Vi\·ncou·v'E'R'Registiiy - Vancouver Sun

Citation: p
Counsel for the Crown:
PROVINCIAL COURT
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Fill: D
APR 0 5 2011
· .. ·· .. ··Vi\·NCOU·V'E'R'REGiSTiiy··· .... ··
222 MAIN STREET
Date: p
File No: 205441-2
Registry: Vancouver
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Criminal
Counsel for the Defendant:
Place of Hearing:
Dates of Hearing:
Date of Judgment:
REGINA
v.
JEFFREY KLASSEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE JODIE WERIER
Ralph Keefer and Ellen Leno
Dwight M.D. Stewart
Vancouver, B.C.
October 12,13,14,15,18,19,20 & 22,2010; and
January 17, 19,20,27 and February 4,2011
April 5, 2011

R. v. Klassen Page
INTRODUCTION:
[1] In the early morning hours of January 21, 2009, while working as a newspaper
courier in downtown Vancouver, Firoz Khan was assaulted. An off duty police officer,
Griffin Gillan, entered a guilty plea and has already been sentenced for his participation
in the assault. Jeffrey Klassen, a New Westminster police officer, who was also off
duty, is charged (Count 2) with assaulting Khan contrary to section 266 of the Criminal
Code. He is also charged (Count 3) with having a cellphone that belonged to Khan in
his possession knowing that the phone was obtained by commission of an indictable
offence, contrary to section 355(b) of the Criminal Code.
ISSUES:
[2] Count 2: Whether Klassen ought to be found guilty of assaulting Khan, or
whether his physical altercation with Khan was justified pursuant to sections 25, 27, 30
and or 31 of the Criminal Code.
[3] Count 3: Whether Klassen, who took Khan's cellphone during the altercation and
still had it in his pocket when he was searched incidental to his arrest, had the requisite
intent to support a conviction of possession of stolen property.
THE EVIDENCE:
[4] The evidence in this case spanned approximately 10 % days over four months.
heard from 19 witnesses including Klassen and two expert witnesses, a use of force
expert and a forensic toxicologist.
1

R. v. Klassen Page
UNDISPUTED FACTS:
[5] While there are many facts that are in dispute, other relevant facts were
consistently described by the various witnesses and are not in dispute. These
undisputed facts are as follows:
• In January, 2009, Griffin Gillan, Jeffrey Klassen and Blair Tanino were all
relatively new police officers who had become friends during their training at the
Justice Institute.
• In January 2009, Klassen was a probationary officer who had not yet completed
all of his training. He took an oath of office with the New Westminster police
service on August 29, 2006 and is governed by the Code of Professional
Conduct and all documents contained in Exhibit 24. '
• Gillan, Tanino and Klassen got together on January 20, 2009 sometime between
6:00 p.m. -8:00 p.m. to watch a hockey game at a pub with a few other friends.
They all consumed alcohol. No one kept track of how much everyone else was
drinking. After the game they went back and forth between three different
drinking establishments on the Granville Mall and continued to drink alcoholic
beverages.
• Klassen, Tanino and Gillan were not on duty on January 21, 2009.
• Gillan is six feet tall and weighs 225 pounds. He drank to excess that evening.
He claims to be unable to recall anything that happened after they arrived
downtown. He describes only a "hazy memory" or a "vacant hole". His memory
of the evening recommences when he was in handcuffs outside the Hyatt Hotel.
At the time of his arrest he told the Vancouver Police that he had consumed 20 to
25 drinks, estimating that he drank about four drinks an hour for six hours. Gillan
speculates that someone might have put something in one of his drinks, as his
behaviour, as it was later described to him by others, was bizarre and completely
out of character for him.
2

R. v. Klassen Page 3
• In the early morning on January 21, 2009, Aubrey Simon, who is now deceased,
saw Gillan, who was previously unknown to him, standing in the middle of the
intersection at Hastings and Howe and offered him a ride. Simon drove Gillan to
the Hyatt becaUse Simon was headed there to pick up a friend. While in the car,
Simon briefly used Gillan's cellphone. Gillan was acting erratically while in .
Simon's car. When Gillan got out of Simon's car outside of the Hyatt, Simon was
concerned enough about Gillan's behaviour that he went into the Hyatt and
called 911.
• At some point during the evening, Gillan became separated from Klassen and
Tanino and they did not see him again until they met up at the Hyatt.
• Firoz Khan was not previously known to Gillan, Tanino or Klassen.
• Firoz Khan is 5 ft 8 and weighs about 140 pounds. On January 21, 2009, while
working as a newspaper courier, in downtown Vancouver, Khan arrived at the
Hyatt Hotel in his delivery truck at about 2:40 a.m. to drop off newspapers. While
spending.a few minutes organizing his newspapers for delivery, Khan noticed
that Gillan was having a cigarette and talking on his cell phone near the Hotel's
underground parking sign. While Khan was putting his newspapers on his
shoulders, Gillan approached and asked for directions. Khan tried to ignore him.
Gillan then more aggressively asked for directions, using abusive profane
language. Khan replied that he would complete his deliveries and return to
provide directions.
• Without provocation, Gillan kicked Khan in the stomach, causing him to fall onto
the concrete. Newspapers were strewn around him. Gillan kicked Khan all over,
including on his head. Khan repeatedlyasked Gillan why he was doing this. He
was face down on the pavement.
• Gillan pulled the drawstrings on Khan's hooded sweatshirt, covering Khan's face.
Khan also had his hands over his face to protect himself. Khan tried to get up,
but Gillan pulled him back down by his hooded sweatshirt and continued to kick
him. Gillan told Khan that he was under arrest and Khan repeatedly asked why
he was under arrest. Gillan had his foot on the back of Khan's body to hold him
in place on the ground. While he was on the ground, Khan thought that he heard

R. v. Klassen Page
Gillan talking on his cellphone. He heard Gillan say either to someone on the
phone or to someone on the street, "I need back up" or "I can't handle this
person". Shortly after Khan heard this, Klassen and Tanino arrived at the Hyatt
by cab.
• When they arrived at the Hyatt, and while still in the cab, Klassen and Tanino
saw Khan and Gillan standing with their hands on each other's shoulders.
Tanino left the cab without paying, and rushed to separate Gillan and Khan. He
moved Gillan approximately 12 - 15 feet from Khan.
• Klassen also left the cab without payment and rushed towards Khan, who by
then was on the ground. There is no reliable evidence concerning how Khan
ended up on the ground.
• There was blood on the pavement which was not Khan's and was likely Tanino's.
• A paramedic who arrived at the scene confirmed that Khan had no medical
complaints or visible injuries after the assault, with the exception of a sore wrist
where the handcuffs had left an abrasion. (Exhibit 39)
• Exhibits 25 and 33 provide the details of the cellphone calls made and received
by Klassen, Gillan and Tanino at relevant times that evening:
o At 2:21 a.m. Tanino called Gillan. This call lasted 25 seconds. It is
reasonable to conclude that this call was answered by Simon and that this
is the call where Tanino heard the words "Hyatt" uttered by a stranger;
o At 2:24 a.m. Tanino called Gillan but the call went to voicemail.
o A few seconds later at 2:24 a.m. Gillan called Tanino. This call lasted 2
minutes and 6 seconds.
o At 2:24 a.m. Klassen called Gillan. The records indicate that this call
lasted 16 seconds. There was no evidence to SUbstantiate whether they
actually spoke on the phone or whether Klassen was connected to Gillan's
voicemail.
o At 2:27 a.m. Tanino called Gillan. This call lasted 39 seconds.
o At 2:29 a.m. Gillan called Tanino. This call lasted 1 minute and 13
seconds.
4

R. v. Klassen Page 5
• During the altercation, Klass.en took Khan's cellphone and put it in his pocket. It
was discovered by the police during a search of Klassen incidental to his arrest.
The phone was returned to Khan by the police.
• James Tran, a security guard, was driving by the Hyatt when he heard some
screaming. He pulled over and saw one person on the ground and another
person on top of him. He called 911 at 2:31 :59 a.m. The call lasted 2 minutes,
28 seconds. A recording of this call along with a transcript were marked as
exhibits 2 & 3. During the 911 call Klassen can be heard uttering the commands
"cross your feef', "cross your feef', "cross you feet, do as I say and you won't get
hurt" "cross your feet" "put your hands out" "do as I say" "put your hand out, put
your hand out, hands out".
BLAIR TANINO:
[6] Blair Tanino testified that at about 8:00 p.m. on January 20, 2009, he joined
Klassen and Gillan, as well as a few other friends, at a pub in West Vancouver to watch
a hockey game. Tanino estimates that he had 3 or 4 beers while watching the game.
[7] After the hockey game, at around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., he and Klassen, Gillan
and others went to a pub on Granville Street called the Furniture Warehouse. While at
the Warehouse he estimates that he had approximately four or five one ounce glasses
of vodka.
[8] Tanino, Klassen, Gillan and a few others then left the Warehouse and went to
another bar on Granville Street. He estimates that he had about 3 drinks there. They
then returned to the Warehouse.
[9] While sitting at a table at the Warehouse with Klassen and Gillan, a 25 to 30 year
old dark haired Caucasian male who he did not know, started to yell and swear at them

R. v. Klassen Page 6
from about five or six feet away. He has no idea why. The bouncers removed this man
from the establishment and this male continued to yell and point at them though the
window once he was outside. This was a very brief incident.
[10] After about an hour at the Warehouse, Gillan, Klassen, Tanino and a few others
went the Roxy nightclub. Tanino's best recollection was that they were at the Roxy for
approximately 45 minutes, however, having been shown some surveillance video from
inside and outside of the Roxy, Tanino conceded that he may have been mistaken.
about who was at the Roxy, how long they were there, and what time they left. His best
guess was that he had another one or two drinks while at the Roxy. At some point in
the evening, while outside of the Roxy on Granville Street, he witnessed GiJlan and
Klassen in a very short argument with another unknown younger male ..
[11] Sometime later, while in the Roxy, Tanino could not find Gillan, so he called
Gillan's cell phone. The first time he called, someone other than Gillan answered the
phone. A calm male voice said "The Hyatt" and then they were disconnected. He
cannot recall whether Klassen was beside him when he made this first call. He thought
that it was strange that someone other than Gillan had answered the phone, so he
called back. During this second call, which may have taken place while they were at the
Roxy, or perhaps while he was in the .cab on the way to the Hyatt, he heard a loud
scratchy noise like the phone speaker rubbing against something. This time the voice
sounded like Gillan. Tanino asked where he was and if everything was ok. Gillan said
"the Hyatt". Gillan sounded upset or angry. Tanino has norecollection of whether
anything else was said, although he recalled hearing some yelling. He thought that this
was very odd and speculated that Gillan might have been assaulted by one of the two

R. v. Klassen Page
males that Gillan had been in a confrontation with earlier that evening. After he got off
the phone he told Klassen that something was "wrong with Griff'. (transcript October
18, page 17 lines 1 - 3) While he could not recall the exact words, he testified that he
told Klassen:
" ... Sounds like Griff's in some sort of trouble. I'm not sure what is going
on. Some weird -somebody that wasn't Griff answered the phone."
(transcript October 18, page 17 lines 6 - 12).
"that there- - something - - sounded like something was going on. I don't
know if Griff's in trouble or somebody - - he was getting assaulted. I
wasn't too sure but -- I was - I'm not too sure if he was getting assault. I
don't - something's odd - odd here." (transcript October 18, page 17 lines
32 - 38)
[12] Tanino and Klassen decided to go to the Hyatt to see what was up. Within five
minutes they had flagged down a taxi for the short ride to the Hyatt. This was sometime
after 2:00 a.m. Tanino was unable to remember clearly how many times he attempted
to call Gillan or whether Gillan called him back while he was in the cab. In cross-
examination he conceded that the cab video seems to show him on his cell phone for a
very short call while riding in the cab. He also agreed that the cab video shows that for
part of the cab ride Klassen was also using his cellphone. In cross-examination he also
conceded that he may have expressed his concerns about Gillan to Klassen for the first
time while riding in the cab, rather than before they decided to flag a cab down.
[13] Tanino acknowledges that when he arrived at the Hyatt that he was intoxicated,
but felt that he had his wits about him. He thought Klassen was equally intoxicated.
Gillan appeared to him to be most intoxicated of the three of them.
7

R. v. Klassen Page 8
[14] Upon arriving at the Hyatt, while still inside the cab, Tanino saw Gillan and Khan
standing and facing one other. They had their hands on each other's shoulders and
they looked like they were in a struggle. Tanino got out of the taxi and ran over to Gillan
and Khan and separated them. He took Gillan about 12 to 15 feet away from Khan and
asked Gillan what was going on and whether everything was ok. Gillan did not respond.
[15] While talking to Gillan, Tanino did not pay attention to what Klassen was doing.
He did not see the commencement of the interaction between Klassen and Khan. He
estimates that his attention was diverted for about 5 to 10 seconds after he separated
Gillan and Khan. He told Gillan to stay where he was. When he turned around, he saw
that Khan was on the ground on his stomach being held down by Klassen, who had
Khan's left arm in an arm bar while kneeling on his left shoulder. He has no idea how
Khan got onto the pavement. He does not recall what Klassen was saying to Khan. He
does not recall hearing Klassen identify himself as a police officer or place Khan under
arrest.
[16] Tanino approached and assisted Klassen by grabbing Khan's right wrist. He
wanted to ensure that Kahn was not able to reach for something that might hurt any of
them. Gillan approached them a few times. Arone point he accidentally kicked Tanino
in the mouth while Tanino was squatting down and holding Khan's right wrist and as a
result, Tanino began bleeding from the mouth. Each time Gillan approached, Tanino
pushed Gillan away from Kahn. At these points his attention was diverted towards
Gillan who he instructed to stay back. He did not see Klassen strike or hit Khan.

R. v. Klassen Page
[17] Tanino noticed that there were members of the public who had gathered at the
scene. He asked for the police to be called because he felt that something was not
right.
[18] Tanino agreed that Khan did not resemble either of the men that had been in
confrontations involving Gillan and Klassen earlier in the evening.
[19] After his arrest, while held together in a cell, Klassen explained to Tanino that
because he was concerned that Khan might assault him with the cell phone, he took it
out of Khan's hand and put it in his pocket.
TRAVIS BRITTON:
[20] Travis Britton was the bartender at the Furniture Warehouse on January 20 th and
21 st, 2009. He appeared to me to be a somewhat reluctant witness, who no longer had
an independent recollection of the events. He served drinks to Klassen and his friends.
Primarily he testified by refreshing his memory from a written statement made to the
police on February 5, 2009. He was not certain how much Klassen had to drink,
recalling that everyone at Klassen's table probably had two rounds of shots each. He
testified about the very brief confrontation between Klassen and another patron but
clarified that what he originally told the police about that incident had been relayed to
him by others, as he could not see very much from his vantage point at the bar. He did
recall talking to Klassen in the bar after the incident and asked him what had happened.
Klassen responded to him "I honestly don't really know why I kicked off like that".
(Exhibit 17 Lines 17 - 19).
9

R. v. Klassen Page 10
DAN MURPHY:
[21] Dan Murphy, who has been a friend of Klassen's since grade 8, was in the group
that got together on the evening of January 20, 2009. He arrived at the first pub at
around 7:15 - 7:30 p.m. and he sat with Klassen during the game. He drank about 5 or
6 beers over the three hours that he was there. At the Furniture Warehouse he
estimates that he had two vodka sodas in an hour and a half. After the Furniture
Warehouse they went to a restaurant on Granville Street, but it was extremely busy and
so they had one round of single shot vodka Redbulls and left about 15 minutes later as
they could not get a seat. They then went back to the Furniture Warehouse where he
might have. had another vodka soda. He left at about 12:15 or 12:30 a.m. He did not
witness any altercations. He confirmed that Klassen has a preference for beer rather
than hard liquor.
[22] Murphy testified about a conversation that he had with Klassen after the incident,
but it was clear to me after his cross-examination, that he was only able to provide the
gist of what had been said, and so I have chosen to place no weight on this evidence.
FIROZ KHAN:
[23] Very shortly after Khan heard Gillan make the request for "back up" he saw two
men arrive by cab. He began to feel more than one hand holding him down and more .
than one pair of legs on his body. The beating continued, coupled with instructions like
"stand up, don't move, cross your legs, lay down on the floor, do as we say and you
won't be hurt, stay down". He believed that it was how three against one. He could
smell alcohol on all 3 of the males. They identified themselves as undercover police

R. v. Klassen Page 11
officers. He tried to get up in order to run to the hotel, but was told to "stay down on the
ground." He was unable to say with any certainty which of the three men was applying
force to him. He did recall hearing someone say "call 911", and another voice say "We
are calling the police", to which one of the assailants replied "We are the police. Back
off."
[24] While still on the ground, the males searched his rear pocket for identification.
His cellphone, which he carried on the front of his belt, had gone missing. The phone
was returned to him later by the Vancouver Police who eventually arrived.
[25] Khan was put in handcuffs as he was initially believed to be the suspect. He
described his injuries as bruising, a chipped tooth and a concussion. He refused
medical attention at the scene. He estimates that the entire assault lasted about 10
minutes.
YASH GROVER:
[26] Yash Grover was the taxi driver who picked up Klassen and Tanino at the Roxy
nightclub. He drove them to the Hyatt at about 2:25 a.m. When he arrived at the Hyatt
he saw a lone male beating another man using his fist. His passengers, Tanino and
Klassen, got out of his cab so quickly that they left the doors open. Neither stopped to
pay the fare. They immediately joined in the beating of Khan, who was crying loudly for
help while lying face down on his stomach. He sawall three men kicking and punching
Khan. He got out of his cab and asked them to stop, but they began swearing at him.
As one of the men appeared to be moving towards him, he got back in his cab, drove
away and called 911 at 2:31 :49 a.m.

R. v. Klassen Page 12
PHILLIP PILON:
[27] Phillip Pilon, a City of Vancouver Sanitation worker, witnessed a portion of the
assault. He was driving by the Hyatt in his truck when he heard some yelling and
screaming. He arrived at the scene before his co-worker, Jagit Chima. From his
vantage point about 8 feet away, he saw three males assaulting Khan. Klassen, who
. was on top of Khan, had his knee on Khan's back while Khan was lying face down on
the pavement. He saw Klassen punch Khan at least 6 times making contact with his
knuckles on the back of Khan's head. Each time Klassen's knuckles made contact
Kahn's face went into the pavement. He believed that he saw a few drops of blood on
ttie pavement. He described Klassen as the most aggressive of the three males and
said that Klassen appeared to be in charge.
[28] Pilon testified that Gillan twisted Khan's ankle and leg until his knee was grinding
into the pavement and that Khan was screaming in pain. Tanino had Khan's left arm
behind his back and was twisting it as hard as he could. It did not appear to him that
Khan was resisting, but rather that he was trying to protect himself. He thought that all
three of th.e assailants had been drinking. Khan was yelling "help me" and "call the
police" and Klassen responded with "we are the police". He also recalled Klassen utter
commands like "cross your feet" and "cross your legs". Klassen remained on top of
Khan until the police arrived.
[29] Pilon recalled that Klassen took a wallet out of Khan's back pocket and rifled
through it and removed something. He also saw a silver cellphonego flying during the
fight, and believed that Klassen took it. In cross-examination Pilon was insistent that he

R. v. Klassen Page
saw Klassen take Khan's wallet, despite being told that Khan had testified that he did
not carry a wallet that evening.
JAGIT CHIMA: .
[30] Jagjit Chima is also a sanitation worker. When he noticed that Pilon had stopped
his truck near the Hyatt, he did the same. From about 10 - 15 feet away he saw
Klassen on top of Khan. He heard Klassen yelling to Khan to "stay down or else"; "I am
going to break your legs"; "cross your legs". He heard a lot of screaming and profanity.
He saw Klassen throw about four punches to the back or side of Khan's head. He
recalled Gillan and Tanino standing off to the side talking to one another. Gillan
suddenly ran towards Khan and kicked him twice around the stomach area. Chima
yelled for someone to call 911 and it took four or five minutes for the police to arrive.
RONALD WINDSOR:
[31] On January 21,2009, at about 2:30 a.m., Ronald Windsor was the night
manager at the Hyatt when he got a call from a security guard, Benedict Gao to come
outside. He looked out of the lobby window from about 20 - 25 feet away and saw two
male assailants on top of another male. One of the men had his knee in the back of the
person who was lying face down on the ground and the other was trying to hold down
the legs of that person. A third male was standing just behind them, but he was not
participating in the assault.
[32] He walked outside and stood about 12 - 15 feet away. From this vantage point
he confirmed that Klassen, who seemed to be the most aggressive, was holding Khan
13

R. v. Klassen Page 14
down by his hair with one hand and holding Khan's right arm at an angle. Another male
was holding Khan's feet: Khan was struggling and asking for help. He did not see
Klassen hit or punch Khan. He heard Klassen keep telling Khan to "keep your legs
crossed". Windsor got closer and asked Klassen what was going on. Klassen looked
him right in the eye and said "we are police - we are the fucking police." Klassen's eyes
were extremely blood shot.
BENEDICT GAO:
[33] Benedict Gao, a Hyatt security guard, heard a loud noise outside the hotel at
about 2:30 a.m. on January 21, 2009. From about ten meters away he saw Khan face
down on the ground and three other men around him. Klassen was crouching and
controlling Khan on the ground. Khan was crying out and saying "I just deliver papers".
One of the men pushed on Khan's arm or shoulder and said "don't move or you will get
hurt". Gao heard Windsor ask whether the men wanted him to call the police and
Klassen responded that "we are the cops". In his direct evidence Gao indicated that he
saw the male in the white shirt, (who was Klassen), kick Khan, but in cross examination
it became apparent that he had confused Klassen with Gillan. Gao did not witness any
strikes to Khan other than the kick.
[34] It is clear from a review of the evidence of these five independent civilian
witnesses that each one saw only a portion of the assaultive behaviour. While they
endeavoured to provide their best recollection, their evidence is inconsistent.

R. v. Klassen Page 15
POLICE WITNESSES:
CONSTABLE JASWAL:
[35] Constable Jaswal was a new recruit,l)aving worked only 15 - 20 shifts with the
Vancouver Police Department when he arrested Klassen. Having responded to a
dispatch of an assault in progress outside the Hyatt hotel, he saw some males
restraining Khan on the ground. When someone at the scene said "ihe police are here",
one of the males involved in the altercation said "we are the police". When he
approached the males who were restraining Khan, he immediately recognized Klassen,
who had been one of his "use of force" instructors during his training at the Justice
Institute. He could tell that Klassen recognized him as well. At first he thought Klassen
had arrested Khan. Klassen had restrained Khan who was lying face down with his arm
pinned to the small of his back. Klassen's body weight was on top of Khan's left arm
and left hand. Klassen was kneeling to the left of Khan and had one knee on the
ground and the other to Khan's left side in what appeared to Jaswal to be a handcuffing
position. Gillan and Tanino were assisting by restraining Khan, who was not resisting.
There appeared to be some blood on the pavement near Khan. He did not see Klassen
or Gillan strike or kick Khan.
[36] Klassen gave him control of Khan's left arm. He applied handcuffs to Khan.
There was a strong odour of liquor emanating from Klassen, Gillan and Tanino. Gillan
. and Klassen had glassy watery eyes and other signs of alcohol impairment such as red
cheeks and forehead, some slurred speech, and instability on their feet.

R. v. Klassen Page 16
[37] Khan appeared extremely emotional, upset and confused. When Khan stood up
Jaswal noticed an empty cellphone holder at his waist. Shortly after he arrested Khan
he was approached by civilians at the scene. After talking to them he became
concerned that he had not arrested the right person. A Sergeant was called in to assist
with the investigation, as it became apparent to him that they may have to arrest the
three off duty officers.
[38] Klassen made a number of statements to Jaswal at the scene. While he was
arresting Klassen he recorded these statements by writing them on his latex gloves.
When heran out of room on his gloves he continued to write up his arm. He transcribed
these statements into his police notes later that evening.
[39] When he arrested Klassen he read to him directly from his Charter card. He was
very nervous while reading the Charter warning to Klassen, who interrupted and said:
"You know you are supposed to ask me if I understand the official warning
and yes I do understand. You are also supposed to write down what I am
saying, are you doing that?" (transcript October 15, page 13 lines 40 - 44)
[40] Before Jaswal searched Klassen incidental to his arrest, Klassen said:
"Don't you dare do that. I taught you. You know I wouldn't have anything
on me. Call your road boss right now". (transcript October 15, page 13
lines 25 - 28)
\i\fhen he searched Klassen he found Khan's cellphone along with some cash. Inside
Klassen's wallet was his police identification and badge.

R. v. Klassen Page
[41] After the search, Klassen made a number of other statements:
"If you were in New West I would treat you better."
"Like, if you were drinking and driving or being a goof I would sit you in my
car without handcuffs, let you cool off and tell you to go away."
"At least let me sit in the car and take my cuffs off. Not like I will do
anything, I'm not stupid."
Jaswal responded by saying:
"It's not our policy. We don't have cage cars."
To which Klassen responded:
"This is absolutely stupid. I can't believe you are doing this". "You know I
know how to play this game better than you. I just finished teaching
you. I know how to articulate this stuff." and
"Would you put cuffs on anyone like this? This is absolutely ridiculous. I
taught you how to put cuffs on." (transcript October 15, page 19
lines 3 - 38)
CONSTABLE MELVIN:
[42] Constable Melvin, who has 15 years of policing experience, also recognized
Klassen, whom he knew to be a self defence instructor at the Justice Institute. Klassen
had very red eyes, smelled of alcohol, was unsteady on his feet (wavering on the spot),
had slurred or laboured speech and it appeared to him as if it was an effort for Klassen
to construct a complete sentence. Klassen appeared to be very agitated and somewhat
belligerent. Constable Melvin formed the opinion that Klassen was highly intoxicated.
SERGEANT ANDREWS:
[43] Sergeant Andrews, a 25 year veteran of the Vancouver Police Department, was
present when Constable Jaswal arrested Klassen. He observed Klassen to be
somewhat aggressive and quite demeaning to Jaswal during the arrest, mocking Jaswal
and saying things like "do you know what you are doing?"
17

R. v. Klassen Page
[44] Klassen appeared to Sergeant Andrews to be heavily intoxicated. He could
smell liquor emanating from Klassen's breath, and he found that Klassen had an
unprofessional demeanour.
CONSTABLE FORMANIUK:
[45] Constable Formaniuk, a nine year veteran with the Vancouver Police
Department, arrived with Constable Jaswal. He testified that when he arrived Khan was
face down and two of the off duty officers were holding him down by his arms and the
third male was holding his feet. He had limited interaction with Klassen who he
described as somewhat aggressive and a little cocky.
JEFFREY KLASSEN:
[46] Jeffrey Klassen is 40 years old. In January, 2009 he was 5 ft 11 and weighed
185 pounds. Prior to joining the police force he had been a civilian "use of force"
instructor at the Justice Institute and assisted the full time sergeants in the instruction of
police recruits. It was during his own training at the Justice Institute that he first met
Gillan and Tanino.
[47] Klassen's preference is to drink imported bottled beer. He does not drink hard
liquor and generally declines when a round of shooters is bought for a group. He is a
social drinker who drinks for pleasure, rather than to get drunk.
[48] On January 20,2009, Klassen began drinking alcohol at about 6:00 p.m. when
he went to a pub in West Vancouver and joined his friends to watch a Canucks game.
18

R. v. Klassen Page 19
He had plans the following day to attend a business meeting around noon, and to then
drive to Kelowna to visit his children.
[49] Klassen had an appetizer and a meal and drank three or four beers while
watching the game. Klassen did not pay for his food or alcohol at the first pub. He
produced no receipts from any of the establishments that he went to on January 20 th or
21 S t. 2009, and he took no notes after the fact about his consumption. He relied solely
on his memory to reconstruct what he had to drink.
[50] He and his friends left the first pub at about 10:30 p.m. and arrived at the
Furniture Warehouse (the Warehouse) between. 1 0:45 and 11 :00 p.m. They stayed
ab?ut forty five minutes. He drank one or two bottles of Dos Equis beer while at the
Warehouse. He drank no hard liquor that evening. He paid the bill for the drinks at the
Warehouse by credit card. In cross-examination Klassen refused to entertain the
possibility that he might have had anything more than two beers to drink while at the
Warehouse. (transcript October 22, page 63 lines 26 - 33)
[51] They went from the Warehouse to another restaurant down the street which was
very crowded and so they only stayed there about thirty minutes or less. Klassen had
one bottle of beer. They returned to the Warehouse at about midnight. While there
they had appetizers and Klassen had another one or two beers. In cross-examination
again Klassen refused to entertain the possibility that he might have had something
more than two beers to drink. (transcript October 22, page 65 lines 4 - 8)

R. v. Klassen Page 20
[52] While they were at the Warehouse for the second time Klassen came out of the
bathroom and noticed a stranger in a verbal argument with someone at his table. It was
a trivial argument and the interaction was brief.
[53] This incident at the Warehouse was so insignificant that Klassen forgot about it
immediately after it took place. Although the event was trivial, because he was a
regular customer at the Warehouse, he felt a little embarrassed and so he apologized to
the staff for what had happened. In cross-examination Klassen refused to concede that
he might have used the words attributed to him by Britton (that is that he "kicked off'),
claiming that it was "the lowest level incident one can possibly imagine." (transcript
October 22, page 66 lines 40 - 41)
[54] Klassen testified that he had no recollection of either he or Gillan being involved
in any altercation on Granville Street. He states simply that it did not happen.
[55] Klassen, Gillan and Tanino and a few of their friends went to the Roxy about
12:30 a.m. While at the Roxy he drank only one bottle of beer. He did not spend all of
his time at the Roxy with Gillan and Tanino. He eventually left the Roxy with Tanino
and they went across the street and back to the Warehouse. At this point they did not
know where Gillan was, but he was not concerned. They had a plan to meet up with
their three girlfriends at Gillan's house in North Vancouver later on and to spend the
night there.
[56] By this lime Klassen had what he described as a typical warm alcohol buzz. He
believed that he could think clearly and "was not visibly drunk to anyone else".
(transcript October 20, page 21 lines 44 - 47 and page 22 line 1) This was a "normal

R. v. Klassen Page 21
night" and a typical pattern of drinking for him. When they got back to the Warehouse
he had one more beer.
[57] In cross-examination it was suggested to Klassen that having been back and
forth between 6 venues that evening, that it was impossible for him to be certain about
how much he had to drink. He refused to entertain the possibility that he might have
consumed more than 9 - 11 beers. (transcript October 22, page 70 lines 7 - 44) The
following exchange during cross-examination is indicative of Klassen's adamant stance
that he was certain about the maximum amount of alcohol he had consumed:
Q: "But you don't really, do you? I mean, you don't really have any idea
what you drank? It's just a guess? You can't say how many beers
you had before the game started, right? Can't say when you
ordered your first beer? You don't have any receipts, you don't
have any notes. So how do we know for sure that you only had
three to four beers?"
A: "I cannot say to the- -I can't give you a number that is an absolute.
But what I can tell you is that I had three, possibly four beers at the
Village Taphouse."
Q: "Would you agree it could have been more?"
A: "No, I do not agree." (transcript October 22, page 60 lines 3 - 16)
[58] Klassen testified that shortly after 2:00 a.m. he received a text from his girlfriend
and decided it was time to wrap things up. As it was clear that Gillan was not at the
Warehouse, they decided to walk back to the Roxy. Tanino made a call to try and
locate Gillan and told Klassen that someone other than Gillan had answered Gillan's .
phone and said something about the Hyatt. Klassen was confused by this and
wondered whether he was mistaken about their plans, and that perhaps they were
supposed to meet their girlfriends at the Hyatt. He did not even know where the Hyatt
was.

R. v. Klassen Page 22
[59] Tanino suggested that they go to the Hyatt and so they flagged down a cab. He
sat in the back seat and checked his voice mail and texts on his cell phone. Tanino
continued to try and reach Gillan. While in the cab he believes that Tanino must have
reached Gillan as he said:
"Somepuns up, somepuns up, somepun doesn't sound right."
"Something is weird, something is not right."
While he did not recall the exact wording it was something to that effect. (transcript
October 20, page 25 lines 14 - 26) Klassen did not know what to think or what to make
of it when he heard what Tanino had to say.
[60] In cross examination Klassen stated that when Tanino talked about "something
being up" that Tanino's demeanour was very matter of fact. (transcript October 22,
page 75 line 33) He denied that Tanino expressed a concern to him that Gillan might
have been assaulted. He testified that:
"We got in the cab and we drove to the location that we thought he might
be at because we wanted to find him. It was time to go home."
(transcript October 22, page 76 lines 4 - 6)
[61] When they arrived at the Hyatt, Klassen looked through the front windshield and
saw Gillan and a stranger "engaged in physical contact". (transcript October 20, page
25 line 38)
"They were standing up face to face, and each one of them had each
other's hands on each other's upper chest, shoulder, up in this
area." (transcript October 20, page 25 lines 45 - 47)
He could not tell if they were grabbing body parts or clothing.

R. v. Klassen Page 23
"Constable Gillan's back is facing towards Burrard Street and Mr. Khan is
walking Constable Gillan backwards about two steps." (transcript
October 20, page 26 lines 22 - 27)
Klassen concluded that what had just seen was an assault in progress. He looked
briefly into the cab to see what the fare was, but then he decided that getting to the
scene was more important. When he looked up again Khan was on the ground and
Gillan and Tanino were standing together about 12 - 15 feet away. He had no idea how
Khan had ended up on the ground.
[62] In cross-examination Klassen elaborated:
A: "I looked out the front windshield of the cab and witnessed Constable
Griffin arid a person unknown to me at that time standing face to
face with their hands on each other's upper chest, shoulder area.
Mr. Khan was pushing Constable Gillan back, approximately two
steps, towards Burrard Street. That, by very definition, is an
assault." .
Q: "It's an assault by Constable Gillan too though, isn't it?"
A: "At that point I'm not making determinations or speculating on what is
happening there. I'm just observing what I see."
Q: "Why did you conclude that Mr. Khan, rather than Constable Gillan, had
committed an assault?"
A: "Two - - two things. What I saw was Mr. Khan and Constable Griffin,
hands on each other's chest. When I observed Mr. Khan walking
Constable Gillan backwards a couple of steps, that in itself is - - is
assaultive behaviour. That is an assault. Coupled with the fact of
my knowledge of Constable Griffin. Constable Griffin is a personal
friend of mine; he's also a police officer. And the presumption that
a friend, as I know Constable Griffin to be a - - a stand up, quality
person that not, if I live to be a hundred, would I ever think he would
do something like that, and the fact that he's a police officer, is a -is
a powerful, is a strong, influencing factor in my decision making
at that moment." (transcript October 22, page 38 lines 43 - 47 and
page 39 lines 1 - 30)

R. v. Klassen Page 24
Klassen acknowledged that, based on the very limited information, he had no idea if
what he had just witnessed was a consensual fight.
[63) .When Klassen first approached Khan, who was lying on his back propped up on
his right elbow, it appeared to him that Khan was attempting to get up. He therefore
yelled quite loudly for Khan to "stay down" two or three times. He got no response from
Khan. He acknowledged that although he had his badge in his pocket, that he did not
show it to Khan before he intervened.
[64) In cross-examination he elaborated on his decision to physically intervene, rather
than to investigate. Klassen made no mention in his direct evidence that he had
identified himself as a police officer when he issued the "stay down" command. In
cross-examination he stated that he knew at some point that he was identified as a
police officer but was unable to state for certain when that identification took place.
(transcript October 22, page 46 lines 25 - 47; page 47 lines 4 - 47. and page 48 lines 1
. - 5):
Q: "But Constable, to use force against Mr. Khan without his consent, in
that situation, he's sitting or lying on the pavement, Gillan is 12 to
15 feet away, Tanino has already separated the two. In order for
you to assault Mr. Khan, which you did, you have to have
perceived, under that subsection, a threat of immediate and serious
harm to justify your actions. What was the threat when you got
there and Khan was on the ground, what was the threat of
immediate and serious harm?"
A: "The - - the fact that Mr. Khan was on his back as I approached - -
when I first approached, they were together standing up and I
witnessed an assault in progress. Moments later, after attempting
to pay the cab, I go towards the scene and Mr. Khan is now on his
back, propped up on his elbow attempting to get up. This was a
concern to ine because I didn't know Mr. Khan. I didn't know what
happened prior to my arrival. The best and safest place in order to

R. v. Klassen Page 25
control Mr. Khan and to prevent the continuation of an offence was
for me to keep Mr. Khan on the ground. 1--"
Q: "Not to talk to him, not to ask him what the problem is, sir. Not to show
your badge, not to identify yourself as a police officer. None of
those options occurred to you?"
A: "Upon arriving on the scene, Your Honour, I said to Mr. Khan in a loud,
professional, commanding voice, "Stay down, stay down, stay
down." I didn't get any acknowledgement."
Q: "How did he know you were a police officer?"
A:"lt - - it didn't occur to me - - "
A: "That's not the - - I'm not concerned at that point if he knows I'm a
police officer."
Q: "Well, aren't you concerned with maintaining the peace? Isn't that
your job? Wouldn't it be helpful if he knew you were a police officer
before you start shouting commands at him?"
A: "At - - at some point, it - - it was identified that the three of us were
police officers. I just don't know when."
Q: No, not - - that was later."
A: "Yeah. I can't tell you - -"
Q:"Now"
A: "- - exactly when the time came when it was identified that we were
police officers."
Q: "It was later, wasn't it?"
A: "But it was - - I - - I don't recall exactly when it was when we identified
ourselves as police officers but at some point - -"
Q:"Weli. It wasn't at this point - - "
A:"- - it was made."
Q: " - - because Gillan and Tanino were 12 to 15 feet away. Are you
changing your evidence now? Are you saying you identified
yourself as a police officer to Mr. Khan when you said, "Stay down,
stay down?"
A: "I think, as best I can recall, is that we were identified as police officers.
I just can't speak to exactly when that took place."
[65] Klassen outlined with remarkable precision how he maintained control of Khan
once he was on top of him. He described his own actions as restrained as he

R. v. Klassen Page 26
attempted to gain control of Khan. While maintaining that hedid not think of himself as
a police officer on duty at the time, it is clear that he utilized his police training when he
placed Khan in what he referred to as the "control handcuffing position". Despite being
very exact about his recollection of the placement of his hands and knees, Klassen
maintained that he was so focused on what he was doing that he was completely
unaware of Khan's cries for help or of the comments being made by the civilians
gathering around him.
[66]· Klassen thought of Khan as a. "suspect" who had been involved in assaultive
behaviour. He wanted Khan to stay down on the ground as this would be the best place
for him to retain control with the least chance of a risk of injury. He agreed in cross­
examination that the police techniques that he used were typical of what the police do in
an arrest situation, and that he was conducting himself as a police officer. (transcript
October 22, page 50 lines 21 - 30)
[67] Klassen ran around to Khan's left side and assumed a side mount position.
While they were chest to chest he noticed a metallic object in Khan's hand. He grabbed
Khan's right arm and commanded him to drop the object. Khan did not drop the object
so Klassen took his two hands and pried the object out of Khan's hand and put the·
object in his pocket. He then took some weight off Khan and instructed him to roll over.
Khan did not comply, so he grabbed him by the hip and shoulder and physically rolled
him over on to his stomach and immediately secured his left arm. He placed his right
knee on his left shoulder and with his two hands secured the left arm. Both of his hands
were on Khan's left arm and his right knee was on Khan's shoulder. Despite the fact
that he had no handcuffs he testified that the purpose of this manoeuvre was to get

R. v. Klassen Page 27
Khan into the "controlled handcuffing position". He took his left hand and put it on
Khan's back or shoulder blade and pressed down with as much weight as he could to
give him time to swing Khan's arm straight up and down. He needed to get one knee
on Khan's upper and lower back and he needed one second to make this transition. He
held Khan with his left hand while he completed this move. At this point his left knee
was on Khan's upper back and his right knee was on Khan's lower back and Khan's left
arm was squeezed between Klassen's knees. He was in a position where he had
sufficient weight on Khan to hold him down.
[68] . Tanino came to the right side of Khan's bodyand physically took Khan's right
arm and placed it in an arm bar behind the small of Khan's back. However, Tanino did
not remain there continuously. He left a few times and each time Khan pulled his arm
back close to his body.
[69] Klassen needed Khan to cross his feet and to get his right arm out from his body,
preferably palm up so that Khan would be in a position of disadvantage. Khan did not
cross his legs or put his arms out despite being commanded tei do so. While kneeling
down Klassen said:
" ... Arm out, arm out, get your arm out, arm out."
At the same time he explained:
"And I'm doing this move where I am poking, slapping, I don't know what
you want to call it, but I'm hitting him on his shoulder, on his right
shoulder to indicate to him, so that he knows which arm to put·
out" .... (transcript October 20, page 31 lines 10 -15)
" ... I hit him on that shoulder, so thathe knows what arm I'm asking him to
put out". (transcript October 20, page 31 lines 24 - 26)

R. v. Klassen Page 28
[70] In cross-examination Klassen attempted to minimize any inference that he might
have employed an unnecessary degree of force during this part of his physical
interaction with Khan:
Q: " ... Mr. Grover, the taxi driver, Mr. Pilon and Mr. Cheema ... They all say
that you were punching Mr. Khan in the head, all right? Sorry, they
all say you were punching Mr. Khan. Mr. Pilon and Mr. Cheema
both testified that the blows were hitting him in the head. Now, you
have admitted striking Mr. Khan several times in the shoulder,
correct?
A: Yesterday I testified to poking Mr. Khan in the shoulder."
Q: "What were your words? Were they poking or were they something
else? Do you recall?"
A: I believe my words were I was poking him in the shoulder, maybe
slapping him in the shoulder." (transcript October 22, page 82 lines
21 - 36)
Later in the cross-examination the following interchange took place:
Q: "And you're hitting him on the right shoulder, correct?"
A: "I am using a poking motion with an open hand to poke his right
shoulder" (transcript October 22, page 85 lines 23 - 26)
and again
Q: "Why are you hitting him on the shoulder?"
A: "The purpose of poking him in the right shoulder is so that Mr. Khan
knows which arm I'm asking him to put out." (transcript October 22,
page 86 lines 16 -18)
Klassen was adamant that it was impossible that he could have missed the intended
target of Khan's shoulder and inadvertently landed some blows to Khan's head.
[71] Klassen was completely unaware that Tanino had been kicked by Gillan. He saw
that Tanino was bleeding from his mouth and he concluded that Tanino must have been
hit in the face by Khan.

R. v. Klassen Page 29
[72] While Klassen was holding Khan down, Gillan approached and landed a knee
strike to Khan in his hip or thigh or buttock area. Klassen told Gillan to "back off'.
[73] Tanino returned to assist Klassen in his attempt to put Khan's right arrn back into
an arm bar. Gillan then approached again and this time he grabbed one of Khan's feet
by his ankle and using two hands he held the ankle very close to his own face, and said
nonsensical things like "this is a foot" - "this is a shoe".
[74] An unknown rna Ie approached Klassen and either he or Tanino told the man "we
are the police, back off'. He was adamant in cross-examination that despite the
testimony of Windsor that he did not say:
"We are the fucking police". (transcript October 22, page 88 lines 6 -10)
[75] Once he had Khan in the "controlled handcuffing position" he asked Khan if he
had anything sharp or anything that might cause harrn. He does not recall if Khan
replied. He touched Khan on his waist or lower back pocket area in order to look for
anything hard or sharp such as a weapon or tool of escape. He did not go inside
Khan's pockets but only touched him with his open hand outside of his clothing.
[76] Klassen recognized Constable Jaswal from his Justice Institute training and was
happy to see him, because he knew that Constable Jaswal would have handcuffs.
Once Khan was handcuffed, Klassen stood back and waited for the police to conduct
their investigation. When Constable Jaswal arrested him for assault he was completely
shocked.

R. v. Klassen Page 30
[77] Klassen attempted to explain away the comments that he made to Constable
Jaswal during the course of his arrest. For example, when Constable Jaswal placed
him in handcuffs he was compliant, but Constable Jaswal placed the handcuffs on him
incorrectly which was uncomfortable and unnecessary for a compliant handcuffing. This
is why he commented to Constable Jaswal at the time of his arrest that Constable
Jaswal was not applying handcuffs in the way he had been taught.
[78] Klassen made comments to Constable Jaswal before he was searched because
he felt that Constable Jaswal should have known that he would never have any
weapons or tools of escape on him, and so the search was unnecessary. When it was
pointed out to Klassen in cross-examination that he uttered these words at a time when
he had Khan's cellphone in his pocket, Klassen explained that he had forgotten about
the cellphone when he made the comments. He denied that he was trying to intimidate
Constable Jaswal despite his reference to the fact that he had been Constable Jaswal's
teacher. (transcript October 22, page 94 lines 1 - 33)
[79] Klassen also agreed that when Constable Jaswal ended the Charter caution that
he made the comments attributed to him. He had never seen the technique of writing
on a glove before, and his comments were made in that context. All that he had
intended was to tease or rib Jaswal. (transcript October 22, page 95 lines 2 - 20)
[80] Klassen agreed that he made the comment:
"You know that I know how to play this game better than you. I just
finished teaching you. I know how to articulate this stuff."

R. v. Klassen Page 31
He explained that he said this because he had no idea why he had been arrested and
was trying to get some clarity from Constable Jaswal. (transcript October 22, page 95
lines 31 - 46)
[81] Klassen agreed in cross-examination that he made the other comments that
were attributed to him by Constable Jaswal such as "if you were in New West I would
treat you better" etc. His explanation for making these comments was simply that he
was cold, felt the handcuffs were unnecessary, and wanted to be afforded the privilege
of sitting in the warm police car.
[82] Klassen agreed that after his arrest he was frustrated and angry. He conceded
that he may have smelled of liquor, had glassy eyes and a red face, but he denied that
he appeared drunk or that his speech was slurred. (transcript October 22, page 96 lines
12 -14) At the time of his arrest he did not feel impaired.
[83] Klassen admitted that he did put Khan's cellphone in his pocket during the
altercation. He did not think about the cellphone again until it was taken out of his
pocket during the search. He was simply following his training to secure property when
he put the phone in his pocket.
[84] During his training Klassen did recall being taught the concept of "observe and
report" when off duty. He understood this to be in the context of encountering a
situation where it is unsafe for you to intervene, in which case the best thing to do is
ensure that you get the best description at the scene and be the best witness that you
can. There was no training at the Justice Institute, police academy, or internally with his

R. v. Klassen Page 32
department about what to do in a situation where you encounter a crime off duty and
you have been drinking alcohol.
INSPECTOR KEITH:
[85] The Defence called a "use of force" expert, Inspector Kelly Keith. Inspector Keith
explained the National Use of Force Model which was developed to assist officers to
look at a situation and to assess, based on the Model, what the best course of action in
a policing situation would be. Using this Model, Inspector Keith agreed that Klassen
had the option of identifying himself as a police officer when he arrived on the scene,
but his failure to do so did not render his decision to move in quickly and to gain control
of Khan on the ground unreasonable. There are definite advantages to· keeping a
suspect on the ground, although Inspector Keith conceded that Klassen "could have
and should have communicated with Khan" while he was on the ground. He also
agreed that an application of physical control by Klassen without any resistant
behaviour would be inconsistent with the National Use of Force Model.
SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS:
[86] I heard lengthy closing submissions from both Crown and Defence. Counsel
helpfully provided me with written arguments on disc which can be found in the court
file. I have carefully considered all of their arguments, although it is impractical for me
to refer to them in their entirety in these reasons. I have read and considered all of the
cases and articles provided to me. These are attached as an Appendix to these
reasons.

R. v. Klassen Page 33
CROWN ARGUMENT:
ASSAULT:
[87] The Crown submitted that even on Klassen's evidence alone, it is beyond doubt
that he committed an assault, as he applied force to Khan intentionally and without
consent. They argue that the Criminal Code sections 25, 27, 30 and 31 do not provide
Klassen with any justification for applying force to Khan. Whether he was acting as a
police officer or a civilian, whether he was on duty or off duty, or whether he was drunk
or sober, Klassen had no right to respond in the way that he did after what he saw out
the cab window. To justify this use of force, they argue that there should have been the
requisite grounds under the Criminal Code that would have entitled Klassen to
intervene, but that based on the evidence no such grounds existed. Crown concedes
that Klassen may have viewed himself as a civilian when he intervened. However, once
he intervened, Klassen employed tactics that were consistent with his police training
when he attempted to arrest Khan. Crown also argues that the force used by Klassen
was excessive.
[88] Crown submits that Klassen was not a credible witness, who was deliberately
misleading in his testimony. It is the Crown's theory that Klassen knew before he
arrived at the Hyatt that Gillan was involved in a fight, as Tanino had already expressed
concems about the unusual cellphone conversations to him. Klassen was also aware of
the two brief altercations that Gillan had been involved in earlier in the evening. Thus
Crown argues that Klassen arrived at the Hyatt ready to engage in a fight.

R. v. Klassen Page 34
POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY:
[89] Crown argues that Klassen's explanation that he took the cellphone innocently
from Khan during their altercation, put it in his pocket and then promptly forgot about it
is unbelievable. They argue that the circumstances surrounding Klassen's subsequent
failure to disclose his possession of the cellphone to the police, coupled with his
statements at the scene to Jaswal, render his explanation beyond belief. It is Crown's
position that Klassen took the cellphone without Khan's permission and then deceitfully
concealed it. This supports a finding that Klassen had the intent required for a
possession of stolen property conviction.
DEFENCE ARGUMENT:
ASSAULT:
[90] Defence has argued that although Klassen used force to restrain Khan, he did so
believing that he had just witnessed an assault in progress and thus his use of force
was justified. Klassen's belief that by keeping Khan on the ground he would prevent the
resumption of any assaultive behaviour, and therefore prevent any immediate possibility
of serious injury, was justified in the circumstances and supported by the. evidence. He
relies on section 27 of the Criminal Code for this justification. Defence also relies on
section 30 of the Code and argues that Klassen was justified in detaining Khan to
prevent the continuance or renewal of a breach of the peace. Both of these
justifications are available whether Klassen was acting as a police officer or a civilian,
although he argues that the evidence supports that Klassen was not acting as a police
officer when he initially intervened. He also argues that the culture of policing

R. v. Klassen Page 35
encourages off duty officers to intervene in emergent situations and that Klassen may
technically have been "off shift" but that he is never really "off duty". It is his position
that Klassen used only a reasonable amount of force proportionate to what the
circumstances required.
[91] It was the defence submission that Klassen was a credible and believable
witness who was restrained in his testimony and never testified beyond that which he
could clearly recall. He concedes that Klassen's decision to intervene was made
quickly and instinctively, but that this behaviour was at all times consistent with his
police training. He argues that once Klassen knew that the police had been called by
the bystanders that he detained Khan intending to turn him over to the police.
[92] Defence emphasized that the interaction between Klassen and Khan was brief.
He has cautioned me to weigh the evidence of the civilians very carefully and to
consider that their perceptions may have been coloured by the knowledge that they·
gained at the scene.
POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY:
[93] During the restraint of Khan, defence counsel submits that Klassen took the
cell phone because he was concerned that the met

R. v.Klassen Page 36
FINDINGS OF FACT:
[94] There is a considerable difference between Klassen's evidence and the evidence
of the civilian witnesses. In order to make the necessary findings of fact I have
employed an assessment of credibility and based my decision on the totality of the
evidence. In doing so I have applied the test set out in the Supreme Court of Canada
case of R. v. (W) D, [1991]1 SCR 742 (SCC). It is not a question of whether I believe
Klassen's evidence in preference to the Crown witnesses, as the onus throughout rests
solely on the Crown to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.
DISPUTED FACTS:
WAS KLASSEN'S PERCEPTION OF THE EVENTS AFFECTED BY HIS
CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL?
[95] The defence called a forensic toxicologist Nizar Shajani as a witness. Defence
counsel put many hypotheticals to him, however these hypotheticals were of limited
assistance, as they were all based on the presumption that Klassen was able to recall
with precision the maximum amount that he had to drink. Shajani confirmed that if any
assumptions in the hypotheticals were to change, that his opinion would also change.
[96J Shajani testified that it is unlikely that a social drinker (which he defined as
someone who consumes two to three drinks at a time, two to three times a week),
would be intoxicated and would exhibit symptoms such as slurred speech or balance
problems until that social drinker had a blood alcohol content of 150 milligrams of
alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood or higher. As the amount of alcohol consumed is
increased, this begins to compromise a person's comprehension, judgment, visual
acuity, reaction time and attention skills. As the level of consumption increases this can

R. v. Klassen Page 37
also result in risk taking behaviours, can affect memory and recall and can result in
aggressive behaviour.
[97] Constable Jaswal, observed that Klassen was unstable on his feet, had
glassy/watery eyes, flushed cheeks and some slurry speech; Constable Melvin
observed that Klassen had red eyes, was unsteady on his feet, had slurred speech that
was slow with laboured attempts to compose complete sentences, and Sergeant
Andrews, who had over 25 years policing experience, believed that Klassen was heavily
intoxicated. I have no doubt that the observations made by these trained officers who
all interacted with Klassen at the scene are accurate and reliable.
[98] Klassen refused to accept the observations of his fellow police officers that his
speech was slurred. Instead he insisted that he "did not appear intoxicated" to others.
do not find that Klassen was being deliberately misleading, but have concluded that he
was trying his best to reconstruct the events and to present himself in the best possible
light. I reject his evidence on this issue.
[99] Klassen's behaviour after his arrest was indicative of someone who was
exhibiting some "loss of caution". I do not accept that his comments made to Constable
Jaswal during the arrest were in the nature of teasing, or ribbing, or that he was trying to
be helpful during their interchanges. Klassen acted inappropriately during his
interactions with Constable Jaswal during and after his arrest. likely because he was
under the influence of alcohol.
[100] While Klassen may have had as few as 9 beers to drink I find this extremely
unlikely. Given the drinking pattern of everyone else that he was with that evening, the

R. v. Klassen Page 38
number of establishments they went back and forth to (6), the number of hours that they
were bar hopping (8), and the observations of Klassen made by all of the officers at the
scene, there is a significant likelihood that he consumed more than 11 beers. I am not
able to determine with complete precision how much Klassen had to drink that evening,
but I do not accept his assertion that it was impossible that he had more than 11 beers
to drink. I have determined that Klassen's judgment at the time of the assault was not
as sound as it would have been had he been sober.
KLASSEN'S CREDIBILITY AND THE EXTENT OF THE ASSAULT:
[101] There were a few areas in Klassen's testimony that caused me concern:
• His refusal to acknowledge that it was possible that he might have had 12 beers
instead of 11;
• His refusal to acknowledge that he might have accidentally struck Khan on the
head while intending to strike him on the shoulder;
• His insistence that his comments made to Constable Jaswal were intended only
to tease or rib;
• His insistence that the event at the Warehouse with the unknown male was
completely insignificant, given that it was significant enough that he felt the need
to apologize to the staff for it;
• His testimony that when Tanino told him that something "was up" with Gillan that
Tanino presented this information in a "matter of fact" way.
• . His refusal to accept that he might have appeared intoxicated to others that
evening;
• His denial that he heard anything that Khan was saying while he was on top of
Khan, including the cries for help. This seems implausible given his close
proximity to Khan, and the fact that others who were further away heard Khan's
cries for help.

R. v. Klassen Page 39
[102] Klassen did his utmost to present his encounter with Khan in the most favourable
light. It is clear to me that he made a split second drunken decision to intervene and
was then later required to rationalize that decision in the sober light of day. I do not
agree with Crown's assertion that Klassen was deliberately misleading the Court.
Klassen did his best to recollect the events, but because of his insobriety, I do not
believe that his recollection of all of the events is as clear as he attempted to portray.
[103] Due to the obvious limitations on his ability to make clear observations, I am
unable to rely on Khan's evidence to provide me with an accurate picture of his
interactions with Klassen. It appeared to me that Khan did his best to recollect what
occurred, but given the circumstances of this unprovoked assault, it is understandable
that his recollection was somewhat confused. For much of the assault he was face
down on the pavement, and at some points his eyes were closed or his hooded
sweatshirt was pulled up over his face. Thus, much of his evidence is not reliable as he
was very unclear about the details.
[104] I am also unable to reconcile the differences between the evidence of the various
civilians at the scene who lam certain were confused and troubled by what they were
observing, especially because Klassen identified himself as a police officer during the
interactions. Khan had no marks or abrasions on his face or head. I would have
expected some visible or objectively verifiable injuries. had Klassen punched Khan in the
head as described by the civilian witnesses. I am not able to conclude that Klassen
either hit Khan in the head or pulled his hair.

R. v. Klassen Page 40
[105] I find that Klassen applied more force than the "tap" that Inspector Keith testified
that a police officer should use to indicate to a suspect which arm to put out. However,
the evidence of the 911 tape is compelling. Klassen is heard to repeatedly instruct
Khan to get his "hand out" and to tell Khan "do as I say and you won't be hurt". I
therefore accept that the physical interactions between Klassen and Khan were as
described by Klassen in his evidence. Based on Klassen's own evidence as bolstered
by the evidence of the civilian witnesses I accept that Klassen hit Khan repeatedly on
the shoulder, but that he did so as a means of indicating to Khan which hand he was to
put out.
WHAT DID KLASSEN KNOW ABOUT THE TANINO/GILLAN PHONE CALLS?
[106] Tanino's evidence about why he made the decision to go to the Hyatt was clear
and reliable. I accept that Tanino was concerned about his friend Gillan after a stranger
answered the phone and said "the Hyatt". I also accept his recollection that he had at
least a second call with Gillan where the Hyatt was mentioned again and that he
concluded that Gillan appeared to be in troUble.
[107] While Defence counsel did his utmost to try and assist by creating a time line
using the Roxy surveillance video, the taxi cab video, the Hyatt surveillance video and
the 911 calls, and to reconcile these with the cellphone records, it did not assist me in
making a precise determination about exactly when the assault of Khan began, the
length of the interaction between Klassen and Khan, when others arrived on the scene,
or at what point during the altercation Gillan was speaking on the phone to Tanino. It is
clear that these clocks were not synchronized, and I am unable to reconcile the grainy

R. v. Klassen Page 41
intermittent video footage with the conflicting time clocks. The cellphone records speak
for themselves and confirm how many calls were made and the length of each call.
[108] While I cannot say for certain which calls were made or received by Tanino while
he was in the cab, it is clear that between 2:21 a.m. and 2:30:42 a.m. there were 5
phone calls placed or received between Tanino and Gillan, and that one of these calls
went to voice mail. Gillan and Tanino talked on the phone between 2:24:50 a.m. and
2:30:42 a.m. for a total for almost four minutes. I believe that Tanino provided a truthful
and honest recollection of the essence of these phone calls, but it is clear that he was
mistaken about the number of conversations that he had and when they occurred.
Given the amount of alcohol that he admitted to consuming this has likely affected his
memory and perceptions.
[109] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Tanino advised Klassen, before
they arrived at the Hyatt that he was concerned about Gillan. However I accept that
while Klassen knew that "something was up" with his friend Gillan before they arrived at
the Hyatt, that he did not understand the full extent of Tanino's concerns. I accept that
the altercation in the Warehouse was not particularly significant and did not enter
Klassen's mind as he made his way to the Hyatt.
DID KLASSEN BELIEVE THAT HE HAD WITNESSED AN ASSAULT IN
PROGRESS?
[110] When Tanino and Klassen arrived at the Hyatt they looked out of the cab window
and saw Gillan, and Khan, who is four inches shorter than Gillan, standing "shoulder to
shoulder" with their arms on one another. Klassen described more than once that what
he saw was Khan "walking" or "pushing" Gillan back two steps. He did not hear any

R. v. Klassen Page 42
shouting, or any other obvious forms of aggression. Tanino, a trained police officer,
was not concerned enough about what he had seen up to that point, to keep his gaze
on Khan after he separated Khan and Gillan. Klassen saw that Khan was lying face up
on the ground and that Tanino and Gillan were twelve to fifteen feet away. I have no
reliable evidence to assist me in determining how Khan went from standing to lying face
up on the ground. I accept that in his intoxicated state Klassen formed the belief, based
. on his very limited observations, that what he just witnessed was an assault in progress
and that Khan was the aggressor. I accept that this conclusion was based in large part
on his knowledge of Gillan as a friend, colleague and "a stand up guy".
[111] Before Klassen began to get physical with Khan he did not identify himself as
either a friend of Gillan's or a police officer. He did not produce his badge. He did not
make any inquiries of either Gillan or Khan to determine if the situation had the potential
to become volatile. Instead, he issued a police like command to Khan, to "stay down".
[112] Klassen did not wait to determine for certain whether Khan was getting up, and if
he was, whether he would do so aggressively. He did not give Khan an opportunity to
respond verbally to the command. He did not wait to find out what Tanino had
discovered after speaking to Gillan. Instead, as soon as Klassen perceived some
movement by Khan, he formed the belief that Khan was attempting to renew the
perceived assaultive behaviour and so he immediately took physical steps to prevent
this.

R. v. Klassen Page 43
APPLICATION OF THE FACTS TO THE LAW:
[113] .I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Klassen assaulted Khan:
• by forcing Khan into a "side mount" position,
• by grabbing Khan by the hip and shoulder and flipping him over onto his stomach
on the concrete into a "secure handcuff position",
• by "poking, slapping or hitting" Khan mUltiple times on the shoulder when Khan
. did not free his right hand up,
• by burying his knees at various times into Khan's back and shoulder area,
• and by applying force to Khan to get him to cross his legs.
This was clearly an assault as Klassen applied this force intentionally without the
consent of Khan. (Section 265 of the Criminal Code)
WAS THIS ASSAULT JUSTIFIED?
[114] In order to defend these charges, Klassen is relying on the sections of the
Criminal Code that provide him with justification for intervening.
[115] The relevant sections that apply to the facts of this case, as argued by Crown
and Defence are sections 25 (with sections 494 and 495), 27, 30 and 31 of the Criminal
Code. In his lengthy written and oral closing submissions Defence counsel primarily
sought to rely on sections 27 and 30 to justify Klassen's actions. However, at the
conclusion of two days of legal argument, he did emphasize that his submissions should
not preclude my deliberation on any sections of the Criminal Code that I may deem to
be relevant.

R. v. Klassen Page 45
However, it does appear that Klassen was de facto arresting Khan and not simply
attempting to detain him. The nature of the physical force used by Klassen and
described by him in great detail involved his attempts to place Khan in the "controlled
handcuffing position". I accept that Klassen did not put his mind to whether he was
acting as a civilian or an off duty police officer at the time, and that it was his police
training that took over once he got on top of Khan.
[121] Section 495 provides that for a warrantless arrest a police officE)r is required to
have objective and subjective reasonable and probable grounds that must come from
sound logical thought that leads to an appropriate conclusion. The section does not
distinguish between an on duty and an off duty officer,although "police officer" is
defined in the Criminal Code as someone who is employed for the preservation and
maintenance of the public peace. It is clear that officers are not to consume alcohol
while on duty. It is equally clear that there are situations where an off duty officer who
has been drinking may feel, based on training, and the oath of office, that it is necessary
to intervene in an incident despite being intoxicated. In appropriate circumstances
section 25 may apply to an off duty officer, notwithstanding that officer's insobriety.
However, an off duty officer who has consumed alcohol should be put to. the same
standard as a sober onduty officer.
[122] The Criminal Code requires that an arresting officer must subjectively have
reasonable and probable grounds upon which to base their arrest. Those grounds must
also be justifiable from an objective point of view. That is to say, a reasonable person
placed in the position of the officer must be able to conclude that there were indeed
reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest. (R. v. Storrey, 53 CCC 3d 316)

R. v. Klassen . Page 46
[123) All Klassen witnessed before he became physical with Khan was a very brief
interaction. Gillan, who he knew, and who was the larger of the two males, was either
pushed or walked back two steps by Khan. He also knew that his friend had been
drinking. By the time Klassen intervened, Khan was lying on his back on the pavement
and he had no idea how this had happened, although itwould not have been
reasonable for him to have concluded that Khan ended up on the ground voluntarily.
What Klassen saw before he intervened could not objectively be considered an assault.
There were also no objective reasonable grounds to believe that Khan was about to
commit an indictable offence. Klassen clearly did not have sufficient reasonable and
probable grounds to arrest K.han for assault and is riot entitted to the protection of
section 25 as an off duty officer, as he did not act on reasonable grounds.
[124) It is for these same. reasons, that I find that section 31 is not an available
justification for Klassen. As this section was also not argued by Defence counsel, I
decline to provide a more detailed analysis.
Section 27 of the Criminal Code:
[125) Klassen has sought the protection of section 27 of the Criminal Code as a means
to justify his assault of Khan. This section applies equally to civilians and officers. It
provides that:
Everyone is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
(a) to prevent the commission of an offence (i) for which, if it were
committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without
warrant, and (ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury
to the person or property of anyone; or (b) to prevent anything being done,
that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an
offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

R. v. Klassen Page 47
[126] This section justifies the use of force which is reasonably necessary to prevent
the commission of an offence that would likely cause immediate or serious injury to a
person. This section requires me to consider Klassen's perception of the situation and
his reaction to the situation. There must be a reasonably verifiable basis for that
perception. The fact that Klassen had consumed alcohol does not deprive him of
availing himself of this section as long as his perception of the situation and his need to
respond to it are met by reasonable grounds.
[127] The purpose of any action taken pursuant to section 27(1) is to be preventative.
Klassen would have to have believed that Khan was about to commit, or to continue an .
offence that was likely to cause immediate and serious injury to another person and that
this belief had a reasonable basis. In using preventative force Klassen would have to
have perceived that immediate and serious injury was likely to be caused to the person
he was seeking to protect.
[128] In making a determination about his justification to intervene, I have placed
considerable weight on Klassen's evidence in cross-examination. He testified as
follows, beginning at page 45, line 47 (transcript October 22):
Q: "What was the immediate and serious harm that you faced that you
feel justifies you in manhandling Mr. Khan as you did?"
A: "When I looked out the front windshield of the cab upon approach, I
witnessed an assault in progress. That is the immediate harm that I
- - that I acted on."
Q: "When you got there he was on the pavement and Tanino and Gillan
were 12 to 15 feet away. What was the risk of immediate and
serious harm that required you, at that point, to do what you did to
Mr. Khan?"
A: "I did not know what had happened prior to - - to me arriving on that
scene. I had very limited information as to why I was even at the

R. v. Klassen Page 48
Hyatt and based on the fact that I had just witnessed a assault in
progress, what is essential at that moment, what I thought in my
head was that I need to help to control this situation. Once the
situation is under control, all parties are under control, at that point
the investigation phase can begin as to determine who did what,
who's related to who, what happened, how this all transpired. But
my initial thought and my initial goal was to control the situation."
[129] The cross-examination continues at page 47 line 39 (transcript October 22):
Q: "Again, what was the threat of immediate and serious harm? You
didn't see a weapon at this point?"
A: "No, Your Honour, I did not."
Q: "Did you think Mr. Khan was going to get up off the pavement and
charge through you and get at Gillan and basically take all three of
you on? Were you concemed about that? And then thereby inflict
immediate and serious harm? Was that a concern of yours?"
A: "I didn't - - that particular thought didn't enter my head but I acted as
quickly as I could to keep Mr. Khan on the ground so that that, or
anything even remotely close to that, would not happen."
Q: "But he never presented a weapon, he never moved threateningly
towards you in a - - in a fashion, he never attempted to get at
. Gillan, correct? He never did any of those physical acts, correct?"
A: "I'm happy to say that I got there quick enough to avoid any of that
potentiaL"
Q: "Did you see any acts consistent with any of that, what I just proposed
to you, the possibilities that I proposed to you, did you see any
aggressive behaviour from Mr. Khan whatsoever after you arrived
and he was down on the pavement?"
A: "At the point where I saw Mr. Khan on the pavement, he was
attempting - - he had himself propped up on his right elbow and
was attempting to get up."
Q: "And you determined from that there was a threat of immediate,
seribus harm?"
A: "I had already, moments early - - earlier, witnessed - - "
Q: "A pushing match."
A: "-- a threal."
Q: "A pushing match. No punches. Two people pushing at each other,
correct?"

R. v. Klassen Page 49
A: "That is what I witnessed upon my arrival, yes."
Q: "And you get down there and - - and then you - - by the time you get
there, there's no more pushing match, there's no more technical
assault. There's a man who you don't know from Adam, down on
the pavement trying to get up. What are your grounds for
assaulting him?"
A: "I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the term assaulting."
The evidence continues at page 48 line 43: (transcript October 22 page 48
lines 43 - 47 and page 49 lines 1 - 9)
Q: "We know what your purpose, intent and goal are. What were your
grounds? What was the threat of immediate and serious harm?"
A: "My grounds were based on the limited information I had when I
arrived. The act that I saw, as I approached in the taxi - - "
Q: "Which is completed, which is finished."
A: "The - - my decision making and the decisions that I'm - - that I'm
acting on are all done very, very quickly. These are - - "
Q: "After nine or 11 beers, correct?"
A: "I estimate that I had - - yes, between nine to 11 beers that night over
an eight and a half hour period."
[130] Klassen decided that it was necessary for him to intervene and to apply force to
Khan in order to prevent what he believed to be a likely further assault. This is the
immediate and serious injury that he indicates that hewas seeking to prevent. However
objectively there was absolutely no justification whatsoever for Klassen to have
intervened at the time and in the manner that he did. I have come to this conclusion
bearing in mind that, although Klassen repeatedly testified that he did not put his mind
to whether he was acting as a police officer, he was a trained police officer, and his
decision to intervene was made in the context of that training and experience. During
his altercation with Khan, he used police techniques and placed Khan in the controlled
handcuffing position, thereby seemingly attempting to facilitate a de facto arrest of Khan
as a means of "getting the situation under control".

R. v. Klassen Page 50
[131) Klassen acknowledged that when he first moved towards Khan, what he had
initially perceived to have been an assault had come to an end. He also confirmed
repeatedly that he had no idea what had happened before he arrived on the scene.
With his arrival there were now three trained police officers who were all physically
larger than Khan. Klassen mistakenly believed that the very brief action of Khan
walking or pushing Gillan back two steps was assaultive behaviour. Klassen was using
his knowledge and experience as a police officer when he came to that conclusion.
Objectively, however, the conduct that he witnessed was equally consistent with the end
of a consensual interaction, or of Khan attempting to fight off Gillan, who might have
been the aggressor. When Klassen got out of the cab, he did not see Khan make any
obvious aggressive move towards him, Gillan or Tanino. There were no weapons
visible and he did not hear Khan utter any threats. No one appeared to be injured.
, Klassen's conclusion that by propping himself up on his elbow and by appearing to be
trying to get up, that Khan was about to engage in some sort of serious assaultive
behaviour is neither a logical or reasonably objective conclusion.
[132) I find that Klassen is not entitled to the protection of section 27.
Section 30 of the Criminal Code:
[133) Section 30 of the Criminal CO,de provides:
"s.30 Every one who witnesses a breach of the peace is justified in
interfering to prevent the continuan.ce or renewal thereof and may detain
any person who commits or is about to join in or renew the breach of the
peace, for the purpose of giving him into the custody of a peace officer, if
he uses no more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent the
continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace or than is reasonably
proportioned to the danger to be apprehended from the continuance or
renewal of the breach of the peace."

R. v. Klassen Page 51
The protection of this section is available to Klassen whether he was acting as a police
officer or a civilian.
[134) Civilians are not entitled to arrest for breach of the peace. Under this section
they are entitled to detain a suspect for the purpose of giving him into the custody of a
peace officer, but only if the detention involves no more force than is reasonably
necessary to prevent the continuance or renewal of the breach, and is reasonably
proportional to the danger to be apprehended from the continuance or renewal of the
breach of the peace. Klassen has sought the protection of this section based on his
status as a civilian.
[135) The law is clear that if a police officer is detaining a suspect, that detention must
be viewed as reasonably necessary on an objective view of the totality of the
circumstances, informing the officer's suspicion that there is a clear nexus between the
individual to be detained and a recent or on-going criminal offence.
" ... police officers do not have carte blanche to detain. The power to
detain cannot be exercised on the basis of a hunch, nor can it become a
de facto arrest." R. v. Mann 185 eee 3d 308 sec, p.35
[136] This must be equally applicable where a civilian is seeking to detain a fellow
citizen for the purpose of turning him over to the police.
[137] Klassen did not testify that he was attempting to detain Kahn for the purpose of
providing him to the police upon their arrival. Klassen did not testify that after he got on
top of Khan that he began shouting at the others to call the police. In his testimony at
page 46 lines 12 - 24 of the transcript (October 22), he said that he was trying to get
Khan under control because he didn't really know what was going on:

APPENDIX ATTACHED TO REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE JODIE WERIER DATED APRIL 5, 2011
R. v. KLASSEN
Crown Book of Authorities
1. R. v. Mann [2004] 3 S.C.R 59
2. R. v. Storrey[1990] 1 S.C.R. 241
3. R. v. Cluett and O'Donnell (1982),3 C.C.C. (3d) 333 (N.S.C.A.)
4. R. v. Cluett [1985] S.C.J. No. 54
5. R. v. Prevost [1985] O.J. No. 1334
6. R. v. Flis, 2000 CarsweliOnt 8104
7. R. v. Flis, 2006 CarsweliOnt 698,205 C.C.C. (3d) 384
8. R. v. Nasogaluak[2010] 1 S.C.R. 206
9. R. v. Brennan (1989) 52 C.C.C. (3d) 366
10. R. v. Maroney [1975] 2 S.C.R. 306
11. R. v. Vinokurov [2001] AJ. No. 612 (Alt. C.A.)
Page 1 of 3

Crown Supplementary Book of Authorities
1. R. v. Crimeni, 1992 CarswellBC 452, 41 M.V.R. (2d) 205
2. Hudson v. Brantford Police Services Board, 2001 CarsweliOnt 3303, 158 C.C.C.
(3d) 390
3. Millas v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1999) B.C.J. No. 3007
4. Berketa v. Niagra Regional Police Services Board, 2008 CarsweliOnt 402, 163
A.C.W.S. (3d) 842
5. Crampton v. Walton, 2005 CarsweliAlta 218, 2005 ABCA 81
6. R. v. Reddy, 2007 BCPC 0384 .
7. R. v. Elias, 1989 CarsweliQue 113, [1989)1 S.C.R. 423
8. R. v. CosteI/o, 1982 CarswellBC 668, [1983)1 W.W.R. 666
9. Foley v. Shannahan, 1990 CarswellNFLD 146, 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271, 257
A.P.R. 271
Page 2 of 3

Defendants Book of Authorities
1. R. v. Asante-Mensah, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2003 SCC 38
2. Berntt v. Vancouver (City), [1999] B.C.J. No. 1257
3. Bolianatz v. Edmonton Police Service, 2002 ABQB 284
4. R. v. Bottrell 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211
5. R. v. W.O., [1991] S.C.J. No. 26
6. R. v. Grainger, [2007] B.C.J. No. 935
7. R. v. Hannibal [2003] B.C.J ..
8. R. v. Lowe, 2008 BCPC
9. R. v. Michaud [2006] A.J. No. 1247 (Alt Provo Ct.)
10.R. v. Reilly [1984] 2 S.C.R. 396
11. R. v. Sydney, 2009 YKTC 3
12.R. v. Wigglesworth 150 D.L.R. (3d) 748
13.Legal Aspects of Policing, Paul Ceyssens Chapters 2.4 & 2.5
14. Off-Duty Police Conduct: A Discussion Paper, Paul Ceyssens
15. Interpretation Act, R.S., c. 1-21
Legal Aspects of Policing by Paul Ceyssens:
Chapter 3: Police Civil Liability
Chapter 6: Police Discipline Offences and Related Offences
Page 30f3