Transcript of Trial Proceedings (2020-03-04)

Synopsis

CBSA Border Services Officer Meagan Polisak testified regarding her interaction with me on 2019-03-15, when I turned myself in to them at the Douglas port of entry (POE).

In her testimony, Polisak made all kinds of outrageous and patently false claims, such as when a person presents themselves for entry to Canada at a POE, and they claim to be a Canadian citizen but have documentation or proof of that, then the burden is on CBSA to prove the person is not a Canadian citizen and, failing that, they must allow the person entry to Canada p69l12-43.

Polisak also falsely testified that during her interaction with me she did not encounter any evidence I am not a Canadian citizen p32l13-15, even though my FOSS, GCMS, and CPIC records, which she admitted she had reviewed, all stated I was born in the US and my citizenship was unknown.

Polisak falsely testified that during her interaction with me she believed I was a Canadian citizen p31l30-31, however in the notes she entered into the GCMS, she only stated she could not confirm I am not a Canadian citizen. She expressly did not state I am, or that she believed I am, a Canadian citizen Polisak's notes in the GCMS.

During my cross-examination, I caught Polisak contradicting herself on a number of critical issues, and making false statements in her sworn declaration.

I also got Polisak to admit she had knowingly entered false or incorrect information about me into the GCMS p62l3-p63l20, and that other CBSA officers would subsequently see that information and consider it correct and reliable p63l21-33.

During my cross-examination of Polisak, it also became apparent that the judge refused to either accept or to comprehend that when a person is present within an area designated as a port of entry, the burden is on them to establish that they are permitted to enter Canada (as opposed to when a person is encountered within Canada other than at a port of entry, in which case the burden is on CBSA to establish the person is not permitted to be in Canada) p71l16-p73l39.

Prior to the trial, the judge had admonished me not to bring up any issues related to my citizenship or place of birth. This, of course, made it extremely difficult to cross-examine Polisak on her interaction with me at the POE. It baffles me that the judge would say my citizenship is not relevant, considering much of my defense was based on CBSA denying me readmission from the POE.

Disable Commentary

Disable Highlights

PDF

BCSC File No. 30630

244069-5-BC

Vancouver Registry

In the Provincial Court of British Columbia

(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ST. PIERRE)

Vancouver, B.C.

March 4, 2020

REGINA

v.

PATRICK HENRY FOX

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL

BAN ON PUBLICATION 517 CCC

210192.Transcript.docx

J.C. WordAssist Ltd. (Vancouver)

Suite 614 - 808 Nelson Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2H2

Phone 604-669-6550

244069-5-BC

Vancouver Registry

In the Provincial Court of British Columbia

(BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ST. PIERRE)

Vancouver, B.C.

March 4, 2020

REGINA

v.

PATRICK HENRY FOX

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL

BAN ON PUBLICATION 517 CCC

Crown Counsel: Bernie Wolfe

Appearing on his own behalf: Patrick Fox

210192.Transcript.docx

J.C. WordAssist Ltd. (Vancouver)

Suite 614 - 808 Nelson Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2H2

Phone 604-669-6550

INDEX

WITNESSES FOR THE CROWN
- MEAGAN POLISAK

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 12: 1 page - "Declaration" by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, report written by Meagan Polisak #35596
EXHIBIT 13: 15 pages - Canada Border Services documents re Patrick Henry Fox

RULINGS

Nil

Vancouver, B.C.

March 4, 2020

Wolfe:

If we could have Mr. Fox up, please.

Judge:

Mr. Fox, Mr. Wolfe, good morning.

Wolfe:

Yes, Wolfe, initial B. for the Provincial Crown, Your Honour. I'm appearing with respect to number 3 on the list, court file 244069-5-BC, the continuation of the trial against Mr. Fox.

Judge:

Thank you. Okay. If I might --

Wolfe:

So my -- you -- you permitted Crown to reopen its case. I have the CBSA officer here this morning. Mr. Fox has a computer before him. He may have to --

Judge:

Boot up?

Wolfe:

It's booted, but I think he needs to do something in order to access the Report to Crown.

The other thing is, I located an external DVD drive.

Fox:

Oh, great.

Wolfe:

Whether or not that be confused down the road as an issue for -- for later.

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

I would like to now call the witness and direct her evidence. She will affirm, just for the record.

Judge:

Okay, thanks.

Wolfe:

I can step out and bring her in, unless -- did Mr. Fox have something to say?

Fox:

I was just going to say, before we proceed with that, should I get this, you know, working state, or --

Wolfe:

Probably, yeah.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Sure.

Judge:

Is it -- do you have to put in a code or something?

Fox:

Yeah, yeah. I need to reconfigure a few things. I'm going to probably take, I'm guessing, five to 10 minutes.

Judge:

Five minutes? Okay, I'll just --

Fox:

I'm not sure if the court wants to stand down during that time --

Wolfe:

Sure.

Judge:

I'll just wait out at the back --

Wolfe:

I would think so.

Judge:

-- there then, so I won't be too far away. Thanks.

Clerk:

Order in court, all rise.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

Judge:

Okay, thanks.

Wolfe:

Wolfe, initial B. for the provincial Crown, Your Honour. I believe Mr. Fox has reconfigured the computer so that he can access the Report to Crown.

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

So with your permission, I'll -- I see my colleague, Mr. Johnson.

Judge:

Yes.

[ANOTHER MATTER SPOKEN TO]

Judge:

All right. Yes, Mr. Wolfe, sorry.

Wolfe:

Yes. I'll just step out and then bring the witness in if I could, please.

Judge:

Okay.

MEAGAN POLISAK

a witness called for the Crown, affirmed.

Clerk:

Please state your full name for the record and spell your first and last name.

Polisak:

Meagan Danielle Polisak, M-e-a-g-a-n, P-o-l-i-s-a-k.

Judge:

I-s-a-k, thank you, Ms. Polisak.

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. WOLFE:

Wolfe:

Witness, you're employed with Canadian Border Services Agency; is that correct?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And do you have a rank or a title?

Polisak:

Border Services Officer, and my classification is FB03.

Wolfe:

And what does that mean?

Polisak:

FB is the classification - I couldn't tell you what it actually stands for - and then it's basically the classification I was hired under.

Wolfe:

So you've been with -- if I can just refer to it as CBSA for how long?

Polisak:

Four years.

Wolfe:

Is that fulltime?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And so where do you work?

Polisak:

Douglas Port of Entry in Surrey, British Columbia.

Wolfe:

Does Douglas Pert of Entry go by another name, a conventional name?

Polisak:

Peace Arch is the US crossing side of it.

Wolfe:

So you're -- you're working at a border crossing, are you?

Polisak:

Correct.

Wolfe:

Are you uniformed --

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- when you work? You are? Identifying yourself as an officer of the Canadian Border Services Agency?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And you say you're working at the Douglas Port of Entry. When -- when a person crosses into Canada, let's say on a vehicle, or even by foot, it's my understanding that there are -- there's a line of kiosks as the -- as the first point of contact; is that correct?

Polisak:

Yeah. We call them booths.

Wolfe:

Booths? Okay. Do you work at a booth?

Polisak:

Some of the day.

Wolfe:

Where else do you work?

Polisak:

Inside the office.

Wolfe:

Is the office located within Canada?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Entirely?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

When you say it's an office, what kind of a structure is it?

Polisak:

It's a standalone building in between the northbound and southbound highways.

Wolfe:

Is there public access to it?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And by "public access" I'm asking whether or not an ordinary member of the public can enter the building as they might please?

Polisak:

Yeah.

Wolfe:

Is that through just a standard set of office building doors?

Polisak:

There's two glass doors that they can enter.

Wolfe:

When you're working inside the building, do you have an assigned duty, or what do you do?

Polisak:

It depends on the day. So some days, for some hours, I'm processing work permits, or other documents. Other days I'm doing examinations that are more high risk. It depends on where I'm scheduled. And then I go back and forth to the road, and back. Or to the booths, sorry.

Wolfe:

Okay. So I'm going to take you back to March the 15th, 2019. You're here to give evidence with respect to a person with whom you interacted on that day, specifically a -- a -- one person. Do you -- do you recall the interaction that brings you into court today?

Polisak:

I do.

Wolfe:

Now, March the 15th, 2019, is some -- some time ago, several months. Have you had occasion to determine what your work shift was on that day, or do you recall?

Polisak:

I looked back on my schedule and I was scheduled from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. that day.

Judge:

6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.? Okay, thanks.

Wolfe:

Is -- is that consistent -- first, do you have any memory of working that day?

Polisak:

Just that it's written in my schedule and I have notes in a computer system that I imputed that day, so…

Wolfe:

Do you recall interacting with a person who presented himself to you with either the surname Fox or Riess?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Do you happen to recall what time of day that was during your shift?

Polisak:

I don't.

Wolfe:

Where were you when you interacted with the person whom you came to know as either Fox or Riess?

Polisak:

I was inside the office at a counter.

Wolfe:

Well, how is it that you came to interact with that individual?

Polisak:

He walked into the office. I don't recall if I called him up, or if he approached me.

Wolfe:

Do you recall where you were specifically when -- when that person came up to you?

Polisak:

I was on what's called the A-side counters, so when you walk into the building, it's the counters on the right-hand side.

Wolfe:

At that time on the A-side counter, what were you doing -- what was your task?

Polisak:

I basically -- exams come into the office that are coded from the booth for A-side, and I deal with each exam as it comes in.

Wolfe:

Is there a particular reason for the examination? Or reasons, or purpose?

Polisak:

Of just general --

Wolfe:

Yeah --

Polisak:

--examinations?

Wolfe:

--generally -- yeah, given your duty that day, yeah.

Polisak:

So somebody at the booth will have had concerns about the individual, individuals or their goods, and they'll code them for an A-side examination, and then they're sent into the office and we dive into it further and try to negate the concerns that the officer had, or prove them to be correct.

Wolfe:

Well, given that -- given your descripticn of your -- your task that day, how is it you came to deal with -- with -- with Fox? Was that because of a referral from a booth?

Polisak:

No, it wasn't -- or he wasn't, excuse me, referred from a booth. Sometimes people walk into the office from within Canada to ask questions, and Iwas not dealing with an examination at that point. I was free. So I was able to help him and scart interacting with him because I didn't have anything else.

Wolfe:

The person that -- referred to, can you provide any descriptors, physical descriptors of him?

Polisak:

White male, older than me.

Wolfe:

Anything about hair colour, facial hair, height, body type, anything like that?

Polisak:

I remember him having almost black hair.

Wolfe:

When you say "almost black hair," what's the balance?

Polisak:

Like with grey in it.

Wolfe:

Do you recall anything about his height or weight?

Polisak:

Skinny. I can't really say on height because I'm usually sitting, so I don't know if --

Wolfe:

So you are seated, not standing at the counter?

Polisak:

Normally, yeah.

Wolfe:

Do you recall how long you interacted with the fellow?

Polisak:

I don't.

Wolfe:

Are you able to provide an estimate or a range of your interaction time, or not?

Polisak:

Not with a lot of correctness.

Wolfe:

Would you recognize that individual if you saw him again?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

If you look around the courtroom entirely, just to canvass the courtroom, do you see that person anywhere today?

Polisak:

The gentleman to your right in the red.

Judge:

Yes, I note that indication, thanks.

Wolfe:

Without asking you what was said to you, did -- what information did you obtain, and what did it cause you to do?

Polisak:

Basically he was trying to go to the U.S. and I asked him what his citizenship was. He said American, but he wasn't able to show me any proof of that. And it also -- he also told me that he had a Canadian passport with the name Richard Riess on it.

I called Passport Canada and they confirmed that a Richard Riess, with the same date of birth was a Canadian born in Sudbury, Ontario, so that made me believe he was a Canadian. And per immigration laws, Canadians can be in Canada and enter and exit Canada at their own free will, so there was -- there -- Immigration-wise there was nothing -- nothing I can do with a Canadian citizen pertaining to my job. So I would only look at their goods if they were seeking entry to Canada.

Since he was not -- and to me I believed he was a Canadian citizen, it was just a conversation we were having. It was odd to me that somebody would have proof that they were a Canadian and tell me they're not a Canadian citizen.

Polisak is the one that first made statements that I am a Canadian citizen, so I should have been permitted to pursue that matter to determine the truth of it. However, St. Pierre had already previously advised me that he did not consider the question of my citizenship relevant, and the Crown had argued that my citizenship was not relevant. St. Pierre had previously said he would not allow me to pursue the question of my citizenship or to try to make my citizenship an issue. Given other statements made by Polisak, on direct, regarding her authority and duties with respect to foreign nationals at the border, the question of whether or not I was a Canadian citizen was critically relevant. And, if it was not relevant, St. Pierre should have stopped her and Wolfe when they started bringing it up.

This was not raised before the SCAJ because:

a) the trial judge's prior admonitions were not included in the transcripts because they occurred during an appearance that was not transcribed; and
b) being self-represented and in-custody (not having access to legal research material) I did not realize this was an issue that could be raised.

So I put what's called an info alert into our system, which is called a GCMS or Global Case Management System, just in case another officer dealt with this individuals and obtained different information, at least they could know what our interaction entailed.

Judge:

So that -- you made entry into something called a Global Case Management System?

Polisak:

[No audible response].

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

What is a Global Case Management System?

Polisak:

It's basically our Immrigration system, so anytime we have notes on an individual, or we are making a report against them, or not allowing them into Canada, we will write -- we will create documents in that system, and so there's a file, an oniine file of everybody that we have an immigration interaction with.

Wolfe:

The -- the records that you consulted with respect to that individual, are they ordinary records available to CBSA for their daily use?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Did you consider them to be reliable?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Did -- in examining the system, did you have any information indicating that he was not a Canadian?

Polisak:

No.

Wolfe:

The -- you referred to one name as Richard Riess. What was the other name that you obtained with respect to that fellow?

Polisak:

He told me his name was Patrick Fox.

Wolfe:

As a CBSA officer, do you have any authority, or power, if they mean the same thing by that word --

Polisak:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- at your discretion to either remove somebody from Canada, or deny entry, or -- those are two different things that I'm saying, but -- but tell us about that.

Polisak:

So we can refuse foreign nationals, who are seeking entry to Canada at the border. We can remove foreign nationals who are seeking entry who are found inadmissible or not allowed for a multitude of reasons.

Wolfe:

If -- if that occurs, is there a paper trail so to speak?

Polisak:

Yeah. You have to write a report against them in GCMS, which is then forwarded to somebody who's called a Minister's Delegate, who is basically a senior immigration officer, and they make a determination on what then should happen to that individual.

Wolfe:

So those -- is there an entity, or a unit, called Inland Security?

Polisak:

Inland Enforcement.

Wolfe:

Inland Enforcement.

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

Do they become involved in such a process?

Polisak:

Would they?

Wolfe:

Yeah.

Polisak:

Not often when the exam is at the border, but if the person's been in Canada, they are usually involved.

Wolfe:

Your earlier evidence, did I understand it correctly, that your building is totally within Canada?

Polisak:

Yes.

Wolfe:

So after making inquiries and -- and coming to an opinion regarding the status of that man who was interacting with you, what then -- next occurred, as you recall it?

Polisak:

After we were done our interaction, he left the same way he came into the office.

Wolfe:

Did you -- did you tell him to leave?

Polisak:

Not that I recall.

Wolfe:

Did -- was he, by your actions, removed, or deported, or denied entry?

Polisak:

To Canada?

Wolfe:

Yes.

Polisak:

No.

Wolfe:

Well, what was the last you saw of him?

Polisak:

Exiting our office.

Wolfe:

Did you happen to note what direction his travel took him?

Polisak:

No.

Wolfe:

Do you recall whether or not the person you've referred to as Riess or Fox interacted with any other officer on this occasion?

Polisak:

I don't recall.

Wolfe:

I think those are my questions.

Judge:

Thank you.

Okay, Ms. Polisak, can you answer any questions that Mr. Fox has for you, okay? Mr. Fox, you have some questions?

Discussion About Official Documents I Want to Confront Polisak With

Before I start my cross, I say there are some documents I wish to present to Polisak, which I had obtained from other sources (e.g. DHS, Global Affairs Canada). Wolfe becomes very argumentative against the use of such documents, raising potential issues of authenticity and providence. St. Pierre expresses concern about relevance, but acknowledges that until he knows what the documents are he cannot say whether they are relevant. Since I am merely requesting the Crown print them for me so I can present them to Polisak, it is very suspicious that Crown and St. Pierre would be so concerned and resistant. If the information in the documents turned out to not be relevant then the Crown would be free to raise that objection at the time of my questions to Polisak. The Crown and St. Pierre's up front concern about these documents is very troubling.

At p40l3-5, St. Pierre finally concedes that, for the purpose of attacking Polisak's credibility, the documents "might become relevant". But he continues (p40l8-20) to resist having Crown print them so I can confront Polisak with them. He wants to first allow me to question Polisak and see how she responds, before printing the documents. This is very suspicious to me. It seems St. Pierre is trying to protect Polisak from being confronted with proof she lied on the witness stand. This might also be to allow her a period of time to think of a response (or lies) to the documents while Crown goes to print them - this puts me at a disadvantage because if I already had the documents printed I could catch her (and the Crown and St. Pierre) off guard with them.

Throughout the discussion, the Crown and judge repeatedly insist my citizenship is not relevant and I repeatedly respond that I do not intend to use the documents to establish my citizenship, I intend to use the documents to prove Polisak lied in her testimony.

Fox:

Yes. Yes, I do have some questions. However, there were some documents and artifacts that I would want to present to the witness, and I would ask, or I would hope that perhaps Mr. Wolfe would be able to print those or make photocopies of those so that I have copies to present to her.

Judge:

How many are we talking about?

Fox:

Well, one is a copy of the FOSS and GCMS records appears of this one document. And then there are some documents on these DVDs -- sorry, I have the list of them here.

Judge:

Documents on DVDs? You don't have paper copies?

Fox:

No. They were obtained from other sources and agencies like Homeland Security, Global Affairs Canada, etc.

Wolfe:

May we excuse the witness at this point --

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- because I think we might be walking into some --

Judge:

Yes, Ms. Polisak --

Wolfe:

-- interesting exchange --

Judge:

-- we'll call you back in when we're ready, okay.

Polisak:

Yeah.

Judge:

Thank you.

Polisak:

Can I just leave the water here?

Judge:

Sure.

Polisak:

Thanks.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

Fox:

Originally, the documents on the DVDs I was figuring --

Judge:

Just hang on for a minute.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

I was figuring that I would use the electronic copies, and I understand that these screens are set up in some way that that would be able to be done, but I think that that would be much more complicated than if we just had paper copies of them.

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

But --

Judge:

But how -- how many -- how many pieces of paper are we talking about?

Fox:

Okay. Well, this is --

Judge:

And what -- and what are they? You're going to have to --

Wolfe:

Well, and that's an issue I think I would --

Judge:

That's the -- relevancy --

Wolfe:

--canvass --

Judge:

-- is the issue.

Wolfe:

Right.

Fox:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And admissibility.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And -- and quite frankly, just to be totally upfront about this for the court's benefit, so the court understands Crown and also Mr. Fox, whether these are electronic documents, or paper documents, admissibility is a major threshold issue regarding the reliability, authenticity and -- and providence of the documents.

And one, B.C. Court of Appeal has made it abundantly clear that you -- you don't have documents admitted just by handing them out to the court.

Judge:

Well, no, but, I mean, they can be used for cross-examination in certain --

Wolfe:

Well --

Judge:

-- circumstances.

Wolfe:

-- there's --

Judge:

Questions can be asked.

Wolfe:

Well, my immediate thinking on -- on that for the court to --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- consider is if a witness is cross-examined on a document which itself never becomes evidence, and the -- because its -- its reliability or its origin is undetermined --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- and perhaps even the document needs to be interpreted --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- then one has to consider whether that cross-examination is a proper one because the foundational document, upon which the witness is being cross-examined, has now been established.

Judge:

Well --

Wolfe:

Often we find in voir dires, for example, or we do have documents marked for identification, but in -- it's been this Crown's experience that it's often in the context of Crown and the defence counsel agreeing that ultimately the document will be marked as evidence.

So, for example, where there's a -- say a photograph ballot, or a photo line-up given, that may be marked as I for Identification --

Judge:

For Identification.

Wolfe:

-- and then later, when the officer is called, maybe three witnesses down the road, we go through what I would call say the Sophonow exercise to -- to show the document is, in fact, the one that was presented to the witness, and then it's marked as an exhibit.

But if we never get to that point, then the document really is being put to a witness when the document's just not satisfying either the Canada Evidence Act requirements or even the common law requirements of reliability --

Judge:

Well -- with --

Wolfe:

-- and necessity.

Judge:

Yes. And then the -- the -- I don't even know what they are. I mean, the witness could say, yes, I know that document. That's the document that's generated by our -- by my -- in -- in -- employer, and I'm familiar with it and etc., etc. I don't know yet, because I don't even know -- I don't even know what they are.

Wolfe:

I am thinking the American stuff more than anything right now.

Judge:

Yes. The -- the American --

Fox:

Well --

Wolfe:

Yeah.

Judge:

-- side.

Wolfe:

Yeah.

Fox:

The stuff that I received from Homeland Security is actually Canadian records --

Wolfe:

Well --

Fox:

-- that were sent to --

Judge:

From -- from the local offices of Homeland -- Homeland Security.

Fox:

Well, the Canadian authorities had provided them to CBP and to ICE.

Judge:

But -- but what are -- what are -- see, we have to establish some --

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

-- kind of relevance. So what are they and what do you expect to use them for with this witness?

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

Because this witness has to have -- this witness can't, just as Mr. Wolfe said, just can't say, look at those documents, and, you know, you put in evidence through some witness that does not have any knowledge --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- of those, or the facts underlying those documents.

Fox:

Two of the documents are the FOSS record, Field Operations Support System record that I discussed or brought up before, which she should be intimately familiar with.

Judge:

What is it? What does it -- what do you say it shows?

Fox:

Oh, one of the -- okay.

Judge:

And eventually you're going to have to say this, and I -- and I ask you this, and I know you -- you don't have to, you know, reveal your defence --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

-- before you -- before you have it. But here it is.

Fox:

But --

Judge:

You're in cross-examination with the witness, and you want to put certain documents to them, you have to establish the --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- the necessary grounds to do that.

Fox:

The reason for my hesitancy a moment ago is I was thinking whether it would be necessary to provide some context before stating simply what's in here. Because if I just state that on the FOSS record, for example, it states, Country of Birth, United States of America. And that's a piece of --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- information --

Judge:

And maybe I'm stopping you too early --

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

-- but if -- if your goal --

Fox:

Yeah.

Judge:

-- is to somehow establish that your -- you know, you've talked about this before that you -- that you're -- that you're not a Canadian citizen and that you're an American citizen. How does that --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

-- how is that relevant to this --

Fox:

This is --

Judge:

-- to this issue?

Fox:

This is relevant at this point because the witness just testified that she had not seen any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen. But if CBSA and IRCC's own records state that I was born in a foreign country and that a Certificate of Citizenship has never been issued to me --

Judge:

But -- but that fact, even if you were to establish that fact --

Fox:

Yeah.

Judge:

-- how is it relevant to the issue --

Fox:

Well, it's relevant --

Judge:

-- that we're dealing with, which is the breach charge?

Fox:

But it's relevant because it shows that either she lied, or she was mistaken in what she just testified about. She said that she hasn't seen any --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

-- evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen.

Wolfe:

But --

Fox:

I mean, there's clearly evidence that I'm not --

Wolfe:

Perhaps I can --

Judge:

Right.

Wolfe:

-- assist Mr. Fox here.

Judge:

Mmm.

Fox:

Yeah.

Wolfe:

Relevance is a function of how any alleged fact, or some evidence has an impact on a material fact. Materiality is a function of the charges the accused is facing, which is exactly as I heard His Honour speak, that was what he was alluding to. How is it material to the breach charges of failure -- failure to report being within 100 metres of the U.S. or leaving the Province of British Columbia without the permission of the probation officer.

Judge:

That -- that's the issue.

Fox:

Right. And the country that I was born in is not relevant to those points, however it's relevant to the credibility of the witness, because the witness also stated that I told her that I had a Canadian passport, which is a false statement, which I intend to also prove from these -- her own statements in here contradict that.

Judge:

Her own statements. Well, you can cross-examine her on her own statements. If you've got something with respect to her notes in that system that she told us about --

Fox:

[Indiscernible].

Judge:

-- you can cross-examine her on that. That's not a problem.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

The issue -- the issue is, if you're trying to establish through this witness that you're -- that you have some kind of status or don't have any status, it's totally irrelevant to the charge --

Fox:

No, no.

Judge:

-- to the charge.

Fox:

No, I'm not trying to establish that.

Judge:

Because she's testified that she didn't do anything, or take any -- any actions to have you directed to leave or removed involuntarily, advised to leave. She -- she gave evidence on it.

Fox:

Right. She stated that.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

And I'm saying that those statements are false. And so --

Fox:

Okay.

Fox:

-- now I'm attempting to prove, as much -- as many of her false statements as I can, to show that she's lying.

Judge:

Well, you can cross-examine her, but the -- the issue of -- of citizenship --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- in my mind is completely irrelevant.

Fox:

Right. But that's -- that's not what I'm going for with this. What I'm going for with this is to show that the statements that she just made under oath were false, and that there are documents to prove that they are false. Or simply being -- that she didn't see any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen.

Judge:

Well, how do you know --

Wolfe:

Well, how can --

Judge:

-- what do you know -- how do you know what she's looking at when she's looking at her screen?

Fox:

Because when I cross-examine her I'm going to ask her, did you check the FOSS record.

Judge:

Okay. Well, you can ask her that.

Fox:

And did you check the GCMS record?

Judge:

Yes. That's --

Fox:

And so --

Judge:

-- perfectly reasonable.

Fox:

If she then tries to say that, oh, yes, I looked at the GCMS record --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

-- and there was nothing in there to give me any indication that you're not a Canadian citizen, then I can show her the --

Judge:

Then those --

Fox:

-- GCMS record and go --

Judge:

-- might become relevant.

Fox:

Right, and that's why I'm asking that they --

Judge:

But they --

Fox:

-- be printed now so that I can have these in hand when I cross-examine her.

Judge:

I don't know if it's -- if it's -- I think it's -- honestly I think it's premature to maybe go through that yet --

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

-- before you establish -- before you ask the questions. And let's see what kind of answers you get and then we'll -- we'll have a discussion about whether, you know, rebuttal with documents are -- are appropriate to the -- put to the witness.

Fox:

Okay. And some of the other documents that I would hope to have printed to confirm her would -- are --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

-- CPIC reports --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

-- and a declaration from Steve Jacob, who she makes reference to statements of Steve Jacob in her notes in here --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

-- but she doesn't identify him by name --

Judge:

Okay, well you can ask her about that.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

And so I would want to confront her with that declaration as well, based on --

Judge:

What declaration?

Fox:

-- how she responds -- oh, the declaration of the Steve Jacob from 2008, which in her notes she makes a false claim about what he had said.

And so depending on how she responds to my questions about her --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

-- stating in here --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- I would want --

Judge:

Why don't we -- why don't you start with your cross-examination --

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

-- and we'll see how -- yes, she could -- she could agree with you on everything, and it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be necessary to go through any of that.

But why don't we start with your cross-examination and we'll determine -- we'll determine at some point whether there's any basis for -- for putting those -- those documents to her, and see if she -- and you could ask her whether she's familiar with certain types of entries into a certain computer system. And if she says, no, she's never seen anything like that, well, I mean, that's sort of the end of the -- end of the road because showing her something like that isn't going to change the fact that she's not involved in any of that.

Fox:

Right. Right. Now, just as a heads up though, in these GCMS records in here, she's actually the one that made some of the entries. So --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- I'll be very surprised if she denies any knowledge of them.

Judge:

Okay. And then, I mean, if those entries are somehow relevant to this case --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- and she's made those entries, that's -- I would -- I would say -- I don't know, Mr. Wolfe, I'd probably agree that that's something that's fair game.

Fox:

Okay. Before we proceed though, is there any chance that we might be able to stand down for few minutes so --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

-- I can use the restroom.

Wolfe:

Oh, of course.

Judge:

Of course.

Fox:

Sorry, it's just everything has to be done according to the convenience of the sheriffs and so if they're --

Judge:

Yes, no --

Fox:

-- busy at the time, then we --

Judge:

Not a problem.

Wolfe:

I'm content to take an early break --

Judge:

Why don't we take the early break.

Fox:

Okay, great, thanks.

Judge:

And then we'll -- we'll -- and Mr. Wolfe, you can advise the witness ttiat's what we're doing, and then we'll start -- we'll start with the cross-examination.

Wolfe:

Sure absolutely.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

Thank you.

Judge:

Thank you.

Sheriff:

Order in court, all rise.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR MORNING RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

Judge:

Okay, thanks.

Wolfe:

Yes, Wolfe, initial B. for the provincial Crown, Your Honour. Recalling the Fox continuation.

Before the break we stood down and the witness is still outside the courtroom. With your permission I'll go outside and bring --

Judge:

Sure.

Wolfe:

-- her in.

Judge:

Thank you.

MEAGAN POLISAK

recalled.

Judge:

Thanks, Ms. Polisak. Okay. Yes, Mr. Fox has some questions for you. All right, go ahead, Mr. Fox.

Fox:

I'm sorry, just one moment, please.

Should I remain here, or --

Judge:

Yes, that's fine. Or the podium, whatever suits -- suits you.

Fox:

Since I have all this chaos going on maybe I'll just stay here.

Judge:

Sure. That's --

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

The microphones will pick you up from there.

Fox:

Right.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ACCUSED:

Fox:

Good morning, Officer Polisak.

Polisak:

Morning.

Fox:

The first question that I wanted to bring up relates to something that you had stated earlier on direct. The Crown was asking you, or had had asked you, and perhaps I'm paraphrasing here, about whether the Douglas Border Crossing is considered to be within Canada?

Polisak:

Yeah.

Fox:

Now, I understand that physically the building is within Canada. But with respect to the Immigration laws, when a person is at a port of entry such as the Douglas Border Crossing, and they are seeking entry to Canada, are they considered to be within Canada at that point, or are they considered to be outside seeking admission to Canada?

Polisak:

When they're south of the booths, they're considered not in Canada, yeah.

Fox:

I see. So is there a difference in the requirements that CBSA must meet to remove a person from Canada who is physically present within Canada, or say in the City of Vancouver, as opposed to denying admission to a person who is at a port of entry and not otherwise within Canada?

Polisak:

So there is a difference between somebody who is in Canada, or somebody who is seeking entry to Canada, that's correct.

Fox:

Okay. So if a person is at, for example, the Douglas Border Crossing, and they are seeking admission to Canada, and let's say that the CBSA officer determines that they're not admissible and so they tell them they're not admissible, if the person then just accepts that and he goes, okay, and turns around and goes back to the United States because that would be the only way they could go from the Douglas Border Crossing, would there always be, according to CBSA policy, a record of the fact that the person was found to be inadmissible and that they were denied entry at that point? I mean, given that the person is not challenging it?

Polisak:

Yeah. Most of the time it goes into our GCMS, our Global --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

-- Case Management System. However, when the system is down, there's times where we can only make a paper copy.

Fox:

Okay. And are you saying that that's CBSA policy, or are you saying that you believe that is the way it always is?

Polisak:

I can't confirm that it's CBSA policy. It's what I know.

Fox:

Right. Let me ask it a different way perhaps.

Do you -- hmm, how can I phrase it? Do you believe that there is a likelihood or a probability that sometimes a person shows up at a border entry is denied admission, and because they don't challenge it, nothing goes into the system about it?

Wolfe:

Sorry, how can the witness answer that question, and --

Judge:

Um --

Wolfe:

-- I'm objecting to that question.

Judge:

Yes. I think he's -- I think he's following up on the previous question. When you say -- when you say, Ms. Polisak, that when the system is down paper copies -- some paper entry is made, and I guess the question is, is there some times when no entry is made, either to the computer or through paper?

Fox:

Yes. And the reason that I'm asking that is earlier the Crown had asked that if a person were denied admission, would there be some entry made into the system about that, some record made. And the response was something to the effect of "yes." I'm just trying to determine if it is possible or probable that there are scenarios where an entry wouldn't have been made?

Polisak:

We try our best to put something in every time. If there is a system outage, it's not always possible.

Fox:

Do you have any familiarity with the information about myself in either the FOSS or the GCMS? Particularly with my traveller history, crossing at the Douglas Border Crossing?

Polisak:

Not with your crossing history.

Fox:

Right. When you were doing your investigation on March 15th, 2019, did you look into that? I mean, did you check your records to see when I had crossed the Canada/U.S border in the past?

Polisak:

Not that I recall.

Fox:

Okay. Now, you had stated earlier that on March 15, 2019, you were scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.?

Polisak:

That's correct.

Fox:

Do you recall if those are the hours that you had worked on that day?

Polisak:

I'm usually pretty good at updating if I take overtime or I leave early. I can't, with 100 percent certainty, say that I didn't do either of those that day, but on my schedule, I have written 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Fox:

Okay. Would you remember generally if you worked say four-or-five hours overtime, or extra beyond that, what is it 11 hours? I mean, that's quite a large amount of overtime in one day.

Polisak:

It is, but being a year ago --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

-- I can't speak to that.

Fox:

That's unfortunate. But I would assume that there would be some records kept of that, payroll records or something, so we could always verify that after.

Fox:

You have also stated earlier that I had told you that I had a Canadian passport in the name Richard Riess or Ricky Riess?

Polisak:

Richard Riess, yes.

Fox:

Okay. Now, what's peculiar though, or what's of interest to me there, is the way you phrased it that I had told you that I had a Canadian passport. Is that accurate, is -- I mean, the way you remember it, is that how things happened, that I told you that I had a Canadian passport?

Polisak:

In the notes that I have it just states that you had a Canadian passport.

Fox:

Really?

Polisak:

Like not physically present.

Fox:

Right, but that I had been issued a Canadian passport?

Polisak:

I'm not sure --

Fox:

I'm -- I'm just asking you, is that what you mean to say, or -- I'm not leading you in any way based on what's in the GCMS here.

Polisak:

Mmm. I can't confirm how it came up. All I remember is when I looked at my notes, it says that you were issued a Canadian passport under Richard Riess.

Fox:

Do you happen to have a copy of your notes?

Polisak:

Not right here with me.

Fox:

Would it help you to have a copy of your notes?

Fox:

Oh, that reminds me, Mr. Wolfe, the declaration that you nad sent me on Friday, obviously I only have that electronic copy. You don't happen to have a copy of that on you, do you, because there were some things [indiscernible] that I would want to ask her about in there.

Wolfe:

Yes.

Fox:

Great. May I have a copy?

Wolfe:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay. So you have copies of the actual log --

Fox:

I have the --

Judge:

-- log note --

Fox:

-- full GCMS and F-O-S-S here.

Judge:

Okay, and do you want to provide a copy to the witness?

Fox:

Well, no. That was what I wanted to get a photocopy of, that we were discussing earlier. I just have the one copy.

Judge:

So you don't have a copy of the notes that you made that day?

Fox:

Well --

Wolfe:

Well, she has a declaration which is the notes I understand the witness to have made that day.

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

I understand Mr. Fox to be referring to a different format, or a larger document --

Fox:

A much more complete.

Judge:

Okay. And -- okay. So you -- you have a copy of the declaration; is that right?

Polisak:

Not --

Judge:

Physically --

Polisak:

-- physically.

Judge:

-- you don't have -- but you've seen it?

Polisak:

Yes.

Judge:

And have you seen this other -- your other -- what he's refer -- referring to?

Fox:

My entire GCMS record.

Judge:

Why don't we have the witness identify it.

Madam Registrar, can you pass a copy of that to the --

Fox:

The GCMS.

Judge:

-- wit -- and if you could just tell us if you recognize this document?

Fox:

It's from there to the end.

Judge:

You're showing me some --

Wolfe:

I've -- I haven't seen this --

Judge:

You haven't seen it?

Wolfe:

I've never seen it.

Judge:

Oh, okay.

Wolfe:

I'm absolutely [indiscernible].

Judge:

Okay. Then we maybe should get copies then if you haven't seen it.

Fox:

Um --

Judge:

These -- I guess we should first establish whether the witness is -- those are her entries before we go down --

Wolfe:

Sure, and we --

Judge:

-- too --

Wolfe:

-- don't know whether this is admissible or anything like that, or whether she made it, or who the officer --

Judge:

Well, if it's the officer's notes, it -- she could be presented them. But --

Fox:

The -- the notes in her declaration here were copied and pasted from the notes field and the GCMS entry that she had made. But there's additional -- an additional paragraph at the beginning -- the end that aren't in the GCMS that are just in this declaration. That's why I was asking for a copy --

Judge:

So there's more in the declaration than the other document?

Fox:

There's a lot more in the GCMS that's not in what was provided in here.

Judge:

Oh.

Fox:

But there's some stuff in here that's not in there.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

And with respect to the authenticity of those documents, and if the Crown wants to challenge those, I have no objection to that. If that means having to adjourn for whatever period of time while I --

Judge:

Well, the -- the officer, I'm sure, can identify her own notes.

Fox:

I'm -- I'm just stating, if we get to that point, if it becomes an issue --

Judge:

Oh.

Fox:

-- that I would have no objection to it if I need to get subpoenas for CBSA, ATIP Department people or --

Judge:

Well --

Fox:

-- something.

Judge:

-- we're not doing that. We're --

Wolfe:

I wouldn't mind making --

Judge:

We're just simply --

Wolfe:

-- I wouldn't mind making a photocopy or two anyway --

Judge:

Sure. We're just simply --

Wolfe:

-- because I'm totally in the dark.

Judge:

You just simply want to ask the officer questions about her notes?

Fox:

Yes. Yes, I have --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- a number of questions.

Judge:

Okay. Fair enough, but we should get -- yes, enough copies for everybody to have.

Wolfe:

Make one for the --

Fox:

Sure.

Wolfe:

-- court?

Judge:

Sure. Just for -- just so that I can follow along.

Wolfe:

Follow, I think, yes.

Judge:

Okay. Yes.

Wolfe:

All I need is about three or five minutes.

Judge:

Sure, just give me a shout when we're --

Fox:

Mr. Wolfe --

Judge:

We're going to stand down --

Fox:

-- there's three pages in there --

Judge:

-- just for a bit --

Fox:

-- that aren't relevant.

Judge:

-- about five minutes just to get --

Fox:

It would probably --

Judge:

-- those copies, okay?

Fox:

-- be easier for you to --

Polisak:

Coming back in here later --

Fox:

-- just to copy --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

-- the whole thing, you know, just [indiscernible noise] --

Judge:

All of us are going to --

Fox:

-- but if you do --

Wolfe:

Yeah, well I want --

Fox:

-- not want the irrelevant pages, the two page -- first pages --

Judge:

Okay, we'll stand down --

Fox:

-- are an email --

Judge:

-- for a few minutes.

Sheriff:

Order in court, all rise.

Judge:

Okay.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

Wolfe:

Wolfe, initial B. for the provincial Crown, Your Honour. Recalling Fox.

Judge:

Thanks.

Wolfe:

The photocopier on the fifth floor wouldn't work very well. Had to go down to the second floor.

Judge:

No problem.

Wolfe:

I'd ask Madam Clerk to hand you a copy of that document.

Judge:

Thank you, I have that. It's one package, okay.

And we should probably have the witness back.

Wolfe:

Yes. If we could call Ms. Polisak, please, Officer Polisak.

Judge:

She should be just in the hallway.

Wolfe:

Yeah, she is.

Fox:

The other copies, you distributed them, or --

Wolfe:

No. The judge has one, I have one, you have the original and a copy.

Fox:

Okay. Now, the copy you gave me, is that to provide to the witness or --

Wolfe:

[indiscernible].

Fox:

Okay, yeah. As opposed to me keeping acopy. But I have the original, so it's okay.

MEAGAN POLISAK,

recalled.

Judge:

Thanks, Ms. Polisak.

Okay, now you had some questions for Ms. Polisak.

Fox:

Yes, yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ACCUSED, CONTINUING:

Fox:

Officer Polisak, have you received a copy of this declaration? I don't -- I can't remember if Mr. Wolfe had handed it to you or not?

Polisak:

I don't have ans with me right now.

Fox:

Okay. I believe you were going to provide her a copy of that, right?

Polisak:

Thank you.

Judge:

Okay. That -- so that piece of paper you're handed right now, do you recognize that piece of paper?

Polisak:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay. Do you want to describe what it is?

Polisak:

It's called a Statutory Declaration. So I copy and pasted the notes from my GCMS Info Alert onto this declaration.

Judge:

Okay. Did you -- and what question did you want to ask the witness, Mr. fox?

Fox:

Well, my first question, since it is called "declaration" or that's what it says at the top of the page, it kind of gives the impression that it's a sworn declaration. But I noticed it's not -- it wasn't actually signed or sworn anywhere, so I wanted to confirm with you is this -- are you stating that everything that is stated in this document is true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Okay. Because since it wasn't actually sworn --

Polisak:

I thought --

Fox:

-- it was kind of meaningless at that point?

Polisak:

-- I signed a different page. There's about four pages, but --

Fox:

Right, but all the pages that I received weren't signed.

Polisak:

Were not signed, all right.

Fox:

Right. Okay. That being the case, then there are some questions that I would have about some of the statements that you have in here. However, I am at some points probably going to refer to the rest of the GCMS entries in here so maybe it would be beneficial for you to have both.

Judge:

Okay. Do you want to pass the -- pass Ms. Polisak that -- just ask if you rec --

Fox:

Thank you.

Judge:

If you recognize the contents of this document.

Polisak:

Thank you.

Fox:

I should explain first, the first couple of pages of that are actually the email that I received from IRCC, and then it goes into a three-page FOSS report.

Judge:

Well -- okay. So which part do you want to ask Mr. Polisak because --

Fox:

Well, we are going to be referring to the FOSS report but not yet. First we're going to be referring to the --

Judge:

We may not be referring to that report. It depends on what knowledge the witness has with that --

Fox:

Well, right, but she specifically referenced some information from the FOSS Report in her statement.

Judge:

Okay. So this package, Ms. Polisak, does -- do you recognize the contents of this package?

Polisak:

This is from what -- it says GCMS Information Request case application. From where it says "case" and then the number of our Q [phonetic], this is what is generated by GCMS when something is created in it.

Judge:

Okay. So that file number case Q -- whatever that is, triple zero 326547?

Polisak:

Yeah.

Judge:

Is that a case number that's specific to -- to this interaction?

Polisak:

Yes.

Judge:

That we've been talking about?

Polisak:

So I've never seen it in this layout.

Judge:

Okay. Okay. Well, if anytime that you're asked a question about the content that you -- that you're unable to verify as being your information, or information that you recognize, just let us know.

Fox:

The first thing, though, that I would like to draw your attention to is on the last page of that GCMS Report. There is the PO which -- oh, I guess the [indiscernible] was on the bottom of the previous page. Yeah, it was called notes. And -- or no, I guess general? But anyway, that field at the very end, there's a large paragraph, appears to correspond to the large paragraph in your declaration. And so I just want to confirm with you whether the content of those two paragraphs are exactly the same. I know it's kind of tedious having to look and compare them, but -- now, should -- well, I'll -- I'll let you read.

Judge:

Well, yes. You know that, Mr. Fox, whether they're the same or not. Do you want the witness to read through both --

Fox:

Um --

Judge:

-- and compare them word-for-word?

Fox:

I know that they're the same and I'm assuming that the witness had copied and pasted it from the GCMS into this declaration, and if that's the case, then she would know whether or not they're the same if she was the one who copied and pasted them.

Judge:

Are you able -- are you able to answer that question, Ms. Polisak?

Polisak:

I did copy and paste from the info onto my declaration.

Judge:

Okay. And that's the -- the material that comes after the word "text" on the last page --

Polisak:

Correct.

Judge:

-- that's -- okay.

Fox:

Okay. So before we took that brief break to get the photocopies, we were talking about the issue of your statement that I had said that I had a Canadian passport in the name of Richard Riess.

In the statement that you -- or in your declaration, if you'd like to take a moment to refresh your memory based on that, feel free, because I'll be referring to numerous parts within your --

Judge:

The declaration now?

Fox:

Yes. Well, the declaration and what is in that paragraph in the GCMS --

Judge:

Oh, what's in that --

Fox:

-- are the same, so --

Judge:

-- paragraph -- and you say they're the same thing?

Fox:

Right, right.

Judge:

Okay. Do you -- if you want to silently read that paragraph, Mr. Fox has some questions about it.

You've -- you've read that?

Polisak:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

Okay, thanks. Go ahead.

Fox:

So on the document, the declaration [indiscernible] as opposed to the GCMS entry, I'm only -- I'm referring to this one so that I can tell you how many lines down.

Polisak:

Oh, okay.

Fox:

I could use the other one and come from there, but I already had this one in hand. That's the only reason I'm using this one.

Um, one, two, three, four, so five lines down from the top of that large paragraph, about halfway through that line, or a little more than halfway, there's a sentence that starts with, "When questioned about this"?

Polisak:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

Could you read, please, the rest of that sentence.

Judge:

Well, do you have a question?

Fox:

Um --

Judge:

Like why -- why don't you ask your questions, and if you -- if you don't get the answer that -- that you want, you can use the document to --

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

-- challenge that.

Re: Passport

I ask Polisak about her earlier testimony that I had a Canadian passport (p31l14-18), and I present her with her GCMS notes, where she only said that she had called Passport Canada and "it was confirmed that Richard Riess was born in Sudbury, Ontario, making that person a Canadian." There is no indication she, or anyone else, ever made any attempt to determine whether I was that person.

I ask Polisak whether I had told her I had assumed the name Richard Riess at some point and applied for a passport in that name based false pretenses. She admits I had. Still no further attempt was made to determine my real identity or whether or not I was Richard Riess that was born in ON. All of this is significant because it refutes the presumption that I was the person named on that passport and it raises uncertainty about my real identity, which Polisak would have had to resolve before allowing me back into the country.

Fox:

My question would be, earlier when you stated that I had said that I had a Canadian passport, was that -- was that correct? Was that how I had stated it was that I had a Canadian passport, or did it -- did the topic come about some other way?

Polisak:

I can't recall if you said it or it came about a different way. I know when I called -- in my notes it says I called Passport Canada --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

-- and it was confirmed that Richard Riess was born in Sudbury, Ontario, making that person a Canadian.

Fox:

Okay. Did I state to you during our interaction on March 15th, 2019, that I had assumed the name Richard Riess at some point and applied for a passport based on false pretenses?

Polisak:

I put that in my notes.

Fox:

That I had stated that to you?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Okay. Now, one thing I want to clarify with you, throughout this paragraph you refer to me as "subject" or "the subject." However, in this part where you're talking about your -- what you saw from Edmonton CIC, etc. you refer to Riess by name, rather than the subject.

So could you tell me why it is like -- were you differentiating somebody named Ricky Riess or Richard Riess from me, or --

Polisak:

At the beginning I wrote subject because I did not know who you are is --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

-- what I normally do, and then I put both Patrick Fox and Richard Riess in my notes because those are both names that came up during our interaction.

Fox:

Okay. You said in the beginning you didn't know who I was. Do you mean in the beginning when you first started writing this narrative?

Polisak:

Like when you've -- when we first started talking.

Fox:

Correct. At the time that you wrote this narrative, did you believe that you knew who I was?

Polisak:

I believed that you were a Canadian.

Fox:

Okay. That doesn't really answer my question, but --

Polisak:

Okay.

Fox:

Now, earlier you had stated on direct that in the course of your investigation you did not see any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen; is that correct?

Wolfe:

Sorry --

Judge:

Yes, Mr. Wolfe --

Wolfe:

Sorry --

Fox:

It was her statement. The Crown --

Wolfe:

Sorry.

Fox:

Okay.

Wolfe:

I thought she said that you were not an American citizen.

Fox:

No. Because that would make no sense.

Wolfe:

Okay, sorry --

Fox:

That would support what I'm saying.

Wolfe:

-- sorry, yes --

Fox:

Or --

Wolfe:

-- right, yes I've got [indiscernible/not near microphone].

Judge:

Yes, fair enough. Okay.

Fox:

Okay.

Wolfe:

Sorry about that. You've got it right.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

So you had stated that on direct earlier; is that correct?

Polisak:

Sorry, can you ask the question again?

Fox:

On direct earlier, you had stated that in the course of your investigation -- and again, I might be paraphrasing, I don't know the exact wording that was used -- but you had stated that you had not encountered any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen?

Polisak:

Correct.

Fox:

Okay. You had also stated on direct that you consider CBSA's records and information to be reliable?

Polisak:

Correct.

Fox:

Are you familiar with IRCC?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Do you consider their records and information reliable?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

The GCMS, is that owned by CBSA or IRCC? I know that CBSA has access to it and you're able to put information in, but who actually owns that system, who maintains it?

Judge:

What's IRCC? For the record.

Polisak:

Immigration Refugee and Citizenship Canada.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

Oh, and just so there's no confusion later, it used to be called CIC, or Citizenship and Immigration Canada. You'll notice at the top of the declaration it says Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They're the same agency, they just changed their name at some point.

Judge:

Okay. What was your question?

Fox:

Oh, about who actually owns and maintains the GCMS? Whether it's a CBSA system, or an IRCC system?

Well, I guess whether or not you know it's not really important. We can move on from that.

Do you consider the information in the GCMS reliable? I mean, given that you've already stated that you consider CBSA's information and reference reliable, and if CBSA is the agency putting the information in there, can we also assume that you consider the information in there reliable?

Polisak:

Sorry, can you ask the question --

Wolfe:

There -- there --

Judge:

Yes, there's several --

Wolfe:

-- this -- this question --

Judge:

-- propositions --

Wolfe:

-- has a lot of assumptions --

Judge:

-- you put into that question.

Wolfe:

-- built into it.

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

It's really overly complex.

Fox:

Okay.

Wolfe:

[indiscernible] be broken down.

Fox:

I'll break it down.

Judge:

Well, so -- so the question is, is the GCMS information system, do you consider that -- that system reliable as far as the information that's contained in there?

Polisak:

It's all information that's put in there by an individual that believes it to be factual.

Judge:

But -- so -- so the information that's provided by folks is -- is -- is often written down in there. You don't know whether thatinformation that's provided is accurate or not?

Polisak:

That's correct.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

So are you saying then that you don't necessarily consider CBSA's records and information to be reliable? I mean, that's what it sounds like you're saying new.

Judge:

No. That's not --

Fox:

No?

Judge:

-- what she said.

Fox:

Oh, okay. Well, that's why I'm asking for clarification.

Judge:

I understand her answer that I clarified I think, is that there's a lot of information within that system that's provided by folks that you deal with. That information, you don't know whether it's reliable or not. I mean, you -- you say you're just sometimes writing down what people tell you; is that fair?

Polisak:

That's correct.

Judge:

Okay.

Re: False statement in declaration about "confirming" place of birth

In her sworn declaration, in her testimony, and in the GCMS Polisak falsely stated that in my FOSS record there was a statement from the Edmonton CIC office that they had confirmed I was born in Ontario. But in reality, the statement from the Edmonton CIC office was only that they concluded a person named Richard Riess was born in Ontario.

This is very significant because "to confirm" and "to conclude" are very, very different. Moreover, it has never been determined (or confirmed) that I am that person.

In this highlight block I confront her on that, and she ultimately admits that her sworn declaration, her testimony, and the information she entered into GCMS on the matter was, in fact, false. She further admits that other CBSA officers who may encounter me in the future will see her false statements and will likely consider them "reliable".

The pertinent segments are highlighted in green and/or red.

Fox:

Well, on line -- where'd it go? On the fourth line in your declaration in your large paragraph, there's a sentence that starts with "NCMS note" at the end of the line? It's a -- the sentence that comes right before the one that we had just looked at.

Polisak:

Yeah.

Fox:

States that Edmonton CIC confirmed Riess was born in Sudbury, Ontario. Is that statement true? Not about what CIC confirmed. Is it -- how can I say this?

Judge:

Is what information true?

Fox:

Well, that Edmonton CIC confirmed something.

Judge:

So you're asking the witness whether -- how --

Fox:

Sorry, I --

Judge:

-- she received that information about Edmonton CI -- CIC?

Fox:

I'm trying to think of how I could word it, and I'm having difficulty with that.

Judge:

How did you get that information --

Fox:

Well, that would be my next --

Judge:

-- from -- just let me --

Fox:

-- question. I'm leading into that here.

Judge:

-- just let me -- let me ask to try to help you. The -- I guess the first question I find out is how did you -- when you made that note, "NCMS note states," how do you -- how do you receive that note?

Polisak:

When you are in GCMS and you search somebody's name, there's the ability to see what notes were made in the old system which is called FOSS. I'm not sure what that stands for. It was before my time. And that was a note that came up.

So similar to the info alert that I put in, it was that system's info alert from Edmonton CIC, which is Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

So when I ran Riess' name and date of birth in GCMS, and you click a button to get the old FOSS files up --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

-- that appeared under Richard Riess' name.

Judge:

Okay, thanks.

Fox:

FOSS is Field Operation Support System.

Oh, and for the benefit of the court and Mr. Wolfe, the GCMS was a newer system that was intended to replace FOSS, and FOSS was being phased out. And I think at this point --

Judge:

Yes, you can't -- you're not giving evidence right now, but --

Fox:

Sorry, I'm just --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

So that you understand what the difference is between the two systems.

Fox:

Okay. So Officer Polisak, from that statement that you -- that sentence that you put in the notes here are you saying that you saw something somewhere that stated that Edmonton -- or that someone had confirmed, in this case, Edmonton CIC, that Riess was born in Sudbury, Ontario?

Polisak:

That was in the FOSS notes.

Fox:

Okay. In that packet that was handed to you earlier, there's a FOSS record. The first one --

Judge:

Again -- again, Mr. Fox. The -- your citizenship status, I'm -- you're --

Fox:

Yeah.

Judge:

-- going to have to establish why that's relevant before --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- before you go far -- too far down this path.

Fox:

Yes. We're getting very close to that.

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

This goes toward -- what I was questioning you earlier about whether or not she had encountered any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- because she had testified that she hadn't --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- encountered any evidence.

Judge:

What are you referrjng to right now?

Fox:

Ah, well, the first page of the FOSS report.

Judge:

What is -- where is that?

Fox:

Oh, that's the third page of that stapled packet.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

It says, "FOSS ATIP Richard Riess, 60028504" at the top.

Judge:

Okay. The third page of that package. Is this a format you're familiar with, officer?

Polisak:

No.

Judge:

And what question did you want to ask, Mr. --

Fox:

Now, I understand that the layout might be different than how it might appear on the screen, or how you might be used to seeing it. But does this look like what you had reviewed or the -- what led you to make the statement that the NCMS note states, etc., etc. Is this essentially a FOSS record like what you're referring to?

Polisak:

I only looked at the written notes. So we can't get into a FOSS file.

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

You can see very limited information. I can't --

Fox:

Can you --

Polisak:

-- con --

Fox:

Can you flip forward two pages.

Judge:

Flip forward two pages. Is that the -- the --

Fox:

Non-computer --

Judge:

-- page that has remarks on it?

Fox:

Yes. The -- it says "non-computer-based entry" at the top.

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

Oh.

Wolfe:

Sorry, I want to make sure --

Fox:

Next page --

Wolfe:

Thank you.

Judge:

You had some remarks there.

Wolfe:

And I just want to make sure the witness is in the right place. She appears to be, Your Honour.

Judge:

Okay. And, Constable Polisak, when you said you had -- you had access to the note part of the FOSS record, is that -- is -- is the note part of the FOSS record, does that come under the remarks line there?

Polisak:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

So is the information in that remarks section the source of -- or where you got that statement from about the NCMS note stating -- confirming that Riess was born in Sudbury, Ontario?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Okay. And in your statement where you say, "Edmonton CIC confirmed that Riess was born in Sudbury, Ontario," are you saying that they confirmed I was born in Sudbury, Ontario, or that some other person named Riess was born in Sudbury Ontario. I'm just trying to clarify here because of your use of like referring to me in some parts as the subject, and here I was Riess, and so I'm trying to figure out what it is that you were saying here.

Polisak:

In my notes I was saying that Riess, Richard, with date of birth 1973/11/24 --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

-- was confirmed by Edmonton CIC to be born in Sudbury, Ontario.

Fox:

Okay. But not necessarily me? The issue is, am I that person? And I'm not saying that we're going to debate that at this point. I'm just trying to clarify in your notes here like --

Judge:

The issue is not whether you're that person, that's not the issue.

Fox:

I -- I'm trying to clarify if she's saying -- if she's trying to claim that I was born there, er that's some other person?

Wolfe:

I don't think that has ever been -- and we can stand the witness down --

Judge:

Well --

Wolfe:

But perhaps if we could prove -- we want to preserve the witness, we do have an objection to make.

Judge:

Okay. Yes, Ms. Polisak, can you just wait right outside again for us?

Polisak:

Sure.

Judge:

Thank you.

Polisak:

Leave these here?

Judge:

Yau might get a little exercise today.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

Wolfe:

Your Honour, it's my recollection the witness has never indicated that she said that she [indiscernible] Mr. Fox he -- he agrees was born in Sudbury, Ontario.

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

She has given evidence indicating that she relied on information in the system and acted on that information. Apparently that's the thrust of her evidence.

Secondly, I think at this point we've entered into [indiscernible/not near microphone] collateral matters --

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

-- well beyond dealing -- I mean, trying [indiscernible] witness' character when the matter is so collateral, as to whether or not Mr. Fox was born in Sudbury or [indiscernible] is an attempt to keep somebody on -- of a fact so far away from the materiality of this case that it [indiscernible] very far from the truth.

Judge:

Yes. Yes. Mr. Fox, do you have any response to that?

Fox:

No. I will move on to the next question.

Judge:

Okay. So -- so you want -- yes. The -- again the issue of your -- your citizenship is not really a relevant part. I suppose that only to the extent that it -- only to the extent that that may -- that may have caused some decision to be made one way or the other --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- at the border. But there's no basis for even -- you know, there's no basis been established for that scenario yet.

So you might want to ask her some questions that go to the -- to the heart of what you're trying to get at first.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

Which is the -- as I understand it, from talk -- from your comments throughout this proceeding, is whether you breached these terms voluntarily, or not.

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

Anyways, let's have -- let's have the witness back.

And just for further clarification, information that receives from third parties,I need her to have a certain belief.

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

I thought we were going to --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

It's going to be difficult for me to -- to -- to attack that collateral information that she received. She wasn't the generator of that information; she's the receiver.

MEAGAN POLISAK,

recalled.

Judge:

Thanks, Ms. Polisak.

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Fox.

Fox:

Okay.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ACCUSED, CONTINUING:

Fox:

I'm going to ask a question you're -- that isn't related to citizenship or anything, but it does have to do with hers -- with Officer Polisak's notes and what she wrote in her notes here, compared to what's in the remarks section of that non-computer-based entry. Because you did state that to the best of your knowledge, everything you wrote in here is true and correct.

You say that the Edmonton CIC confirmed, correct?

Polisak:

Yes. I wrote that.

Fox:

But in the remarks, it does not say that anything was confirmed. It says only that the officer was able to conclude. Do you accept that, or --

Polisak:

It does not say confirmed in the FOSS remarks.

Fox:

Right. Are you familiar with Stefan Tzetzos?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

Daniel Marson? No?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

Okay. According to Webster's Dictionary, and I know Webster's is the American Standard and here it's Oxford, and I apologize for that, but "confirm" is to prove the truth, validity or authenticity of. To confirm is to establish as true that which was doubtful or uncertain.

Judge:

Okay, I get where you're going here but it's just semantics to say that --

Fox:

They're two radically different words --

Judge:

-- to say that the officer is somehow impeached by writing down that she's confirmed instead of concluded --

Wolfe:

I rise at this point because I think where we're going here is probably a matter of submissions by Mr. Fox at the end of the case, rather than something [indiscernible] have that the witness [indiscernible/not near microphone] wants --

Fox:

Okay.

Wolfe:

-- to parse her words and to let him have at it, but --

Judge:

Well, I guess -- I guess you could ask the question, Mr. -- Mr. Fox. It's just that are -- are you going to try to put a dictionary definition to the witness? You -- you should have a question actually --

Fox:

Well, my question would be whether, Officer Polisak, you agree that to confirm and to conclude are completely, completely different, for the reason that "confirm" means, as I just said, whereas to conclude is merely to decide by reasoning to infer or to adduce. In other words, to form an opinion or a belief of something. Is that -- do you agree with that?

Polisak:

By definition they are different.

Fox:

I'm sorry?

Polisak:

By definition, those two words are different.

Fox:

Right.

Polisak:

They're not --

Fox:

So then you agree that your statement in your notes here is technically and very significantly incorrect?

Polisak:

That's not the way I meant it, but confirm and conclude are not the same.

Fox:

I understand and I appreciate that that's not the way you meant it. Do other law enforcement officers or agents have access to these notes? For example, do other CBSA officers? If I go to the border or if I try to come back into Canada, would they have access to the information you put in here?

Polisak:

Other CBSA officers, yes.

Fox:

And you had stated earlier that you consider CBSA's records and information to be reliable. I'm going to assume they also would consider it. And so it would be troubling that there would be a discrepancy like this in here. But I'll move on.

Fox:

From the bottom of that large paragraph, if you go up four lines, there is a sentence in the middle that says, "All of whom seem to agree that he is Canadian." Oh, I wonder if I should -- if we should come back to that in a moment. Yes, yes, sorry, I got ahead of myself there.

Back to the FOSS record -- wait, let me think. Okay. The reason I'm bringing this up is because of earlier the witness had stated that she considers the information to be reliable and that she did not see any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen. I'm not bringing this up about any question or issue of whether or not I am a Canadian citizen.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

In that FOSS record, may you turn to the first page of it, please. It's the third page in the stapled packet. The one that starts with FOSS personal details.

Where it says "Country of Birth," next to that it says, "United States of America." Would you consider that information that is in the FOSS or the GCMS system that would be considered reliable, as you put it?

Polisak:

I don't recall seeing that. An officer put -- CBSA or IRCC put that in to FOSS.

Fox:

Sure. The non-computer-based entry that we were looking at a moment ago, appears to have been -- well, it says, created 2008/05/21. So that was created in 2008. From that -- hang on, I'm trying to think how I can phrase this as a question. Is it reasonable to -- no.

Do you know, or do you have any idea, when this FOSS record might have been created? I mean, given that the NCB entry was made in 2008?

Polisak:

I would assume the date created because it's -- that's what it says, the date --

Fox:

Okay.

Polisak:

-- it's created.

Fox:

Sure. So if you were to look at this, let's say we're at the border and everything is going on as it was, and if you were to look at this, would you have assumed that this informatlon was put into FOSS a long time ago? Certainly not in the past year or so?

Polisak:

If it had a date stamp of 2008 --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

-- then yes.

Fox:

Okay. So now I would like to turn your attention to the first page of the GCMS, so you'll have to skip ahead to pages [indiscernible] so you have three, four pages. The page that starts at the top says, Case:Q000326 etc.

Judge:

Do you have that?

Polisak:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

Okay. The information on there appears to be related to that particular case, right?

Polisak:

Which case?

Fox:

Oh, the Q0032 etc. etc.

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

And then when you put to the next page, there's a heading that says, client details?

Polisak:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

Has that information, as far as you know anyway, and if you don't know, then just say you don't know. But is that information specific to that case, or to our interaction on that day, or is this general information about me, independent of that?

Polisak:

Neither are my user IDs.

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

They're created by or the updated by --

Fox:

Right.

Polisak:

-- so -- or searched by. So it's not something from my case with you.

Fox:

Right. And do you see the line that says "created date 2019/01/18"?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Would you interpret that to mean that's the date that this information was put in?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Okay, and if you look down somewhat you'll see it says "Country of Birth"?

Polisak:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

And again, it says, "United States of America." Would you consider that the type of reliable information that you would rely upon when making your determinations about somebody at the border?

Polisak:

I did not see this information on that day.

Fox:

Did you go into GCMS on that day?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Did you search for my name?

Polisak:

Yes.

Judge:

Which name?

Polisak:

Richard Riess.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

Okay. Yet you didn't see "Country of Birth." Sorry, I realize that was phrased as a statement, but it was intended --

Judge:

That's fine.

Fox:

-- to be a question.

Polisak:

When I searched Richard Riess --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Polisak:

-- the only thing that came up was a FOSS note. There was not anything in GCMS.

Fox:

Really? But according to this -- this particular information that was entered in January 2019, and then interestingly it says it was updated on March 18th, but -- okay, well that I find very troubling.

Judge:

Yes. So your evidence when you search Richard Riess, this -- this particular field, or this -- this screen or however it appears to you, did not show up?

Fox:

Are you saying that --

Judge:

Just hang on.

Fox:

Sorry.

Judge:

I didn't get an answer yet.

Polisak:

No. The -- what I recall, the only thing in GCMS was the FOSS note.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

So I'm going to ask this next question because this is troubling me very, very much, and so is it possible the information was there and you just didn't see it, or are you saying that it wasn't there at all?

Polisak:

From what I recall, there was not a GCMS entry.

Fox:

Are you saying to me that you believe that the created date information is --has been falsified, or --

Polisak:

I'm not saying that.

Fox:

Okay. Hmm. All right. That's very disturbing.

Where I was going with all of that was I would think -- or was to ask you whether you believed that that type of information in CBSA's supposedly reliable system, would be some information or some evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen. Would you consider that -- I mean if those entries in there -- were in there, would you consider that infor -- or evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen?

Wolfe:

Well, what --

Fox:

Because it would refute what she had testified about earlier, that she hadn't seen any evidence that I'm not --

Judge:

No, it wouldn't actually. It's just -- what you're asking her now is that given the new information that you've placed in front of the witness, is she's -- would -- would she have -- would her opinion be with respect to your citizenship different than it was on the day you dealt with it.

Wolfe:

Exactly why I rise. It calls -- it's a hypothetical, it's speculation, it's really not anything to do --

Fox:

Well --

Wolfe:

-- with the evidence of this witness.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

It's really --

Fox:

No, I -- I believe it's potentially contradicting what she had testified to earlier. She said that she hadn't seen any such evidence, but now she's saying that she did see evidence in the FOSS -- oh, sorry, sorry, you're right. In the FOSS --

Judge:

No, she's --

Fox:

-- entry shows some remarks --

Judge:

-- very clear about what came up as the FOSS note.

Fox:

Yes, I apologize.

Judge:

It was the remarks part portion. And so asking the witness, you know, questions about this and this information is not very helpful.Because her evidence is she didn't have -- have access or didn't see this information.

Fox:

In a GCMS entry, the field name sub -- case subcategory, what -- what is that, what does that mean?

Judge:

Where are you looking at now?

Fox:

Well, on the first page of the GCMS entry, I believe it is.

Wolfe:

Okay. It would be helpful to the witness if my friend could actually approach her and direct her to a line he has in mind, Your Honour, rather than the witness being left to figure out where she's supposed to look.

Fox:

Yes, that --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

-- would -- yes.

Judge:

And probably it would be helpful too for all of us to number these pages.

Wolfe:

Because I don't know where to look either. Where -- where is she supposed to go?

Fox:

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were suggesting that I should go there --

Wolfe:

No, go -- go up and -- and actually --

Fox:

-- and show her --

Wolfe:

-- go to the exhibit.

Judge:

So what page are you at?

Fox:

The first page of the --

Judge:

Well, how many pages -- we should probably number these things. Maybe we should do that now. You're not -- you've -- you've obviously got more questions for this witness?

Fox:

Yes, I do.

Judge:

You're not going to be finished by 12:30, I don't imagine.

Fox:

No.

Judge:

So per -- why don't -- perhaps we could just take the lunch break now. My -- my friend could --

Judge:

We'll take a few moments. I'll number mine --

Wolfe:

Yes.

Judge:

-- from 1 to -- from page 1 to the back, and everyone can do the same, and hopefully we can be on the same page and we won't have to identify it by -- by its content.

Fox:

And you're starting the numbering with the --

Judge:

One --

Fox:

-- [indiscernible] first page, okay?

Judge:

-- right on the first page.

Wolfe:

Yes, one is one.

Judge:

I hope I'm correct, is there 15?

Fox:

Yes, that's what I have.

Wolfe:

Yes, I have 15 as well, Your Honour.

Judge:

Fifteen, okay. Pages 1 through 15. That will help us to iden -- to direct Ms. Polisak to the right page.

Did you have a question you want to ask before we break?

Fox:

I was just going to ask her if she could clarify the meaning of some of the information that was --

Judge:

What page?

Fox:

-- put in her? Oh, on page 7, which is the first page of the GCMS entry.

Judge:

Clarify what?

Fox:

Under subcategory, what is meant by possible inadmissibility? I mean, I understand what that means, but in the context of this. And this was information entered by the witness, so I assume she would know.

Polisak:

So basically the case category is an info alert so it's a note on a person. At my level, I can only add certain subcategories, and when -- I chose this one because even though the information that I had besides Mr. Riess or Mr. Fox's conversation with me, showed that Riess was a Canadian, he was very adamant that he was not a Canadian.

Judge:

Okay.

Polisak:

Canadian citizens enter Canada by right. They cannot be refused or removed from Canada. And it is -- so if a foreign national enters Canada and they can't prove their citizenship, it's on them to prove what citizenship they are. If somebody says they're a Canadian citizen, it's on us to prove that they are not, and I could not prove that he was not a Canadian.

Fox:

Sorry, I missed that. Could you just repeat that last sentence.

Polisak:

I could not --

Judge:

What, about foreign nationals?

Fox:

About the burden of proof that you have --

Judge:

The foreign nationals you say -- it's -- it's up to a foreign national to prove they're Canadian?

Polisak:

That they're whatever citizenship they say they are.

Judge:

Right.

Polisak:

Whereas a Canadian -- if I don't believe you're a Canadian, I have to prove that you're not a Canadian. Or CBSA has to prove.

Fox:

That is incredibly interesting.

Fox:

Are -- are you saying that if a person shows up at the border and they claim that they're a Canadian citizen, but you don't believe that they're a Canadian citizen, the burden is on you to prove that they're not a Canadian citizen and they can enter if you're unable to prove that they're not?

Polisak:

That's correct.

Fox:

Are you sure it's not the ether way around? Because that would mean anybody could just show up at the Canadian border, say, hey, I'm a Canadian citizen, let me in. As long as they don't have a birth certificate of passport on them, how are you going to prove that they're not a Canadian citizen?

Polisak:

We --

Fox:

Sorry, I was going to say, my understanding is such and such, but that would be a statement, not a question. Um --

Judge:

But you -- are you going to let her answer it?

Fox:

Sorry.

Polisak:

We have the ability to fingerprint people and that often comes back with a citizenship.

Fox:

I see.

Judge:

Okay. Why don't we break there. Ms. Polisak, you're -- you're going to have to join us again at two o'clock, okay?

Polisak:

Okay

Judge:

Thank you. And the general caution is, when you're under cross-examination, is that -- that you not discuss your evidence that you're giving here in the courtroom with people that are outside of the courtroom, okay?

Polisak:

Okay.

Judge:

Okay, thank you.

Yes, Mr. Fox --

Fox:

Before the witness leaves, may I just have a quick, quick word with Mr. Wolfe?

Judge:

After the witness leaves?

Fox:

No, before she leaves, so that he might be able to let her know something, or advise something? No?

Wolfe:

I'm really nervous about that.

Judge:

Yes, no --

Fox:

Okay [indiscernible].

Judge:

-- fair enough. You can talk to him after she leaves.

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

Okay. Okay, thank you, I'll see you at two o'clock.

Clerk:

Order in the court, all rise.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR NOON RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

Judge:

Okay, thanks, Mr. Fox is here again, thanks.

Wolfe:

Yes, Your Honour, Wolfe, initial B., for the Provincial Crown, continuing with the Fox trial.

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

I don't know if Mr. Fox wishes to address the court in advance of the witness being brought in?

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

There is one issue that I want to bring up, I'm somewhat concerned about a statement that the officer had made just before we broke for lunch.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

CBSA has a burden when a person presents himself at the border.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

Based on what she had stated, which it's my understanding is actually completely the opposite, I don't have obviously the documentation to prove that, so this is something that -- well, we'll get to that in a second.

When a person is found within Canada, but not at a port of entry, the burden is on CBSA to establish that they are an alien before they can be put into removal proceedings or deported.

Judge:

I think that's what she said.

Fox:

Well, no, she was talking about at a port of entry, at least that's what's relevant here. And the problem is if it was CBSA's burden to prove that somebody is not a Canadian citizen at a port of entry, that means, as I've brought up, any criminal alien, any terrorist, et cetera, in the world could simply come to the Canadian border, go, hey, I'm a Canadian citizen.

Judge:

Yes, but here's the thing, I mean, maybe you should clarify with -- with the -- with her, you weren't at a port of entry, you were at the Canadian Border Services office at Douglas Crossing. The -- she -- she said the -- the port of entries or the booths were one side if you're in the U.S., and the other -- well, technically on one side you're outside of Canada, and on the other side you're in.

Fox:

Well --

Judge:

So --

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

-- you might want to clarify that with her, but I'm sure if somebody shows up at the office, which is well inside of the Canadian border, that that's what she's -- she's talking about.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

But you can -- why don't you -- you can clarify with her. I mean, I understand your point, if you show up from the U.S. to the -- to the booth and say I'm Canadian, and they have to let you in unless they can disprove it, so…

Fox:

Mm-hmm. This is a particular issue that I do have quite a bit of experience dealing with, and that's why I'm so certain about it, but --

Judge:

Well, at the end of the day, what -- what is it -- what are you trying to establish?

Fox:

Well --

Judge:

How is it relevant?

Fox:

It's relevant because if -- if the court takes her position, or if -- if it were to turn out what she's claiming is true that would literally make it impossible for me to have anykind of defences because that would mean that absolutely no matter what, if I'm at the border, neither I nor anybody else could be denied admission to the Canada simply because they can't prove --

Judge:

But when you're showing up --

Fox:

-- [indiscernible/voices overlapping] --

Judge:

-- at the border services office --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- you're not seeking admission, you seek admission at the border.

Fox:

Well, this is the point that we'll clarify with her, but actually the entire -- that entire --

Judge:

I mean, people go down there --

Fox:

-- building is considered a port of entry.

Judge:

-- and do their NEXUS interviews and stuff.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

I mean, there -- that's where -- that's inside Canada, that office. I mean, you can -- if you want to clarify it, that's fine.

Fox:

Yes, yes, that is on Canadian soil, but that whole building, that whole area is considered a port of entry.

Judge:

Okay, well you can ask her questions about it --

Fox:

Yeah.

Judge:

-- just to clarify that, but the -- the -- people are directed -- when they come to the U.S./Canada border, they're directed by the -- by the booth agents to go to the office, if they need to, to seek -- to seek entry if they don't have -- if they don't have the proper documents, they're there for an examination. But you can clarify with her what happens when somebody just walks in un -- undirected by anybody who's on the -- at -- manning the actual border, the booths. You know, it -- it seems to me a point that might benefit from some clarification.

Fox:

Right. And so once we clarify that issue, if it turns cut that the entire building is considered the port of entry, such that I would require being granted admission at that point, what -- hang on. Sorry, I'm trying to think of what it is that I'm trying to articulate.

Judge:

Well, it can't be that everyone who walks in that building is requiring some admission, because you can just come in, any Canadian can walk into that building.

Fox:

Any Canadian can, yes.

Judge:

Right. Yes.

Fox:

But --

Judge:

On this side of the border. Any person on this side of the border.

Fox:

Right. Okay.

Judge:

I mean, you know, she -- she might be able to illuminate us on what their -- what other activities they do at that office, or how they perceive themselves as far as your -- your question about point of entry, but the building is there to service the point of entry, and -- and a whole bunch of other things, I would imagine. I mean, I went there for my NEXUS interview.

Fox:

Okay, I guess I'm ready to proceed then.

Judge:

Sure, if you want an answer to some of those questions -- Mr. Wolfe, do you have any input on whether he can ask questions about this question of the bor -- of the point of entry?

Wolfe:

Not at the moment.

Judge:

Yes, we'll see what happens. We'll have the witness back in.

Maybe you could ask her· how far inside the -- I don't even know exactly physically where -- I think we had some --

Wolfe:

Well we can put the exhibit to her.

Judge:

-- we had some exhibits with the overhead.

Wolfe:

Exhibit 4.

Judge:

So she can confirm that's her building.

Yes, we can just reserve that for a minute, Madam Registrar, we might need it.

MEAGAN POLISAK

a witness called for the Crown, recalled.

Judge:

Okay. Okay, yes. Mr. Wolfe -- or you wanted to ask some questions, and maybe at first as part of the context of this whole thing, Exhibit 4 could be put before the witness, Madam Registrar, and I can -- and I'll ask a question.

QUESTIONS BY THE COURT:

Judge:

Just for my benefit, Ms. Polisak, Exhibit 4 is before you, there should be a marking on there on the top there, like an X.

Polisak:

Yes.

Judge:

That marking, is that the location of the building that you were working in on March 15th?

Polisak:

Correct.

Judge:

Okay. And is the white line through the centre of that exhibit, where it shows -- there's a graph there that shows a number of -- the distance, some distances on the lett there, the white line thatgoes across the entirety of that photograph, is that the Canada/U.S. border?

Polisak:

The one in between the words "Canada and United States", yes.

Judge:

Yes, okay.

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Fox.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ACCUSED, CONTINUING:

Fox:

I'd like to take a moment to clarify some uncertainty or confusion that might exist about what is meant by port of entry, and how that might apply to the Douglas border crossing, or that building in that area around there. The -- well, okay, can you tell us what -- sorry, once again I'm trying to think of how to phrase this.

So we've referred to the port of entry or the Douglas Border Crossing, or port of entry, the building that the office is in, the secondary inspection, is that considered part of the port of entry?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Okay. So if a foreign national arrives at the border, presumably from the U.S., unless of course I guess they come in from the water and run across the beach or something, but we'll assume they approach from the U.S., they cross over into Canada, they cross over where the Peace Arch Monument is, so they're technically on Canadian soil at that point, but they haven't actually been granted admission into Canada yet. If they proceed to that building, are they considered at that point to have been admitted to Canada or are they still considered to be, for immigration purposes, outside of Canada?

Polisak:

Sorry, can you explain that again?

Fox:

Sure. When a person comes up Interstate 5 and turns into Highway 99, and then there's the Peace Arch Border Crossing there, or the Douglas Border Crossing, and they proceed from the actual physical border where the Peace Arch Monument is to the secondary inspection area, where your counter was, where you and I had interacted.

Polisak:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

They go into the building, and at that point are they considered to have been admitted to Canada already, or are they not yet admitted?

Polisak:

If they've gone through the booths, and they were referred, they're not yet admitted.

Fox:

Okay. Let's suppose that they didn't go through the booths. If they were a pedestrian, for example, walking up the sidewalk.

Polisak:

They go --

Fox:

Because the booths are only for the cars, correct?

Polisak:

No, pedestrians go through the booths as well.

Fox:

I did not see any booths when I was there.

Polisak:

There is the first booth that's connected to the building. It goes building, then there's a breezeway that all pedestrians walk through and check in.

Fox:

Sure.

Polisak:

And then they can either continue forward into Canada, if they are released, or they are referred into secondary, and they walk into the building from that way.

Fox:

Okay, I see, okay. Now I do know the breezeway that you're talking about now. So if they go in past that breezeway, and then they enter the building, would they still be considered to be at the port of entry, not yet admitted into Canada?

Polisak:

Correct.

Fox:

Okay, thank you, I just wanted to clarify that point, there was some uncertainty about that.

Judge:

So -- so when they go through this breezeway, is there a booth there at the breezeway?

Polisak:

Yeah, they're processed by an officer.

Judge:

At the breezeway?

Polisak:

Yeah, so the first booth has a side that processes cars, and then a window where they process pedestrians.

Judge:

Okay, thanks.

Fox:

Let's say in the unusual case that if a person was to go into the secondary inspection area, possibly coming from within Canada, if that person were to come -- be -- if that person were to be found inadmissible at that point…

Hmm, I'll have to go back to that because I need to figure out how I would word that.

Okay, before lunch I was asking you about the meaning of the subcategory "possible inadmissibility" as you had entered?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

And can you tell me at what point did you set the subcategories of "possible inadmissibility", do you remember that?

Polisak:

Not what time, but you have to set it before you approve the info alert.

Fox:

Before you approve the info alert. What do you mean by "approve the info alert"? The reason I'm asking is because I noticed in here there was a number of times where "approved" is used, and I was just curious about that.

Polisak:

So if something's approved that means it is still valid in the system. If something is cancelled, we take that as it's either expired, so the information is old or irrelevant --

Fox:

Okay.

Polisak:

-- at this point. Or we've found information that negates that inadmissibility.

Fox:

Okay. So the "possible inadmissibility" would have been entered early on in the process?

Wolfe:

Which process?

Fox:

Oh, sorry, during our interaction, is that how I should understand that to be, as opposed to after the fact?

Polisak:

It can be entered at any time within -- once I've started, once I've generated the info alert and before I've clicked "complete".

Fox:

Okay.

Polisak:

So you can change it at any point.

Fox:

And what does -- I understand what possible inadmiss -- well, sorry, no, forget that.

Do you happen to remember on that day when -- relative to our interaction when you entered these notes, that large paragraph in the notes field?

Polisak:

I don't. I recall writing while we were talking so I wouldn't forget things, but I don't know if that was in GCMS, or potentially I -- I write notes in Word, because if you step off of GCMS, it saves your notes --

Fox:

Sure.

Polisak:

-- even before you're completed, so I usually do it in either Word or Outlook, and then copy and paste into GCMS once my notes are completed.

Fox:

Okay. Do you remember being at the office -- or at Douglas Border Crossing at work on that day until nine o'clock at night?

Polisak:

If -- are you referring to the updated time in --

Fox:

Correct.

Polisak:

Yeah, so it's Eastern Standard Time that that system uses, so it's three hours ahead of our time.

Fox:

Okay. So then rather than this being 8:55, itwould be 5:55? Well, that explains a lot.

Wolfe:

I didn't hear her answer.

Judge:

Yes, I didn't hear an answer.

Fox:

Oh.

Polisak:

Sorry, I said yes to it being 5:55.

Wolfe:

Sorry, I didn't hear that.

Judge:

Okay.

Polisak:

Sorry, I nodded. Bad habit.

Judge:

Oh, yes, you have to -- you have to actually speak out loud.

Polisak:

Sorry about that. Okay.

Fox:

Okay, let's see. In the course of your investigation -- well, let me ask you first, do you know what CPIC does?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

And do you as a CBSA officer have access to people's CPIC reports?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Did you check my CPIC report on that day?

Polisak:

I wrote in my notes that I…

Judge:

When you're referring to notes, is that page 15 of the -- that --

Polisak:

Sorry, the declaration or the text notes.

Judge:

Okay.

Polisak:

So I put "both names have multiple arrests in Canada and U.S.A.", which means that I would have run you in our system, or Riess, Richard Riess and Patrick Fox, in what's called IBQ, which is our Integrated Border Query, if I'm not mistaken, which basically searches a multitude of different programs related to immigration and customs. But CPIC is in there.

Re: Country of Birth
Re: No evidence not CA citizen

I try to ask Polisak about the country of birth field in my CPIC report but St. Pierre cuts me off again and asks me why it's relevant. I explain it's because Polisak testified she did not see any evidence I am not a Canadian citizen and that IRCC, CBSA, and the RCMP all seem to agree I'm a Canadian, but in fact, the official records of all three of those agencies all clearly state my country of birth is USA and not one of them states my citizenship is Canadian. So my point is not about my citizenship, my point is that the witness, a federal law enforcement officer repeatedly perjured herself on the witness stand. And due to that perjury, her entire testimony should be rejected.

St. Pierre shows here excessive resistance to allowing me to raise the issue of my citizenship even though my citizenship is clearly relevant for two reasons:

The fact that I'm not a Canadian citizen and have been convicted of an indictable offense makes me inadmissible, so for Polisak to say she did not deny me admission is completely implausible/not credible.
It was the Crown and Polisak (on direct) that first brought up the question/fact of my citizenship (p31l10-40). That being the case, I should have been allowed to refute and rebut that. If it was not relevant St. Pierre should have stopped her and the Crown from bringing it up as well, but he didn't.

Fox:

Okay. So shall I take that to mean then that, yes, you did check my CPIC record?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Okay. And do you remember what it said for my place of birth in my CPIC record?

Polisak:

I do not.

Re: Country of Birth
Re: No evidence not CA citizen

I ask Polisak if, when she checked my CPIC record, she remembers what it said for country of birth. She claimed she does not remember.

This is now three official records she had checked, all of which stated my country of birth as USA, yet she claims she did not see the country of birth field in any of them. That is implausible because she was a BSO which means establishing the country of birth and citizenship of the people she deals with all day is one of the most significant parts of her job; and because I told her I was born in the US and have no status in Canada - checking the country of birth fields of those official records should have been the first and most obvious thing she did as part of her investigation.

So it is now three official records that state my country of birth as USA and not a single official record which states my country of birth or citizenship as Canada. This is clear, concrete evidence that may not be a Canadian citizen.

Fox:

I would like at this point to show you a copy of my CPIC report, but I only have an electronic copy.

Judge:

What is it relevant to?

Fox:

Because she says here -- all of the things she's referring to, IRCC, CBSA, and RCMP, all seem to agree that he is a Canadian. However, we've seen that IRCC and CBSA have no official record of me being a Canadian, and they acknowledge that I was born in the United States, and now there's the RCMP records which also -- also show that I was born in the United States, and there's no -- there's nothing in there --

Judge:

But we're not -- we're not here on an inquiry to determine your citizenship status.

Fox:

Right, we're trying to determine on what basis she's now claiming -- that the witness is now claiming that she denied me or didn't deny me admission on that date.

Wolfe:

Well, quite frankly, who cares?

Judge:

Yes, well --

Wolfe:

And I'll be blunt, but if we can excuse the witness first.

Judge:

Yes, I guess we're going to have to do that again, Ms. Polisak.

Fox:

Now -- but again though --

Judge:

Just hang on, just hang on for a second so the witness is able to exit. And we'll have a discussion at that point.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

Judge:

Yes, Mr. Fox, I'm giving you quite a bit of leeway because you're unrepresented, and you're -- you know, you're entitled to a defence, and you're entitled to, you know, ask questions on cross-examination unfettered by the trial judge, except for certain things. Now, one of those certain things, and it's an important one, is relevance. We can't -- we can't have hearings that go on for months and months, and days and days unfettered from an analysis of whether those -- the questions that are being asked are actually relevant to the proceedings. We'd be here -- we'd -- it would be a disaster.

So I'm going to have to ask you very clearly to tell the court why any of that is relevant, why your citizenship status is in any ways relevant.

SUBMISSIONS RE RELEVANCE ON HIS OWN BEHALF BY THE ACCUSED:

Fox:

I'm not demonstrating that my citizenship status is relevant, I'm attempting to demonstrate that she testified that she saw no evidence to a particular thing, but then all of these records that we're now seeing that she had access to, and that she admits that she did check on those days, all contradict what she's saying.

Judge:

But this witness has no -- really has no evidence that's inculpatory with respect to the -- the essential elements of this case. The issue is whether you -- you're outside of a hundred metres in that -- in that building.

Fox:

Yes, I didn't violate that while I was in the building.

Judge:

This is an interaction you had with a Canada Border Services agent out -- outside of that area, you could have gone there for the entire day and had a conversation with, you wouldn't be in any kind of breach of any -- of any -- as I understand it, any breach of your conditions. The issue here is whether you went within a hundred metres of the border, and whether you crossed the border into -- into the United States of America. Those were the two conditions that you were supposed to abide by. How does this witness have any evidence that goes to those two issues?

Fox:

If this witness had testified, as I expected that -- or as I would have hoped that she would have, that she did tell me that at the time, based on the information available to her, I was considered to be inadmissible.

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

Then that would have justified me leaving the country at that point.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

If I'm at a port of entry, and the duly appointed authority tells me I'm not admissible into Canada, it is reasonable for me then to go, okay, bye. However, she didn't, she said that --

Judge:

She --

Fox:

-- she granted me admission.

Judge:

You're exactly right, she didn't. You can put to the witness, you can suggest to her your version of the event.

Fox:

Which I'm going to do.

Judge:

Yes, and that's --

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

-- perfectly appropriate, and give her a chance to respond to that.

Fox:

I see.

Judge:

You can also ask her, you know, questions about CPIC, whether your probation conditions showed up on CPIC. I don't know if she'll remember that or anything like that.

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

Because she -- because they -- they -- the probation conditions that you were on about going across the border, all of that would have been on -- on a police record information system somswhere, CPIC or another system, you can ask her about that, if she recalls anything about that.

Judge:

You can suggest to her your version of events, but you're kind of stuck with her answers with respect to what she did to confirm your status, and things like that, because -- because impeaching -- you're trying to impeach the witness on I guess her knowledge -- her knowledge of your immigration status?

Fox:

I'm -- I'm trying to impeach her on the information that she claims that she reviewed on that day. She's saying that she didn't see this and this and this and this, but the records before us are showing that -- but the information was there. I mean, in the GCMS report, for example, I can't fathom how she could not have seen the information on there that says that I was not born in Canada, and she's saying it wasn't there. I mean…

Judge:

But you --

Fox:

I was going to question her further on that.

Judge:

But the fact that you're not born in Canada --

Fox:

Well because --

Judge:

-- how does that prove your inadmissibility or anything like that?

Fox:

That's got nothing to do with admissibility --

Judge:

Right.

Fox:

-- that's got do with her statement that she didn't see any evidence that I'm not a Canadian citizen. Which means that her statement was false, which means that she's lying in court.

Judge:

Okay, well you can argue later on --

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

-- and this document -- this document, I think, because we've had, you know, lots of questions about it is going to have to be marked as an exhibit. You could argue later on the import --

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

-- of how that information in the exhibit compares to or is to be analyzed against the witness's evidence, sworn evidence, you can do that, but -- but repeating -- trying to -- repeating over and over again that you -- you're trying to get her to admit that you had some other status, some other citizenship status than what she's -- than what she's given information about is -- just really we're going down a rabbit hole, and it's not -- you're not going to -- it's not going to be particularly helpful at the end of the day.

Judge:

Mr. Wolfe, do you have anything to add?

SUBMISSIONS RE RELEVANCE FOR CROWN BY MR. WOLFE:

Wolfe:

I just want to put on the record, if I may, Your Honour, that the line of questioning that the witness has been subject to for some time now is a line of inquiry which has nothing really to do with her evidence. Whether or not she got the law right, whether or not she viewed only a portion of the information --

Judge:

Mm-hmm.

Wolfe:

-- on a particular record, her evidence has been clear that she viewed a portion, came to a conclusion, and acted on it.

Judge:

Yes.

Crown argues that regardless of whether Polisak got the law right, and whether or not she viewed only a portion of the information in particular records, her testimony is clear that she viewed a portion, came to a conclusion, and acted on it. But that is not credible because she is claiming that in her duties as a BSO at a POE she looked at three separate records maintained by three separate agencies and she explicitly failed to look at or notice the single most important field on each of those records - the country of birth. As a BSO at a POE, dealing with a person claiming to be an inadmissible foreign national it is simply unbelievable that she would fail to notice the country of birth field on all three records. And this is critically relevant because if she is willing to so brazenly lie about that on the witness stand then she is capable of lying about anything on the witness stand. Then St. Pierre appears to agree with the Crown.

It is implausible that Polisak, as a BSO, would look at my GCMS, FOSS, and CPIC records and NOT look at the Country of Birth field of any of those records, considering the reason she was looking at the records was to determine whether I was admissible AND that I had told her that I am a foreign national and I am inadmissible.

It is also implausible that a BSO would not have access to the Country of Birth fields, considering they are frequently dealing with foreign nationals seeking entry to Canada.

Wolfe:

Those facts cannot be reinvented -- or that evidence can't be reinvented by asking her about whether or not there is really authenticity or errors in data entry regarding a constellation of forms that flow from numerous kinds of data systems available to CBSA officers or immigrationand refugee boards. That's an entirely different line of inquiry, which really, I think, is more consistent with Mr. Fox's different agenda of whether or not he is American or was born in Sudbury, and that's not of the moment.

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

If -- if you're going to question her, in my submission, about her evidence, it would really be about you say you didn't deny entry, when you say you didn't remove, I put it to you you did, and here's why. I mean, that's relevant.

Judge:

That some actions were taken.

Wolfe:

That's right. She says none, she says, essentially, I bade him farewell as he walked out the door and disappeared. All right, let's hear about that. But to go down this line about status, not status, you saw thls, you saw that, you looked at a CPIC, it's sort of like who cares? She took a course of action, whether she's ignorant about her job or not is not of the moment.

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

It's about she lied, she lied in court --

Wolfe:

That's illogical --

Fox:

-- that is relevant.

Wolfe:

That's an illogical leap.

REPLY RE RELEVANCE ON HIS OWN BEHALF BY THE ACCUSED:

Fox:

You're making a big deal about me supposedly lying in 2008 in court, you're saying I'm not credible because I was convicted of perjury, that --

Judge:

Okay, but that -- that --

Fox:

-- is an issue.

Wolfe:

I've not made that --

Judge:

None of that is -- none of that has been raised yet.

Fox:

Right, because I haven't testified.

Judge:

So so the -- but the witness -- youcould ask -- you can challenge her on her evidence.

Fox:

All right.

Judge:

She said she didn't take any steps to have you -- direct you or to instruct you or to advise you that you needed to go out of the country, that's -- that's the gist of her evidence. You can challenge her on that. You can give -- you can give your version -- in fact, you should suggest your version of the events to her, and have -- give her a chance to respond, agree or disagree with you. She's entitled to agree or disagree with you. But because -- but if she disagrees with you, you're kind of stuck with that. You can testify later under oath as to some other different version of facts, or you don't have to testify.

Wolfe:

In all fairness to Mr. Fox, Browne v. Dunn, I think it's important for him to put his version to the witness.

Judge:

I agree.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

Let's have -- let's have Ms. Polisak back in.

MEAGAN POLISAK

recalled.

Judge:

Thanks again, Ms. Polisak.

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Fox.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ACCUSED, CONTINUING:

Fox:

Welcome back. I'd like to turn your attention to your declaration. There's a small paragraph, two lines --

Judge:

Now, this particular document, I have -- I have a bundle of papers that we've marked 1 through -- pages 1 through 15, I don't have what is essentially a second document of -- called a declaration. I don't know if there's an extra copy floating around or anything like that. If not, that's fine. It generally -- it's generally the same, I understand, as page 15 of the --

Wolfe:

The text report or declaration, Your Honour, as I understand is the cut and paste from the notes on page 15.

Judge:

Yes, okay, go ahead.

Fox:

But this part that I'm going to be referring to here is a separate paragraph --

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

-- that isn't included in the GCMS.

Judge:

All right, you can ask her a question about it.

Fox:

Okay.

Fox:

So at the last paragraph, it says [as read in]:

I had no further interactions with this individual, and did not hear anything about him until contacted by Acting Supervisor for Integrated Support Unit of the Intelligence Enforcement Branch, Chad Brown, on February 4th, 2020.

Judge:

And your answer was?

Polisak:

Yes.

Judge:

Yes?

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

And that was -- give me the date again?

Fox:

February 4th, 2020.

Judge:

Chad Brown made an inquiry on February 4th, 2020. Okay.

Fox:

So are you saying there that between our interaction on March 15th, 2019, and then February 4th, 2020, you had heard nothing further about me?

Wolfe:

Sorry, that's not what that says.

Fox:

Well that's why I'm asking, is that -- is that --

Judge:

It says she had no further interactions with Mr. Fox. Okay.

Fox:

And -- and did not hear anything about him.

Wolfe:

Well, then the question really doesn't flow from that, because the question put to her was you heard nothing about or --

Fox:

Oh, it's right here. "I had no further interactions with this individual and did not hear anything about him until", okay.

Judge:

Okay, go ahead.

Fox:

So is that -- is that correct, that you received no communication or correspondence referencing or pertaining to me after March 15th until February 4th?

Polisak:

That's correct.

Fox:

Okay. Are you familiar with ATIP, A-T-I-P?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

And are you familiar with their policies when they receive a request for records that CBSA employees may have, say at a certain location, say at the Douglas Border Crossing, have you received any emails from the ATIP department in Ottawa relating to any ATIP requests that I had submitted? Any notices or emails?

Polisak:

Not that I can recall.

Fox:

Okay. And just so I'm clear, so I'm notmisunderstanding anything, no messages along the lines of "good morning, we have received the request for the following", blah-blah-blah, "please forward your responsive records to my email address within ten working days", et cetera, nothing like that?

Polisak:

I don't recall.

Fox:

All right.

Judge:

If you saw the email, would it -- if there was one, would that assist your memory?

Polisak:

It's possible.

Judge:

Okay. You're entitled to -- if there's a document that she can identify.

Fox:

No, not at this time.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

I mean, there is a document, but no, I don't wish to pursue that further, I received her response, I'm satisfied with it.

Judge:

Okay, go ahead.

Fox:

On March 15th, 2019, when I approached the counter, do you recall if I had a laptop bag with me? Or any kind of luggage or bag?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

Not necessarily -- it doesn't have to be specifically a laptop bag.

Polisak:

I don't recall.

Fox:

Okay. Do you recall me handing it to vou over the counter, and you holding it while I sat, and you did your investigation, that and my mobile phone?

Polisak:

I don't recall.

Fox:

Okay. Then I suspect I'm going to know the answer to this next question, but I'll ask just so it's been asked. Do you have any knowledge of any recording devices, and of course on my mobile phone that was also recording, but any digital recording devices in my laptop bag at that time that were recording the entire interaction?

Polisak:

I don't have knowledge of that.

Re: Caught Polisak lying

Polisak falsely claims that when she searched me in GCMS the only thing that came up was the Remarks field of the NCMS entry of the FOSS record. She repeatedly states she didn't see any of the other information or fields in the NCMS entry or the FOSS record. But then I point out to her that in her notes in GCMS she stated that the remarks were from the Edmonton CIC office and she couldn't have known they were from the Edmonton CIC office unless she had seen the other fields of the FOSS record. She said "That's right." I then said to her "So is it likely…you did actually see more of the information, not just the remarks, but you actually saw the information above it as well?" Polisak then says it could have been there, she just didn't put it in her notes so she doesn't currently recall if she saw it or not. To which I point out it IS in her notes - she explicitly states it in her notes! (p59l8-13)

Polisak has clearly and unequivocally been caught lying here! She consistently insisted she had not seen and did not even have access to any of the other fields of the FOSS record, namely the Country of Birth field, but this unquestionably proves she DID see and have access to the other information and fields in the FOSS record.

Fox:

Okay. Now, I've never used the GCMS before. When you -- the user interface for it, when you put in somebody's name, and it finds a match for somebody's name, and some -- I would presume some general information comes up, is that correct? Or can you -- can you describe for me what -- what comes up when you put somebody's name in there?

Polisak:

It depends if they are already in the system or not.

Fox:

Mm-hmm. Was I already in the system?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Do you remember what information came up?

Judge:

And which name are you referring to?

Polisak:

Richard Riess.

Judge:

Okay.

Polisak:

The FOSS note.

Fox:

That's it?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

So in the FOSS information that came up, you -- you said that the FOSS note, are you referring to the entire noncomputer-based entry or NCMS, or are you referring to just the remarks section of it?

Polisak:

The remarks section was the only part I remember looking at.

Fox:

Interesting. So the other information may or may not have come up? I mean in the noncomputer-based entry.

Polisak:

Yeah.

Fox:

Because there's remarks at the bottom, but there's also this other information?

Polisak:

Yeah. I don't -- I don't recall seeing that portion.

Fox:

Okay. However, you mentioned Edmonton CIC in your notes here, and Edmonton CIC is mentioned here, so I'm kind of inferring that you probably did see this other information, otherwise you wouldn't have known that the remarks came from the Edmonton CIC? Or am I incorrect in that?

Polisak:

Edmonton CIC was the one who made that note.

Fox:

Right. But what I mean is if you had seen only the remarks, the section down here?

Polisak:

Mm-hmm.

Fox:

Then you -- from that you wouldn't have been able to figure out that it was the Edmonton CIC, right? Unless you actually saw that, you know, the office note?

Polisak:

That's right.

Fox:

Okay. So is it likely then that you did actually see more of the information, not just the remarks, but you actually saw the information above it as well?

Polisak:

It could have been there, I just didn't put it in my notes so I don't currently recall if I saw that portion or not.

Fox:

No, no, but it is in your notes, that's what I'm saying, it says Edmonton CIC in your notes.

Polisak:

Right.

Fox:

Okay. I would like to propose a theory to you about what happened on that day, and possibly just get your opinion or your response to it. I would suggest that I presented myself to you at the secondary inspection counter, I had my laptop bag, I had my phone, gave you the laptop bag, handed you the phone, you made a comment about know you guys like --

Judge:

Okay --

Wolfe:

Just a moment.

Judge:

Just --

Wolfe:

That's far too complicated.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

Yes, just -- I understand what your approach -- your line of questioning now is to be suggestions, and that's fair, but make them short.

Fox:

Sure.

Judge:

So that you present a logical suggestion that is -- that the witness can, you know, agree with one idea at a time, because if you -- if you wrap it all up in a -- in ten things --

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

-- we don't know what -- what Ms. Polisak is -- is agreeing or disagreeing to.

So the first suggestion is that he presented himself to the -- to you at your -- at your desk, of course you agree with that?

Polisak:

That's correct.

Fox:

Good point.

Fox:

So I would suggest that I did present myself to you at the secondary inspection, I don't think there's any question there, you agree with that?

Polisak:

I agree.

Fox:

And after some back and forth, and I sat for 15 minutes or 20 minutes while you did your investigation, do you agree?

Wolfe:

I'm sorry, what is "back and forth"?

Fox:

Oh, communication back and forth.

Wolfe:

Well, specifically, if you want to -- if Mr. Fox wants specific answers, it's fair to the witness to have some specificity and not, you know, "back and forth".

Fox:

Okay. The -- what -- the details of this back and forth communication aren't really relevant to what I'm --

Wolfe:

Well then what's the point of talking about it?

Fox:

Fair enough.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

So I sat for 15, 20 minutes while you did the investigation?

Judge:

Do you agree with that part?

Polisak:

I can't give an exact time, but --

Fox:

I'm sorry, the amount of time I guess was not really important, for some time?

Judge:

Yes, just the fact that he sat down while you conducted an investigation.

Polisak:

I wouldn't call it an investigation, but --

Judge:

Made some inquiries, shall we say?

Polisak:

Correct.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

And then at some point I would say that you -- or I would suggest that you called me back to the counter, is that correct?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

And -- now, here's where I think there might be some disagreement, I would suggest that at that point you had said to me that based on the information available to you -- oh, let's stop for a second, let's take a step back, sorry.

During our interaction when we were discussing earlier, did I inform you that I had been convicted of criminal harassment in Canada?

Polisak:

I don't recall.

Fox:

Did you find that in the course of your inquiries?

Polisak:

I didn't write what your arrests had been in the U.S. or Canada, and I cannot recall what they were.

Fox:

Okay, let's be more generic then, did I inform you that I had been convicted of an indictable offence which, if I was -- well, an indictable offence?

Polisak:

I don't remember.

Fox:

Did I inform you that I had been convicted of a crime? Or did you find that in the course of your investigations?

Polisak:

When I looked up in CPIC, it said that you had had multiple arrests in Canada and U.S., and by you, I mean Riess and Fox.

Fox:

Me, the actual person as opposed to some possible person named Riess, I understand that.

Did I have any documents with me at that time that I presented to you? Particularly probation records.

Polisak:

I don't recall.

Fox:

Did I tell you that I was on probation?

Polisak:

I don't recall.

Fox:

Did I tell you that I was convicted of perjury in the United States, a felony?

Polisak:

I don't recall much of the specifics of our conversation. Besides my notes.

Fox:

Right. Okay. So then coming back from -- going back again to where we were after your inquiries were done, I went back up to the counter, what I would propose -- or suggest to you at this time is that you had said to me that based on the information and evidence available to you I would be inadmissible to Canada. Is that correct or no?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

Okay. Can you tell me what you did say?

Polisak:

In my notes I say [as read in]:

When informed since subject does not have proof of U.S. citizenship, and since he has been previously removed numerous times from the U.S., he is unlikely to be allowed entry.

Fox:

Is that it? Did you -- did you --

Judge:

Your answer was yes?

Polisak:

Yes.

Fox:

Oh.

Fox:

Did you explicitly state to me at that time that I was either admissible or not admissible to Canada?

Wolfe:

Sorry, can you ask that question again, please.

Fox:

Did you explicitly state to me at that time, after you had finished your investigation or inquiries, that I was either admissible or not admissible to Canada? Explicitly, preferably in very similar wording to that.

Polisak:

I don't recall specifics, but all Canadians are admissible to Canada.

Fox:

Did you state that based on the information available to you at that time that you had determined that I am a Canadian citizen, and therefore would be admissible?

Polisak:

I don't know in those words particularly, but I believe I would have told you the outcome of what I gained through looking through our systems, and that you were a Canadian.

I ask Polisak if she had stated to me that based on the information available to her at that time that she had determined I am a Canadian citizen and therefore would be admissible. She said she doesn't know in those words in particular, but that she would have told me that after checking their systems I am a Canadian.

Two things are significant here:

Polisak did not state, in her notes in GCMS, that I am a Canadian citizen. She only stated that it could not be confirmed I am NOT a Canadian citizen. If she had, in fact, believed I was a Canadian citizen, I would think she would have mentioned that in her notes.
The documents I had in court, which are the same systems Polisak looked at, all clearly state I was born in the USA, and if I was born in the US then I am a US citizen, not a Canadian citizen. So how can her response possibly be true?

Fox:

Okay. And so would you have said that I am a Canadian, or that somebody named Riess who was born in Sudbury was a Canadian?

Judge:

Okay, that's a difficult question to answer, isn't it? Because she doesn't know who you are other than what you told her.

Fox:

That's kind of the kicker here.

Wolfe:

Well, I don't --

Fox:

A person shows up at the border, the authorities have no idea who the person really is, but then they're just going to go welcome to Canada, come on in?

Wolfe:

Well, that's never been her evidence that they had no idea. Her evidence has actually been given [indiscernible], we have her documents in front of the court now. What -- I think that's [indiscernible] the witness's evidence, it's actually a misrepresentation of her evidence thus far.

Judge:

Yes, fair.

Fox:

We have her notes here where she refers to me consistently as "the subject", except in a few particular parts where she names me as -- or names the party as "Riess".

Judge:

No, Mr. Fox --

Fox:

-- that's why I was trying to clarify.

Judge:

-- the -- the -- I think we've gone over that --

Fox:

Okay, we have.

Judge:

-- the portions that -- that -- where she names it as "subject" is when you walked in, "a subject came up to me", and then there's -- and then there's some inquiries made.

Fox:

But even after, she uses the names Fox and Riess, and then again "subject states he was born Fox".

Judge:

Yes, she's -- she's advising what you told her.

Fox:

[As read in]:

At this point it cannot be confirmed that subject is not a Canadian and his explanation of stealing Riess's identity cannot be confirmed.

In Polisak's declaration, she stated under oath, that it could not be confirmed I am not a Canadian. It did not state that it had been confirmed that I AM a Canadian. If it had been confirmed that I am a Canadian citizen then it would not be necessary to explicitly state that it has not been confirmed that I am NOT. This proves that at the time of our interaction it was not known by Polisak whether or not I was a Canadian citizen.

And then again:

Subject has been in contact with IRCC.

So I was just trying to get an understanding of if she was differentiating me, a person who maybe CBSA wasn't really certain of who I was --

Judge:

Well, you can ask Ms. Polisak what was -- did you have any opinion or belief as to the name of the individual or the -- that you were dealing with at the time?

Polisak:

On March 15th, 2019, I believed Fox/Riess, and subject, I was all -- always explaining the same person in my narrative.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

Okay. Sorry, I'm just recounting in my head what we've already covered, I don't want to ask the same questions again.

Polisak:

Could I have some water, please? Thank you. Thank you.

Fox:

Okay, so then after that point, where you had said -- I can't remember how you had phrased it a few moments ago -- oh, you essentially read from your…

That -- something about a Canadian would always be admissible to Canada or something. And then was there anything further that was said? For example, did I say that it was my intention, regardless of whatever fuight happen there, to present myself to CBP on the U.S. side?

Polisak:

In my notes I say -- well, you say subject entered -- or I say, sorry [as read in]:

Subject entered office from within Canada and stated he wanted to go back to the U.S.A.

And then at the end, after I explained that -- so:

When informed subject does not…

…does not have proof of U.S. citizenship, and since he has been previously removed numerous times from the U.S.A., he is unlikely to be allowed entry. He says he is hoping to get detained because he will refuse to be removed and then he can sort all this out and prove that he is in fact Fox, a U.S. citizen, and stole Riess's identity at some point in the past.

Fox:

So then did I leave after that point?

Polisak:

You left the office. I don't know if it was exactly after that point, but…

Fox:

Okay. Did you contact CBP after -- at that point?

Polisak:

Not that I recall.

Fox:

Oh. Did you send any kind of notification to them that a person might potentially be on their way?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

Isn't that the standard procedure?

Polisak:

If we're refusing somebody that is high risk, we do potentially, but it's not standard procedure.

Fox:

Did I show you a copy of my Florida birth certificate during all of this interaction? Wait, wait, hang on, maybe I shouldn't ask that. Actually, I guess that -- yeah, that would be reasonable to ask because it would have been something that may have occurred during our interaction.

Polisak:

I don't recall.

Fox:

Okay. And I would have -- would I have walked out the same doors I came in, which are to the north?

Wolfe:

Sorry, the question should be "did I walk out" not "would I".

Judge:

You can give, yes, evidence that you saw him walking out, or if there's only one entrance in and out, you can --

Polisak:

There is.

Judge:

-- do you have any evidence on that?

Polisak:

There is only one public entrance in and out of the building, it's on the north side of the building.

Judge:

Thank you.

Fox:

All right, I was not asking whether or not she saw me walking out, that was a given, it was whether I was walk -- I walked out the same door as I came in?

Polisak:

Correct.

Fox:

And did you see where I went or what I did after I walked out?

Polisak:

I did not.

Fox:

Did you see who I interacted with after I walked out?

Polisak:

I did not.

Fox:

Did you see a CBSA officer outside the building interacting with me and then walking with me beyond that point?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

Okay.

Polisak:

There is an officer that stands outside.

Fox:

Yes.

Polisak:

For X amount of hours of the day to point traffic in the right direction, and answer questions to people who may be entering the office, but that position can't go anywhere, it has tc stay there for their hour.

Fox:

Mm-hmm. Are you familiar with a Shan-Marie Pereira?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

Believe it or not, I think I might be at the end of my questions.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

I'm just giving a quick look over --

Judge:

Yes, sure.

Fox:

-- just to be sure I didn't miss something.

Judge:

While you're doing that, why don't we mark the exhibits, Madam Registrar. The declaration I can -- I guess can be the next exhibit, I'm not surs where we're at.

Clerk:

That would be Exhibit 12.

Judge:

12, okay, declaration Exhibit 12.

EXHIBIT 12: 1 page - "Declaration" by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, report written by Meagan Polisak #35596

Judge:

And the other package of materials, which I guess we'll call Canada Border Services documents is 13.

Wolfe:

Sorry, did you say 12 is the stat dee?

Judge:

Yes.

Wolfe:

And 13 is just this compendium of documents being labelled as --

Judge:

As 13, that's right, all of them stapled together as they are, yes. So that can be 13.

EXHIBIT 13: 15 pages - Canada Border Services documents re Patrick Henry Fox

Fox:

There is one and a half other questions that I'd like to ask.

Judge:

Sure.

Fox:

First, does CBSA have access to the records of specific police agencies, for example the Toronto Police Department, when you're researching someone? Kind of like how you would have access to the RCMP's records.

Polisak:

Can you be more specific to records?

Fox:

Oh, say like arrest or criminal history records? The records that, say for example, the Toronto Police might have about somebody?

Polisak:

If they're in CPIC.

Fox:

Do you mean that if there's a corresponding entry in CPIC relating to a particular arrest from the Toronto Police that you would then have access to the Toronto Police records?

Polisak:

It's just what is in the IBQ system, and that's in C -- I don't really now how to explain this.

Judge:

I guess the question is, do you -- is it just the sort of federal databases you have access to, or do you have access to provincial police databases, or municipal police databases?

Polisak:

We can see if people have been arrested in Canada.

Fox:

Okay.

Fox:

Do you have access to mugshots associated with arrests of such people?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

All right. Were you aware that there was an arrest for a person named Riess in Toronto in 1992?

Polisak:

I was not.

Fox:

All right. And it goes without saying that you have not seen a mugshot of that person, I assume?

Polisak:

No.

Fox:

All right, I'm done.

Judge:

Thanks, Mr. Fox.

Mr. Wolfe, do you want to -- how long do you think you --

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible/not at microphone] if we could take the break?

Judge:

Take the break?

Wolfe:

And then I'll have redirect.

Judge:

Okay, Ms. Polisak, we'll take the afternoon break, and then Mr. Wolfe may have a few questions in redirect for you. All right.

Polisak:

Yeah.

Judge:

And you'll be finished today in any event.

Polisak:

Sorry?

Judge:

You'll be finished today in any event.

Polisak:

Okay. What time would you like me back here?

Judge:

Oh, about 20 minutes or so. Thank you.

Clerk:

Order in court. All rise.

(WITNESS STOOD DOWN)

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR AFTERNOON RECESS)

(PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED)

Judge:

Okay, thank you. We'll have Ms. Polisak back in, thanks.

Wolfe:

Actually, I don't have any questions.

Judge:

Okay. I'll just have her back in to release her then.

Judge:

Is she out there, Mr. Sheriff?

Sheriff:

Yes, she's coming.

MEAGAN POLISAK,

recalled.

Judge:

Yes, you can -- you can probably stay there, Ms. Polisak, we're just determining whether we -- whether counsel has any questions for you.

Wolfe:

Yes, after reviewing my notes, Your Honour, I don't.

Judge:

Okay. All right, Ms. Polisak, thanks -- thanks for coming.

Polisak:

Thank you.

Judge:

And you're free to go now if you want.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)

Judge:

Okay.

Wolfe:

Nothing further from the Crown.

Judge:

All right, thanks. So Exhibit 12 and 13 have been entered here. The CBSA documents.

Okay, now the Crown's case is closed now, mark that for the record, thanks.

So that's the case for the Crown, Mr. Fox, at this point in time I'm obliged to ask you whether there is any evidence that you wish to -- to proffer on behalf of the defence, it can be yourself, it can be other evidence. Do you have any evidence?

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

I intend to testify, and I'm also going to have supporting documents that I will be providing to support that testimony.

Judge:

Okay. Well, we'll get to the admissibility of those documents I guess as they -- as we go along. The -- do you want to testify, that's your decision then?

Fox:

Mm-hmm.

Judge:

Okay. So we've got some time left in the day, why don't you come on up.

Fox:

I would like to ask though that rather than starting testifying at this point of the day, since I've been up at five o'clock in the morning in the holding cells --

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

-- is there any chance we could start that Friday morning?

Judge:

Yes.

Fox:

Since we're scheduled for Friday morning anyway.

Judge:

Okay, we've got -- we've got the full day Friday?

Wolfe:

We do.

Judge:

Okay. Do you have any sense of how long you may take to tell your story or your -- your evidence?

Fox:

Fifteen to 20 minutes, and then whatever Mr. Wolfe will take to cross me.

Judge:

Okay. Okay. Well then in that case, I think that the request should be granted, I guess, in that case.

Wolfe:

Twenty minutes?

Fox:

Is that long, I don't know.

Wolfe:

No, no, it's your ball to play with, I just want to be sure you're --

Judge:

He's skeptical.

Fox:

It's just --

Judge:

But -- but, you know, you're going to take as long as you take, we just want to get a ballpark figure. You're just saying you're not going to be days and days and days, you're going to be -- you're going to be 20 minutes to half an hour or whatever.

Fox:

Right, because it's my understanding that I would be constraining myself to the events that occurred on March 15th, 2019.

Judge:

Yes, essentially. Or to -- to --

Wolfe:

Well, there's a second date, there's the 19th [indiscernible/not at microphone].

Judge:

There's the -- yes --

Fox:

Obviously, I'm not even going to bother testifying about that, I was out of the country, in custody of [indiscernible/voices overlapping] --

Wolfe:

[Indiscernible/voices overlapping].

Judge:

Okay, so basically you're testifying -- giving relevant evidence on the essential elements of the -- of the case.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

Of the charges that are against you.

Okay. So Friday we can start, yes.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

9:30. That will give us enough time to complete t:he entirety of the case, I think. And then I might even have some time to…

Fox:

So should I assume that we would be doing the closing arguments on Friday as well then?

Judge:

You should assume thar.

Fox:

Okay. And about printing those documents, should I talk about that Friday morning or?

Wolfe:

Honestly, Your Honour, I don't know what the documents are, I don't know how voluminous they are, I don't know if they're admissible. There are some important issues that might arise depending on what I see.

Judge:

You've seen some of them, have you, Mr. Wolfe?

Wolfe:

No.

Judge:

No, you haven't, okay. So the -- well, the relevancy of these documents will be something that will be in issue, I suppose.

Fox:

Well, I'm sure that Mr. Wolfe is going to challenge the relevancy of them, and then he will challenge the authenticity of them, I am sure.

Judge:

All right, well you might want to -- just if you have some time to look up some suggestions on how you can -- on how you should be dealing with documentary evidence --

Fox:

I would --

Judge:

-- that doesn't emanate from your hand.

Fox:

Yeah, I would have absolutely no way to do that at North Fraser.

Judge:

Okay.

Fox:

If Mr. Wolfe and the court oppose them then they just won't go in.

Judge:

Well, we'll -- obviously we'll --

Fox:

I don't mean that in a condescending or a sarcastic way.

Judge:

No, I know, our goal is to obviously provide a fair trial in accordance with laws as they exist, and we don't always get it right, but we do our best, So -- and that's what we'll do on Friday, Okay. We're adjourned then to Friday.

Now, these are documents -- are they -- are they government created --

Fox:

Yes.

Judge:

-- are they government agency created documents?

Fox:

Yes, there's some police records and a couple of CPIC reports, I believe a mugshot.

Judge:

Okay. And you can -- you've -- and you've heard our discussions over the last days about, you know, the issues that are to be determined.

Fox:

Yeah.

Judge:

And the relevancy of things. Okay. Well, we'll have to --

Fox:

Now, obviously some of the testimony I'm going to provide is going to be intended to rebut some of what Officer Polisak said.

Judge:

Yes, I expected that.

Fox:

Which is why I need, for example, the mugshot and the CPIC reports to refute those kindsof claims that she was making.

Judge:

Well, she said -- yes, she said she didn't see any mugshot or --

Fox:

Oh, right, right, but --

Wolfe:

She said she didn't recall --

Judge:

Or she didn't recall seeing them.

Wolfe:

-- which is different than saying sayingshe never saw them, right.

Judge:

That's right, she said she didn't recall that.

Fox:

Right.

Judge:

So I think the essence of her evidence is really what she recalled the most of is -- is based on -- her recollection is really just -- any memory she has is generated by her notes, and they're -- to the limited extent that they are.

Fox:

Okay.

Judge:

Okay. All right, Well, I guess we'll find out on Friday.

Wolfe:

Are we in this courtroom?

Clerk:

Yes.

Judge:

That's what I was just going to ask. We are?

Clerk:

We are in this courtroom.

Judge:

All right, let's adjourn directly then to this -- this courtroom.

Wolfe:

Yes, pJease, thank you.

Judge:

Okay. See you then. Okay.

Clerk:

Order in court. All rise.

(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO MARCH 6, 2020, AT 9:30 A.M. FOR CONTINUATION)

Transcriber: C. Jones, A. Castle