HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

- and -
RAYMOND JOSEPH CORMIER,

Accused.

Queen’s Bench File No. CR 17-01-35830

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION 1

DUTIES OF JUDGE AND JURY 4

IRRELEVANCE OF OUTSIDE INFORMATION 6

IRRELEVANCE OF PREJUDICE AND SYMPATHY 7

IRRELEVANCE OF PUNISHMENT 8

JURORS’ APPROACH TO TASK 8

FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS 10

PROCEDURE FOR QUESTIONS 10

JUDGE’S REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON EVIDENCE 11

REQUIREMENTS FOR A VERDICT 12

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE 14
BURDEN OF PROOF 15

REASONABLE DOUBT 16

ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE 18

EVIDENCE DEFINED 22

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 24

EXHIBITS 29

EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE 30

ADMISSIONS AND AGREED STATEMENTS OF FACT 46

PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF ANY WITNESSES

THAT MAY HAVE TESTIFIED 47

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS OF WITNESSES 48

AUDIO RECORDINGS AND TRANSCRIPTS 49

THE OUT-OF-COURT COMMENTS, THE POLICE VIDEO

STATEMENT, AND THE BODY PAK AND PROBE
INTERCEPTIONS OF RAYMOND CORMIER 51

PROHIBITION AGAINST USING CERTAIN EVIDENCE

INCLUDING RAYMOND CORMIER’S PREVIOUS ARRESTS,
OUTSTANDING WARRANTS OR TIME IN CUSTODY 78

WITNESSES REQUIRING SPECIAL INSTRUCTION 79

ANTE-MORTEM STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS OF THE

DECEASED TINA FONTAINE 93
POST OFFENCE/AFTER THE FACT CONDUCT 96

MOTIVE 104

SECOND DEGREE MURDER 107

POSITIONS OF THE CROWN AND THE DEFENCE 144

USE OF VERDICT SHEET 151

USE OF DECISION TREE 152

RETURN OF VERDICT 154

USE OF JUROR NOTES DURING DELIBERATIONS 155

JUROR CONDUCT DURING DELIBERATIONS 156

REQUIREMENTS FOR A VERDICT 158

QUESTIONS DURING DELIBERATIONS 159

FINAL REMARKS 160

 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
RAYMOND JOSEPH CORMIER,

Accused.

Queen’s Bench File No. CR 17-01-35830

______________________________________________
FINAL INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY

INTRODUCTION

You will soon leave this courtroom and start discussing this
case in your jury room. It is now time for me to tell you about
the law you must follow in making your decision.

When we started this case, and at different times during the

trial, I told you about several rules of law that apply in general,
or to some of the evidence as it was received. Those instructions
still apply.
 Now I am going to give you some more instructions. These
instructions will cover a number of topics. Consider them as a
whole. Do not single out some as more important and pay less
or no attention to others. All are equally important, unless I tell
you otherwise.

First, I will explain your duties as jurors, and tell you about
the general rules of law that apply to all jury cases.

Second, I will advise you of the specific rules of law that

govern this case and the evidence that you have heard.

Next, I will explain what Crown counsel must prove beyond

a reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of Raymond Cormier,
and tell you about the other issues that arise on the evidence
you have heard.

Then, I will discuss the issues that you need to decide and
then review for you some of the evidence that relates to those
issues. By doing this, I hope I can help you recall the evidence
and understand how it relates to the issues that you will be asked
to decide. You must always keep in mind, however, that to
decide this case, you rely on what you remember the evidence
was, not what counsel or I say it was.

After that, I will briefly summarize the positions that

counsel have put forward in their closing addresses.

Finally, I will explain what verdicts you may return and how
you should approach your discussion of the case in your jury
room.

It is important that you listen very carefully to all these

instructions. I am giving them to help you make a decision, not
to tell you what decision to make.
DUTIES OF JUDGE AND JURY

In every criminal jury trial, there are two judges. I am one.

You are the other.

As judge of the law, it is my duty to preside over the trial. I

decide what evidence the law permits you to hear and consider,
and what procedure we will follow in the case. Now, at the end
of the evidence and addresses, it is my job to explain to you the
rules of law that you must follow and apply to make your
decision.

As judges of the facts, your first duty is to decide what are

the facts in this case. You make that decision from all the
evidence given during the trial. There will be no more evidence.
You consider nothing else. You are entitled to come to common
sense conclusions based on the evidence that you accept. You
must not speculate, however, about what evidence there might
have been or permit yourselves to guess or make up theories
without evidence to support them.
 Deciding the facts is your job, not mine. Our law does
permit me to comment or express opinions about issues of fact.
If I do that, however, you do not have to agree with me. You, not
I, decide what happened in this case.

The evidence does not have to answer every question

raised in this case. It would be an unusual case indeed in which
a jury could say: “We now know everything there is to know
about this case”. You only have to decide those matters that are
essential in order for you to say whether the charge has been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your second duty is to accept all the rules of law that I tell
you apply in this case. Even if you disagree with or do not
understand the reasons for the law, you are required to follow
what I say about it. You are not allowed to pick and choose
amongst my instructions on the law. You must not consult other
sources or substitute your own views.
 If I make a mistake about the law, justice can still be done
in this case. The court clerk/monitor records everything I say.
The Court of Appeal can correct my mistakes. But justice will not
be done if you wrongly apply the law. Your decisions are secret.
You do not give reasons. No one keeps a record of your
discussions for the Court of Appeal to review. As a result, it is
very important that you accept the law from me and follow it
without question.

Finally, after I have explained it, it is your duty to apply the

relevant law to the facts that you find to reach your verdict.

IRRELEVANCE OF OUTSIDE INFORMATION

You must disregard completely any radio, television,

newspaper accounts or Internet information you have heard,
seen or read about this case, or about any of the persons or
places involved or mentioned in it. Those reports, and any other
information about the case from outside the courtroom, are not
evidence.

It would not be fair to decide this case on the basis of any

information not introduced or tested by the parties in court and
made part of the evidence at trial. You, not the media or anyone
else, are the only judges of the facts.

IRRELEVANCE OF PREJUDICE AND SYMPATHY

You must consider the evidence and make your decision

without sympathy, prejudice or fear. You must not be influenced
by public opinion. We expect and are entitled to your impartial
assessment of the evidence.
IRRELEVANCE OF PUNISHMENT

Punishment has nothing to do with your task, which is to

determine whether Crown counsel has proven Raymond
Cormier guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Punishment has no
place in your discussions or in your decision. If you find Raymond
Cormier guilty of an offence, it is my job, not yours, to decide
what punishment is appropriate.

JURORS’ APPROACH TO TASK

When you go to your jury room to begin your discussions, it

is very important that no one starts off by telling everybody else
that he or she has already made up his or her mind and will not
change it, whatever anyone else may say. That is not the way to
decide a case.

As jurors, it is your duty to talk with and listen to one

another. Discuss the evidence. Put forward your own views.
Listen to what others have to say. Try to reach an agreement, if
you can.

Each of you has to decide the case for yourself. You should
only do so, however, after you have considered the evidence
with your fellow jurors and applied the law that I have explained
to you.

Remember, while you must be unanimous, you do not all

have to come to your conclusion using the same reasoning.

During your discussions, do not hesitate to re-consider your

own opinions. Change your mind, if you find that you are wrong.
Do not give up your honest beliefs, however, just because others
think differently. Do not change your mind only to get the case
over with.

Your only responsibility is to determine whether Crown

counsel has proven Raymond Cormier guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Your contribution to the administration of
criminal justice is a just and proper verdict. We ask for nothing
more. We are entitled to nothing less.

FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS

At the end of these instructions, the lawyers may persuade

me there is something else I should tell you. I may have made a
mistake, or left something out. Perhaps what I have said could
be stated more clearly to help you understand it better. Unless
I tell you otherwise, do not consider any further instructions I
may give you to be any more or less important than anything else
I have said about the law. All the legal instructions, whenever
they may be given, are part of the same package.

PROCEDURE FOR QUESTIONS

If, during your discussions, you have any questions, please

put them in writing and give them to the sheriff’s officer who will
be outside the door of your jury room. The sheriff’s officer will
bring the questions to me. I will discuss them with the lawyers.
You will then be brought back into the courtroom. Your
questions will be repeated, and I will answer them to whatever
extent the law allows. I will reply to your questions as quickly as
I can.

We ask that you put your questions in writing so that we

understand exactly what it is that you want done or answered.
In that way, we hope that we can be more accurate and helpful
in our reply.

JUDGE’S REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON EVIDENCE

It is my duty to review what I think are the important parts

of the evidence, and to relate it to the issues that are yours to
decide. In doing that, I may overlook evidence you think
important, or mention evidence you think is insignificant. I may
make a mistake about what a witness said while testifying. You
should know that I do not intend to review all of the evidence.
The evidence should still be fresh in your minds.

My references to the evidence that I do mention are only to

help you remember it, and to show you how it relates to the
issues in this case. If my memory of the evidence is different
from yours, it’s yours that counts. You find the facts and base
your decision on your memory of the evidence, not mine, nor
that of counsel.

Our law also permits me to comment or express opinions

about issues of fact. If I do that, however, you do not have to
reach the same conclusion. You, not I, decide what happened in
this case.

REQUIREMENTS FOR A VERDICT

To return an effective verdict in this case requires that all of

you agree on your decision. A verdict, whether of guilty or not
guilty, is the unanimous opinion of the whole jury.
 There are times, however, when a jury is unable to reach a
verdict. Jurors have the right to disagree.

You should make every reasonable effort, however, to

reach a verdict. Consult with one another. Express your own
views. Listen to the views of others. Discuss your differences
with an open mind. Try your best to decide this case.

Everyone should give fair, impartial and equal consideration

to all the evidence. Your goal should be to reach an agreement
that matches the individual judgment of each juror. You must
not agree, however, only for the purpose of returning a
unanimous verdict.

If you reach a unanimous verdict, your foreperson should

record it on your verdict sheet and notify the sheriff’s officer.
We will come back into court to receive it. Your foreperson will
tell us your verdict in the courtroom.
 If you cannot reach a unanimous verdict, you should notify
the sheriff’s officer in writing. The sheriff’s officer will bring me
your message. I will discuss what has happened with Crown and
defence counsel. We will then return to the courtroom to see
what we should do next.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

Raymond Cormier is presumed to be innocent, unless and

until Crown counsel has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.

The indictment on which you are trying Raymond Cormier

is only a formal accusation or charge. It tells Raymond Cormier,
as it tells you, what specific crime Crown counsel alleges that
Raymond Cormier committed. The charge is not evidence. It is
not proof of guilt.

The presumption of innocence means that Raymond

Cormier started the trial as an innocent person. The
presumption stays with him throughout the case, including your
deliberations at the end of the trial. It is only defeated if and
when Crown counsel satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt
that Raymond Cormier is guilty of the crime charged.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Raymond Cormier does not have to present evidence or

prove anything in this case, in particular that he is innocent of
the crime charged.

From start to finish, it is Crown counsel who must prove

Raymond Cormier guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is Crown
counsel who must prove Raymond Cormier’ guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, not Raymond Cormier who must prove his
innocence. You must find Raymond Cormier not guilty of second
degree murder unless Crown counsel satisfies you beyond a
reasonable doubt that he is guilty of it.
REASONABLE DOUBT

The phrase, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, is a very

important part of our criminal justice system.

A reasonable doubt is not a far-fetched or frivolous doubt.

It is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice. It is a doubt
based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically
arises from the evidence, or the lack of evidence. It is a doubt
about an essential element charged.

It is not enough for you to believe that Raymond Cormier is

probably or likely guilty. In those circumstances, you must find
him not guilty, because Crown counsel would have failed to
satisfy you of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of
probable or likely guilty is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.

You should also remember, however, that it is nearly

impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. Crown
counsel is not required to do so. Absolute certainty is a standard
of proof that is impossibly high, and it does not exist in law.

If, at the end of the case, after considering all the evidence,
you are sure that Raymond Cormier committed the offence, you
should find Raymond Cormier guilty of it, since you would have
been satisfied of his guilt of that offence beyond a reasonable
doubt.

If, at the end of the case, based on all of the evidence or the
lack of evidence, you are not sure that Raymond Cormier
committed the offence charged, you should find him not guilty.

Please remember that the standard of proof encompassed

in the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” applies only to the
essential elements that must be proven by the Crown. It does
not apply as you are weighing and assessing individual pieces of
evidence.
ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE

To make your decision, you should consider carefully, and

with an open mind, all the evidence presented during the trial.
It will be up to you to decide how much or little you will believe
and rely upon the testimony of any witness. You may believe
some, none or all of it.

When you go to your jury room to consider the case, use

the same common sense that you use every day in deciding
whether people know what they are talking about and whether
they are telling the truth. There is no magic formula for deciding
how much or how little to believe of a witness’ testimony or how
much to rely on it in deciding this case. But here are a few
questions you might keep in mind during your discussions.

Did the witness seem honest? Is there any reason why the
witness would not be telling the truth?
 Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case,
or any reason to give evidence that is more favourable to one
side than to the other?

Did the witness seem able to make accurate and complete

observations about the event? Did he or she have a good
opportunity to do so? What were the circumstances in which
the observation was made? What was the condition of the
witness? Was the event itself unusual or routine?

Did the witness seem to have a good memory? Does the

witness have any reason to remember the things about which he
or she testified? Did any inability or difficulty that the witness
had in remembering events seem genuine, or did it seem made
up as an excuse to avoid answering questions?

Did the witness seem to be reporting to you what he or she

saw or heard, or simply putting together an account based on
information obtained from other sources, rather than personal
observation?

Did the witness’ testimony seem reasonable and consistent

as he or she gave it? Is it similar to or different from what other
witnesses said about the same events? Did the witness say or
do something different on an earlier occasion?

Do any inconsistencies in the witness’ evidence make the

main points of the testimony more or less believable and
reliable? Is the inconsistency about something important, or a
minor detail? Does it seem like an honest mistake? Is it a
deliberate lie? Is the inconsistency because the witness said
something different, or because he or she failed to mention
something? Is there any explanation for it? Does the
explanation make sense?

What was the witness’ manner when he or she testified?

How did he or she appear to you? Do not jump to conclusions,
however, based entirely on how a witness has testified. Looks
can be deceiving. Giving evidence in a trial is not a common
experience for many witnesses. People react and appear
differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds. They
have different abilities, values and life experiences. There are
simply too many variables to make the manner in which a
witness testifies the only or most important factor in your
decision.

These are only some of the factors that you might keep in
mind when you go to your jury room to make your decision.
These factors might help you decide how much or little you will
believe of and rely upon a witness’ evidence. You may consider
other factors as well.

In making your decision, do not consider only the testimony

of the witnesses. Take into account, as well, any exhibits that
have been filed. Decide how much or little you will rely on them,
as well as the testimony and any admissions, to help you decide
this case.

EVIDENCE DEFINED

To decide what the facts are in this case, you must consider
only the evidence that you saw and heard in the courtroom.
Consider all the evidence in reaching your decision.

The evidence includes what each witness said in answering

the questions the lawyers asked. The questions themselves are
not evidence unless the witness agreed that what was asked was
correct. The answers of the witness are his or her evidence.

The evidence also includes any things that were made

exhibits. When you go to your jury room to decide this case, the
exhibits go with you. Consider them along with the rest of the
evidence and in exactly the same way.
 The evidence also includes the facts on which the parties
have agreed. You must take what they have agreed on as facts
in this case.

As I explained to you earlier, there are some things that are

not evidence. You must not consider or rely upon them to decide
this case.

The charge that you heard read out when we started this
case is not evidence. What the lawyers and I said when we spoke
to you during the trial, including what I am saying to you now, is
not evidence. Only the exhibits and the things witnesses say are
evidence.

Sometimes during the trial, one of the lawyers objected to

a question that another asked a witness. Anything the lawyers
said in making or answering the objection is not evidence. You
must also take nothing from the fact that objection was taken,
or that you were excluded when I made a decision about the
objection.

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

At the beginning of this trial, I explained to you the terms

“direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence”. I told you then
as I will tell you now, that you may believe or rely upon either
one as much or as little as the other in deciding this case.

You heard me say in these opening remarks, that

sometimes, witnesses tell us what they personally saw or heard.
For example, a witness might say that he or she saw it raining
outside. That is called direct evidence.

I also explained, however, that witnesses say things from

which you are asked to draw certain inferences. For example, a
witness might say that he or she had seen someone enter the
courthouse lobby wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella,
both dripping wet. If you believed that witness, you might infer
that it was raining outside, even though the evidence was
indirect, because it would be a logical inference from a proven
fact.

Like witnesses, things filed as exhibits may provide direct or

circumstantial evidence.

In making your decision, both kinds of evidence count. The

law treats both equally. Neither is necessarily better or worse
than the other. In each case, your job is to decide what
conclusions you will reach based upon the evidence as a whole,
both direct and circumstantial. To make your decision, use your
common sense and experience.

As it relates to inferences, when considering what may be

the available circumstantial evidence, please remember the
difference between “inference” and “speculation”. “Inference”
is a permissible deduction that may be logically and reasonably
drawn from a fact or group of facts that you find have been
proved at this trial. There can be no permissible inference
without you first finding objective facts from which to infer the
facts that a given party, either the Crown or the defence, seek to
establish. If there are no such proven facts from which an
inference may be drawn, there can be no inference, only
impermissible speculation and conjecture.

Although this case contains direct evidence in what the

Crown alleges are admissions to the offence by the accused, it
also contains much circumstantial evidence. Remember what I
just instructed you, both types of evidence count.

In a case like the present, where much of the evidence of

the prosecution is circumstantial, the accused, Mr. Cormier,
should only be found guilty if you are satisfied that the guilt of
Mr. Cormier is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the
whole of the evidence. In a case where the Crown, in part, may
rely upon circumstantial evidence, a gap in the evidence may
result in inferences other than guilt. But those inferences must
be reasonable, based not on speculation, but rather, on the
evidence and the absence of evidence as assessed logically and
in light of human experience and common sense. But please
remember, your consideration and your deliberations must be
conducted on the basis of the “whole” of the evidence. Your
verdict must not be reached on the basis of facts examined in
isolation or separately. Instead, it is the cumulative effect of all
of the evidence, the whole of the evidence, that must meet the
standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not each
individual item of evidence.

In instructing you about how the evidence is to be assessed

and what is and what is not evidence, I have already reminded
you that questions themselves are not evidence unless adopted
by a witness. I remind you as well that you must consider
carefully the question posed and the specific answer given by a
witness.
 For example, where a question is posed to a witness asking
him or her whether something is possible, and where, in such a
case, you find that the witness honestly answered that
something is “possible” or a “possibility”, you must remember
that the mere suggestion contained in the question and the
answer given, is not itself affirmative evidence that the
possibility is anything more than that, a possibility. Such a
response to such a question, means only that what has been
proposed, is possible; it means nothing more and nothing less.
When that type of answer is given in the absence of any other
evidence, it will be for you to determine, how, if at all, it will
affect your determination respecting whether, on the whole of
the evidence, the Crown has established the accused’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind my earlier caution to you that speculation and

conjecture must be avoided and that your verdict must be based
only on the evidence or the absence of evidence.
EXHIBITS

Several exhibits have been presented during this trial. They

are part of the evidence. You may rely upon them, like any other
evidence, as much or as little as you think fit when you decide
this case. There is however one particular exhibit, Exhibit 45, the
transcript of the intercepts from Project STYX, that requires a
particular instruction. I will provide more in that regard when I
instruct you on the audio recordings as it relates to those
intercepts. Put simply, while the transcript is marked as an
Exhibit, the transcript is only an aid to help you follow the
recordings as they are played.

As I said at the beginning of the trial, the exhibits go with

you to your jury room. You may, but do not have to, examine all
of them.

The exhibits are only part of the evidence. Consider them

along with the rest of the evidence, and in exactly the same way.
 The exhibits must be considered together with all of the
evidence. Any determination you make with respect to the
exhibits and their impact upon your ultimate verdict, must come
after you have considered all of the evidence, the whole of the
evidence, however circumstantial. I repeat, your verdict must
not be reached on the basis of facts examined in isolation or
separately. Instead, it is the cumulative effect of all of the
evidence, the whole of the evidence that must meet the
standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not each
individual item of evidence.

EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE

In this trial, you heard the evidence of expert witnesses.

Sometimes, knowledge of a technical subject may help

jurors decide a case. Persons who are qualified in that subject,
by education, training or experience, may state their opinions
about the subject. They may also give reasons for their opinion.
 In this case you heard a number of such witnesses. I will
now identify and very briefly review some of their evidence.

You heard the testimony of Officer Kevin Pawl of the

Winnipeg Police Service. He was presented by the Crown as an
expert in underwater search and recovery. He was called to give
an opinion as to how long Tina Fontaine had likely been in the
water. You will recall how he spoke about variables and the
reasons why he cannot be precise in his opinion. He nonetheless
explained that a full body float usually takes seven to 10 days and
that after he examined the autopsy photos in this case, in his
opinion those photos suggest the body had been in the water for
at least one week. He testified that while the weight of the rocks
were insufficient to keep the body submerged indefinitely, the
rocks would delay the resurfacing and as well, the body would
have also had to break free from the suction of the muddy water
and what can be the entanglements of the river. Officer Pawl
cannot say where the body was placed when it entered the
water.

Mr. Christopher Keddy testified as a civilian member of the

RCMP. He testified as an expert in toxicology. He gave an
opinion with respect to the analysis of toxins in Tina Fontaine’s
body and the interpretation of the toxicology results.

Mr. Keddy testified that no drugs, no poisons and no toxins

were detected at potentially fatal levels. He did note that there
was an alcohol level of .099. However, that level may not
accurately reflect the alcohol level at the time of death as it can
be expected that there would be a higher level of concentration
of alcohol in the chest cavity fluid than in the blood and that
putrification is present and it commonly adds to alcohol levels.
Mr. Keddy cannot say how much if any concentration was
affected by putrification. He noted that the concentration of
alcohol at the time of death could have been higher, the same or
lower. Mr. Keddy testified that the marihuana level in Tina
Fontaine was high but not fatal either by itself or in combination.
There was no meth, no cocaine, nor was there any Percocet
present. Mr. Keddy further testified that no gabapentin was
found although he acknowledged that testing does not detect
gabapentin below a high toxic range. In that regard, he
explained that gabapentin can be toxic at levels between 20 to
100 mg but it can only be detected at 100 mg. In the context of
his testimony about gabapentin, you will recall that Mr. Keddy
testified that gabapentin’s use as a street drug is increasing. He
explained that gabapentin is a fairly safe drug and that it does
not come close to opiates in their ability to depress respiration
and cause death. In that regard, gabapentin is much less lethal.
In speaking of gabapentin, Mr. Keddy noted that the literature
from 2005 to 2015 describes only three deaths resulting out of
4800 overdoses. Only one of the deaths was caused by
gabapentin alone and that was in a person with both pre-existing
cardiopulmonary disorder and impaired kidney function. The
second death involved a person with elevated levels of
gabapentin and a second drug that was a depressant. The third
death was of a person with a pre-existing cardiopulmonary
condition. In that case, the gabapentin and low levels of another
depressant drug were found. In describing the effects of
gabapentin, Mr. Keddy noted that it can cause drowsiness,
slurred speech and sedation. He explained that gabapentin and
alcohol can create a synergistic effect and when used together,
the respective effects can increase. Mr. Keddy acknowledged
that he cannot rule out in the present case, a lethal combination
of alcohol and gabapentin.

You also heard from Dr. Dennis Rhee, an expert in forensic

pathology, an expertise used to determine the cause of death
and the manner of death for legal purposes.

In this case, Dr. Rhee was called to give his opinion on the
cause and manner of death. He was also called to give his
opinion on the time that may have elapsed between the
discovery of Tina Fontaine and the time of death. Dr. Rhee
testified that in examining and observing the body at the
autopsy, it was his rough estimate that by the time the body was
found, Tina Fontaine would have been dead for three to seven
days. In saying three to seven days, Dr. Rhee qualified that
opinion saying that the time could have been as low as just under
three days or as high as eight or nine days.

Dr. Rhee testified that the cause of death in this case is

undetermined. This remained his opinion even after considering
the information about gabapentin from the previous witness,
the toxicologist Christopher Keddy. Dr. Rhee ruled out any
assault which would have left major damage. He did however
allow that it is possible to have a lethal assault such as the act of
smothering, without major injury.

Dr. Rhee noted that the discovery of Tina Fontaine’s body

in the river in the manner it was discovered, suggests a manner
of death that is highly suspicious and that common sense would
suggest death at the hands of another. In further commenting
upon the cause of death, Dr. Rhee testified it could have been
caused by drowning, which is to say, Tina Fontaine could have
been alive at the time of submersion.

Dr. Rhee noted no obvious drug or toxins which caused

death. While it is possible that gabapentin may have been in Tina
Fontaine’s system, there was no sign of its presence. According
to Dr. Rhee, there was no sign of sexual assault. Tina Fontaine’s
clothes were intact, and not torn. Dr. Rhee noted that because
of the river and/or time, putrification occurs and destroys the
ability to detect semen or trace evidence. Dr. Rhee also noted
that there was no evidence in this case of aspiration in terms of
anything being in the airways.

Dr. Rhee told you that there was no evidence of any drug
at a level such that a person would likely self-smother. There
was similarly no evidence of a weakened or compromised
cardiovascular system or kidney disorder.
 You also heard evidence from Constable Susan Roy-
Hageman of the Winnipeg Police Service. Although not
technically presented as an expert, based on her years of
experience and training as a forensic identification specialist, she
explained to you how in this case, like others, a specialist like
herself, gets involved in respect of the crime scene investigation
for the purpose of gathering forensically significant evidence
that might link a victim and an offender with the scene.
Constable Roy-Hageman described this case as a unique case
with no crime scene per se, only a submerged body in connection
to which, water and decomposition had affected the ability to
find trace evidence. She testified that there was, in this case, no
forensic or trace evidence to link the accused to the duvet, the
body or the truck. Constable Roy-Hageman also noted that there
was no forensic evidence linking other suspects to Tina
Fontaine’s body, duvet or the truck in question.

Dr. Amarjit Chahal testified as an expert in forensic

mitochondrial DNA analysis and comparisons. In addition to
explaining the benefit of mitochondrial DNA testing, Dr. Chahal
explained the three possible conclusions respecting DNA testing.
In that regard, a conclusion may exclude certain persons, be
unable to exclude certain persons, or the exclusion may be
described as “inconclusive” because there is not enough
information. Dr. Chahal discussed the phenomenon of false
inclusions. He also explained how DNA can survive a cleaning,
but a cleaning can nonetheless diminish the ability to find DNA.
Dr. Chahal explained how in respect of this investigation, he was
asked to see if he could find mitochondrial DNA profiles from
three sources, the duvet cover, the truck and Tina Fontaine’s
body and to see if there was any link respecting certain
individuals, including Tina Fontaine, the accused Raymond
Cormier, Tyrell Morrison, and Sarah Holland.

As it relates to Dr. Chahal’s analysis, in respect to the duvet,

there were three hairs and four cuttings. Dr. Chahal concluded
that he could not exclude Tina Fontaine. Respecting 14 other
hairs from eight different people, Dr. Chahal noted that he can
exclude Raymond Cormier, Tyrell Morrison and Sarah Holland.
Respecting a vaginal swab hair, Dr. Chahal testified that he could
not exclude Tina Fontaine but could exclude the accused,
Raymond Cormier, Tyrell Morrison and Sarah Holland. As it
relates to the truck, there was a mixed profile of one of three
swabs taken from the truck bed. Dr. Chahal indicated that it can
exclude Tina Fontaine, Raymond Cormier and Sarah Holland, but
cannot exclude Tyrell Morrison. It was explained however, that
this conclusion was not forensically significant as mixed
mitochondrial DNA profiles cannot be used to calculate exclusion
probability. Indeed mixed mitochondrial DNA profiles have a
real risk of false inclusion insofar as they cast a very broad net.
For example, if a mixed profile is A, B, C, D, E and F, anyone with
an AF profile, or an AB profile, or an AC profile, or for that matter,
a CD profile, could not be excluded. In this sense, that particular
result is inconclusive.

You heard expert evidence from another DNA expert, RCMP

forensic DNA specialist Susan Borys. Ms. Borys is a civilian
specialist with the RCMP. Her expertise is in nuclear DNA
extraction and analysis.

Ms. Borys testified that she conducted analysis of 28 swabs

taken from 22 Carmen Avenue which contained four profiles:
Sarah Holland, Tyrell Morrison, Ernest DeWolfe and the accused,
Raymond Cormier. In that respect, Sarah Holland was on 16
swabs, Tyrell Morrison on five swabs, Ernest DeWolfe on 10
swabs, and the accused, Raymond Cormier on one swab. Ms.
Borys that where it could be determined, the swabs were all
blood.

In respect of the duvet, Ms. Borys testified that the only

nuclear DNA profile on the duvet was Tina Fontaine. In respect
of the truck, Ms. Borys testified that the blood from the headrest
of the driver’s seat of the truck matched the CODIS DNA profile
for Donald Schneider who you would have heard testify in
respect of the theft of his truck. You heard Susan Borys advise
you that the DNA on the straw from the cup in the truck matched
the CODIS DNA profile of Kyle Canada. The DNA on the
Maybelline eyeshadow did not match the DNA of either Tina
Fontaine or Sarah Holland but rather that of an unknown female
not in CODIS. Respecting the three swabs from the truck bed,
Ms. Borys testified that for swab 1, there was insufficient DNA.
For swab 2, it was not blood. For swab 3, the female profile “F2”
found no match with Tina Fontaine or Sarah Holland or the
female DNA found on the Maybelline eyeshadow. The profile
was not found on CODIS and it would have involved a second
unknown female.

Ms. Borys testified that as it relates to DNA, it is entirely

possible that a truck could be used by someone, wiped down,
used by someone else and that no profile of the first user would
be found on a forensic examination. She advised that it could
depend on such variables as whether the first user wore gloves,
whether UV rays and bacteria operated to degrade the DNA and
how much DNA was deposited and wiped away and whether the
swabs were taken from the crevices where the DNA was most
likely to remain. Ms. Borys testified as well that it is also entirely
possible that no DNA of the user of a blanket that was immersed
in water for a week would necessarily be found after that
immersion, particularly if a decaying body was wrapped in that
blanket. Ms. Borys testified that water, bacteria, UV light,
current and the bacteria present from the putrification of a body,
all lessen the likelihood of finding a DNA profile from a previous
user of the blanket. You heard Ms. Borys testify that the
literature indicates that it is highly unlikely that DNA could be
obtained after prolonged exposure in water and that DNA does
start to degrade as soon as it is exposed to water.

Also called as experts were Mr. Douglas Orr, Dr. Andrea

Wilkie Gilmore and Constable Garrett Carrette.

Mr. Douglas Orr testified pursuant to his expertise in trace

evidence, particularly in the examination, comparison and
identification of textile fibres. He was called to give his opinion
about certain fibres and the related analysis.
 Mr. Orr looked at two red and two black fibres from the
duvet and compared them to three “Mexican” blankets
recovered from 22 Carmen. Mr. Orr could not say that the fibres
did not come from the blankets and could not say that they did.
He explained the problem was that the material for the blanket
comes from fibres from many sources and there is no
representative sample that is possible. Mr. Orr also indicated
that he located 15 to 20 types of different fibres just in one
section and that he ceased examination because of the nature of
those three blankets.

The evidence that you heard from Dr. Wilkie Gilmore was
given pursuant to her expertise in emergency medicine in
respect of which, she was permitted to give opinion evidence
concerning the hospital records and lab work conducted in
relation to Tina Fontaine.
 Constable Carrette, who was presented as an expert in
fingerprint analysis, also provided his opinion.

All of the witnesses that I just discussed whose evidence I

only generally describe, testified before you as experts in this
case.

While I may later again make reference to some of the

evidence of the various experts, let me conclude my instruction
about expert testimony by telling you that you must remember
that the opinions of experts are just like the testimony of any
other witnesses. Just because an expert has given an opinion
does not require you to accept it. You may believe or rely upon
the opinion as much or as little as you see fit. You should
consider the education, training and experience of the expert,
the other reasons given for the opinion, the suitability of the
methods used, and the rest of the evidence in this case when you
decide how much or how little to rely upon the opinion. It is up
to you to decide.
 Remember as well, that experts usually form their opinions
by applying their training, education and experience to a number
of facts or data that the expert assumes or relies on as the basis
for his or her analysis.

What an expert assumes or relies on as a fact for the

purpose of offering his or her opinion may be the same as what
you find as facts from the evidence introduced in this case. Or,
it may be different.

To the extent that the facts you find are different from the
facts assumed or relied upon by the expert in reaching his or her
conclusion, you may consider the expert’s opinion less helpful to
you in deciding this case. How much or how little you believe of
or rely upon an expert’s opinion, is entirely up to you.

ADMISSIONS AND AGREED STATEMENTS OF FACT

 The Crown and the defence in this case have agreed on
some facts. When they so agree, no witnesses have to be called,
or exhibits filed, in order for you to accept those matters as facts.
Where there are such agreements, you must take what the
parties have agreed on as facts in this case.

In that regard, I remind you of and bring to your attention

Exhibit 1 which stipulates certain facts that you can accept as fact
for the purposes of your deliberation and decision.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF ANY WITNESSES THAT
MAY HAVE TESTIFIED

If you find that a witness said one thing in the witness box
and something different about the same subject on an earlier
occasion, this may factor in assessing the witness’ credibility. It
is for you to determine what any difference will have on your
overall assessment of the witness’ credibility. It may have a huge
effect, or no effect, or somewhere in between. Not every
difference or inconsistency is important. Consider the extent
and nature of any difference. Was it on a central point or
something peripheral? Consider the explanation the witness
gave. Was the explanation satisfactory?

Generally, the earlier inconsistency may be used only in

assessing the witness’ credibility. However, there is an exception
when the witness, while testifying at trial, accepts all or part of
the earlier statement as true. In that event, the earlier
statement may also be considered as evidence of what
happened, but only to the extent the witness accepted it as true.
It is for you to decide what weight if any to give to the part of the
earlier statement that the witness accepts as true.

PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS OF WITNESSES

You have heard ladies and gentlemen that some witnesses

who testified have previously been convicted of criminal
offences. You may use those convictions to help you decide how
much or how little of any of the witness’ evidence you will
believe or rely upon. Some convictions, for example ones that
involve dishonesty, may be more significant than others. As well,
an old conviction may be less important than a more recent one.

A previous conviction does not necessarily make the

evidence of a given witness unbelievable or unreliable. It is only
one of many factors for you to consider in your assessment of a
witness’ testimony. It will be for you to decide how much if any
of a given witness’ testimony you accept or rely upon.
AUDIO RECORDINGS AND TRANSCRIPTS

During the trial, you heard audio recordings from body pak
and probe intercepts. The intercept recordings were obtained in
the context of a six-month undercover sting that was Project
STYX. Some of those recordings were the result of interactions
as between the accused and undercover officers. Those
interactions with either of the two undercover officers usually
involve body pak interceptions. The other recordings you heard
were as a result of those intercepts picked up on a “probe” which
had been placed in Mr. Cormier’s apartment. Many of those
interceptions involved Mr. Cormier talking to other identified or
unknown participants.

When the recordings were played in court, you also had a

transcript. I explained to you in my mid-trial instruction to you,
that the transcript is just an aid to help you follow what was said
on the recording, and by whom, as it was being played. Only the
recording is evidence. It will be available to you in the jury room
where you may replay it if you wish.

The transcript was also filed as an Exhibit. It will be available

to you in the jury room to help you determine what is actually
on the recording. Remember, it is the recordings themselves
which should be listened to carefully and they too, if you so wish,
will be made available to you to listen to as often as necessary to
determine what is being said in the recordings. I repeat, the
transcripts are just an aid and it is the recordings themselves that
are the evidence. Please remember, if you find any differences
between the recordings and the transcript, either about what
was said or by whom, you must rely on what you are able to hear
on the recording, rather than what is in the transcript.

While you may rely on other evidence heard during the trial
to give meaning to the words that you hear in the recordings,
you must not use other evidence to fill in or guess at inaudible
portions of the recording.
THE OUT-OF-COURT COMMENTS, THE POLICE VIDEO
STATEMENT AND THE BODY PAK AND PROBE INTERCEPTIONS
OF RAYMOND CORMIER

In the course of this trial, you heard about comments that

some civilian witnesses say they heard the accused, Raymond
Cormier make at some point during the period in which those
civilian witnesses say they had interactions with him in the
summer of 2014. When I say civilian witnesses, I mean non-
police witnesses. Those witnesses who testified about
comments made by Mr. Cormier would have included Sarah
Holland, Tyrell Morrison and Ernest DeWolfe. These three
witnesses that I just mentioned, Sarah Holland, Tyrell Morrison
and Ernest DeWolfe will be subject to a special instruction that I
will give you a little bit later. That instruction should be
considered along with the instruction that I will give you in the
next few minutes about the oral comments that I will review and
that they say they heard Mr. Cormier make during the relevant
period. I will come back to those comments allegedly made by
Mr. Cormier to those three civilian witnesses in a moment.

In the course of this trial, you also heard evidence of a police

video statement taken when Mr. Cormier was first arrested in
connection to the murder of Tina Fontaine. The arrest and the
police video statement took place on October 1, 2014. That
video police statement was played for you and you saw and
heard the police interaction with Mr. Cormier during that
interview. In that interview, you saw and heard police pose
questions, and you would have heard anything Mr. Cormier said
in response to questions posed. I will say more about that police
video statement very shortly.

In the course of this trial you also heard comments said to

have been made by Raymond Cormier in the context of body pak
and probe interceptions that occurred over a six month period
beginning in June 2015. As with the comments to the civilian
witnesses and Mr. Cormier’s police video statement, I will review
some of those comments arising from the interceptions in a few
moments.

Let me first turn to the comments allegedly made to civilian

witnesses.

When you consider some of the comments allegedly made

by Raymond Cormier to some of the civilian witnesses, you may
remember some of the following testimony.

Sarah Holland testified about her interaction in connection

to Raymond Cormier in the summer of 2014. You heard that Ms.
Holland met Mr. Cormier through Mr. Ernest DeWolfe. Mr.
Cormier proceeded to spend some time at the house of Sarah
Holland and her boyfriend, Tyrell Morrison at 22 Carmen. Mr.
Cormier would occasionally spend nights at 22 Carmen. It was
at 22 Carmen that Sarah Holland, Raymond Cormier and Tyrell
Morrison would regularly do drugs.
 Ms. Holland testified to a comment made by Mr. Cormier
which was alleged to have occurred on August 6, 2014. It was on
that date that Tina Fontaine had come to 22 Carmen in an upset
state following the departure of her boyfriend, Cody Mason. On
that day, Sarah Holland testified that she spent much of her time
upstairs in her bedroom. Her boyfriend, Tyrell Morrison was at
various points in time at home and Mr. Cormier himself, at some
point had also returned to 22 Carmen. Sarah Holland describes
that at one point Tyrell Morrison, Raymond Cormier, Tina
Fontaine and she were all at the house. Tina Fontaine came
upstairs to the bedroom and asked Sarah Holland if she could
stay upstairs with her. Sarah Holland understood that Tina
Fontaine was downstairs with Mr. Cormier. When Tina Fontaine
came upstairs asking if she could stay upstairs, Tina Fontaine is
alleged to have said that he, Raymond Cormier, was “creeping
her out.” Tina Fontaine was permitted to stay upstairs with
Sarah Holland. At some point following that, Raymond Cormier
and Tyrell Morrison returned upstairs and according to Sarah
Holland, “Frenchie was still being inappropriate.” In that
context, while they were all up in Sarah Holland’s bedroom,
Sarah Holland testified that she saw Raymond Cormier try to
grab Tina Fontaine’s “boobs” while making the comment “just
do me.” According to Sarah Holland, Tina Fontaine would
respond by calling Raymond Cormier a “bad name” and she
would say in Raymond Cormier’s presence, “You know I’m 16.”
According to Sarah Holland’s testimony, Raymond Cormier
would laugh it off and made it seem like a joke.

Later that same day, after Tina Fontaine had left her
bedroom, Sarah Holland heard yelling and screaming in a back
alley. She heard Tina Fontaine say she “was going to call the
cops.” During this yelling and screaming, Sarah Holland also
heard Raymond Cormier’s voice and at some point heard the
word “river”. Sarah Holland did not testify as to what, if
anything, she heard Raymond Cormier saying, indicating only
that in the context of this yelling and screaming, Raymond
Cormier’s voice was loud but not as loud as Tina Fontaine’s.
 Sarah Holland testified that after this incident of what she
described was two or three minutes of yelling and screaming in
the alley, Raymond Cormier came back to the house, appeared
angry and at some point asked twice, “Do you really think she
will call the police?”

Sarah Holland also testified that following the few days she
spent with Ernest DeWolfe at the hotel in August, she went back
to 22 Carmen where she found Raymond Cormier, Tyrell
Morrison and Tyrell Morrison’s cousin, Jay. Prior to arriving at
22 Carmen, Ernest DeWolfe and Sarah Holland had both seen
news of Tina Fontaine and her picture in the paper. Sarah
Holland testified that when she got back to 22 Carmen that day,
she mentioned the news of Tina Fontaine to see the reaction.
She testified that she advised them that “she was found in the
river.” Sarah Holland testified that she asked “Frenchie”, the
accused Cormier, did he do it? In her direct examination at trial,
Sarah Holland said that Frenchie responded by saying, “no” but
according to Sarah Holland, he did not seem too concerned. It
should be noted that, in cross-examination, Sarah Holland
acknowledged telling the police in an earlier statement that
when she advised Raymond Cormier of Tina Fontaine’s death
and discovery in the river, his reaction was surprise, and he
stated “this shouldn’t have happened.” Sarah Holland also
acknowledged that as part of his reaction, Raymond Cormier
stated that “she was a good kid” and that he “felt bad”.

In considering some of the out-of-court comments made by

the accused Raymond Cormier, you will recall as well, the
testimony of Tyrell Morrison. He too testified about certain
comments made by Raymond Cormier on August 6, 2014, the
day Tina Fontaine came over to 22 Carmen. Tyrell Morrison
testified that in the context of his assisting Raymond Cormier
with the moving of tools from the back of a truck he, Raymond
Cormier, did not at first indicate where he got the truck. He did
at some point however, according to Tyrell Morrison, say to
Morrison that he “stole it.”
 In respect of that same day, Tyrell Morrison later heard the
yelling and screaming in the alley where he also heard profanity.
According to Tyrell Morrison, in that context, he heard the
accused Raymond Cormier call Tina Fontaine a “bitch”. After
what Tyrell Morrison described was that argument in the alley
that lasted about 10 minutes, Morrison described Frenchie as
coming inside and saying that he “had to move the truck down
the block”.

Tyrell Morrison also testified about the day Sarah Holland

and Ernest DeWolfe returned from their few days at the hotel at
which time he was at 22 Carmen with the accused, Raymond
Cormier. In direct examination, Tyrell Morrison testified about
Mr. Cormier’s reaction when Sarah Holland disclosed not only
the fact that Tina Fontaine was dead but also her age. In direct
examination, Tyrell Morrison testified that Raymond Cormier
responded by saying, “I guess that’s why she didn’t put out.” In
cross-examination however, Tyrell Morrison acknowledged that
in an earlier statement that he gave to the police, he also said
that upon learning of the fact that Tina Fontaine was dead and
told of her age, he, Raymond Cormier, was shocked and at one
point, he, Raymond Cormier, stated “holy shit.”

In considering the out-of-court oral comments by Raymond

Cormier, you will also recall the testimony of Ernest DeWolfe. He
testified as to the background to his relationship with the
accused, Mr. Cormier. He explained how they first met and
worked together on the range in Stony Mountain. Apart from
explaining their on and off again relationship as acquaintances,
and in addition to explaining how he, Ernest DeWolfe had
introduced Mr. Cormier to Sarah Holland and Tyrell Morrison,
he, Ernest DeWofe also testified about certain comments that
the accused, Mr. Cormier allegedly made. In that connection,
Mr. DeWolfe testified that on the same day in August 2014 when
he, Ernest DeWolfe saw Tina Fontaine sleeping in the living room
on a futon along with another young male, Raymond Cormier is
alleged to have disclosed to Mr. DeWolfe, that he, Raymond
Cormier, “slept with her” referring to Tina Fontaine. Mr.
DeWolfe testified that in response to that revelation, he said to
Raymond Cormier “really”? Thinking to himself that Tina
Fontaine was “like a child”, Mr. DeWolfe said to Raymond
Cormier “she’s kind of young.” The accused, Raymond Cormier
responded by saying “she’s 18.” Mr. DeWolfe testified that he
himself remained skeptical as to whether she was 18.

In testifying about Raymond Cormier’s disclosure that he

had slept with Tina Fontaine, Mr. DeWolfe maintained both in
direct and cross-examination that there was no chance of his
having misunderstood what he had heard because what he had
heard from Raymond Cormier in that regard, “sort of shocked
me”. Mr. DeWolfe specified in his testimony that during that
conversation with Raymond Cormier he, Ernest DeWolfe, was
not high.

Ernest DeWolfe also testified about another conversation

with Raymond Cormier. Again, with respect to this conversation,
Mr. DeWolfe stipulated that he was not high. Mr. DeWolfe
testified that he could not remember whether the second
conversation took place at 22 Carmen or in a vehicle. Ernest
DeWolfe believes that the second identified conversation took
place on August 15, 2014 because Mr. DeWolfe remembers that
day as payday and a day that was close to his birthday. He recalls
taking the day off to go get high with the people at 22 Carmen.
He was in possession of $4,000 cash.

Respecting the second conversation, Mr. DeWolfe testified

that he had earlier heard a story about an argument between
Raymond Cormier and Tina Fontaine. Mr. DeWolfe asked Mr.
Cormier if it was true. In his testimony, Mr. DeWolfe provided
what he characterized as the “gist” of the conversation that took
place in the context of his question about the argument. Ernst
DeWolfe testified that Mr. Cormier told him that because he,
Raymond Cormier, was making sexual advances to Tina
Fontaine, he was creeping her out. Mr. Cormier explained to
Ernest DeWolfe that Tina Fontaine then left and he, Raymond
Cormier, followed her down the alley. Raymond Cormier told
Mr. DeWolfe that Tina Fontaine said to him “she was going to rat
him out about the truck.” Ernest DeWolfe testified that
Raymond Cormier told him that he later “sold the truck.”

You will recall in the testimony of Ernest DeWolfe that the

idea of police coming to 22 Carmen concerned Mr. DeWolfe
because that is where he and everyone else partied and did
drugs. For that reason, Mr. DeWolfe testified that he raised his
concern about the cops going to 22 Carmen with Cormier. In
that context, the accused Raymond Cormier told Mr. DeWolfe
that he had talked to Tina Fontaine the day prior and that he
“took care of it”, which, according to Mr. DeWolfe, would have
been August 14, 2014. Mr. DeWolfe told you in his testimony
that at the time, he did not see anything sinister in Mr. Cormier’s
comment.

In considering Mr. DeWolfe’s testimony to you respecting

Mr. Cormier’s comments to him, you will recall in cross-
examination, Mr. DeWolfe was questioned as to why after
learning of the death of Tina Fontaine, he waited six weeks to
call the police. Mr. DeWolfe’s response was “All I know is what I
know and what I told.”

When you consider the identified comments allegedly

made by Mr. Cormier to civilian witnesses Sarah Holland, Tyrell
Morrison and Ernest DeWolfe, it will be for you to decide
whether you believe that the accused made those comments, or
any part of it or them, to the witnesses identified. In deciding
whether Mr. Cormier actually said those things ascribed to him
by the witnesses, you are to use your common sense. Where
there is such evidence, take into the account the condition of the
accused and the particular witnesses at the time of the
conversations or discussions in question. Consider the
circumstances in which the conversations or discussions took
place. Bear in mind anything else that ought to make the
witness’ evidence more or less reliable.
 If you find that the accused made any alleged comments in
his conversations or verbal contact with the witnesses identified,
you will examine the evidence to determine if some, all or none
of the accused’s statements or comments help his defence. They
may or they may not. If you decide that the accused made a
comment, a remark or a denial that may help him in his defence,
or if you cannot decide whether he made it, you will consider the
comment, remark or denial – along with the rest of the evidence
– in deciding whether you have a reasonable doubt about the
accused’s guilt. I remind you again, it is for the Crown to
establish beyond a reasonable doubt the accused’s guilt.

You may give anything you find the accused said as much or
as little importance as you think it deserves in deciding this case.
It is for you to say. Anything you find the accused said, however,
is only part of the evidence in this case. You should consider it
along with and in the same way as all of the other evidence.
 Let me now turn to the video police statement of Raymond
Cormier marked as Exhibit 36 with the accompanying transcript
marked as Exhibit 37.

In this case you have heard testimony about the interview

given to the police by Mr. Cormier after his arrest on October 1,
2014. That interview was recorded on video which you watched.
It is also replicated in transcript form, of which you have a copy.
That video interview began at approximately 4:16 p.m. on
October 1, 2014. It concluded at approximately 10:58:38 on that
same day.

One of the officers conducting the interview was also

involved that same day in the arrest of the accused, Detective
Sergeant Wade McDonald. He began the interview by explaining
why Raymond Cormier was under arrest. In the course of the
interview and at various times throughout, Mr. Cormier
responded with words to the effect, “Don’t focus on me, I didn’t
do it.” “I don’t know who did it.” “I don’t even know.”
 In the video police statement, the accused described the
time he saw Tina Fontaine at Sarah Holland’s place and he
explained to the police how he had sold her bike for two grams
of weed and that “She left pissed off.” He explained to the police
how she left the house yelling and screaming and that at one
point he, Mr. Cormier, left her in the street, throwing the bag of
weed at her feet. He advised the police that he found out a few
days later, that she, Tina Fontaine had been murdered. He
advised the police that “We weren’t that close.” At various
points, Mr. Cormier mused “Did she get murdered after she left
me or did it happen the next day?” At another point he advised
the police “No, I’m just in, trying to figure out who the fuck did
it.” At another point in the conversation, Mr. Cormier stated
“Was she thrown in the river, I don’t know.” He also stated that
he “Saw her 5, 6, 7 times, but that was the only time without
Cody.” Mr. Cormier also stated that he “saw her no more than
ten times, I know that.” When the police asked him if he had
ever been with Tina, he responded saying, “No she’s 16. At first
I didn’t know.” When asked whether he had ever been intimate
with her prior to finding out her age, he said “No”. More strongly
still, Mr. Cormier stated at another point, “No, I never had any
sexual contact wit her, zero.” During the course of the interview,
Raymond Cormier also stated, “I hope you guys find this piece of
shit.”

In the course of the interview, Mr. Cormier does

acknowledge that Tina Fontaine may have threatened him with
“calling the cops” on the night they had the disagreement. When
questioned as to why, he responded “I don’t know. It was for
stealing a bike or whatever.”

At another stage in the interview, Mr. Cormier noted that if

he had slept with Tina Fontaine, that would have made him a
pedophile.

On the question of the allegedly stolen truck, Mr. Cormier

vehemently denied having stolen a vehicle.
 In what has been described as the second phase of that
same police video statement, Mr. Cormier appears somewhat
more upset and assertive. He stated amongst other things, “I
never killed Tina, okay?” “I had nothing to do with the murder
of Tina Fontaine.” “I never fucking hurt that little girl.” After
having spoken to his lawyer, he returned to the discussion with
the police and at another point stated “I’m telling you right now,
I’m not the person that did that to the girl.” “I’m telling you right
now that I did not do that.”

In recalling the October 1, 2014 police video statement, you

will note the frequently long preamble that would sometimes
proceed a question. Remember my earlier reminder, that
questions posed, including questions posed by the police to Mr.
Cormier, while they may be context for responses, they are not
by themselves evidence unless Mr. Cormier adopts them.
 In the context of the October 1, 2014 video police
statement, if you find that Mr. Cormier in that video made a
comment or comments that may help his defence, you will
consider that comment or comments along with the rest of the
evidence in deciding whether you have a reasonable doubt
about Mr. Cormier’s guilt.

Subject to any specific instruction that I may give you, you

may give anything you find Mr. Cormier said in that video police
statement, as much or as little importance as you think it
deserves in deciding this case. It is for you to say. Anything you
find Mr. Cormier said in his video interview to police, however,
is only part of the evidence in this case. You should consider it
along with and in the same way as all of the other evidence.

Considering the October 1, 2014 video police statement,

you will also note that at various points during that interview, in
the face of the many long and occasionally short questions posed
by the police, Mr. Cormier remains silent or chose not to
comment. Please remember that as a person charged with an
offence, Mr. Cormier had the absolute right to remain silent on
and after arrest. Mr. Cormier did not have to speak to the police.
He did not have to answer any police questions. Even if he chose
to speak to the police, he had the right at any time to refuse to
speak further or to speak about a particular or specific subject or
topic.

The right to remain silent is fundamental, as is the right to

choose when and how to exercise it. Since these rights are
fundamental, the person who exercises them, in this case
Raymond Cormier, has the right to have his exercise of them not
used in any way in your decision about whether he committed
the offence with which he is charged, or any other offence. In
other words, you must not use Raymond Cormier’s exercise of
his right to silence during the video interview to help you decide
whether Crown counsel has proven his guilt of the offence
charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
 I now turn to some of the comments allegedly made by the
accused, as recorded in the context of the body pak and probe
intercepts that were put in place in the context of Project STYX.
The DVD of the body pak recordings and probe intercept
communications were marked as Exhibit 46 and the
accompanying transcript of those intercepted communications
were marked as Exhibit 45. You will recall that in the context of
the body pak interceptions, the Crown presented evidence from
two undercover officers: Moazzoein Sadir and Constable Lisa
Dreger. Both undercover officers gave evidence with respect to
the different scenarios that were put into play, during which
their contact with Mr. Cormier would have been recorded. You
will recall the evidence of undercover officer Sadir, who
indicated that the accused Mr. Cormier was not shy about talking
about Tina Fontaine. It was, in fact, a subject which he himself
raised and talked about in the early stages of his interaction with
undercover officer Sadir. Undercover officer Sadir
acknowledged that in some of the conversations and in his
interactions with Mr. Cormier, Mr. Cormier would have been
high or “under the influence”.

In his conversations with undercover officer Sadir, Mr.

Cormier would have talked about, amongst other things, the fact
that he was arrested for Tina Fontaine’s murder, but indicated,
“I didn’t do that.”

In other portions of the secret audio recordings, it is alleged

that Mr. Cormier is said to have discussed how he had hoped to
sleep with Tina Fontaine the night she showed up without her
boyfriend. That was when he learned that Tina Fontaine was 15
and he is alleged to have said in those audio recordings that “he
wasn’t going to bang her no more.” At another point in the
interceptions, the accused Cormier is alleged to have said, “Tina
Fontaine got killed because we … I found out she was 15” and
that “Tina Fontaine died because somebody didn’t want to go to
jail as a skinner.” At another point, Cormier is alleged to have
said on the recordings, “If I had to do it over again, I would fuck
her and fuck her properly and go to jail for that.” The Crown
further alleges that in the intercepts, Cormier states, “It’s right
on the shore, so what do I do, threw her in. No going back too.
There may or may not be any problems, but somebody may have
seen the truck.” In addition to those comments, the Crown also
has identified an alleged comment by Mr. Cormier in the
intercepts, where he states, “Unfortunately there is a little girl in
a grave someplace screaming, finish the job. Guess what, I
finished the job.”

As I have already instructed you, it is for you in considering

the audio recordings, to determine what was said and by whom.
When you consider the comments allegedly made by Cormier on
the body pak and probe intercepts that I have identified and any
others that I may not have discussed, it will be for you to decide
whether you believe that the accused Cormier made those
comments, or any part of it or them, to the witnesses identified.
In deciding whether Mr. Cormier actually said the things the
Crown alleges, you are to use as your reference point, the actual
recordings and your common sense to determine whether those
alleged comments were made and properly interpreted as
suggested by the Crown. When considering the intercept
conversations, take into account any evidence that you may
have heard with respect to the condition of the accused at the
time of those interceptions.

If you find that the accused made any alleged comments in

the interceptions to identified or unidentified witnesses, you will
examine the evidence to determine if some, all or none of the
accused’s comments help his defence. They may, but they may
not. If you decide that the accused made a comment, a remark
or a denial that may help him in his defence, you will consider
the comment, remark or denial – along with the rest of the
evidence – in deciding whether you have a reasonable doubt
about the accused’s guilt. I remind you again, it is for the Crown
to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the accused’s guilt.
 You may give anything you find the accused said as much or
as little importance as you think it deserves in deciding this case.
It is for you to say. Anything you find the accused said, however,
is only part of the evidence in this case. You should consider it
along with and in the same way as all of the other evidence.

In briefly addressing as I have, the comments allegedly

made by Raymond Cormier to civilian witnesses, his police
statement and the body pak and probe interceptions, please
remember that I may have identified only some of the relevant
portions of that evidence. You may remember or note additional
relevant comments or statements. You will, of course, consider
any and all such comments or statements by the accused – along
with the rest of the evidence – in deciding whether you have a
reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. In this connection
keep in mind what I said earlier: to decide this case, you rely on
what you remember the evidence and the whole of the evidence
was, not what counsel or I say it was.
 When you consider any of the accused Cormier’s out-of-
court comments to the civilian witnesses who testified to having
heard Mr. Cormier say certain things, and his comments to the
police in the video statement, and his comments in the body pak
and probe intercepts, you will of course consider Mr. Cormier’s
comments in the context of what the Crown suggests is evidence
that may implicate Mr. Cormier circumstantially or directly in the
death of Tina Fontaine. You will also, however, consider Mr.
Cormier’s denials.

When you review any of Mr. Cormier’s out-of-court denials

in respect of his involvement in the death of Tina Fontaine,
whether those denials were made to civilian witnesses or to the
police in his video statement or in the context of the body pak
and probe interceptions during the course of Project STYX, it is
important that you remember the following direction:
 If you believe Mr. Cormier’s denials or explanations that he
did not kill Tina Fontaine, you must find him not guilty of the
offence charged.

Even if you do not believe Mr. Cormier’s denials or

explanations that he did not kill Tina Fontaine, if any part of them
leave you with a reasonable doubt about his guilt or about the
essential element of the charge, you must find him not guilty of
the offence charged.

Even if any part of Mr. Cormier’s denials or explanations

that he did not kill Tina Fontaine do not leave you with a
reasonable doubt about his guilt or about the essential element
of the offence charged, you may convict only if the rest of the
evidence that you do accept proves his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.

PROHIBITION AGAINST USING CERTAIN EVIDENCE INCLUDING

RAYMOND CORMIER’S PREVIOUS ARRESTS, OUTSTANDING
WARRANTS OR TIME IN CUSTODY
 You have heard in the context of the unfolding narrative of
this case that Mr. Cormier may have participated in the use of
drugs. You heard as well that he had been previously arrested.
You have also heard that he may at a given time have been in a
correctional facility and halfway house. In addition, some
witnesses, may have in the emotion of their testimony,
characterized Raymond Cormier in a particularly derogatory
way. I am thinking now of the brief but inappropriate comments
made by Ida and Chantelle Beardy during a particular portion of
their testimony and about which I had already provided you a
mid-trial warning.

In respect of all of those things that I have just mentioned,

you are not to use them in your determination as to whether Mr.
Cormier did commit the offence charged. Neither can you use
any such references to conclude that Mr. Cormier is the sort of
person who would commit the offence charged. Please
remember in the course of your deliberations that any reference
to any of those matters that I just mentioned, should not be used
in any way against Mr. Cormier.

WITNESSES REQUIRING SPECIAL INSTRUCTION

I had explained earlier that I would be providing you a

specific instruction with respect to the witnesses Sarah Holland,
Tyrell Morrison and Ernest DeWolfe. I will now provide you with
that instruction. It is an instruction that should be considered as
applying to all of those three witnesses. It is an instruction that
you must keep foremost in your mind when you are considering
how much or little you believe of or rely upon Ms. Holland’s, Mr.
Morrison’s and Mr. DeWolfe’s evidence in making your decision
in this case.

Each of these three witnesses testified during the trial. You

have heard that each of those witnesses were heavily involved
in the taking of drugs in the summer of 2014. You also heard
that they had, to greater or lesser extents, criminal records.
 You heard from Sarah Holland, who acknowledged that she
has a criminal record for an assault and breach of recognizance
conviction from 2017. You also heard that she is currently on
probation. Her testimony at trial revealed that she had
previously been involved in a mutually abusive and violent
relationship with her ex-commonlaw, Tyrell Morrison. Sarah
Holland testified that she lost her family because of what was
her former lifestyle in respect of her alcohol and drug abuse and
her abusive relationship with Tyrell Morrison.

Tyrell Morrison has a criminal record for common assault in

2014 and three previous convictions for failure to comply with
court orders. At the time of his testimony, he had two
outstanding criminal charges for which he received no reward or
consideration for his testimony. Both Tyrell Morrison’s criminal
record and the evidence at trial suggest that he has a disposition
for violence which apparently manifested in his relationship with
Sarah Holland. He too was heavily involved in the use of street
drugs in the summer of 2014.

Ernest DeWolfe has a record which includes a conviction for

sexual assault in 1987 and two charges of armed robbery. As
with Sarah Holland and Tyrell Morrison, in the summer of 2014
Ernest DeWolfe regularly used street drugs. At the time of his
testimony, you would have noted and in cross-examination he
acknowledged, that he was at one point returned to jail as a
result of an alleged parole violation on the basis of what was
identified as Raymond Cormier “ratting him out”. In this
connection, it was suggested by defence counsel that Ernest
DeWolfe is a witness who holds a grudge and who, with his
testimony, seeks to get back at Raymond Cormier.

On the basis of what I have just told you, it could be said

that testimony from these three Crown witnesses must be
approached with great care and caution.
 Common sense and experience tells us that in respect of
certain types of witnesses, perhaps because of a criminal record,
past drug use or perhaps because a witness has a particular
interest in an outcome, it is dangerous to base a conviction on
unconfirmed evidence of this sort of witness. Accordingly, you
should consider whether the individual and respective testimony
of Sarah Holland, Tyrell Morrison and Ernest DeWolfe is
confirmed by other evidence in deciding whether the Crown has
proved Raymond Cormier’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You should do so in the case of each of these witnesses
individually.

When you examine the individual and respective testimony

of Sarah Holland, Tyrell Morrison and Ernest DeWolfe, you
should look for independent evidence tending to show that their
individual and respective testimony implicating Raymond
Cormier, is true. By “independent”, I mean from a source
unconnected to the witness in question. In other words, when
considering the testimony of Sarah Holland, you should look for
independent confirmatory evidence from a source other than
Sarah Holland. In considering the testimony of Tyrell Morrison,
you should look for independent confirmatory evidence from a
source other than Tyrell Morrison. When you are considering
the testimony of Ernest DeWolfe, you should look for
independent confirmatory evidence from a source other than
Ernest DeWolfe. That said however, if you find that the
testimony of Sarah Holland is trustworthy, you may rely upon it
even if it is not confirmed by other evidence. Similarly, if you
find the testimony of Tyrell Morrison trustworthy, you may rely
upon it even if it is not confirmed by other evidence. If you find
testimony of Ernest DeWolfe trustworthy, you may rely on it
even if it is not confirmed by other evidence.

I now want to illustrate the kind of evidence from this case,

that you might find confirmatory of the individual testimony of
Sarah Holland, Tyrell Morrison and Ernest DeWolfe. I will do so
by giving you some examples. I emphasize that these are only
examples. You may not find the evidence I am about to mention
helpful in confirming the testimony of either of those witnesses;
or you may find confirmation in other evidence that I do not
mention. It is up to you to decide.

The following evidence may confirm Sarah Holland’s

testimony:
 Sarah Holland testified about drug use and the
people who used drugs. You may find confirmation
that is independent in the form of the analysis of the
blood found at 22 Carmen which had four CODIS hits.
Those hits were in relation to Tyrell Morrison, Sarah
Holland, Ernest DeWolfe and accused, Raymond
Cormier.
 Sarah Holland testified that Tina Fontaine
threatened to call the police on the accused,
Raymond Cormier. We know from Exhibit 2A, the
DVD August 6, 2014 911 recording, that Tina
Fontaine did call 911 and reported the accused,
Raymond Cormier.
 Sarah Holland testified that Tina Fontaine
complained about Raymond Cormier being sexually
inappropriate. Potential independent confirmation
of this assertion may be rooted in the following
evidence:
-Tyrell Morrison saw Raymond Cormier with is
head in Tina Fontaine’s lap;
-Tina Fontaine complained about advances being
made by an old guy to Robert Sango;
-The accused, Raymond Cormier told Ernest
DeWolfe that he had made a pass at Tina
Fontaine and she got upset;
-The accused, Raymond Cormier in his video
police statement may be seen as confirming a
sexual interest in Tina Fontaine and as well, may
be seen to be acknowledging that he made
comments to Tina Fontaine a few different
times respecting, for example, “banging her” or
getting “a blowjob”;
 -The accused, Raymond Cormier allegedly admits
in the intercepts and to Ernest DeWolfe that he
slept with Tina Fontaine.

At it relates to the testimony of Tyrell Morrison, you may

find the following evidence provides independent confirmation
and support of his testimony:
 Tyrell Morrison testified in respect of drug use and
the people who use drugs. You may find
independent confirmation in the form of the analysis
of the blood found at 22 Carmen had four CODIS hits.
These hits were in relation to Tyrell Morrison, Sarah
Holland, Ernest DeWolfe and Raymond Cormier.
 Tyrell Morrison testified that the accused broke or
damaged Tina Fontaine’s bike. The accused,
Raymond Cormier’s video police statement included
an admission that he sold her bike for weed. As
additional independent confirmation of Tyrell
Morrison’s testimony on this point, you might note
 as well Tina Fontaine’s comment to Kim Chute that
she expected a bike from the accused, Raymond
Cormier, as well as Tina Fontaine’s comment to
Robert Sango that her bike had been damaged.
 Tyrell Morrison testified that Tina Fontaine smoked
crack. The blister on Tina Fontaine’s lip two days
following the day in question may independently
confirm Tyrell Morrison’s assertion.
 Tyrell Morrison testified that Raymond Cormier at
one point on August 6, 2014, had his head in Tina
Fontaine’s lap. Potential independent confirmation
may exist in the form of evidence that Tina Fontaine
asked if she could stay and spend time up in Sarah
Holland’s room. The evidence suggested that she
complained to Sarah Holland that Frenchie “was
creeping her out.” The accused in his own video
police statement, confirmed his sexual interest in
Tina Fontaine and also, in that same video
 statement, he admitted to making comments to Tina
Fontaine regarding banging her or getting a blowjob.

As it relates to the evidence of Ernest DeWolfe, the

following evidence may confirm aspects of his testimony:
 Ernest DeWolfe testified that the accused had a
duvet cover. After providing a description to the
police, Ernest DeWolfe identified the Costco Chloe
green photo, which identification was the same as
that of Ida and Chantelle Beardy.
 Ernest DeWolfe testified that Raymond Cormier told
him (DeWolfe) that he met Tina Fontaine again after
the August 6, 2014 argument. The fact that this
statement may have been made by Mr. Cormier to
Ernest DeWolfe may potentially support Tina
Fontaine’s statement of intention to Kim Chute on
August 8, 2014, which statement suggests that Tina
Fontaine and Raymond Cormier were “friends” again
after the argument and that Tina Fontaine had the
 expectation that he, Raymond Cormier, would be
getting her a bike.
 Ernest DeWolfe testified that the accused had told
him that he had stolen a truck with tools. You may
find that this is potentially independently supported
by the fact that the earlier presented Crown witness,
Glen McDonald, saw Raymond Cormier in possession
of a truck and a bunch of tools with a 4 X 4 Crew Cab
with four doors. You recall that Glen McDonald kept
a toolbox later found to belong to the truck owner,
Donald Schneider. Donald Schneider testified that
his blue Ford, F150 was stolen August 6, 2014, when
he left his keys inside along with his toolbox and
tools. The Winnipeg Police Services analyst, David
Bowman says that only two trucks were reported
stolen on August 6, 2014, one of them being Mr.
Schneider’s. You may find additional supportive
confirmation in the testimony of Tyrell Morrison
when he said the accused, Raymond Cormier had
 keys to the truck. As well, you may note Tina
Fontaine’s 911 call in which she stated that Sebastian
had stolen a blue truck.
 As I already mentioned, Ernest DeWolfe testified
that Raymond Cormier told him that he had met Tina
Fontaine again after August 6, 2014 and it is in
connection to that meeting and Mr. DeWolfe’s
concern about the earlier argument and Tina
Fontaine’s threat and the possibility of the police
starting to come to 22 Carmen, that Mr. Cormier is
alleged to have said to Mr. DeWolfe, “Don’t worry I
took care of it.” That of course was part of the
testimony of Mr. DeWolfe. You may find potentially
independent support of that assertion in the fact
that Tina Fontaine is alleged to have commented to
Kim Chute on August 8, 2014, that her friend
“Sebastian” would be getting her a bike. This may
suggest that they were friendly again and that Tina
Fontaine had expectations of a future meeting with
 Sebastian after August 6, at which time she would be
getting a bike from Sebastian.

So keep in mind ladies and gentlemen, the specific

instruction I have given to you respecting these three witnesses.
The instruction applies to each of them individually and
separately. Keep in mind as well, the potentially confirmatory
and supportive evidence that I have outlined for each of these
three respective witnesses, Sarah Holland, Tyrell Morrison and
Ernest DeWolfe. It will be for you to decide whether that
potentially confirmatory evidence is supportive and it will be for
you to decide how much or how little of the evidence of Sarah
Holland, Tyrell Morrison and Ernest DeWolfe you will accept. As
already mentioned, you may accept some, none or all of their
individual evidence.
STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS OF THE DECEASED TINA
FONTAINE

As part of the evidence of the Crown, the Crown presented

evidence of comments made by Tina Fontaine to various
witnesses prior to her death. We heard certain of Tina
Fontaine’s comments in the testimony of Sarah Holland, Robert
Sango and Kim Chute. More specifically, the following
comments allegedly made by Tina Fontaine were introduced at
trial:
1. On August 6, 2014, Tina Fontaine is alleged to have said
“My boyfriend went home to his Reserve today.” This
comment was made to Sarah Holland who in turn
communicated it in her testimony at trial.
2. On August 6, 2014, Tina Fontaine is alleged to have said
“I’m uncomfortable downstairs. He (the accused,
Cormier) is creeping me out. He’s saying inappropriate
things. Can I stay up here with you?” These comments
by Tina Fontaine were made to Sarah Holland and were
 communicated to the court in Sarah Holland’s
testimony at trial.
3. On August 6, 2014, Tina Fontaine is alleged to have
made the following comment, “I’m going to call the
cops.” This comment by Tina Fontaine was made in the
context of the argument that Tina Fontaine was having
with the accused, Mr. Cormier. The argument was
overheard by Tyrell Morrison and Sarah Holland.
4. On August 6, 2014, Tina Fontaine was alleged to have
said, “I was downstairs with an old guy. He tried to put
the moves on me.” This comment was made to Robert
Sango and communicated to the court by Robert Sango
when he testified at trial.
5. On August 6, 2014, Tina Fontaine made a 911 call that
was admitted by consent, wherein she reported that
her friend had stolen a truck.
6. On August 8, 2014, Tina Fontaine was alleged to have
said to Kim Chute: “I’m going to get a bike from my
friend Sebastian. He is a 62 year old meth addict.”
 When you consider this evidence, you have to decide what,
if anything, Tina Fontaine did in fact say to the witnesses who
testified in court about the specific and respective comments
that they say Tina Fontaine made. In deciding whether Tina
Fontaine said these things or any of them, take into account –
where there is evidence in this regard – the condition of Tina
Fontaine and the witness at the time the comments were heard.
Take into consideration as well the circumstances in which the
conversations took place and anything else that may make the
witness’ story more or less reliable respecting what Tina
Fontaine allegedly was heard to say.

If you find that any of the witnesses that I just mentioned

who heard the identified comments by Tina Fontaine have
accurately reported any or all of what Tina Fontaine said, you
may rely upon those parts of the witness’ testimony.
 You should be careful when you determine how much or
little you will rely on this evidence. It might be less reliable than
other evidence that has been given. Obviously when she made
the statements that were testified to in court, Tina Fontaine was
not under oath or affirmation. You did not get to see or hear
personally Tina Fontaine make those statements. Unlike the
witnesses who testified before you, Tina Fontaine could not be
cross-examined.

Do not consider the evidence of Tina Fontaine’s comments

by itself. It is only part of the evidence in this case. Take it into
account, along with the other evidence that may make it more
or less reliable. It is up to you to decide how much or little of it
you will believe or rely upon to decide this case.

POST OFFENCE/AFTER THE FACT CONDUCT

You have heard evidence about certain things that

Raymond Cormier is alleged to have said or done after the body
of Tina Fontaine was discovered and after he became a suspect
in her death. For convenience, I shall refer to this as after the
fact conduct.

In this case, the Crown identifies two examples of what it

says was Mr. Cormier’s after the fact conduct that may or may
not help you decide whether he is guilty of the offence charged.

First, the Crown points to the fact that Mr. Cormier ran from
22 Carmen on October 1, 2014 when the police attended to
question Sarah Holland about Tina Fontaine’s murder. A brief
foot chase ensued. The Crown argues that Mr. Cormier did not
run because of what he, Mr. Cormier called “Mickey Mouse
warrants”, but rather, because he was the murderer of Tina
Fontaine.

The second “after the fact” act that the Crown identifies as
worthy of your consideration relates to the fact that Mr. Cormier
repeatedly told the police in his video police statement on
October 1, 2014, that he did not steal the blue truck or the tools.
The Crown says that Mr. Cormier is slow to admit he had a truck
at all and he denied it was stolen. Mr. Cormier also said it was
black. He never admits that he had stolen tools. The Crown
argues that despite being repeatedly told that he would not be
charged for having a stolen truck or stolen tools, he continued to
lie saying he was “baffled” by the claim of the stolen tools, and
further, that he had never had a stolen vehicle in Winnipeg. Mr.
Cormier said he had a truck but it was black. He said the truck
he had was not stolen. The Crown says that these assertions by
Mr. Cormier were not just misleading and false, they were
intentional lies, intentional falsehoods. It is part of the Crown’s
theory that Mr. Cormier told these lies out of fear hoping that
police would not be led to find the truck because someone may
have seen the truck when he disposed of the body, or because
Mr. Cormier was fearful that evidence which may have remained
in the truck, would be found.
 When considering whether the evidence of Mr. Cormier’s
running away from the police when they arrived at 22 Carmen
on October 1, 2014 and whether what the Crown alleges were
the lies about the truck and the tools in the police video
statement can be used to help you decide whether it was Mr.
Cormier who committed the offence charged, you must keep in
mind the instruction I am about to give you.

After the fact conduct is simply a type of circumstantial

evidence. As with all circumstantial evidence, you must consider
what inference, if any, is proper to draw from this evidence. You
may use this evidence, along with all of the other evidence in this
case in deciding whether the Crown has proved Mr. Cormier’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, you must not infer
Mr. Cormier’s guilt from this evidence unless, when you consider
it along with all of the other evidence, you are satisfied that it is
consistent with his guilt and is inconsistent with any other
reasonable conclusion.
 Keep in mind that evidence of after the fact conduct has
only indirect bearing on the issue of the accused’s guilt. You
must be careful about inferring Mr. Cormier’s guilt from this
evidence because there might be other explanations for this
conduct. You may use evidence of after the fact conduct to
support an inference of guilt only if you have rejected any other
reasonable explanation for this conduct.

When considering what inference, if any, to draw from

evidence of after the fact conduct, keep in mind that people
sometimes flee or lie for entirely innocent reasons. Even if the
accused, Mr. Cormier was motivated by a feeling of guilt, that
feeling might be attributable to something other than guilt for
the offence with which he is now charged.

In considering the fact that Mr. Cormier ran from 22

Carmen when the police attended on October 1, 2014, you will
want to consider that Mr. Cormier did indeed have outstanding
warrants out for his arrest. Accordingly, you are not to infer
anything about Mr. Cormier’s guilt in relation to the death of
Tina Fontaine from the evidence of his running away, unless you
consider it along with the evidence that there were these
outstanding warrants for his arrest and unless you are satisfied
that his running away is consistent with his guilt respecting the
death of Tina Fontaine and is inconsistent with any other
reasonable conclusion, including the conclusion that he may
have been running to avoid arrest on the outstanding warrants.

You have heard evidence that Mr. Cormier may have made
false or misleading statements after the alleged offence about
the stolen truck and the tools. Keep in mind however, that not
every falsehood is a lie. A lie is an intentional falsehood. You
may disbelieve a person’s statement without concluding that the
statement was a deliberate lie. You should look for independent
evidence of lying before using this evidence to support a finding
of guilt. Unless you conclude that the false or misleading
statements about the truck and the tools that the Crown
identifies were in fact lies, you must not use them to infer guilt.
 In this case, the Crown suggests that the following
independent evidence constitutes evidence which establishes
that Cormier’s comments in his video police statement should be
seen as not only false or misleading statements, but lies. The
Crown suggests they are lies for the following reasons:

 The Crown submits that Sarah Holland saw tools in the

kitchen on August 6, 2014, the day the truck was stolen.
 Glen McDonald saw the tools in the kitchen at 22 Carmen
and saw Mr. Cormier in possession of a 4 X 4 four-door,
Crew Cab truck. He described the colour as a lighter colour,
but dark. I note that the toolbox Mr. Cormier sold to Glen
McDonald is conceded to have belonged to Donald
Schneider, the owner of the blue Ford truck that was stolen
on August 6, 2014.
 Tyrell Morrison saw the tools and the truck arrive together
which he described as two row seats, a 4 X 4. The Crown
submits that Tyrell Morrison mistakenly thought the truck
 was green, although Tyrell Morrison did indicate that he
was not sure of the colour.
 Tina Fontaine’s call of August 6, 2014, the 911 call. She
reported that “Sebastian had stolen a blue truck.”
 Ernest DeWolfe testified that the accused had a stolen blue
Ford F150 with lots of tools. He testified that Mr. Cormier
admitted that the truck was stolen.

In considering the evidence that I just reviewed, you must

determine whether that evidence constitutes independent
evidence establishing not only false or misleading statements
but lies. If you do not determine that any statements made by
Raymond Cormier which might have been false or misleading are
in fact lies, you must not use them to infer guilt in respect of the
offence before the court. Remember as well, that even if you do
determine that Cormier’s comments or statements about the
truck and the tools were in fact lies, you must not use them to
infer guilt respecting the offence charged, unless you are
satisfied that such an inference of guilt is inconsistent with any
other reasonable conclusion, including the conclusion that
despite police assurances, Cormier still may have feared being
charged and prosecuted for having stolen the truck with the
tools.

MOTIVE

Motive is the reason why somebody does something. It is

not one of the essential elements that the Crown must prove.

You have heard counsel speak about motive. We often use

the words “motive” and “intent” interchangeably, but in law
they do not mean the same thing. In a legal context, when we
say that a person did something intentionally, we are conveying
that he or she meant to do what he or she did, and that it was
not done accidentally. When we speak of motive, however, we
are referring to the reason a person did what he or she did.
 A person may do something intentionally whether or not
the person had a motive for doing it. For example, a man goes
into a department store, tries on a watch, gets distracted and
walks out without paying. If he forgot to pay, he did not have the
intent to steal. Next, suppose the man knew that the watch was
on his wrist, but still walked out without paying. In that case, he
did have the intent to steal the watch. If he was rich, had plenty
of money in his wallet, and still took the watch, one might
conclude he had no motive, or at least that his motive is
unknown. However, if the man stole the watch in order to sell it,
he had the intent to steal and his motive was financial gain.

Later, I will explain the essential elements that the Crown

must prove for the offence(s) with which Mr. Cormier is charged.
Motive is not one of those elements. In deciding whether people
are guilty of an offence, what matters is what they did and
whether they did it intentionally, and not their reasons for doing
it
 You need not find a motive for Mr. Cormier’ actions in order
to find him or her guilty of the offence charged.

But motive can be relevant. If a person had a reason for

doing a certain thing, then you might conclude that it is more
likely that he or she in fact did that thing and did so intentionally.
Conversely, if you find that a person had no reason to do a
certain thing, that might cause you to doubt whether he or she
did that thing or did it intentionally.

In this case, the Crown says that the motive of Mr. Cormier
to kill Tina Fontaine was to silence her in reaction to both her
threat to call the police and her subsequent call to them. The
Crown contends that Mr. Cormier had several things to hide, the
stolen truck, sexual advances to and relations with a child, and
the fact that he would have at times provided drugs to her.

It is for you to decide what weight, if any, you will give to

the evidence of motive, or lack of motive, in this case.
SECOND DEGREE MURDER

Mr. Cormier is charged with second degree murder. The

charge reads as follows:

THAT HE, the said RAYMOND JOSEPH CORMIER, on or

between the 8th day and the 17th day of August, 2014,
at or near the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of
Manitoba, did cause the death of TINA FONTAINE and
thereby commit murder in the second degree,
contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Crown in the present case, is alleging that Mr. Cormier

is guilty of second degree murder on the basis of his having
committed an unlawful act that caused Tina Fontaine’s death.
The Crown says that the unlawful act committed by Mr. Cormier
consisted of either the assaultive act of smothering and killing
Tina Fontaine before she was placed in the water, or the placing
and submersion of Tina Fontaine into the river while she was
unconscious, but still alive. As it relates to the act of submersion,
the Crown argues that the submersion was either the unlawful
act itself, which caused the death, or the submersion was an act
of concealment of an already dead body. It is the Crown’s
position that if Tina Fontaine was still alive, but unconscious at
the time she was placed and submerged into the river wrapped
in the duvet, the act of placing her into the river, wrapped in the
duvet, weighted down with rocks, is part of the unlawful act.
Alternatively, the Crown submits that if Tina Fontaine was
already dead when she was placed in the river, the placing and
submerging of her wrapped body in the duvet and weighted
down with rocks, is an act of concealment meant to hide the
earlier murder of her.

You will recall at the beginning of this trial, when I provided

you my preliminary instructions, I told you that for you to find
Mr. Cormier guilty of second degree murder, Crown counsel
must prove each of the following essential elements beyond a
reasonable doubt:

(1) That Mr. Cormier caused Tina Fontaine’s death.

(2) That Mr. Cormier caused Tina Fontaine’s death
unlawfully.
(3) That Mr. Cormier had the state of mind required for
murder.

You must find Mr. Cormier not guilty of second degree

murder unless the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt
each of those essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

While the essential elements of second degree murder

never change, both the Crown and the defence agree that in the
particular circumstances of this case, two distinct questions can
be posed for your consideration in a particular and useful
sequence so as to allow you to address, on the available facts of
this case, the essential elements that are contested. Those two
questions are as follows:

(1) Was Tina Fontaine’s death caused by an unlawful act?

(2) Did Raymond Cormier commit the unlawful act?

Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the

Crown has proved that Tina Fontaine’s death was caused by an
unlawful act and that the accused Raymond Cormier committed
the unlawful act, you must find Raymond Cormier not guilty of
second degree murder.

I will come back to those two questions in a moment, but

before that, I want to explain that the third essential element for
second degree murder, the element requiring the requisite
mental state, has been, in the particular circumstances of this
case, conceded by the defence. That means that for the
purposes of this prosecution, if you answer the two identified
questions in the affirmative, that is, that Tina Fontaine’s death
was caused by an unlawful act and that Raymond Cormier did
cause the unlawful act, then the Crown does not have to argue
or prove that essential element relating to the mental state
required for murder. In other words, it is an essential element
for the offence of second degree murder that you will not have
to address in this case. Accordingly, there will be for your
consideration only the two previously mentioned questions.
There will be no question for you to address or determine as it
relates to the mental state required for murder. But please
remember, that the fact the defence has conceded the essential
element relating to the mental state required for murder, has
nothing to do with and should not affect the determinations that
you must make on the two questions you must decide. Please
also remember, that while the defence has conceded the
essential element concerning the requisite mental state, they
strongly contest the two questions that I earlier posed: was Tina
Fontaine’s death caused by an unlawful act and did Raymond
Cormier commit the unlawful act? In that connection, the
defence says that the Crown has not established beyond a
reasonable doubt that the death of Tina Fontaine was caused by
an unlawful act and, further, the defence says if it is found that
Tina Fontaine’s death was caused by an unlawful act, the Crown
has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that any
connected unlawful act was committed by Raymond Cormier.

Before I turn to the remaining essential elements that were

transformed into the identified two questions, I wish to briefly
make reference to the specific charge in the Indictment which is
before the court. The reference I wish to make relates to the
dates or the period of time during which the Crown alleges the
murder took place. You will note that the charge reads that
Raymond Cormier, on or between the 8th day and the 17th day of
August, 2014, at or near the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of
Manitoba, did cause the death of Tina Fontaine and thereby
commit murder in the second degree. In other words, it is
alleged that the murder took place on or between August 8,
2014, the last day Tina Fontaine was seen alive, and August 17,
2014, the day her body was discovered and pulled from the river.
 You should note that the question of date or the period of
time during which the Crown says the alleged offence took place,
is not an essential element of the offence. The precise date of
the offence need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, only
that the offence occurred on or between August 8 and August
17, 2014. However, given the circumstantial nature of much of
the evidence, and in light of the other evidence that has been
presented, even if the precise date of the offence is not an
essential element of the offence, it may be very relevant. It may
be very relevant not only to whatever inferences you may or may
not draw, but also, in connection with how any such inference
may affect your ultimate decision as to whether the Crown has
proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

WAS TINA FONTAINE’S DEATH CAUSED BY AN UNLAWFUL ACT?

It is not always a crime to cause another person’s death. It

is a crime, however, to cause the death of another person by
unlawful act.
 The Crown alleges in this case that either one of two
unlawful acts caused the death of Tina Fontaine. The Crown
alleges that Tina Fontaine’s death was caused either by
smothering before being placed in the river or by the placement
in and submersion of Tina Fontaine into the river, alive but
unconscious, thereby leading to drowning.

To determine whether the Crown has established beyond a

reasonable doubt that Tina Fontaine’s death was caused by an
unlawful act, you must consider all of the evidence, both
circumstantial and direct.

As the identification and crime scene specialist, Constable

Roy-Hageman, told you, this is an unusual case as there is no
crime scene. Indeed, even after the autopsy, the cause of Tina
Fontaine’s death could not be determined. In noting that fact,
please remember however, that simply because a precise cause
of death cannot be determined, does not mean that the cause of
death was not unlawful. While there may be no evidence of a
conclusive cause of death, you may find evidence, circumstantial
and/or direct, that the cause of death was nonetheless unlawful.
That is the first question you must decide. Despite the fact that
a cause of death could not be determined in this case, is there
nonetheless evidence that establishes, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Tina Fontaine’s death was unlawful?

You will recall the evidence of the forensic pathologist, Dr.

Rhee, who did say that the cause of death was undetermined.
Dr. Rhee also stated that the way the body was presented is
highly suspicious and suggests death at the hands of another. Dr.
Rhee of course was referring to the manner in which the duvet
was wrapped around the body and weighted down with rocks.
In opining about possible causes of death that could not be ruled
out, Dr. Rhee acknowledged that drowning could not be ruled
out. Similarly, Dr. Rhee testified that he could not rule out as a
possibility that Tina Fontaine suffered an assault that did not
leave an evident injury, but was nonetheless fatal. In this regard,
Dr. Rhee acknowledged that smothering, for example, was a
potentially assaultive act that could cause death without causing
evident injury. I will take this opportunity to advise you that an
assault is an intentional application of force without the consent
of the alleged victim and whose lack of consent was known to
the person applying the unwanted force. In this sense, the act
of smothering referenced by Dr. Rhee could obviously involve
the intentional application of force without consent. The same
could be said of an intentional drowning. If you were to
determine that Tina Fontaine’s death involved her being
smothered or drowned against her will at the hand of another,
then these would be assaults, which Dr. Rhee could not rule out
and which would be unlawful acts.

Dr. Rhee did opine about other possible causes of death,

some of which, based on his testimony and the other evidence,
seemed unlikely.
 He acknowledged that suicide is possible, but given the
manner in which the body was found, it seems rather unlikely.

Dr. Rhee noted that there was no obvious toxin, drug or

poison found in Tina Fontaine. You will recall the evidence of the
toxicologist, Mr. Keddy, who testified that gabapentin is not
detected, except at a high toxic level. Mr. Keddy testified that
while gabapentin is generally considered a safe drug, there have
been a few reported cases of gabapentin fatalities. But the
statistics, 3 among 4,800 overdoses, suggest that they are very
rare. Those cases of fatalities, you were told, would have
occurred when the deceased had a complicating medical
condition or there was present, another central nervous system
depressant. So when you look at the evidence ladies and
gentlemen, death caused by undetected gabapentin is a
possibility, but there would appear, on the facts of this case, little
if any evidence to support it, but you will decide.
 In terms of some of the other possible causes of death that
were explored with the witnesses, you will recall that Dr. Rhee
testified that while it is possible for highly intoxicated people to
“self-smother”, there was no evidence in this case of an
intoxicant at a level that would make that a likely cause of death.

Dr. Rhee also addressed the possibility of death by

aspiration. Although Dr. Rhee acknowledged that it is possible
to aspirate or choke on vomit, there was no evidence of
obstruction found in the airways in this case.

In deciding whether the Crown has established beyond a

reasonable doubt that Tina Fontaine’s death was caused by an
unlawful act, you must consider all of the evidence, including
what the Crown characterizes as the direct evidence coming
from the accused Raymond Cormier’s admission or admissions,
as found in the recordings of the intercepts. In that regard, I note
that at different points of the interceptions, Cormier is alleged to
have said the following:
 - “Tina Fontaine got killed because we … I found out she
was 15.”
- “Tina Fontaine died because someone didn’t want to go
to jail as a skinner.”
- “It’s right on the shore, so what do I do, threw her in. No
going back too. There may or may not be any problems,
but somebody may have seen the truck.”
- “Unfortunately there’s a little girl in a grave someplace
screaming, finish the job. Guess what, I finished the job.”

Those comments that I just identified represent just some

or part of the admissions invoked by the Crown. When
considering them, keep in mind the alternate interpretations
urged upon you by the defence.

If, subject to all my earlier instructions, you find that the

accused made any of the alleged comments that I have just
identified, you may examine them, along with all of the other
evidence, to determine whether they assist you in deciding
whether Tina Fontaine’s death was caused by an unlawful act.

In deciding whether Tina Fontaine’s death was caused by an

unlawful act, as part of your consideration of the circumstantial
evidence, you may find it of assistance to examine the manner
in which the body of Tina Fontaine presented at the time of the
discovery. As you have heard, the body was discovered wrapped
in a duvet full of rocks, which, based on other evidence, suggests
that the body wrapped in the duvet had been initially weighted
down. The Crown suggests that the wrapping of the body in that
manner and the fact that it had initially been weighed down by
rocks is consistent with the concealment of the body. If you find,
based on a consideration of all of the evidence, that the body
was submerged in the river for the purpose of concealment, you
may or may not draw an inference that an unlawful act was
committed.
 When you are considering all of the evidence, and when you
are deciding whether the Crown has proved that Tina Fontaine’s
death was caused by an unlawful act, please remember that just
as an undetermined cause of death does not rule out that the
possible cause of death was unlawful, neither does it rule out
that the possible cause of death was lawful. Despite Dr. Rhee
having determined that many of the other possible causes of
death seemed unlikely, you will consider the argument of the
defence that other causes of death may be possible and are
available on the basis of reasonable inference. Two possibilities
proposed by the defence were the possibility of a “self-
smothering” and the possibility of a gabapentin overdose.

For example, the defence points to the evidence that it is

possible for a highly intoxicated person to “self-smother”.
Although as Dr. Rhee said there is no direct evidence of an
intoxicant found in Tina Fontaine’s body at a sufficiently high
level, the defence contends that Tina Fontaine had been
consuming a variety of drugs and had passed out on August 8,
2014, such that she was taken to the emergency ward of the
hospital. The defence argues that it is not a leap to suggest that
she could have passed out again in a similar circumstance, such
so as to suggest an act that was unlawful. It will be for you to
decide on the whole of the evidence, including the evidence of
Dr. Rhee and the evidence of possible concealment, whether
such an inference is reasonable.

When considering what the defence says are the other

possible causes of death, please remember the position of the
Crown – whether in respect of a gabapentin overdose or, for that
matter, a “self-smothering”, the Crown characterizes those
possibilities as remote, unlikely and purely fanciful. Based on the
whole of the evidence and the legal instruction I am giving you,
it will be for you to decide.

Ladies and gentlemen, to prove that Tina Fontaine’s death

was caused by an unlawful act, the Crown must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the alleged unlawful act, either
smothering or drowning by submersion, contributed
significantly to Tina Fontaine’s death. A person’s conduct may
contribute significantly to another person’s death, even though
the conduct is not the sole or main cause of death.

In this case, you should consider all of the evidence

concerning the cause of Tina Fontaine’s death and the discovery
of her body, including the evidence of Dr. Rhee and Mr. Keddy,
in determining whether the Crown has proved that either of the
alternate unlawful acts identified by the Crown, contributed
significantly to Tina Fontaine’s death. It is for you to decide.

The Crown says that the death of Tina Fontaine was caused
by an assaultive act such as smothering which did not leave
evident injury or by an act such as submersion into the river
while unconscious but alive. If you determine, based on all of
the evidence, that Tina Fontaine’s death was caused either by an
assaultive suffocation or by submersion in the river while she
was unconscious but alive, thereby leading to her drowning, you
should have no difficulty determining that either of those acts
were unlawful.

Unless you are satisfied that Tina Fontaine’s death was

caused by either of the unlawful acts identified by the Crown,
you must find Mr. Cormier not guilty. Your deliberations would
be over.

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that either

of the two acts identified by the Crown caused the death of Tina
Fontaine, you must go on to the next question.

DID RAYMOND CORMIER COMMIT THE UNLAWFUL ACT?

The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Raymond Cormier committed the unlawful act that caused the
death of Tina Fontaine. If the Crown has not proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that Raymond Cormier committed the
unlawful act that caused Tina Fontaine’s death, then Raymond
Cormier is not guilty of the offence charged.

As you heard a number of times, the unlawful act alleged by

the Crown in this case is either the assaultive act of smothering
Tina Fontaine, an act which Dr. Rhee said would not leave
evident injury, or, the act of wrapping Tina Fontaine into a duvet
weighted down by rocks and submerging her into the river while
unconscious but still alive, thereby leading to her drowning.

It is the position of the Crown that based on the direct

evidence of what it says are certain admissions to the offence by
the accused taken from the interceptions, and, based on the
circumstantial evidence which the Crown says demonstrates
motive, opportunity and means, there is evidence establishing
beyond a reasonable doubt that Raymond Cormier committed
either the unlawful act of smothering or the unlawful act of
submersion into the river, either of which acts would have
significantly contributed to Tina Fontaine’s death.
 It is the position of the defence, that the so-called
admissions to the offence by Mr. Cormier identified by the
Crown, are not admissions to the offence, and in any event, they
should not be relied upon for the various reasons the defence
has explained including the possibility of alternative and equally
reasonable interpretations of those comments which
interpretations are not consistent with guilt. It is also the
defence’s position that if there are no such reliable admissions,
the Crown’s case with respect to the death of Tina Fontaine is
entirely circumstantial in respect of which, there are alternate
reasonable inferences other than Mr. Cormier’s guilt that can be
drawn from the evidence or the absence of evidence.

I will now briefly review some of the evidence which may

be relevant to both the Crown and defence positions as it relates
to the question of whether the Crown has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that Raymond Cormier committed the
unlawful act that caused Tina Fontaine’s death.
 Please remember my earlier comments to you. Although I
will make reference to some of the relevant evidence presented
at trial, my review of the evidence will be limited, with the
knowledge that the evidence should still be fresh in your minds.
In reviewing the evidence that I may identify, I may overlook
evidence you think important, or mention evidence you think is
insignificant. Remember, you members of the jury find the facts
and you will base your decision on your memory and review of
the evidence, not mine or that of counsel.

In deciding whether Raymond Cormier committed the

unlawful act, you may wish to review some of the comments that
Mr. Cormier is alleged to have made in the course of the
interceptions. If you find that Mr. Cormier made those
comments, those comments are direct evidence, subject to your
interpretations of them. Some of those comments included the
following:
 - “Tina Fontaine got killed because we … I found out she
was 15.”
- “Tina Fontaine died because someone didn’t want to go
to jail as a skinner.”
- “It’s right on the shore, so what do I do, threw her in. No
going back too. There may or may not be any problems,
but somebody may have seen the truck.”
- “Unfortunately there’s a little girl in a grave someplace
screaming, finish the job. Guess what, I finished the job.”
- “You think you’ll get the murder out of me. Hmm. That’s
fuckin’ it man. Get away from me. Ugh fucker off, get
outta here. Fuck you fuck.”

In considering those comments that I just identified which

were allegedly made by Mr. Cormier and found in the
interceptions, please remember my earlier instructions with
respect to out-of-court comments made by Mr. Cormier,
including any comments arising from the intercepts. If you find
that the accused made those comments, give those comments
and anything else you find the accused said as much or as little
importance as you think it deserves in deciding this case. It will
be for you to decide whether those comments identified by the
Crown help you decide whether Raymond Cormier committed
the unlawful act. In considering those comments that the Crown
characterizes as admissions, you must consider the position of
the defence concerning what the defence submits are
reasonable alternative interpretations for any of those
comments in the context of the conversations from which they
arise.

You will also want to consider the circumstantial evidence

in respect of what the Crown submits is evidence representing
Mr. Cormier’s motive, opportunity and means.

As it relates to motive, the Crown argues that Mr. Cormier

wanted to silence Tina Fontaine, both in reaction to her threat
to call the police and her subsequent call to them. The Crown
suggests that the accused had several things to hide, particularly,
the stolen truck, and the sexual advances and sexual relations
with a child.

You will recall the evidence about some of Raymond

Cormier and Tina Fontaine’s interactions with each other. In this
regard, you may consider the evidence of Sarah Holland
respecting the comments made to her on August 6, 2014 when
Tina Fontaine allegedly came upstairs and advised Sarah Holland
that Mr. Cormier was “creeping her out.” You will also recall Mr.
Cormier’s comments on the intercepts and his comment to Mr.
DeWolfe that he had had sex with Tina Fontaine who was
underage at the time and in the words of the accused, was
“supposed to be legal.” In the context of that evidence, you may
want to consider Raymond Cormier’s comment in the intercepts
where the Crown alleges that he said that Tina Fontaine died
because “someone didn’t want to go to jail as a skinner.”

You will recall from the evidence of those who heard the
argument in the alley, Tina Fontaine’s threat to report Raymond
Cormier to the police. It was Sarah Holland who testified that
shortly after that argument concluded, Raymond Cormier came
back into the house asking Sarah Holland whether she believed
Tina Fontaine would really call the police. In considering the
evidence concerning Tina Fontaine’s threat to call the police, you
may also wish to consider the evidence of Ernest DeWolfe
wherein he told you about his conversation on August 15, 2014,
with Raymond Cormier and Cormier’s comment to him to not
worry about Tina Fontaine going to the police because he “took
care of it.”

As it relates to opportunity, you will consider the witnesses

who testified about the various contact Raymond Cormier had
with Tina Fontaine during the period in question. Tina Fontaine
herself referred to Sebastian as “her friend.” On the issue of
opportunity, you may wish to consider the evidence of Kim
Chute, the Child and Family Services worker, who had her
conversation with Tina Fontaine on August 8, 2014, the last day
that Tina Fontaine was seen alive. With reference to that August
8, 2014 conversation and Tina Fontaine’s comments to Kim
Chute, the Crown has argued that it can be inferred that Tina
Fontaine acted on her stated expectation and intention to meet
with the accused and receive a bike from him. Such a meeting,
if it occurred, would have been on or sometime after August 8,
2014. You will recall the evidence of Dr. Rhee who opined that
by the time Tina Fontaine’s body was recovered on August 17,
2014, it is estimated that she would have been dead
approximately three to seven days. That number according to
Dr. Rhee could have been as high as eight to 10 days or as low as
two days. You will also recall the evidence of the underwater
search and recovery expert, Kevin Pawl, who testified that in his
opinion, Tina Fontaine’s body had been in the water for at least
one week.

When considering what the Crown identifies as the means

available to Mr. Cormier for the murder of Tina Fontaine, you
may wish to examine the evidence that the Crown attempts to
use to link the duvet that wrapped the body of Tina Fontaine
with Mr. Cormier. In that regard, you will want to consider the
evidence from the police who were present when Ida Beardy,
Chantelle Beardy and Ernest DeWolfe were shown a photo or
photos from a particular style series of duvets sold at Costco.
You will recall the testimony of Sgt. Stalker who explained what
happened when he showed Ida Beardy Exhibit 24, the photo of
the same sort of Costco Chloe green duvet that was used to wrap
Tina Fontaine. Sgt. Stalker said to Ida Beardy that he wanted to
show her something and he wanted to know “what does this
mean to you?” Sgt. Stalker said that her immediate reaction
“blew me away.” Ida Beardy said “that’s the blanket that
Frenchie brought to the house.” You will recall that Sgt. Stalker
testified that when Chantelle Beardy was shown a different
photo of an identical image of the same blanket (Exhibit 25), and
asked, “what does this photo mean to you,” her eyes lit up and
there was a similarly immediate reaction. Sgt. Stalker testified
that she made a reference to “Sebastian’s blanket” and she said
that she was “absolutely certain he had it.” In the case of Ernest
DeWolfe, prior to being shown a picture of the duvet on
December 2, 2014, he was asked by the police about some of Mr.
Cormier’s property and bedding. Sgt. Rydell testified that Mr.
DeWolfe remembered a “blanket” with a fall scene and brown
leaves. When shown a photo of the duvet, Mr. DeWolfe stated,
“that looks like Ray’s blanket.” Ernest DeWolfe acknowledged
that he “can’t be a 100% but it looks like it.”

Concerning their identification of and their comments

about the Chloe green duvet, in respect of Ida and Chantelle
Beardy, Ernest DeWolfe and Sarah Holland, you have heard
mentioned the dangers of susceptibility, collusion, memory
implanting and unconscious bias, and how that might affect your
reliance on their identification of the duvet. You have also heard
about a “one photo” flawed process and an animus that
motivated the Beardys and Mr. DeWolfe. In the end, despite the
arguments made by the defence in this regard, the Crown
contends that when you consider that evidence with care, you
can use that identification evidence about the duvet to connect
Mr. Cormier to it. It will be for you to decide, ladies and
gentlemen, the extent to which you find that evidence reliable
and the extent to which it may or may not assist in determining
whether Raymond Cormier is guilty of the offence charged.

You may wish to consider the evidence that the Crown

points to in an effort to link Donald Schneider’s stolen truck and
tool box to the accused, Raymond Cormier. According to the
Crown’s theory, the truck was a means by which the accused
transported Tina Fontaine to the river where he submerged her
body either already dead or unconscious.

Irrespective of what the Crown argues the circumstantial

evidence may support in terms of inferences concerning motive,
opportunity and means, it will be for you to decide, whether on
the evidence, such inferences are reasonable.

Along with considering the circumstantial evidence that the

Crown points to as representing motive, opportunity and means,
you will also want to consider, as I earlier instructed, the after
the fact/post offence conduct of Raymond Cormier. Please keep
in mind my earlier instruction to you on post offence conduct
and remember as well, that post event conduct is a form of
circumstantial evidence. In considering what the Crown has
identified was Raymond Cormier’s running from the police and
his alleged lies in his video police statement about the truck, you
will also consider the alternate explanations for those acts which
may be inconsistent with inferences of his guilt in respect of the
murder of Tina Fontaine.

In considering the circumstantial evidence of the Crown

respecting motive, opportunity and means, you will also
consider the position of the defence which is that there was no
direct evidence demonstrating that the accused was aware that
Tina Fontaine did call the police just as there was no direct
evidence that Tina Fontaine and Raymond Cormier ever met
again after their argument on August 6, 2014. The defence
points to some evidence presented at trial which suggests some
involvement by Tina Fontaine in the sex trade, suggesting that
she may have been exposed to certain dangers in terms of
individuals she may have encountered. You will also consider
the evidence of Cody Mason who testified to some of Tina
Fontaine’s involvement in the drug trade including the sale and
use of illicit drugs. It is the defence’s position that it is a
reasonable inference that other individuals Tina Fontaine would
have interacted with in the drug subculture could have
themselves been motivated to cause her death as a result of her
knowledge of their activities.

As it relates to the duvet and the truck as a means for the

commission of these events, it is the position of the defence that
there is no reliable identification evidence that would link the
type of duvet that wrapped Tina Fontaine, with anything
previously in the possession of the accused. As for the truck, the
defence takes the position that there is no direct evidence that
would link the truck with the accused’s transportation and
disposal of Tina Fontaine. Indeed, the defence reminds you that
there is no forensic evidence linking the accused with either the
body of Tina Fontaine, the duvet in question or the truck.

In addition to the defence’s position that any number of

individuals interacting with Tina Fontaine, other than Raymond
Cormier, could have caused Tina Fontaine’s death, the defence
also more specifically invites you to consider the involvement of
a particular third party: Tyrell Morrison.

You will recall that at the very end of the cross-examination

of Tyrell Morrison, defence counsel, Mr. Kavanagh, suggested, “I
put it to you that you had equal opportunity to assault or harm
Tina Fontaine?” In response, Tyrell Morrison said “No”.

The defence has argued on behalf of Mr. Cormier that Tyrell

Morrison had the means, opportunity and propensity to commit
the offence. In that regard, counsel for Mr. Cormier argues that
there is evidence from Sarah Holland that Mr. Morrison
physically assaulted her. The defence submits that this
demonstrates a propensity that Tyrell Morrison is or can be
violent with women.

Concerning the opportunity that Tyrell Morrison would

have had to cause harm to Tina Fontaine, the defence has argued
that Tyrell Morrison resided at 22 Carmen and that he met Tina
Fontaine at 22 Carmen on at least two occasions. The defence
argues that Tyrell Morrison had access to the Ford F150 at 22
Carmen and that Morrison did acknowledge that he had been in
the bed of the truck. The defence points to evidence from
DeWolfe that the truck keys were located in the living room, on
the coffee table, in plain view. In addition, it is the position of
the defence that the evidence suggests that Morrison cannot be
excluded as a contributor to the blood found in the bed of the
truck, though the defence also acknowledges the evidence of Dr.
Chahal who stated clearly that this is not statistically significant
due to the mixed sample. Finally, the defence notes that Tyrell
Morrison would have had access to the bedding that may have
been present at 22 Carmen.
 You will recall having heard evidence that Tyrell Morrison
has been previously convicted of common assault in 2014 and
has 13 other convictions of fail to comply with a court order. This
may or may not help you decide whether Tyrell Morrison is the
sort of the person who would commit the offence for which
Raymond Cormier is charged.

In the end, as it relates to Tyrell Morrison, it will be for you

to decide whether there is any evidence to show that Tyrell
Morrison committed the offence. It will be for you to say
whether any such evidence alone, or together with other
evidence raises a reasonable doubt that Raymond Cormier
committed the offence charged. Remember my earlier
instruction, Raymond Cormier does not have to present
evidence or prove anything in this case, in particular, that he is
innocent of the crime charged.
 From start to finish, it is the Crown who must prove
Raymond Cormier guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In deciding whether the Crown has proved beyond a

reasonable doubt that Raymond Cormier committed the
unlawful act that caused the death of Tina Fontaine, you will
consider all of the evidence, including what the Crown identifies
are comments amounting to admissions by Raymond Cormier to
the offence charged. You will consider the circumstantial
evidence that may support inferences respecting Raymond
Cormier’s motive, opportunity and means for committing the
offence. You will of course also consider the position of the
defence, challenging the nature of the Crown’s circumstantial
case and the reliability and interpretation of what the Crown
says are admissions to the offence made by the accused.

Although this case contains direct evidence in the form of

potential admissions from the accused, it also contains much
circumstantial evidence. Again, remember what I said, both
types of evidence count. Given that much of the evidence in this
case is circumstantial, the accused, Mr. Cormier should only be
found guilty if you are satisfied that the guilt of Mr. Cormier is
the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the whole of the
evidence. You will consider alternate inferences to see, whether
based on the evidence or the absence of evidence, any such
alternate inferences are reasonable and inconsistent with the
guilt of the accused. Remember however, that any alternate
inferences must be reasonable and not merely speculative
possibilities.

If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that

Raymond Cormier committed the unlawful act that caused the
death of Tina Fontaine, you must find Raymond Cormier not
guilty.

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that

Raymond Cormier committed the unlawful act that caused the
death of Tina Fontaine, you must find Raymond Cormier guilty of
second-degree murder as charged.

Please record your decision on the verdict sheet provided

you.

POSITIONS OF THE CROWN AND THE DEFENCE

I will now set out a summary of the positions of the Crown

and the defence as the lawyers have provided them to me. You
should attach no significance to the order in which I deal with
them. There are no hidden messages.
Crown Position

First, I will give you the position of the Crown.

As it relates to cause of death, the Crown says that Tina

Fontaine’s death was caused by a wrongful act; either
smothering or submersion while still alive. The other possible
causes of her death says the Crown, are quite unlikely. The
pathological evidence is but one part of the determination of her
cause of death.

The Crown submits that death by a wrongful act can be

inferred from the attempt to conceal Tina Fontaine’s body. In
this regard, it can be inferred that this was done to hide a
wrongful act. The Crown reminds you that Raymond Cormier
admits committing an unlawful act in saying such things that
include that he “finished the job”, that “she was dead by sunset”
and “It’s right by the shore – I threw her in.” His statement to
DeWolfe that he saw her and “took care” of the problem is a
further admission. The Crown contends that Cormier’s motive
to silence Tina Fontaine can also be used to infer that she died
by an unlawful act.

As it relates to whether it was Raymond Cormier who

committed the unlawful act, Mr. Cormier’s post-offence conduct
(lies to police and flight upon arrest) can be considered as
evidence of identity. That is, that it was he, Raymond Cormier,
who committed the unlawful act. As well, the Crown points to
the circumstantial evidence that Mr. Cormier had the means,
opportunity and motive to harm the deceased.

Respecting means, the Crown points to the uncommon

Costco Chloe Green duvet cover and the truck.

Respecting opportunity, the Crown points to Tina

Fontaine’s intention to get a bike from the accused, Cormier’s
ongoing repeated contacts with Fontaine, her availability, and
Cormier’s statement to DeWolfe that he had met and spoken to
Fontaine after August 6, 2014.

Respecting motive, the Crown points to Cormier’s need to

silence Tina Fontaine because she threatened to report him to
the police.

Most tellingly, the Crown reminds you that Raymond

Cormier admits to being the person who harmed Tina Fontaine.

Defence Position

The position of the defence is as follows:

The defence says that you should believe Mr. Cormier with
respect to his denials in the involvement of the death of Tina
Fontaine. The defence points to Mr. Cormier’s consistent denials
in his warned statement and his evidence regarding how he first
met Ms. Fontaine as well as how she left his company on
August 6, 2014. The defence further says that the reasonable
interpretation of the audio recordings of Mr. Cormier from
Project STYX supports Mr. Cormier’s innocence. The defence
points to his repeated comments to third-party individuals as
well as undercover officers that he was not involved in Ms.
Fontaine’s death, that he wants to find her killer, and that regrets
what he told her the last time he saw her. The defence suggests
that all of this combined, should lead you to accept his position
that he was not involved in Ms. Fontaine’s death. Accordingly,
the defence says that you should acquit Mr. Cormier. It is the
defence’s position that even if you do not completely believe Mr.
Cormier in his denials, his denials should raise reasonable doubt.

In the event that you do not believe Mr. Cormier and his
denials do not leave you with doubt, the defence submits that
the Crown has not met its burden of proof beyond reasonable
doubt with respect to the first question of whether or not Ms.
Fontaine’s death was caused by an unlawful act. The defence
says that based on the evidence of the forensic pathologist and
the toxicologist, there are two reasonable, alternate possibilities
for the cause of Ms. Fontaine’s death. These would be an
overdose by combination of gabapentin and alcohol, or
alternatively, death by self-smothering. The defence argues that
these possibilities are supported by the evidence from the
pathologist and toxicologist. The defence says that these
possibilities are more than mere speculation and are reasonable
when you consider the evidence as a whole, including Ms.
Fontaine’s self-admitted and observed use of alcohol and illicit
drugs. Accordingly, the defence says on this first question, you
should acquit Mr. Cormier.

The defence also argues, that even if you are required to

address the second question, it says that the Crown has not
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cormier was the
individual who caused Ms. Fontaine’s death by unlawful act. The
defence submits that Mr. Cormier’s comments recorded on the
intercepts are not admissions of guilt, but rather are statements
consistent with his non-involvement in her death. The defence
argues that the remaining circumstantial evidence relating to the
death of Ms. Fontaine does not support the inference that Mr.
Cormier was the individual who caused her death beyond
reasonable doubt. In this regard, there are two main pieces of
evidence: the duvet cover and the truck. The defence says that
the witnesses who identify the duvet cover should not, and
cannot, be believed due to both issues of credibility and
reliability. The defence further says that there is no forensic link
between Mr. Cormier, Ms. Fontaine’s body and the duvet cover
in which her body was discovered, and the truck that the Crown
alleges was used to transport Ms. Fontaine’s body. Overall, the
defence says that the Crown’s evidence in this regard does not
meet the threshold for proof beyond reasonable doubt with
respect to this part of the test and as such, you should acquit Mr.
Cormier of the charge.
USE OF VERDICT SHEET

Included in the things that will go with you to the jury room
is a verdict sheet. On this sheet, I have listed the verdicts that
you may reach in this case. There is no significance to the order
in which the verdicts are listed.

If you reach a verdict, your foreperson should place a check

mark in the box opposite the verdict you have reached.

The evidence and the issues raised in this case leave two
verdicts for you to consider:

Not guilty

or

Guilty of second degree murder.

USE OF DECISION TREE

The written material prepared to help you during your

deliberations includes a decision tree. There are several
rectangles and arrows pointing in different directions on this
document. Some rectangles contain questions, others show
verdicts or give directions. The words “Yes” and “No” are printed
above or beside the arrows.

Every rectangle that contains a question also has a number.

You begin with question one and follow the arrows to reach your
verdict.

Each question has to do with an essential element of the

offence charged. The questions are more or less in the same
words, and in the same order as they were in the instructions I
gave you earlier and of which you will have a copy.

To answer a question, any question, you must consider:

 the principles of law that govern your decision on that
question, as I have explained them to you; and

 all the evidence that relates to the question.

The first question is:

Was Tina Fontaine’s death caused by an unlawful act?

If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Tina

Fontaine’s death was caused by an unlawful act, your answer to
the first question must be “No”, and you must find Mr. Cormier
not guilty.

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Tina

Fontaine’s death was caused by an unlawful act, your answer to
the first question must be “Yes”, and you must go on to the
second question.
 The second question is:

Did Raymond Cormier commit the unlawful act?

If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that

Raymond Cormier committed the unlawful act that caused the
death of Tina Fontaine, your answer to the second question must
be “No”, and you must find Mr. Cormier not guilty.

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that

Raymond Cormier committed the unlawful act that caused the
death of Tina Fontaine, you must find Raymond Cormier guilty of
second degree murder.

RETURN OF VERDICT

If you reach a verdict, please tell the sheriff’s officer that

you have made your decision, but do not tell them what decision
you have made. We will reconvene court and bring you back into
the courtroom to hear your decision.
 Your foreperson should bring the verdict sheet into court
with him or her when we reconvene. It is the foreperson’s
responsibility to announce your verdict in the courtroom, and
turn over to me the completed verdict sheet. You do not give
reasons for your decision.

USE OF JUROR NOTES DURING DELIBERATIONS

When we began this trial, I told you that you could take
notes to help you remember what any witness said in testifying
here. Some of you have done so. You may take your notes with
you to the jury room for your use during your deliberations.

Your notes are not evidence, any more than the notes that
I make or the lawyers make are evidence. The only purpose for
which you may use your notes during your deliberations is to
help you remember what a witness said or showed, for example,
on an exhibit.
 It is also important to remember that the notes are those of
the note-taker, not someone else. They may or may not coincide
with other jurors’ memories of the evidence.

A jury’s decision is a group decision. Everyone has a say, an

equal say. We depend on the memory and judgment of each one
of you to decide this case. Do not simply defer to the person who
is or seems to be the best note-taker. Notes do not make
decisions: jurors do.

JUROR CONDUCT DURING DELIBERATIONS

When you go to your jury room, your duty is to consult with

each other and to deliberate with a view to reaching a just
verdict. Your verdict must be based on the facts as you find them
from all the evidence introduced at trial, and on the law that I
have told you applies in this case.
 Anything that has been made an exhibit during the trial will
be available for you to examine to the extent and in the manner
you may wish to do so.

When you begin your deliberations, you should not start

out by emphatically expressing your opinion or declaring your
intention to stand for a particular verdict no matter what others
may think or say. To proceed like that makes it very hard for you
to take into account the views and wisdom of your fellow jurors.
Keep an open mind, but not an empty head. Don’t just talk.
Listen too. Put forward your own views in a reasonable way.
Listen in a calm and impartial manner to what your fellow jurors
have to say.

Jurors are not advocates who have a duty, like the lawyers
here, to argue the case for the Crown or for the defence, as the
case may be. Jurors are judges of the facts. If you approach your
deliberations calmly, putting forward your own views and
listening carefully to what others have to say, you will be able to
reach a just and proper verdict.

It is the responsibility of your foreperson to be the chair of

the meeting and to guide the deliberations along, to prevent
them from becoming protracted or descending into unnecessary
repetition of matters already decided. The foreperson must be
firm in his or her leadership, but fair to everyone.

REQUIREMENTS FOR A VERDICT

For there to be a verdict in this case, it is necessary for all

eleven jurors to agree about the decision. In other words, a
verdict, whether of not guilty or guilty, expresses the unanimous
opinion of the jury.

Sometimes jurors are unable to reach a verdict. Under our

law, jurors have the right to disagree. No jury, however, will ever
be in any better or different position to decide this case than you
are now.

QUESTIONS DURING DELIBERATIONS

If there is anything in these instructions about which you

are not clear, I will be available to answer your questions. If you
have a question, please have your foreperson put it in writing in
a sealed envelope and give it to the sheriff’s officer.

After I have received your question, I will discuss the answer

to it with the lawyers in your absence. After that, you will be
brought back into the courtroom, and your question read out
followed by my answer. I will answer every proper question you
have, as quickly and completely as I can.

Please note, ladies and gentlemen, that while I said you will
be able to access all of the exhibits in the jury room, the exhibits
never include a bound volume of the recorded transcript of the
trial. Although I don’t expect this request having to be made, if
required, it is possible to audibly review, where necessary,
whatever portions of the evidence you identify.

FINAL REMARKS

You have taken an oath, or made a solemn affirmation, to

well and truly try this case and to render a true verdict according
to the evidence. If you honour that oath or affirmation, as I am
sure you will, you will have done everything that is expected of
you as jurors in this trial. We ask for nothing more. We expect
and are entitled to nothing less.

Ladies and gentlemen, I now invite you to retire to

commence your deliberations.