On July 22, 2019, trial day 6 for me. PC Killman was questioned by me. He had met Helen Clarke on November 29, 2018 after she filed a complaint “to be on file” for a meeting next day with Aurora.
She admitted she complained so that a report would “BE ON FILE” for when she conspired with Aurora the next day,.
Recall I got Helen $80,000 for a new park for her. She had tried since 2007 and Downey refused her every year. She asked me to help her and I was successful in a few weeks.Then, Downey asked her to help him get me arrested to shut up about the corruption I had uncovered by Aurora.
Here are the emails I sent her: (as you read them, see if you can spit harassment and her reaction to it.A-Summary-of-all-Helen-emails-December-2016-to-May-10-2018
Helen Accuses Me Of Being Autistic, with Asberger’s
Someone had obviously at Aurora Town Hall told her how to get me arrested. Maybe Allan Downey who “managed” her as lead volunteer. The key point is that Helen was NOT ACTING INDEPENDENTLY of Aurora, she was helping them in some way from November 29, 2108 onwards.
PC Killmam swears to that below:
CLERK REGISTRAR: Please state and spell your name for the court.
A. Wesley Killman, W-E-S-L-E-Y, K-I-L-L-M-A-N.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Thank you. You may be seated.
THE COURT: What is your rank, Officer?
THE COURT: Thank you.
A. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY ROBERT LEPP:
ROBERT LEPP: Thank you.
Q. Thank you for coming, Officer.
A. Thank you.
Q. I’m Bob Lepp. The subpoena mentioned the general occurrence number that I wanted to talk about. Were you able to review any notes? Or….
A. I did, yes.
Q. Okay. I’ve given Mr. Elder a copy of 3-4-3-4-3-5. Would you like a copy to….
A. Yes, please, if that’s possible.
MR. ELDER: I take no issue with the officer relying on anything to refresh him memory, Your Honour, if Your Honour can allow that?
THE COURT: That’s fine. The, the report that I gather you’re about to look at, Officer, is one that you made contemporaneously?
A. Yes. 3-4-3-4-3-5 is the report I wrote.
THE COURT: 3-4-3-3-4-5? Maybe I got it wrong.
ROBERT LEPP: 3-4-3…
ROBERT LEPP: …4-3-5.
THE COURT: 4-3-5.
ROBERT LEPP: November 29th, ’17.
THE COURT: Okay. So these are – the note that you have in front of you is your…
A. My notebook…
THE COURT: …police book note?
A. …from that day [indiscernible].
THE COURT: Made contemporaneously?
A. That’s correct, yes.
THE COURT: Do you have an independent recollection?
A. I do, You Honour.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Yes, you may use those notes to refresh your memory. Go ahead.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. In going through your notes and perhaps in reviewing that, do you remember who Helen Clarke is?
Q. So you recall Helen Clarke roughly?
A. Yes, I remember her, yes.
Q. Okay. And she called you and complained that I’d been harassing her since 2016, is that your, your memory?
A. That was her initial, initial complaint, yes.
Q. Initial complaint. Was there another complaint once you got there?
A. No. The specifics of her complaint were that you were constantly harassing her, emailing her, taking pictures all over the dog park and purposely coming there when you would know she was there.
A. That was her complaint.
Q. So was – you went there and you, you heard all the complaints at one time? It’s not like she….
A. I, I couldn’t speak to all the complaints. Whatever she…
A. …told me, I listened to.
Q. Okay. And she said, here’s these emails, this guy’s been bothering me since 2016? And she gave you some emails?
A. She showed me a few of them, yes.
Q. A few?
A. Yes. I don’t believe I looked at all of them by any means.
Q. Oh, okay. Was it your assumption she’d picked out the worst?
A. I made no particular assumption about that.
Q. In your experience, would a complainer not give you the worst case rather than the least? Anyway, doesn’t, doesn’t really matter. You then undertook an investigation of those emails and you did a report, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What was your conclusion after looking at all of those emails and discussing everything with her?
A. Primarily based on discussing things with her, I was aware that she was going to be meeting with the Town of Aurora the following day and that she was trying to get her ducks in a row and she wanted to make sure there was a police report on file. She was making us aware of what she was going to be doing and I took it upon myself to write a report based on what she had shown me with the understanding that she was expecting the Town of Aurora to assist her in possibly getting a, a trespass order placed against you.
Q. Against me?
A. And we had discussed that prospect in great detail. So understood that the report would be there, most likely as a backup to any interactions she had with the town if she wasn’t able to get what she needed from the town…
A. …to assist, assist her in getting relief from you.
Q. So just play that back briefly, she wanted proof of a police report for meeting with the town the next day. Do I hear you correctly?
A. I think she wanted to be able to tell the town that she had already met with the police, yes.
Q. Very good. Did she tell you what caused her to call November 29th, 2017?
A. Not that I recall. But I, I presume it’s related to the fact she was going to meet the town.
Q. But it wasn’t related. Did she show you an email saying this is what he did and that’s why I’m calling you?
A. She mentioned an incident that happened on November 24th…
Q. Oh, the parking.
A. …and to do with taking photos and I believe that was the most recent incident that she had….
Q. Very good. So she described her parking in the no parking zone and I took two photos of her car? Was that….
A. I don’t remember the specific details. I just know it was you photographing her or her vehicle. Something related…
A. …to that.
MS. RIVET: The next one.
ROBERT LEPP: Move along? Okay.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Did she show you any photographs she claims I took?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did she point to a blog and say he, he puts pictures of me all over a blog?
A. She may have, but I don’t, don’t specifically recall that.
Q. Did she show you any emails with photos of her?
A. She showed me emails. I don’t specifically recall if they had photos of her in them. I don’t recall photos of her.
Q. Did she ever show you a photo that I took of her?
A. I don’t believe so.
Q. So – but she did admit that she had parked in the wrong place and I had taken a picture of her truck there?
A. I didn’t question her on whether or not she was illegally parked or not.
Q. I’ve got to ask my questions carefully. Did she tell you I took pictures of her truck on November 24th?
A. She told me she took pictures – let me just refer to my notes. I can’t say for sure what she told me she was – you were taking pictures of. I just wrote down that you took five photos of her.
A. Five photos of her. I don’t know if that was her vehicle or her, specifically. I don’t recall.
Q. You wrote down that, that I took five photos of her?
A. Oh, five to noon and there – you were there taking photos. I apologize. That was the time on the 24th.
Q. But certainly…
A. I don’t recall what….
Q. …you would record of what I was accused of taking photos, no?
A. No, I did not.
Q. This guy was taking pictures of random things and I’m complaining about it.
A. There’s a wide range of complaints…
Q. I understand.
Q. Just, just concentrating on the photos, she didn’t show you any and she claimed I took them and she didn’t talk about the ones I did take of her van.
A. Again, I don’t recall specifically what photos I viewed. I don’t believe there were photos of her. I did see emails. I don’t recall…
Q. Did you see…
Q. …any photos?
THE COURT: Just, just let the witness finish his answer…
ROBERT LEPP: Oh, pardon me.
THE COURT: …please, Mr. Lepp.
A. I believe there were photos in some of the emails. I don’t recall what they were of.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Very good. Excellent.
A. I know there was a lot of discussion about a fence and there may have been photos of a fence.
Q. A fence?
A. Something to do with a fence was built inside out.
Q. Sir, there’s no fence. Okay.
A. At the dog park. I don’t know.
Q. Yes. Oh, the dog park fence. Okay. I think there’s one last question if I could just spit it out here. Oh, you put that report and your notes into the computer system and it resulted in that piece of paper I just gave to you…
A. That’s correct.
Q. …G.O. – right.
Q. Would any other officer in the future see that report when he went looking to investigate Bob Lepp? Would he find that report?
Q. It’s your understanding that’s how the system works?
A. It does work that way.
Q. Oh, okay. And you’re badge number’s there and your name, they could contact you for more details?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Or see your notebook? Because in this case there’s no notes. There’s no officer notes. I was given….
A. They wouldn’t specifically have to contact me to see my notes. A detective or above could access my notebooks without my knowing.
Q. Okay. On the third page, you’ll notice a bunch of redaction?
Q. Do you have any idea what’s underneath that redaction?
MR. ELDER: I don’t know who redacted it. Either it was when Mr. Lepp made a Freedom of Information request, or it was in disclosure. But there’s a reason for redactions and I’m a little concerned we might be getting into, for example, personal information about a complainant. I, I am only looking at the redacted copy, so I don’t know actually at this point what’s under there.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I think the only question right now is do you know who redacted? Is that the question?
ROBERT LEPP: I….
THE COURT: Do you know what’s under the redaction?
ROBERT LEPP: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Well, if you can answer that question.
A. Well, I, I know some – I’ve reviewed the report before coming here today, so I know some of what…
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Okay.
A. …would be in the redactions, yes. 1
Q. Okay. Under the redaction, do you think there’s a comment that I was accused of having Asperger’s Syndrome?
A. There definitely was.
Q. Okay. Which is what? How was it described to you? Or do you already know what Asperger’s is?
A. I know what Asperger’s is. It’s a…
Q. What, what is it?
A. …form of Autism. She indicated that she thought you were suffering possibly from Asperger’s and that you were oddly social and fixated on things.
Q. I’m anti-social?
A. Oddly. Social in an odd way, she referred to you.
Q. Social in an odd way.
A. So that…
A. …you didn’t know how to properly interact with people and that you got fixated on things.
Q. Okay. Very good. What else do you recall underneath the redaction that’s not personal? I’m not looking for any personal information.
THE COURT: Well….
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Did you have your….
THE COURT: Wait, wait a minute.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Sorry, one last one.
THE COURT: Wait a minute, Mr. Lepp.
ROBERT LEPP: Yes. Where’s the other version?
THE COURT: Mr. Elder, you don’t know how it is that these documents came to be redacted?
MR. ELDER: Well, the reason I say that is because I – there’s a lot of documentary evidence as Your
Honour knows in this case. I know Mr. Lepp has at times made Freedom of Information requests directly to the York Regional Police. So I’m not entirely sure whether this particular document was redacted through them or whether it was redacted in disclosure through us. As he’s said, he’s seen what’s beneath it. So that leads me to think there’s a – an unredacted version out there.
THE COURT: Well, the, the officer has said that he’s seen what’s beneath it.
MR. ELDER: Yes.
THE COURT: It’s his report.
MR. ELDER: No, sorry. Mr. Lepp, I believe – I, I understood him to say that he has seen under the redactions.
ROBERT LEPP: Would I be allowed to show the officer the first version I was given by the Freedom of Information request? And then the second one?
THE COURT: I, I don’t know what this has to do with the case, Mr. Lepp. Can you explain how it’s relevant?
ROBERT LEPP: Oh. The officer did a report, was given the same….
THE COURT: Do, do you want the officer to be excluded from the courtroom while you…
ROBERT LEPP: I don’t…
THE COURT: …explain this to me?
ROBERT LEPP: …believe so, no. He looks like a nice guy. The officer did an investigation based on the identical evidence of two other officers. One of those two agreed with him, one did not. I happened to get a second copy….
THE COURT: Well, how, how do I know that it was based upon identical evidence?
ROBERT LEPP: I’m going to bring that out – or do you want – like just generally?
THE COURT: So, so far…
ROBERT LEPP: I stopped….
THE COURT: …this officer has said I saw some emails. I don’t think it was all. I’ve heard Officer Ward talk about receiving a lot of emails. I don’t know whether the material that this officer looked at and the material that Officer Ward looked at was the same material.
ROBERT LEPP: I stopped communicating with her at her request just the end of December 2016.
THE COURT: But where, where does it take us? Where, where does this evidence you’re giving me right now take me?
ROBERT LEPP: York Regional Police is covering up his conclusion of his investigation. When I first asked for the Freedom of Information report, I got given this. Details, nothing personal and, and there’s some redaction. The second time I asked York Regional Police, because I learned what can happen with the….
THE COURT: Why does that matter to whether you criminally harassed Ms. Clarke?
ROBERT LEPP: This gentleman said I didn’t harass her and then somebody tried to cover up…
THE COURT: What – but since, since it’s the judge in this court who has to decide whether you…
ROBERT LEPP: Oh.
THE COURT: …whether the Crown has proven that you did.
ROBERT LEPP: Okay.
THE COURT: Why does what he thought matter?
ROBERT LEPP: What, what he thought does not matter, Your Honour, except that some other officer has….
THE COURT: Let’s say five officers thought that there was nothing there, but the Crown has brought evidence to court, it’s, it’s still for me to decide whether on the evidence there has been a criminal harassment.
ROBERT LEPP: Okay.
THE COURT: So I don’t – you could, you could bring the platoon in. If they – and they might all agree with you that there’s nothing here, but it’s for me to decide.
ROBERT LEPP: If, if it was just that, Your Honour, I would not spend so much time on it.
THE COURT: What else is there?
ROBERT LEPP: The third officer that got involved arrested me and he was assigned by Detective Sergeant Bentham. Detective Sergeant Bentham has redacted the…
THE COURT: How…
ROBERT LEPP: …the results of this officer’s….
THE COURT: …how do I know that?
ROBERT LEPP: How do you know?
THE COURT: How do we know who redacted it?
ROBERT LEPP: I’m, I’m going to show that to you in my…
THE COURT: In your evidence?
ROBERT LEPP: …in my evidence and my…
THE COURT: Okay.
ROBERT LEPP: …final submissions.
THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough.
ROBERT LEPP: Your Honour, if I’m off on a tangent, please – but…
THE COURT: I, I….
ROBERT LEPP: …when they cover up….
THE COURT: At the moment, I think you are off on a tangent.
ROBERT LEPP: Okay. That’s, that’s fine. I – forgive me. I’ll bring it up in, in my….
THE COURT: I, I don’t want to deter you from trying to unearth information that is relevant to the decision that I have to make. But, the, the effectiveness of the investigation or whether someone took the ball one way and another person took it another within the police force, doesn’t strike me as having anything to do with what I have to decide. There’s, there’s no Charter application here. No one’s suggesting that there’s been an abuse, none of that is before me. So what I have to decide is whether the Crown has made out its case.
ROBERT LEPP: I did make a Charter challenge, Your Honour, and it was turned down.
THE COURT: That’s already been dealt with.
ROBERT LEPP: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So at the moment, there is no Charter application…
ROBERT LEPP: No.
THE COURT: …before me. So I’m just left with
whether or not the Crown can prove the case.
ROBERT LEPP: I understand.
THE COURT: And I don’t think this belabouring of the quality of the investigation or whether one officer bought the same story that another officer did matters to any of that.
ROBERT LEPP: Okay.
THE COURT: I, I…
ROBERT LEPP: I agree.
THE COURT: If I’m, if I’m wrong about that though, tell me.
ROBERT LEPP: How would I know, Your Honour?
THE COURT: How….
ROBERT LEPP: This is my first time in a court.
THE COURT: Okay. So my guidance would be that we move on.
ROBERT LEPP: Let’s move on.
THE COURT: My suggestion.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Did Detective Ward find your report to your knowledge and talk to you about it at all?
A. People mentioned your name to me on several occasions over the past couple years. The most recent time was several weeks ago, Detective Ward asked me if I had a subpoena to go to court here. I told him I did and that I told him why my – asked him why am I going to court for this? And then he explained that there was numerous other charges and that – just gave me a brief outline that he had reopened the investigation and made a different conclusion than I had initially come to because he had reviewed much more evidence than I had and being more senior than me, he said, no offence, but I have grounds to proceed with charges. That’s what he told me most recently.
Q. Okay. I can’t think of anything else I’m allowed to ask you.
Q. Thank you very much for coming…
A. Thank you.
Q. …and I’m sorry to take up your whole day.
A. No worries.
THE COURT: Any cross-examination?
MR. ELDER: Very, very briefly, Officer.
A. Oh, sorry. I apologize.
MR. ELDER: Sorry, I know it’s a little different than you’re used to.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ELDER:
Q. So you kind of alluded to this already, but is it fair to say your opinion is not necessarily shared by Officer Ward?
A. I have no idea what has happened in the case since I was initially involved. I had no idea this was going before the court. So I couldn’t even possibly comment on…
A. …where the investigation is. All I know is what I first reviewed and what I first reported on.
Q. Okay. And when you met with Ms. Clarke, do you know whether the email she showed you were the entirety of the emails that were passed between her and Mr. Lepp?
A. I only met with her for maybe 45 minutes and she had a lot of material. We – I reviewed some of it, I don’t think I saw anywhere near all of it and we both were comfortable at that point that her next step was going to be to see if the town could get a trespass order against him and revisit whether or not that was effective in dealing with her current… Q. Okay.
Q. And fair to say after November 29th, 2017, you didn’t review any emails from Mr. Lepp to Ms. Clarke?
A. That’s very true.
Q. And fair to say you don’t know anything that happened after that date? About this – about, about their interactions?
A. Well, I….
A. Yes, definitely not firsthand.
Q. And my understanding is that police officers have discretion whether to charge someone with a criminal offence or not, is that…
A. That’s very…
A. …correct, yes.
Q. And sometimes there are ways of resolving disputes between people other than criminal charges, is that right?
A. That’s usually preferable.
Q. And that would maybe include trespass notices?
A. That would definitely be an option, yes.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Any re-examination, Mr. Lepp? You’re entitled to ask questions…
ROBERT LEPP: Oh.
THE COURT: …about matters that have arisen for the first time in that cross-examination. Not simply to continue with your examination in-chief.
ROBERT LEPP: No, no. Just something came up.
RE-EXAMINATION BY ROBERT LEPP:
Q. You can have a different opinion but you agree, you looked at a lot of emails and found nothing wrong?
A. It’s – I would disagree with your characterization. I wouldn’t say there was nothing wrong. It was clear that there was an issue.
Q. What was wrong?
A. She felt harassed.
Q. What words did she point to say look, he’s harassing me?
A. It wasn’t specific words she pointed to, it was the number of communications complaining about how she was doing her job to other people, talking about her to other people, showing up to her place where she volunteers and that she felt
you were only there to check up on her. I believe that would be about the extent of….
Q. She told you I have two dogs?
A. Yes, I was aware you also had dogs, yes.
Q. She told you that she boarded my dogs? That’s how I met her? She took my money and boarded my dogs?
A. I, I don’t know if I knew that.
MR. ELDER: I wonder if we’re going beyond re-exam, Your Honour?
THE COURT: Yes. Again, this is – this isn’t to be an extension…
ROBERT LEPP: Okay.
THE COURT: …of the examination in-chief. Just matters that arose…
ROBERT LEPP: You mentioned….
THE COURT: …in cross-examination.
ROBERT LEPP: Can I ask about the trespass?
THE COURT: Yes, I think you can.
ROBERT LEPP: Q. Did you recommend to her she should ask for a trespass?
A. I did. We actually had a discussion about it where she told she didn’t think the town would be open to trespassing you because you’re a citizen of Aurora and I told her that didn’t matter in my opinion. And that the best course of action would be to push for a trespass notice and to deal with the fallout as it came and that the police could always re-open the investigation if the trespass notice – if the town was willing to issue it, it wasn’t effective.
Q. Isn’t it true you also told her to filter her email?
A. Yes. I also told her that she may want to block you from social media or have it so that she doesn’t read your email if she doesn’t think it’s important. So different ways that you could feel less harassed, for sure.
Q. You mentioned social media. Did she claim that I was doing something at social media?
A. I, I don’t recall specifically. But I do know what we had a discussion about all the different ways she could block your communications.
Q. Did you tell her how to block emails?
A. We had a discussion about it. I don’t know if she knew how to do it or if I told her how to do it. I’m not sure which way it went.
Q. Can’t remember?
A. No, not specifically.
Q. One last thing, do, do you recall her saying her husband’s a computer guy, maybe he could figure it out?
A. Not specifically, I don’t recall that.
Q. Thanks very much, Officer.
A. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thanks, Officer.
A. Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you.