next condition is designed to ensure compliance with the house arrest: you must present yourself at the door and respond to a telephone call if a member of the RCMP or your supervisor or IHAC staff wishes to monitor your compliance with this order.
Next, you must authorize IHAC staff to provide any report requested by your supervisor or your NWT case manager, Adult Services, to monitor your compliance with this order.
The next is a reporting condition: you must report to your supervisor by telephone by calling the phone number that will be listed on the order before 4:00 p.m. on the 7th of June. This is tomorrow, but you could also do that today,
Next, you must not directly or indirectly have any communication or contact with Elise Lockhartt.
Next, you must not go to places of residence, work or education of Elise Lockhartt.
Next, you must not possess, consume or purchase alcohol or illegal drugs except as prescribed by a licenced medical practitioner.
Next, you must not possess a firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance.
Next, you must participate in counselling as directed by your supervisor, IHAC or your NWT case manager, Adult Services.
Those are a lot of conditions. As I said, they will be written down, and if you have any questions about them, Ms. Lockhartt, you can ask the people at IHAC; you can ask your conditional sentence supervisor. It is important that you understand them all so you can comply with them.
The period of conditional sentence will be followed by probation for one year. I am going to make this supervised probation, not with any intent of adding to the punishment, but rather, so that Ms. Lockhartt can continue to benefit from reporting from time to time as directed, perhaps get support and assistance for another year after the strict terms of the conditional sentence term has ended.
I think this may assist with the transition back into a life where there will be far less structure, and it might be helpful to have that for another year. But there will be very few conditions. Within a week of the end of your conditional sentence, you are to report to your probation officer and thereafter as directed. And the only other condition will be that you continue to not have any contact directly or indirectly with Elise Lockhartt.
There are ways to get conditions amended, and if it becomes appropriate, in particular, that there be contact with Elise Lockhartt, that can be done by application to the Court. It would of course require Elise Lockhartt to be in favour of it because this condition is there for her benefit to help her feel safe, and support her in her own process of recovery.
The last thing I want to do is return briefly to one of the issues that I raised during the sentencing hearing yesterday. It has to do with who will supervise Ms. Lockhartt during the period of her conditional sentence. Mr. Pin who was in court yesterday is, as I understand, employed by Probation Services. He has been Ms. Lockhartt’s bail supervisor while she’s been on release all this time. He wrote the very detailed and helpful pre-sentence report that was filed as part of these proceedings. He is very familiar with Ms. Lockhartt’s situation.
If Ms. Lockhartt were living in the Northwest Territories, I fully expect his role as her bail supervisor would move pretty much seamlessly to that of her conditional sentence supervisor. And presumably, if possible, he might continue even later on as her probation officer when the period of probation starts.
When I asked about supervision yesterday, there seemed to be a suggestion that because Ms. Lockhartt is staying at this residential program in Alberta and will continue to reside there as part of the conditional sentence, the responsibility for her supervision would have to be transferred to Alberta.
It seemed that the main reason for this -- at least as what I understood from what Mr. Pin said when I asked him directly -- was that in the event that it would become necessary to file a breach report, that would have to be done by someone in Alberta and before the Alberta courts.
I want to be careful here not to overstep the bounds of my role and jurisdiction at this stage because I realize there may well be administrative considerations that I am not aware of and that do have an impact on this issue. But I have reviewed some of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, and I want to make a few observations for the record.
The first is that section 742.5 is the section that deals with the transfer of a conditional sentence order to another jurisdiction when an offender becomes a resident of a territorial division or province other than the one of the Court that has made the order. This is the case here. So the transfer is not automatic, far from it. It is done on application of the conditional sentence supervisor to the Court that made the order. This means the transfer application would have to be brought to this Court.
The section says that the transfer is something that the Court who made the order may grant; in other words, what I get from this -- and without having done in-depth research on the issue -- is that the geographical location of an offender does not necessarily determine under whose jurisdiction the conditional order will be.
Similarly -- and Crown counsel assisted with this yesterday -- as far as dealing with breaches, section 742.6, which sets out the procedure in the event of a breach, says at paragraph 3.1 that:
The breach allegation may be heard by a Court that has jurisdiction in the province where the breach is alleged to have been committed.
The word “may” seems to indicate a possibility, not something that is mandatory. This suggests to me that the jurisdiction that the conditional sentence originates from, in this case the Northwest Territories, would also continue to have jurisdiction to deal with a breach hearing.
All in all, it seems that the physical presence of the offender in another jurisdiction within Canada, essentially for treatment or programming purposes, as is the case here, does not automatically and should not automatically result in this Court no longer being involved with the matter if there are, down the road, breach allegations or even the need to amend conditions of the order.
The offence happened here; those directly affected by it live here; and this is where Ms. Lockhartt may well eventually return to live. This jurisdiction maintains a significant interest in this matter.
I would add that the core reason and basis and objective of the sentence I have agreed to impose today on the joint recommendation of experienced counsel is to ensure that Ms. Lockhartt continues to benefit from the program and intervention plan that the team of people who worked on her case were able to come up with and appears to be working well. That being so, it certainly seems that the more continuity, the better, in her case. This, I think, applies to the question of supervision of her conditional sentence as well. And I want to say again that by all accounts, those involved here in the Northwest Territories in assisting and arranging this placement for her, in making all this work have done an admirable job.
All that being said, since a transfer of the conditional sentence order to Alberta can only happen on order of this Court, following an application, the best time to hash out all these issues and explore the ins and outs of such a transfer will be if and when such an application is made.
And given that there may be changes in the situation, things that I do not know and may not be able to foresee sitting here this morning, I will not make any formal endorsements relating to the issue of eventual transfer of this order.
Mr. MacPherson, is there anything that I have overlooked from your point of view?
B. MACPHERSON: No, thank you. That’s fine.
THE COURT: All right. I thought you were going to tell me something. Mr. Harte, anything I have overlooked?
P. HARTE: No, Your Honour, but I am grateful for the fact that we started this morning at 9:30, and I thought I should address the Court by way of thanks.
THE COURT: All right. Well, thank you, again, counsel, for your work on this matter. I thank the people who worked so hard to help Ms. Lockhartt. It is really admirable and not a frequent story in my experience in this court that we hear that something is working so well and is making such a difference. And I think it deserves being acknowledged.
And, Ms. Lockhartt, although you are on a small screen and I can barely see your face in what I am looking at, I just want to say that I wish you all the best and good luck in your endeavours. You are doing great, and I hope this continues. You have a lot of years ahead of you, and you have a lot of things you can do. And so stay on this path. You are definitely on the right one, and it makes me very happy to know how well you have been doing. So good luck.
THE ACCUSED: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: You do not need any orders with respect to exhibits or anything of that sort?
B. MACPHERSON: No, thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you all. We will close court.
THE CLERK: All rise.
(VIDEOCONFERENCE CONCLUDES)
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a complete and accurate transcript of the proceedings transcribed from the audio recording to the best of our skill and ability.
Dated at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, this 23rd day of June, 2023.
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada
____________________________________
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada