R. v. Blackmore

2017 BCSC 1288 R. v. Blackmore IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Blackmore, 2017 BCSC 1288 Date: 20170724 Docket: 31247 Registry: Cranbrook Regina v. Winston Kaye Blackmore and James Marion Oler Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Donegan Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Crown: P. Wilson, Q.C. M. Rankin Counsel for Winston Kay Blackmore: B. Suffredine, Q.C. James Marion Oler appeared on his own behalf: Amicus Curiae: J. Doyle Place and Date of Trial: Cranbrook, B.C. April 18-21 and 24-27; and May 1-5, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Cranbrook, B.C. July 24, 2017 Contents INTRODUCTION. 3 MORMONISM AND MORMON FUNDAMENTALISM.. 4 The Mormon Church. 6 Priesthood Authority. 8 Record-Keeping. 9 Ordinances Generally. 12 The Ordinance of Eternal Marriage. 13 Emergence and Evolution of the Mormon Fundamentalist Movement 16 The FLDS. 18 The FLDS Community at Bountiful 20 RECORDS. 28 FLDS Marriage and Personal Records Generally. 29 Examination of the Records. 33 Storage and Location of the Records. 35 Other Records. 39 Registrations of Live Birth and Declarations of Particulars. 39 Government Issued Marriage Licences. 39 ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE. 39 Positions of the Parties. 41 The Position of the Crown. 41 The Position of Mr. Blackmore. 42 The Position of Mr. Oler 43 The Position of Amicus Curiae. 43 Analysis. 44 The Polygamy Reference Case. 44 Does the Crown need to prove harm, compulsion or lack of consent?. 50 What is necessary to prove "conjugal union"?. 52 What is the meaning of the word "practises" in s. 293(1)(a) of the Code?. 57 The Framing of the Indictment 71 Summary of the Elements of the Offence. 75 ANALYSIS. 77 Count 1 - Winston Kaye Blackmore. 77 Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blackmore practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time?. 77 Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blackmore intended to practise a marriage with more than one person at the same time?. 131 Conclusion. 136 Count 2 - James Marion Oler 136 Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time?. 136 Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler intended to practise a marriage with more than one person at the same time?. 159 Conclusion. 162 INTRODUCTION [1] Winston Kaye Blackmore and James Marion Oler are each charged, in separate counts, with practising a form of polygamy or practising a kind of conjugal union, contrary to s. 293(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Code]. Mr. Blackmore is alleged to have done so between October 12, 1990 and February 28, 2014, with 24 named persons. Mr. Oler is alleged to have done so between May 30, 1993 and January 7, 2009, with five named persons. [2] The Crown contends that Mr. Blackmore and Mr. Oler were members of a small community located near Creston, British Columbia, referred to as "Bountiful", who adhere to the beliefs and practices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ("FLDS") and who have practised polygamy in accordance with that faith over many years. In support of its case, the Crown called two expert witnesses, one civilian witness and several law enforcement officials. [3] Through the expert witnesses, the Crown tendered opinion evidence regarding the origins, fundamental precepts and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ("LDS" or "Mormon Church"), the religion from which the FLDS derives, as well as the origins and core beliefs of the FLDS. Norma Jane Blackmore ("Jane Blackmore") provided evidence about the FLDS community at Bountiful, including evidence about her former husband, Winston Kaye Blackmore, and her half-brother, James Marion Oler. [4] Through the law enforcement witnesses, the Crown tendered statements made by each accused to persons in authority. Mr. Blackmore admitted his 2009 recorded statement to police was voluntary. Following a voir dire, I ruled the Crown had proven Mr. Oler's 2005 and 2006 unrecorded statements to police were voluntary. Through the law enforcement witnesses, the Crown also tendered a number of documents, including FLDS Marriage and Personal Records and various British Columbia birth and other records alleged to pertain to each accused. [5] Both accused elected to call no evidence. [6] The ultimate question I am to decide is whether the Crown has proven the guilt of each accused, on the evidence admissible against him, beyond a reasonable doubt. On the path to answering that question in respect of each accused, I will first discuss and make findings in respect of the LDS and FLDS faiths, including their common beliefs and practices, as well as their differences. I will then discuss and make general findings in respect of the various records adduced by the Crown before turning to my analysis. [7] My analysis of the evidence tendered against each accused will require that I first determine the essential elements of the offence charged. As an area of significant controversy, this determination will require consideration of several issues. Once I have determined what elements the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I will then consider whether the Crown has met its burden in respect of each accused. MORMONISM AND MORMON FUNDAMENTALISM [8] The Mormon Church was founded in 1830. The Mormon Church repudiated plural marriage in the late 19th century, creating a schism. This led to a movement that came to be known as "Mormon Fundamentalism", from which several fundamentalist groups eventually emerged. The FLDS is one of these groups. [9] Professor Richard E. Bennett is a Professor of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young University in Utah, U.S.A. Among his numerous qualifications, Professor Bennett was the Chair of the Department of Church History and Doctrine, Religious Education at Brigham Young University from 2013 to 2016. He was raised in the Mormon faith, has held various offices in the Mormon Church and has written extensively on the topic. Professor Bennett was qualified to give opinion evidence with respect to the origins of the Mormon faith, fundamental precepts of Mormonism and the practices and traditions of the Mormon Church in terms of record-keeping. [10] Dr. Brian Hales was raised in the Mormon faith, has held various offices in the Mormon Church and has written and presented extensively on Mormon Fundamentalism. He was qualified to give expert opinion evidence with respect to the history of Mormon Fundamentalism, the origins of the FLDS, the core religious beliefs of the FLDS and its members, and the beliefs of the FLDS and its members concerning the practice of plural marriage. [11] Jane Blackmore, a former member of the FLDS in the community of Bountiful, also testified. Ms. Blackmore was married to the accused, Winston Kaye Blackmore, and is the half-sister of the accused, James Marion Oler. Among other things, Ms. Blackmore testified about the FLDS beliefs and practices as she was taught, practised and witnessed while a member of the FLDS community and resident of Bountiful. [12] With one exception in the evidence of Jane Blackmore which I will address later in these reasons, all three of these witnesses provided largely unchallenged evidence. No issue was raised regarding the credibility of the experts or the reliability of their evidence. I can see no basis upon which either could be undermined. I find both Professor Bennett and Dr. Hales were credible and their evidence reliable. I accept their evidence and their opinions entirely. [13] Theologians and historians have dedicated careers to researching, teaching and writing about the origins, beliefs and practices of the Mormon Church and Mormon Fundamentalist groups. Professor Bennett and Dr. Hales clearly could have discussed these topics for days. What follows here does not presume to canvass the details and intricacies of these broad and very interesting topics. Rather, what follows are my findings in areas relevant to the issues I must consider based upon the evidence adduced by the Crown. [14] I will begin by discussing the LDS faith, including its origins, scriptures and fundamental precepts relevant to this case. In doing so, I will discuss the doctrines of priesthood authority, record-keeping, ordinances and specifically the ordinance of eternal or celestial marriage. I will then move to a discussion of the emergence and evolution of the Mormon Fundamentalist movement, the origins, scriptures and core beliefs of the FLDS and the FLDS community at Bountiful. The Mormon Church [15] Mormonism is a religion based upon scripture, authority and revelation. [16] Mormon theology holds that in 1820, a man named Joseph Smith prayed to God for guidance on his choice of religion. He had a vision, referred to as the first vision, where God appeared to him and told him not to join any church and that the true church would be restored to the earth. Over the next decade, Joseph Smith had other visions that eventually led to the formation of the Mormon Church on April 6, 1830. [17] Through the second vision in 1823, Joseph Smith eventually came to translate the Book of Mormon from golden plates revealed to him through the Angel Moroni. Through the third vision in 1829, John the Baptist ordained Joseph Smith, giving him authority and restoring the priesthood authority on earth. Through the fourth vision in 1830, Joseph Smith received the apostolic authority or "keys" (governing power) to organize the Mormon Church. [18] The Mormon Church adheres to four main scriptures: the Holy Bible (Old and New Testament - King James version is preferred); the Book of Mormon; the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the "Doctrine and Covenants"); and the Pearl of Great Price. [19] The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture published on March 26, 1830 that records the 1,000 year history, particularly the spiritual history, of ancient peoples who travelled from Jerusalem to the Americas. Written by a man named Mormon and translated by Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is considered a companion book of scripture to the Holy Bible, another testament of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon contains a record of teachings of the ancient prophets and predicts the second coming of Jesus Christ in the Americas. Without publication of the Book of Mormon, the Mormon Church could not have been founded the following week. [20] The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of 138 Divine Revelations primarily received by Joseph Smith, with some received by his successors. The Doctrine and Covenants is also referred to as the Constitution of the Mormon Church as it contains much on governance, policies, practices, procedures, ordinances and doctrines of the Mormon Church. Professor Bennett explained that the Doctrine and Covenants is considered an open canon of the Mormon faith, meaning it is subject to change. [21] This is a convenient place to discuss the Mormon doctrines of continuing revelation and revocation and the law of common consent. [22] Professor Bennett explained that the doctrine of continuing revelation and the law of common consent work together to allow for the formulation of new scripture. The doctrine of continuing revelation accepts that the prophet will receive new revelations from God. However, these new revelations do not become scripture unless they are sustained by the membership of the church in conference (the law of common consent). The doctrine of revocation is as it sounds. As Professor Bennett explained "the Lord commands and the Lord revokes". [23] The Pearl of Great Price is a collection of a variety of different scripture. Unlike the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price does not follow a narrative structure. The book has five different and unrelated segments, including a selection from the revelations, translations and narrations from the first prophet, Joseph Smith, and a segment containing the 13 Articles of Faith authored by Joseph Smith. [24] Professor Bennett discussed Article 1 of the Articles of Faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842 and described it as the "most succinct statement of beliefs" ever written by Joseph Smith. This Article is often referred to as a "foundational document of belief" of the Mormon Church. [25] Referencing all of these scriptures, Dr. Hales and Professor Bennett discussed key doctrines of Mormon theology. Priesthood Authority [26] Priesthood authority is critical to Mormon theology and refers to the authority given to man from God to represent God on earth. Without this authority, Professor Bennett explained that there can be no Mormon Church. [27] Priesthood authority gives its bearer the authority to perform ordinances, conduct meetings, receive revelations and inspiration, and the authority to perform miracles, if called upon to do so. [28] In terms of its structure, the Mormon Church has, at its head, the President. The President is also God's prophet who receives inspiration and revelation to guide the church on earth. The President functions with two counsellors, who together form the First Presidency. Below the President in the hierarchy is the Quorum of Apostles, followed by the Seventies and then the general local authorities that function in congregations. [29] In Mormon theology, there is a lesser priesthood, called the Aaronic priesthood, and a higher or more spiritual priesthood, called the Melchizedek priesthood. [30] The Aaronic priesthood contains four offices: deacon, teacher, priest and bishop. In modern times, the minimum age at which a male may be ordained as a deacon is age 12, a teacher is age 14, and a priest is age 16. There is no minimum age at which a male may be ordained a bishop. However, a bishop must be married, mature and self-sufficient because Mormons see this office as a significant calling with important responsibilities, including administrative, judicial, and financial roles. [31] The Melchizedek priesthood contains five offices: elder, high priest, patriarch, seventy and apostle. To hold these different priesthood offices, a male in the Mormon Church must be ordained into that office by a male who has the authority to do so. To exercise the authorities that come with these different offices, the priesthood holder must receive permission from the man that holds authority over him. [32] An ordinance is a rite or ceremony. It is a performance of the priesthood to bless and sanctify the membership of the church. [33] I will discuss ordinances in further detail below, but will say here that a valid ordinance must meet certain requirements. Leaving aside spiritual requirements, an ordinance must be performed in the presence of witnesses by a man who has the priesthood authority to perform that particular ordinance. The ordinance must entail the laying on of hands and have the permission of the local presiding officer. The ordinance must also be recorded. [34] This leads me to discuss record-keeping and ordinances in the Mormon faith. Record-Keeping [35] Professor Bennett gave expert opinion evidence about the record-keeping practices and traditions of the Mormon Church. His opinions, based upon scriptures and text, are not in dispute. Rather, the controversy in this case lies in whether the same record-keeping doctrines and practices apply to the FLDS. This will be important in my assessment of the probative value of the FLDS Marriage and Personal Records tendered in this trial. [36] Accurate record-keeping is of fundamental importance in the Mormon faith. A fundamental precept is that ordinances be accurately recorded. As Professor Bennett put it, without record-keeping, there would be no Mormon Church. Record-keeping has been an integral part of the life of the Mormon Church from its founding and remains so today. Today, the historical department of the LDS, filled with records, encompasses an entire city block in Salt Lake City, Utah. [37] Professor Bennett also explained that the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are scripture that came from records. Many passages in these scriptures reference the necessity and importance of record-keeping. Professor Bennett provided only a few examples from the scriptures. [38] From the many examples found in the Book of Mormon, Professor Bennett highlighted a commandment to keep records that is contained in certain verses from 3 Nephi 23, where Jesus Christ admonished the people for failing to keep a record of certain events and commanded that a record be kept in the future. [39] From the many examples found in the Doctrine and Covenants, Professor Bennett highlighted a commandment to keep records found in Section 21, Verse 1. This verse begins, "Behold, there shall be a record kept among you". Professor Bennett called this commandment a "foundational document revelation", as it was a revelation given the very day the Mormon Church was organized. In other words, from its inception, the Mormon Church was commanded by God to keep a record of church happenings and events. [40] Professor Bennett highlighted another example found in the Doctrine and Covenants in Section 128. Some verses in this section deal with general records of the church. Other verses refer to the spiritual significance of record-keeping for ordinances, specifically temple ordinances. In this regard, Professor Bennett referred to Verses 6 through 9. [41] Verse 8 reads in part " whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven". [42] Verse 9 reads in part: It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of - a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be anulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. [43] Professor Bennett explained that these revelations mean that in order for an ordinance in the Mormon faith to be recognized on earth, and then again in Heaven, a record must be kept on earth. A corresponding record is then believed to be also kept in Heaven. In other words, without the record, there is no valid ordinance. Professor Bennett went on to emphasize that the above-mentioned revelation refers specifically to temple ordinances, of which very careful records must be kept in the temple. The temple ordinance of celestial marriage, considered to be perhaps the highest temple ordinance that can be performed, must have a very careful record. [44] Here it is useful to clarify that the Mormon Church distinguishes between a chapel and a temple. As Professor Bennett explained, a chapel is for public Sunday worship and other activities, and will exist wherever the Mormon Church has sufficient numbers. In some places chapels are very numerous. On the other hand, approximately 155 temples exist throughout the world. Temples are where Mormons perform and receive ordinances necessary for eternal salvation. Only active, worthy members of the Mormon Church may enter a temple. However, when a temple is first dedicated, the public is invited to visit. [45] Professor Bennett classified records kept by the Mormon Church into generally four groups: membership records of all kinds; financial records of all kinds; temple records; and church history records. [46] From its founding, the Mormon Church has kept membership records. This category includes records for various ordinations, including patriarchal blessings, disciplinary council records, which includes disfellowship and excommunication records, and an individual's composite membership record. [47] Professor Bennett described that a member receives a certificate for each ordinance. This certificate is distinct from the composite membership record a member receives at the end of the year. An individual composite membership record contains a summary of one's key biographical information, including one's full name, date and location of birth, date and location of various ordinances and who performed them, as well as the person's parents' names and marriages. [48] The temple records are considered sacred. These records refer to all of the ordinances that are performed in the temples, including celestial marriage records. The Mormon Church has kept these types of records since 1842. [49] In cross-examination, Professor Bennett testified that his review of the Mormon faith is true of the LDS and of any other church that attempts to base its teaching on the same Gospel scriptures. The other churches may take a different view on aspects of its doctrines, but those churches, he explained, "would have to come to grips with the same founding scriptures". [50] When asked about the destruction of records in the case of excommunication from the church, Professor Bennett explained that although an excommunicated member is no longer considered a member of the church, his or her records are nevertheless kept and stored, in the hope the person may repent and seek reinstatement. The records are never destroyed. [51] In cross-examination, Professor Bennett agreed that a record has to be kept as accurately and created as promptly as is reasonably possible. Ordinances Generally [52] In the Mormon Church there are at least ten different ordinances. Of these, five are considered to be salvific, or ones that a person must receive to attain salvation. Baptism, conferral of the Holy Ghost (confirmation), receipt of a priesthood office (applicable only to men), the temple endowment and eternal marriage are the five salvific ordinances. [53] Non-salvific ordinances include the blessing and naming of children, blessing the sick and a patriarchal blessing. A patriarchal blessing is an ordinance that is performed by a priesthood bearer holding the office of patriarch. This is considered a significant personal blessing that is recorded and given to an individual to help guide him or her through life. The Ordinance of Eternal Marriage [54] Mormons believe in the resurrection of male and female and the doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal family. Mormon theology posits that, after death, there are three levels of Heaven or Glory: the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial. To attain the highest of these, the celestial level, one must receive the salvific ordinance of eternal marriage and live a righteous life on earth. Eternal marriages are also known as celestial marriages or temple marriages. They are distinct from civil marriages. They are marriages that are seen to last after death in the celestial kingdom. [55] In today's Mormon theology, eternal marriage is a monogamous marriage that is sealed for time and all eternity. The ordinance is to be performed in a holy place, almost always a temple, and by a person who holds the authority to seal marriages. The President, who is considered the prophet and God's mouthpiece on earth, is the one man who holds the authority or the keys of sealing. He may delegate this authority. [56] When asked about termination of a temple or eternal marriage in the LDS faith, Professor Bennett explained that parties may apply for a divorce. The President of the Mormon Church has the power to annul or cancel a marriage upon such an application. [57] Professor Bennett was also asked about the effect of excommunication upon one's temple marriage and, in particular, the circumstance where one's excommunication was due to adultery. Professor Bennett testified that in the case of adultery, the church has power over one's membership, but has no power to exercise any authority over one's marriage. Even if excommunicated from the church, the former member remains married unless a party applies for and is granted a divorce. [58] Eternal marriage in Mormon theology was not always considered a monogamous marriage. From approximately 1852 to 1890, eternal marriage had the connotation of plural marriage, or polygamy, meaning multiple marriages at the same time. [59] As Dr. Hales explained, the term "polygamy" encompasses two types of multiple marriage scenarios. The term encompasses "polyandry", where a woman has multiple husbands and "polygyny", where a man has multiple wives. Plural marriage or polygamy in Mormon theology only refers to the latter scenario. Polyandry, a woman with multiple husbands, was never seen as acceptable as it was considered adultery. Therefore, when I use the term "polygamy" or the phrase "plural marriage" in the course of this section, I am referring to polygyny. [60] Plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith in 1834, when an angel appeared and told him to restore the practice. Although he did not record this revelation until 1843 (Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants), he began to secretly teach plural marriage to devout believers for a few years before his death in 1844. Following his death, Joseph Smith's revelation regarding plural marriage remained quite concealed until 1852. [61] By 1852, Joseph Smith's successor, Brigham Young, had led many church followers to the Utah Territory. That year, he published a declaration that the Mormon Church was practising plural marriage and its members were expected to do so. At that time, the Utah Territory was an organized incorporated territory of the United States and under federal legislative jurisdiction. In 1852, there were no laws in effect in the Utah Territory that prohibited polygamy. [62] From the 1850s to 1890, the prevalence of plural marriage in the Mormon Church ebbed and flowed. Dr. Hales explained that in the early years, nearly all Mormons did not practise polygamy. However, by the late 1850s, following steps taken by the leaders to emphasize the necessity of obeying, the Mormon practice of polygamy reached its peak. Up to 50 percent of Mormons living in the Utah Territory were involved with polygamy, either as husbands, wives or children in polygamous families. [63] Anti-polygamy sentiment grew in the United States, leading to a series of enactments by Congress between 1862 and 1887 to criminalize polygamy in the Territories. The percentage of people practising polygamy began to decrease. By the 1870s, only about 25 percent of Mormons living in the Utah Territory were practising plural marriage. With even more vigorous federal government involvement in the 1880s, that percentage decreased even further. In 1887, some Mormons practising polygamy relocated to Cardston, Alberta, to escape the raids by U.S. Marshals on polygamous families. At that time, Utah wanted to join the Union and Congress made it very clear that statehood would not occur unless the Mormon Church abandoned plural marriage. [64] In 1887, Congress passed the last in a series of enactments directed at polygamy, the Edmunds-Tucker Act. Among other things, this legislation allowed the government to disenfranchise Mormons engaged in polygamy and take their property. The LDS viewed the enactment as meant to destroy a religion and challenged it in court. [65] In 1890, a majority of the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of this legislation. This leads me to briefly discuss another doctrine of the Mormon faith, a doctrine which requires LDS members to obey the laws of the nations in which they are found. [66] Professor Bennett testified that Mormon theology distinguishes between laws generally and laws that are found to be constitutional. LDS doctrine requires members to follow laws found to be constitutional. As he explained, members of the Mormon Church did not follow certain laws, but once those laws were found to be constitutionally valid, members were expected to obey them. Emergence and Evolution of the Mormon Fundamentalist Movement [67] Shortly after the United States Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Edmunds Tucker Act, Wilford Woodruff, the LDS President at the time, received a revelation from God that the Mormon Church was no longer to practise plural marriage. This revelation was put to the conference of Mormon Church members and adopted on October 6, 1890. Written and recorded in Section 139 of the Doctrine and Covenants and entitled "Official Declaration 1", the Mormon Church therefore called for an end to the practice of plural marriage among its members. Also referred to as the 1890 Manifesto or the First Manifesto, it prompted the beginnings of the Mormon Fundamentalist movement. [68] For approximately the next 14 years, a limited number of plural marriages in the Mormon Church continued to be performed in the shadows, including some in Canada. In 1904, then Church President Joseph F. Smith (nephew to the founding prophet) issued what is commonly referred to as the Second Manifesto. The Second Manifesto made it clear that plural marriages were strictly prohibited and "deemed a transgression against the church", that Joseph F. Smith would not authorize any plural marriages, and any performance of or entering into a plural marriage would result in excommunication. [69] Despite the Second Manifesto's prohibition, some members of the Mormon faith continued to follow what they believed to be the more "pure" doctrines and believed that plural marriages should be continued. For a time, there was no official term to describe these persons. According to Dr. Hales, only in 1935 did those individuals adopt the term "Mormon Fundamentalist" to describe themselves. Though it may be anachronistic to refer to Mormon Fundamentalists before 1935, for the sake of convenience I will use this description. [70] From the period of 1910 until the 1920s, no Mormon Fundamentalist groups had yet formed, but there were scattered individuals continuing to adhere to the belief in plural marriage and sought to find someone who could seal such marriages. [71] During this period, a previously unreported and uncanonised revelation came to light, which former prophet John Taylor was said to have received in 1886. This revelation is often referred to as the "1886 Revelation" and its emergence spurred the growth of the Mormon Fundamentalist movement. The narratives of this revelation grounded subsequent Mormon Fundamentalist claims of authority to continue to perform plural marriages. [72] In the late 1920s, the Mormon Fundamentalist movement eventually coalesced around one main leader: Lorin C. Woolley. Lorin C. Woolley reported that he had been given authority in 1886 by then Mormon Church President, John Taylor, to continue plural marriages outside of the Mormon Church. Lorin C. Woolley created a council of the priesthood known as the Council of Seven Friends, in 1933. The Council of Seven Friends considered itself a priesthood authority outside of and superior to the mainstream Mormon Church. This council did not call itself a church, but rather identified itself as doing priesthood work, primarily to perform and practise plural marriages. During this time, most in the Mormon Fundamentalist community acknowledged the authority of the Council of Seven Friends. [73] Lorin C. Woolley died in 1934. Joseph L. Broadbent succeeded him but died the following year. John Y. Barlow then became leader. He called two men to replace Lorin C. Woolley and Joseph L. Broadbent, as well as calling seven additional men. John Y. Barlow died in 1949. Joseph W. Musser succeeded him. [74] When Joseph W. Musser became the leader of the Council of Friends, he decided to appoint a man named Rulon C. Allred and designate him his successor. As a significant departure from the custom of the next oldest man assuming power upon the leader's death, this decision created a division within the Council of Friends. [75] Seven men in the Council of Friends decided to break away over this dispute, and Joseph W. Musser also dismissed them. Joseph W. Musser called a new council, which remained in Salt Lake City. That group became known as the "Allred Group" or the "Apostolic United Brethren." [76] The dismissed members of the Council of Friends went to Short Creek, Arizona. That community encompasses two communities across the Utah-Arizona border, Hildale and Colorado City. The members of this community eventually became the FLDS, and a group of them relocated near Creston, British Columbia, in an area later called Bountiful. The FLDS [77] The FLDS incorporated in 1992. Prior to this, the group called itself the Priesthood Organization and its members believed that they were helping to carry out the priesthood work. This work included establishing the United Effort Plan in 1942. This was a shared property model in which the church owned most property and assisted the poor through this mechanism. Individual members could also live on the church-owned land. [78] Known as "Uncle Roy" to his followers, Leroy Johnson was the leader of the FLDS Short Creek community until he died in 1986. Prior to his passing, three other members of the community's priesthood council had died and Leroy Johnson had not replaced them. He had also dismissed two other members in 1983 following a disagreement. As a result, when Leroy Johnson died in 1986, Rulon Timpson Jeffs was the only leader remaining. He became the successor. [79] As leader, Rulon Jeffs abolished the priesthood council and emphasized "one man rule" with himself as president and prophet. He formally incorporated the FLDS in 1992. He was President of the Priesthood and held the keys of sealing until he died in 2002. His son and spokesperson for several years, Warren Jeffs, became leader of the FLDS at that time and remains in that position today. [80] In the mid-2000s, the FLDS, under Warren Jeffs, built the Yearning for Zion Ranch ("YFZ Ranch"), a large, nearly self-sustaining community near Eldorado, Texas. I will have more to say about the YFZ Ranch later in these reasons. [81] Dr. Hales identified key doctrines of FLDS theology, highlighting their common roots, similarities and the two areas where they differ from the mainstream Mormon Church. [82] Dr. Hales explained that the FLDS accepts the same four sacred texts or scriptures as the Mormon Church: the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The FLDS also highly revers other non-scriptural texts, including seven volumes of discourses from Leroy Johnson's tenure, eight volumes from Rulon Jeffs' tenure and a series of revelations published by Warren Jeffs. [83] As they rely upon the same scriptures, the Mormon Church and the FLDS share many of the same essential precepts, doctrines and practices. [84] The faiths share a reliance on the central doctrines of priesthood authority and the necessity of receipt of certain ordinances. Priesthood authority, as I have explained, is seen as essential to creating a valid ordinance of any kind, including the ordinance of eternal marriage that is required to attain the highest level of glory in Heaven. That the person who performs the ordinance of eternal marriage must hold the authority to do so is considered paramount. [85] Dr. Hales testified that Warren Jeffs was able to claim that authority, to assume the reins of power, by tracing his authority (the keys of the Priesthood that had originally been given to Joseph Smith) down the line from Joseph Smith, to Brigham Young, to John Taylor, then to Lorin C. Woolley, to John Y. Barlow, to Rulon Jeffs and then to himself. [86] Where the Mormon and FLDS faiths differ are in the areas of the law of consecration and plural marriage. Dr. Hales explained that the FLDS believes the laws of consecration and polygamy are the "fullness of the Gospel", the most important principles that its members could believe in and practise. [87] In respect of the ordinance of eternal marriage, both faiths share in the same practices and beliefs in its necessity for salvation. Where they differ is in their interpretation of certain scripture. The FLDS believes Joseph Smith's revelation requiring plural marriage has not been altered or revoked and that plural marriage continues to be required in order for a person to receive the highest degree of glory in Heaven. The LDS accepts it has been revoked and that an eternal marriage is a monogamous one. [88] Also unlike the Mormon Church, FLDS theology supports the law of placing, also known as placement marriage. Dr. Hales explained that FLDS members believe that God, speaking through revelations to its leader, will determine who each person will marry, usually for the purpose of plural marriage. [89] In respect of the law of consecration, FLDS theology also differs from the mainstream Mormon Church in its implementation of this early teaching introduced by Joseph Smith. Those in the Mormon Church believe in the law of consecration, but express it through the practice of tithing, where a person contributes a percentage of his or her income to the church to help the poor. Those in the FLDS also believe in the law of consecration, but differ in its implementation. The FLDS helps the poor by holding property under the United Effort Plan. In very simple terms, the FLDS owns nearly all of its members' real property through the United Effort Plan and then allows individual members to live on church-owned lands. [90] As will now be seen, Dr. Hales' opinions are fully supported by the evidence of Jane Blackmore. The FLDS Community at Bountiful [91] Jane Blackmore was raised in the FLDS community that has come to be known as Bountiful. The community of Bountiful is located in the southeast corner of British Columbia in and near the small communities of Lister and Canyon, and near a larger centre, Creston. [92] James Marion Oler is Jane Blackmore's half-brother. Winston Kaye Blackmore was Jane Blackmore's husband for 27 years. Ms. Blackmore also worked as a nurse and midwife in the community for many years. [93] Jane Blackmore gave evidence as a lay witness about her own experiences as a member of the FLDS community at Bountiful, including the FLDS beliefs and practices she was taught, practised and witnessed. Her evidence is entirely consistent with the evidence of Dr. Hales and Professor Bennett. [94] Jane Blackmore (née Oler) was born in 1956 to Joanne Gallup Oler and Dalmon Allen Oler. Her parents had been members of the LDS. In 1957, following their conversion to the FLDS, her parents moved with her to the community of Lister. When she was a toddler, her father purchased property in Canyon. This property was then consecrated to the United Effort Plan, so it was considered part of the Bountiful community. Jane Blackmore lived on this property until she married at the age of 18. [95] Jane Blackmore's parents raised their family in the FLDS faith and practices. Her religious instruction occurred at home, at school and at church. She was taught and learned from the same four key scriptural texts followed in the Mormon Church: the Holy Bible (King James version), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. As she described it, the FLDS faith includes the teachings of the mainstream LDS, with two additional requirements: plural marriage and living the United Order. [96] At home, Jane Blackmore's father provided religious instruction to the family every week. The family sang hymns and studied the religious texts. She and her siblings chose passages from those texts and read them aloud. [97] Jane Blackmore attended what would later be called the Bountiful Elementary School from grade 1 to grade 9. After that, she completed her high school education through distance learning. While in attendance at school, religious instruction occurred in one class every day. Like the instruction received at home and at church, students received instruction from the scriptures, as well as from texts and compilations by past and present prophets about the FLDS and its history. They learned the mainstream Mormon Church history and how the FLDS started with the 1886 Revelation. [98] As part of this history, students were required, as a school assignment, to memorize the 1886 Revelation regarding the necessity of living celestial or plural marriage and that the requirement for such would not be revoked. They discussed the 1886 Revelation many times in church and at home as well. As Jane Blackmore understood it, FLDS members were to memorize this revelation to really know and understand its importance as the cornerstone of the FLDS, separating it from the mainstream Mormon Church. [99] Ms. Blackmore also studied a book distributed to members of the FLDS written by Joseph Musser. This book provided instructions on how men and women were to conduct themselves in celestial or plural marriages. [100] Of course, FLDS teachings also occurred at church. Jane Blackmore described different types of gatherings where the FLDS faith was preached, taught and discussed in the community. She explained the general conduct of their regular, weekly church services, as well as church meetings, Sunday school meetings and other special meetings. She explained that members over the age of eight years, not required at home to attend to small children, were required to attend the weekly church services. Instructions on plural marriage occurred often. [101] In addition to these general community church functions, FLDS members held monthly meetings where FLDS faith and doctrines were discussed in one of three Canadian FLDS communities: Bountiful; Cardston, Alberta; and Rosemary, Alberta. Bountiful members were encouraged to attend these meetings. The prophet and another member of the priesthood council would attend these meetings and give the main addresses. Only men who hold the priesthood could attend these meetings. [102] Again consistent with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore testified about the doctrines of the FLDS faith that she experienced and witnessed - doctrines such as the priesthood authority, the various offices of the priesthood, the requirements of certain ordinances such as celestial or eternal marriage, patriarchal blessings and placement marriages. [103] Jane Blackmore discussed her own patriarchal blessing. She understood this to be a blessing, seen as the will of God communicated through the prophet, on how to conduct one's life, including one's chosen assignments. Members commonly received this blessing in their teen years. [104] When she was 13 years old, Jane Blackmore's father, Dalmon Oler, took her to the prophet, Leroy Johnson, to receive her patriarchal blessing. Her father took her to a room where Leroy Johnson and another member of the priesthood council and a scribe waited. She had her head anointed with oil, the prophet and council member placed their hands upon her head and pronounced her blessing. The prophet told her that if she kept herself clean and pure and followed the instructions of her priesthood head (her father), that as she came of age she would be assigned to a man who would then become her priesthood head and husband. If she kept clean and pure, she would become a mother in Zion, have many children, and be called upon to administer to the sick. The scribe wrote down everything that was said. Her father was given a typed copy of the blessing. Her father gave it to her. [105] Jane Blackmore's patriarchal blessing led her to seek out and attain medical training that saw her later become a nurse and midwife. In 1975, she married Winston Blackmore, both civilly and celestially, and then had seven children with him over the years. [106] Jane Blackmore discussed the leadership of the FLDS as she observed and experienced while she resided in the Bountiful community. With respect to the leadership generally, while she was growing up, Leroy Johnson was the prophet. He lived in Colorado City, Arizona, which was one of two companion cities comprising Short Creek, considered the "mother community" for Bountiful or the "seat" of the FLDS. [107] Ms. Blackmore travelled to Short Creek often, probably more than 100 times. [108] When Leroy Johnson died in 1986, Ms. Blackmore explained that Rulon Jeffs became the next prophet. Leroy Johnson and Rulon Jeffs were commonly referred to as "Uncle Roy" or "Uncle Rulon" by their followers. [109] Ms. Blackmore also recognized the names of key religious leaders of the FLDS as outlined by Dr. Hales and seen in Dr. Hales' chart (exhibit 7). She identified the more recent leaders as men she had met many times and who regularly provided religious instruction to members of the Bountiful community. [110] In terms of the local leadership in Bountiful, Jane Blackmore recalled that Ray Blackmore, Winston Kaye Blackmore's father, was the presiding elder while she was growing up. During Ray Blackmore's tenure, the Bountiful community had less than 400 members. [111] When Ray Blackmore died in 1974, her own father, Dalmon Oler, became the presiding elder of the Bountiful community. By the time he was dismissed in 1983, the community had grown to approximately 700 or 800 members. [112] Jane Blackmore testified that Winston Blackmore became the bishop of the community of Bountiful after her father's tenure. Mr. Blackmore occupied this position until 2002, at which time Ms. Blackmore estimates the size of the community was approximately 1,500 people. [113] In 2002, Rulon Jeffs died. The FLDS community thought his son, Warren Jeffs, and Winston Blackmore were both eligible to succeed him. With equal supporters for each man, the Bountiful community roughly split in two. Families were divided. Jane Blackmore, by then long married to Winston Blackmore, felt profound effects in her own family as a result of this division. She left her relationship with Winston Blackmore in 2003 and they divorced in 2004. Ms. Blackmore described that several of Winston Blackmore's other wives, along with one of her own children and that child's family, aligned with Winston Blackmore and chose to follow him. [114] Winston Blackmore remained bishop of those that chose to follow him following the split in the community. Ms. Blackmore's half-brother, James Marion Oler, was assigned to be bishop of those in the Bountiful community who chose to follow Warren Jeffs. [115] Jane Blackmore also testified about the two beliefs and practices of the FLDS, as she was taught, experienced and witnessed, that differed from the mainstream Mormon Church - plural marriage and the law of consecration. [116] Jane Blackmore was taught, experienced and witnessed that FLDS theology requires plural marriage for those who hoped to achieve the highest degree of celestial glory and in order to obtain specific ordinances and positions in the FLDS church. Ms. Blackmore had much experience with plural marriage families during her life, through her own personal experiences growing up and later as a wife and mother and her observations of other families in the Bountiful community. [117] Jane Blackmore was raised in a plural marriage family. Her mother was her father's first wife. Her father took a second wife shortly after the family moved to Bountiful. Her father ended up with six wives, two of whom were widows of Ray Blackmore. Jane Blackmore's own mother died when she was young, so she was essentially raised by three of her father's other wives. [118] Jane Blackmore also lived and raised children in a plural marriage family with her husband, Winston Kaye Blackmore, for nearly three decades. [119] In this context, Ms. Blackmore also learned about and personally experienced the law of placing, or the doctrine of placement marriages. She explained that FLDS doctrines did not allow courtship or private interactions between members of the opposite sex without being married. Placement marriages occurred with no prior announcements to the community. In her experience, community members learned of a new marriage by seeing a couple together in a public place. [120] When she was 18 years old and indicated her readiness to be married, Jane Blackmore's father took her to see the prophet, Leroy Johnson. She told the prophet she was ready to receive instructions. Leroy Johnson told her he would talk to the Lord and let her father know. At approximately 10:30 p.m. that same evening, her father told her that Uncle Roy told him that God had revealed her future husband would be Winston Blackmore. [121] Ms. Blackmore presented herself the following morning to be married to Winston Blackmore. [122] Leroy Johnson performed the celestial marriage ceremony at approximately 8 a.m. in the presence of witnesses. The couple immediately went to a church service after the ceremony and revealed their marriage to the community. I will have more to say about Jane Blackmore's life with Winston Blackmore later. [123] In respect of the law of consecration, Ms. Blackmore briefly discussed the United Effort Plan in relation to her own experience. When she was a child, her father purchased property in Canyon, where she resided until she married. Ms. Blackmore explained that her father's property was consecrated to the United Effort Plan at one point and thereafter considered part of Bountiful. She described consecration as a "gift" to the community, whereby one gives his property to the United Effort Plan to be held and used for the benefit of the community. [124] Jane Blackmore also testified about her knowledge of certain records kept of ordinances in the FLDS. Having attended several celestial marriage ceremonies throughout her time as a member of the FLDS, she was asked particularly about marriage records. She was shown some of the marriage records tendered in this case. [125] Jane Blackmore testified that she had seen similar documents before she had left the FLDS. She saw them on the day of the marriage ceremony, but could not recall if the records were prepared before or after the ceremony occurred. When asked about a specific form of marriage record (exhibit 14P), Ms. Blackmore could not recall if she had seen that particular type of record before she left in 2003, but she knew that this kind of document was used. [126] Winston Blackmore does not challenge the credibility of Ms. Blackmore or the reliability of her evidence in any area. However, amicus curiae did challenge her evidence in this one particular area. In doing so, Mr. Doyle drew Ms. Blackmore's attention to statements she had previously given to police in 2005. [127] In March 2005, investigators asked Jane Blackmore if the FLDS kept records of plural marriages. She replied that she did not know, but went on to say that the FLDS probably does keep such records, but they are very guarded. When confronted with this apparent inconsistency, Ms. Blackmore remained firm that she had seen marriage records like the ones tendered in this case before. She confirmed her answer that the records were very well guarded. She explained that she did not know why she gave the answer she did in March 2005. Again, as she recalled it, they were records completed on the day of the ceremony. [128] In April 2005, investigators asked Jane Blackmore if there was a "marriage certificate" with a plural marriage. She replied there was not. When confronted with this answer, Ms. Blackmore agreed this is what she said to police. She stood by her answer and explained that she sees a distinction between records kept of a marriage, such as those tendered in this case, and a "marriage certificate". She was asked about a marriage certificate in April 2005 and gave a truthful answer. [129] I find there is no inconsistency between Ms. Blackmore's evidence and her statement in April 2005. There is a legitimate and reasonable distinction to be drawn between a "marriage certificate" and records kept of a marriage. While there is an inconsistency between her evidence and her statement from March 2005, I find it to be a minor one that does not negatively impact her credibility or the reliability of her evidence. [130] Overall, I found Ms. Blackmore to be a highly credible and reliable witness. She gave careful, considered, fair and honest evidence. She was candid in areas where she was uncertain. I accept she made an error in March 2005, and that her evidence in the area that was challenged is nevertheless reliable. [131] Amicus curiae also suggested during the course of the trial that Jane Blackmore's evidence might be seen as less than reliable as a result of the manner in which she testified. With respect, I disagree. [132] Jane Blackmore was, as amicus curiae observed, a polished witness. She spoke slowly. She often paused before answering a question. She addressed the court appropriately in giving her answers. She was a careful witness - careful to ensure her answers were limited to only the extent of her own knowledge and experience. In short, she was a prepared, thoughtful, careful and very respectful witness. There was nothing contrived or rehearsed in her answers. She was impartial. [133] I will discuss other aspects of Jane Blackmore's evidence further in these reasons, but will say here that I found her to be, in all respects, an honest and reliable witness. I accept her evidence in its entirety. [134] Jane Blackmore's evidence discloses that the doctrinal foundations, as she was taught, experienced and witnessed in her decades as a practising member of the FLDS in the community of Bountiful, were as the experts described. [135] I find the evidence from the experts and Jane Blackmore as a whole proves that the LDS and FLDS share and adhere to the same sacred scriptures, doctrines, beliefs and practices with two fundamental differences - the FLDS doctrine regarding the necessity of plural marriage and the FLDS implementation of the law of consecration. With the exception of these two differences, the precepts and practices of these two faiths are strikingly similar. [136] I will now turn to the records adduced in this case. RECORDS [137] The Crown tendered several types of records: a) FLDS Marriage and Personal Records seized from the YFZ Ranch in 2008; b) British Columbia Certificates of Live Birth and Declarations of Particulars; c) a State of Idaho Marriage License; and d) a British Columbia Registration of Marriage. [138] No issue was taken with the admissibility of any of these records. They were admitted for the truth of their contents, as proof of the facts they contain. The main controversy lies particularly in the weight I should give to the FLDS Marriage and Personal Records. [139] The Crown submits the probative value of all of the records is high. The Crown emphasizes several factors that it says support the ultimate reliability of the FLDS records, including the type and form of the records, the manner in which the records were stored and their spiritual or religious significance in the FLDS faith. [140] Mr. Blackmore and amicus curiae submit the FLDS records should be given little or no weight. They emphasize several factors that they say undermine the reliability of the records, including the lack of any evidence about who made them, when they were made, upon what information they were based, who stored or maintained them, missing information or unexplained markings on the documents, and some inconsistencies between the information recorded on the documents themselves. [141] I will, of course, assess the records pertaining to each accused in the context of the whole of the evidence called in respect of that accused later in these reasons, but I will, at this juncture, make some general findings about the records tendered in this case. I will start with the most controversial records: the FLDS Marriage and Personal Records seized from the YFZ Ranch in 2008. FLDS Marriage and Personal Records Generally [142] Through Texas Ranger John Nicholas Hanna, the Crown tendered two distinct types of FLDS records: Marriage Records and Personal Records. All of these records are attached as exhibits (A through Y inclusive) to Ranger Hanna's Affidavit, marked exhibit 14 in these proceedings. [143] Specifically, the Crown tendered copies of 22 FLDS Marriage Records pertaining to Winston Blackmore (exhibit 14(A) through (O) inclusive) and copies of four FLDS Marriage Records pertaining to James Oler (exhibits 14(P) through (S) inclusive). The Crown also tendered copies of six FLDS Personal Records pertaining to James Oler: his own Personal Record and five of his alleged wives' Personal Records (exhibits 14 (T) through (Y) inclusive). [144] All of these records were admitted under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 [CEA], commonly known as the statutory business records exception to the hearsay rule. [145] Relying on R. v. Blackmore, 2016 BCSC 2114 ("Blackmore No. 1 Voir Dire Ruling"), where Mr. Justice Pearlman ruled the same type of records seized from the same search were admissible under s. 30 of the CEA, no objection was taken to the admissibility of the records in this case. Nevertheless, I satisfied myself that the procedural and substantive requirements for admission were proven. I will say only a brief word about this here. [146] The procedural requirements are set out in s. 30(3) and (7) of the CEA. [147] The Crown tendered the FLDS records through Ranger Hanna, a commissioned peace officer with the Texas Ranger Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety since 2003. Since 2007, he has been based at the San Angelo Texas Ranger Station, the station with primary responsibility for investigating alleged criminal conduct at the FLDS YFZ Ranch. [148] From April 3 through 9, 2008, Ranger Hanna was a member of a law enforcement team that executed two search warrants at the YFZ Ranch. He was among the original group of peace officers that entered onto the ranch on April 3, 2008. As the assigned case manager and exhibit custodian, he remained on the ranch daily during the execution of the warrants. [149] Ranger Hanna swore an Affidavit (exhibit 14) attaching the FLDS Marriage and Personal Records tendered by the Crown. He testified as well. [150] The FLDS records tendered in this case were all seized on April 9, 2008 from within the YFZ Temple Annex vault. Ranger Hanna personally made true and accurate copies of the original documents found and, as I have indicated, those copies are attached as exhibit (A) through (Y) to his Affidavit. [151] Ranger Hanna deposed that it was not reasonably practical to tender the original records in this trial as the records may be still be required for other legal proceedings in Canada or the United States. Indeed, many of the FLDS records seized in April 2008 from the YFZ Ranch have been used in other trials, including three separate prosecutions by the State of Texas against Merrill Jessop, Warren Jeffs and Raymond Jessop, and in Canada in R. v. Blackmore, 2017 BCSC 192 ("Blackmore No. 1"). [152] On the basis of Ranger Hanna's evidence, which I have only briefly outlined here, I was satisfied that the procedural requirements under s. 30(3) of the CEA were met. [153] Under s. 30(7) of the CEA, I was also satisfied the Crown had provided each accused with more than seven days' notice of its intention to produce the records. [154] The substantive requirements for admissibility, set out in s. 30(1) of the CEA, are twofold: the record must be "a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business" and it must contain the same information "where oral evidence in respect of a matter would be admissible in a legal proceeding": Blackmore No. 1 Voir Dire Ruling at para. 133. [155] In Blackmore No. 1 Voir Dire Ruling, Pearlman J. concluded both of these substantive requirements had been met in respect of FLDS Marriage and Personal Records seized from YFZ Ranch in April 2008. He concluded the word "business" was "sufficiently broadly defined to include non-profit or religious organizations, including the FLDS Church": para. 135. He also concluded that the Marriage and Personal Records were made in the usual and ordinary course of that business and that oral evidence in respect of their content would be admissible in a legal proceeding: paras. 136-138, 141 and 146-149. No subsequent authority that may affect the validity of Pearlman J.'s conclusions or some relevant authority or statute not considered has been brought to my attention. I agree with Pearlman J.'s reasoning and adopt his conclusions. The evidence adduced in the case at bar supports these same conclusions. [156] Satisfied with threshold reliability, the records are prima facie proof of the truth of their contents: R. v. Smith, 2011 ABCA 136 at para. 46. As Pearlman J. also observed, the Court in Smith explained why records made in the ordinary course of business can be considered inherently reliable at paras. 14-15: [14] Generally, hearsay evidence is not admissible because the methods by which its reliability is normally tested - by cross-examination, for example - are not available in relation to it. However, because of the way it originated, a hearsay statement may be inherently reliable or permit sufficient testing such that the concerns surrounding it are eased and its admission justified. Business records can be considered inherently reliable where created in a context in which they are relied upon in the day-to-day affairs of the individual business. As noted by the Court in R. v. Grimba (1977), 38 C.C.C. (2d) 469 at 471 (Ont. Co. Ct.): It would appear that the rationale behind [section 30] for admitting a form of hearsay evidence is the inherent circumstantial guarantee of accuracy which one would find in a business context from records which are relied upon in the day to day affairs of individual businesses, and which are subject to frequent testing and cross-checking. Records thus systematically stored, produced and regularly relied upon should, it would appear under s. 30, not be barred from this Court's consideration simply because they contain hearsay or double hearsay. This passage was cited in Alan W. Bryant, Sidney N. Lederman & Michelle K. Fuerst, Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada, 3d ed. (Markham: LexisNexis, 2009) at 300. [15] In effect, s. 30 creates a statutory exception to the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence. This statutory exception is very similar to the common law business records exception. The fundamental principles and intent of both exceptions are the same. [157] Of course, as emphasized by all counsel, the admission of these records does not preclude other evidence or available inferences raising a doubt about the ultimate reliability of their contents. The probative value of the contents of the records in respect of each accused, or the weight to be afforded them, is a matter I must determine in light of the whole of the evidence admissible against that accused. Like any witness in a trial, I can accept or reject the evidence provided by the records: R. v. Campbell, 2017 ONCA 209 at para. 8. [158] Section 30(6) of the CEA specifically addresses a court's determination of probative value. That provision states: for the purpose of determining the probative value, if any, to be given to information contained in any record admitted in evidence under this section, the court may, on production of any record, examine the record, admit any evidence in respect thereof given orally or by affidavit including evidence as to the circumstances in which the information contained in the record was written, recorded, stored or reproduced, and draw any reasonable inference from the form or content of the record. Examination of the Records [159] The FLDS Marriage Records are in a standardized template form. The forms are generally two to a page, arranged one on top of the other. Each form contains 11 separate labelled boxes for recording information. The information is either typed or filled in by hand. The template form allows for the recording of the following information: the name of the husband; the name of the husband's father; the name of the husband's mother; the name of the wife; the name of the wife's father; the name of the wife's mother; the name of the person who performed the marriage; the duration of the marriage (whether for "time and eternity" or for "time"); the date of the marriage; the location of the marriage; and witnesses to the marriage. [160] Some of the FLDS Marriage Records that appear two to a page record marriages that occurred on the same day (exhibit 14(A), (D), (F), (G), (H), (I), (K), (M), (Q), (R) and (S)). Others do not relate to marriages that occurred on the same day, or even the same year. [161] One FLDS Marriage Record (exhibit 14(P)) appears on the top half of a single page. There is no other Marriage Record below. This form is in the same standardized template form as the others and below it are typed instructions on how to fill it out. [162] Some of the FLDS Marriage Records (exhibits 14(A) through (G) inclusive and exhibit 14(P)) have a facsimile header at the top of the record that indicates the records were faxed on March 2, 2002. The top record on each page indicates the time it was faxed was 9:59 a.m. and the bottom record on each page indicates the time it was faxed was 9:57 a.m. There is no evidence about the fax number, other than it contains a State of Utah area code. There is no evidence upon which one could determine whether these were completed records that were faxed on March 2, 2002, or whether these were blank records that were faxed on March 2, 2002 and then completed. [163] Some of the FLDS Marriage Records have unidentified markings or handwriting on them outside of the template. These markings were present on the documents when seized by authorities. [164] The FLDS Marriage Records do not record the name of their author or authors. They do not record the date on which they were created. [165] The FLDS Personal Records are also in a standardized template form. The front side of the document is entitled "Personal Record" and includes separate lines for recording information, including the person's full name, father's name, mother's maiden name, birth date and location, when blessed and by whom, baptism date, location, performer and witnesses, confirmation date and performer, a list of Priesthood ordinances (office held, date, month, by whom, patriarchal blessing date and by whom), other ordinances and special appointments, important events and the death date, location, burial location and name of person who dedicated the grave. [166] The back side of the document is entitled "Marriage Record" and is also in a standardized template form. Separate lines under separate headings allow details of one's marriage(s) to be recorded, including the name of the person's wife or husband, the location of the ceremony, the date of the ceremony, who performed it, a list of witnesses and the marriage duration ("time and eternity" or "time" only). There is space at the bottom of the document to record other important events. [167] The FLDS Personal Records do not record the name of the author(s), nor do they record the date(s) they were created, or when additional information was added. [168] As amicus curiae points out, the FLDS Personal Records of Mr. Oler's alleged wives (exhibit 14(U) through (Y) inclusive) were not created from their births. The records must have been created following their alleged marriages to Mr. Oler, as each of their recorded names bear the surname Oler. [169] Where the information from the FLDS Marriage Records duplicates information found in the FLDS Personal Records, in most instances the information is the same. There are some minor differences. [170] I find a general examination of the FLDS Marriage and Personal records supports a finding that, as they are structured in a standardized form to document biographical information, they were created in a routine and systematic way. The templates are consistent, detailed and prepared with no apparent motive to misrepresent the information they contain. These features enhance their circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. Storage and Location of the Records [171] Ranger Hanna described the YFZ Ranch with the aid of photographs and a three-dimensional image. [172] The YFZ Ranch is a 1,691-acre ranch located at 2420 County Road 300 in Eldorado, Schleicher County, Texas, a remote area about four miles north of Eldorado and about a 40-minute drive south of San Angelo. Ranger Hanna described it as a nearly self-sustaining community, including many residential structures, a doctor's office, storage buildings, warehouses, small barns, greenhouses and other structures. In the centre of the ranch are two rather grand buildings: the FLDS Temple and the FLDS Temple Annex. [173] Ranger Hanna highlighted several security aspects of YFZ Ranch itself. To gain access to a road leading to the ranch, one must obtain access through a gate immediately off the highway. Once through the gate, one must then travel down a straight road, one mile in length. At the end of the road is a secure gate, monitored through a guard or observation tower. The perimeter of the YFZ Ranch is fenced. The Temple and its immediate grounds and the Temple Annex and its immediate grounds each have a high perimeter fence as well. [174] During the execution of the search warrants, every structure on the YFZ Ranch was searched, including the Temple and the Temple Annex. Law enforcement officials seized archived church documents, computers and removable media and photographs from a number of these structures, including the Temple and the Temple Annex. [175] Ranger Hanna highlighted the security aspects of both the Temple vault and the Temple Annex vault. All of the FLDS documents tendered in this trial were found within the Temple Annex vault. [176] Law enforcement officials gained entry to the Temple vault prior to attempting entry to the Temple Annex vault. Entry to the Temple vault, with its secure steel door, took a locksmith 24 hours. [177] With this history and tight timeframes, investigators chose to gain entry to the Temple Annex vault by boring a hole through the cement wall next to the vault door. This hole was large enough for their smallest member to crawl through and gain entry. The type of door used on these two vaults was described by Ranger Hanna as the type typically used in financial or government institutions. [178] Investigators found the most voluminous collection of documentary evidence, filling 327 boxes, from within the Temple Annex vault. In total, investigators seized approximately 600 to 700 boxes of evidence from its search of the YFZ Ranch. [179] I am satisfied the Crown has firmly proven continuity of the records tendered in this trial. The records were seized from within the Temple Annex vault on April 9, 2008 and transported that same day to the Schleicher County Sheriff's office. Two days later, the documents were moved to the Office of the Texas Department of Public Safety in San Angelo. Given the volume of the evidence, it took investigators, from that location, several months to initially triage and identify the evidence. In late August 2008, the documents were then transported to a designated room in San Angelo. On June 21, 2012, all remaining items of evidence were transferred permanently to the Texas Office of the Attorney General. [180] Ranger Hanna assisted in the transport and storage of all evidence associated with the investigation to an evidence holding facility provided by the Texas Attorney General's Office located in the Austin, Texas area. The original documents have been secured and in the continuous custody and control of law enforcement for the State of Texas since their seizure from the YFZ Ranch on April 9, 2008. [181] The Texas Rangers assigned an exhibit number (or "ADP number") to all items that were seized from YFZ, including for each computer and digital storage device that was seized. [182] Sergeant Terry Jacklin testified. He has been an RCMP officer since 1990 and became the primary investigator in this case in approximately 2006. [183] Sergeant Jacklin attended the YFZ Ranch three times between 2011 and 2016. Over the course of 20 days in the spring of 2015, he and two others were permitted access, through the Texas Attorney General's office exhibit custodian, to the evidence seized from the YFZ Ranch and went through records that Texas authorities had not previously reviewed. Sergeant Jacklin found and selected documents thought to be relevant to these proceedings, the documents that are now attached to Ranger Hanna's Affidavit. Sergeant Jacklin identified where certain documents came from. The FLDS Marriage Records were found arranged in binders or in bound volumes of records within boxes from within the Temple Annex vault. The FLDS Personal Records, although not kept bound in volumes, were kept in file folders. [184] The evidence proves that exhibits 14(A) through (Y) were found among a very large volume of records found by law enforcement officials in the Temple Annex vault of the YFZ Ranch in April 2008. The records were kept in a relatively organized and systematic fashion. They were kept under very tight security. Such organization and significant security measures associated with their storage are good indicators that the records were of some significant importance to the FLDS. [185] As I have already outlined, the evidence of Professor Bennett establishes that record-keeping is a fundamental precept of the LDS. Record-keeping in the LDS is essential to the validity of any ordinance. The Crown did not tender either Professor Bennett or Dr. Hales as experts in FLDS record-keeping practices. However, I find that the evidence of the experts, in conjunction with that of Jane Blackmore and the FLDS record storage practices at YFZ, supports the conclusion that the same doctrinal principles apply to the FLDS. [186] Dr. Hales' evidence, fully supported by the evidence of Jane Blackmore, establishes that the LDS and the FLDS share and adhere to the same sacred texts containing the same numerous passages emphasizing the commandment that records be kept and emphasizing the importance of so doing. The fundamental differences between the LDS and the FLDS are the FLDS belief about the necessity of plural marriage and the FLDS' implementation of the law of consecration, as I have discussed previously. With the exception of these two key differences, the practices and precepts of the two faiths are strikingly similar. The evidence as a whole supports the conclusion that record-keeping is of significant spiritual importance to the FLDS and its followers. Like the LDS, the FLDS adheres to the belief in the importance of certain valid ordinances for its members' salvation. Accurate record keeping is integral to the validity of such an ordinance. This spiritual significance serves to enhance the ultimate reliability of the records. [187] I make these general findings about the FLDS Marriage and Personal Records, but of course must assess the weight to be afforded the contents of those records pertaining to each accused in light of the whole of the evidence admissible in respect of that accused. This assessment will occur in my analysis in respect of each accused. Other Records Registrations of Live Birth and Declarations of Particulars [188] The Crown also tendered copies of 28 Registrations of Live Births and Declarations of Particulars. Twenty of these pertained to Mr. Blackmore and eight pertained to Mr. Oler. Admitted under the provisions of the Vital Statistics Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 479 [VSA], these records are admissible as evidence of the facts recorded in them: s. 41 of the VSA. [189] Of these 28 records, 26 relate to children alleged to be fathered by either Mr. Blackmore or Mr. Oler, and born to women alleged to be either Mr. Blackmore's or Mr. Oler's plural wives. In addition to offering these records as proof of the facts contained within them, the Crown also offers these records as circumstantial evidence of the alleged polygamist marriages. In the context of the whole of the evidence pertaining to each accused, the Crown argues that the birth of these children to these women supports an inference that each accused was in a marriage or conjugal union with these women. Government Issued Marriage Licences [190] The Crown also tendered copies of two government issued marriage licences: a British Columbia Registration of Marriage pertaining to Mr. Oler and a State of Idaho Marriage License pertaining to Mr. Blackmore. Again, these records are admissible for proof of the facts they contain. The Crown offers these records as proof of Winston Blackmore's first marriage and of James Oler's first marriage. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE [191] The Direct Indictment, as amended on May 1 and May 3, 2017, reads: Count 1: Winston Kaye BLACKMORE, between on or about the 12th day of October, 1990, and on or about the 28th day of February, 2014, at or near Creston, in the Province of British Columbia, practiced a form of polygamy, or practiced a kind of conjugal union with Christina Maud Blackmore, Mary Anne Blackmore, Marjorie Johnson, Susan Eleene Gallup, Harmony Quinton, Marsha Carol Chatwin, Ruth Ann Lane, Diane Lynn Lane, Edith Louise Barlow, Leah Barlow, Marlina Fisher, Zelpha Ann Chatwin, Janelle Lona Fisher, Jennifer Johnson, Susie Lorraine Johnson, Shalina Ann Palmer, Luella Elise Barlow, Sharon Johnson, Elise Marie Steed, Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler, Constance Catherine Broadbent, Janella Cherene Palmer, Carlene Thomson, Shirley Karma Black, contrary to section 293(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Count 2: James Marion OLER, between on or about the 30th day of May, 1993, and on or about the 7th day of January, 2009, at or near Creston, in the Province of British Columbia, practiced a form of polygamy, or practiced a kind of conjugal union with Gwen Renae Oler, Chantelle Quinton, Amelia Steed, Rachel Holm and Carole Barlow, contrary to section 293(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. [192] Section 293 of the Code provides, in part: 293 (1) Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. (2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse. [193] In Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC 1588 [Polygamy Reference], the Court was asked to answer two questions, one of which was "What are the necessary elements of the offence in section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada?" [194] After extensive consideration, Bauman C.J.S.C. (now C.J.B.C.), found that the elements of the polygamy offence (s. 293(1)(a)(i)) and those of the conjugal union offence (s. 293(1)(a)(ii)) are the same. At para. 1363, the Court found the essential elements are: 1. an identified person, who 2. with the intent to do so, 3. practices, enters into, or in any manner agrees to practice or enter into, 4. a marriage, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, with more than one person at the same time. [195] The parties and amicus curiae agree on some aspects of what the Crown must prove. However, they disagree in a number of other areas, despite the conclusions in the Polygamy Reference. [196] I will begin by setting out the general positions of the parties and amicus curiae, as the issues they have identified will structure my analysis. I will describe their detailed positions more fully in my analysis of each issue raised. Positions of the Parties The Position of the Crown [197] While the Crown relies on the findings and conclusions in the Polygamy Reference, it suggests a slightly different breakdown of the essential elements. [198] The Crown advocates that the actus reus comprises three elements: 1. The accused must be 18 years of age or older; 2. The accused must: a) enter into a marriage with another person; or alternatively; b) enter into a "conjugal union" that includes some formal sanctioning event; and 3. The accused must: a) be in a pre-existing marriage (or marriages); or alternatively, b) be in a pre-existing conjugal union (or unions) with one or more persons at the time that the accused commits the prohibited act. [199] For the mens rea, the Crown submits the following must be proven: a) the accused must intend to enter into the marriage or the conjugal union that constitutes the prohibited act; and b) the accused must have knowledge that he or she is in an existing marriage or conjugal union. [200] No issue was raised with the Crown's suggested breakdown of the mens rea. [201] With respect to the first element of the actus reus suggested by the Crown (the age of the accused), the Crown recognizes that the section does not, by its terms, stipulate such a requirement. Rather, the Crown anchors its position from the findings in the Polygamy Reference where Bauman C.J. upheld the constitutional validity of the section, except to the extent that it includes within its terms children between the age of 12 and 17 who marry into polygamy or a conjugal union with more than one person at the same time. [202] Mr. Blackmore and amicus curiae made no submissions to the contrary on this point. They did, however, raise several other issues. The Position of Mr. Blackmore [203] Mr. Blackmore's central submission revolves around his position that "the Crown must prove more than just a ceremony". From this position emerge two or three separate arguments. [204] First, Mr. Blackmore says the Crown must prove harm, compulsion or lack of consent as an element or elements of the offence. He says there must be proof of any of these things in order for "voluntary marriages to be criminal polygamy". [205] Second, he submits that the Crown must prove both a marriage and a conjugal union with more than one person at the same time. Here, he also argues that to prove the existence of a conjugal union, the Crown must prove a lasting conjugal relationship. This includes proof the various parties cohabited and had sexual relations, as well as a consideration of several other factors. The Position of Mr. Oler [206] Mr. Oler takes no position. The Position of Amicus Curiae [207] Amicus curiae, in accordance with the terms of his appointment, raises several issues. First, Mr. Doyle takes issue with the Crown's position that it must prove the accused "entered into" a marriage or conjugal union. He emphasizes that Mr. Oler is charged only with "practicing" a form of polygamy or kind of conjugal union. He is not charged with "entering into" anything. [208] Amicus curiae submits that to prove one "practises" these things, the Crown must prove more than the "entering into" of multiple marriages. Rather, he argues that to prove an accused "practises" the activity, the Crown must prove the accused carried out or performed that activity habitually or regularly over a period of time. [209] Counsel for Mr. Blackmore, at the close of submissions, indicated that Mr. Blackmore wished to advance this same argument. Mr. Suffredine did not make any submissions on the topic other than to adopt those made by amicus curiae. [210] Related to this argument, amicus curiae also submits the manner in which the Crown framed the Amended Indictment (conjunctively and over a 16-year time period in the case of Mr. Oler) requires the Crown to prove that every alleged marriage or conjugal union occurred concurrently over the alleged timeframe. Analysis The Polygamy Reference Case [211] As a preliminary matter, I will first discuss the precedential value of the findings and conclusions in respect of the elements of the offence from the Polygamy Reference. All counsel referred to Bauman C.J.'s analysis, findings and conclusions throughout the course of their written and oral submissions. Although neither Mr. Blackmore nor amicus curiae directly invited me to decline to follow some of Bauman C.J.'s findings and conclusions, some of the arguments and issues they raised clearly suggest that I do so. [212] The Polygamy Reference stemmed from questions posed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for British Columbia to the British Columbia Supreme Court, under s. 1 of the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68 [CQA]. [213] The Court was asked to answer two questions: a) Is section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent? b) What are the necessary elements of the offence in section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada? Without limiting this question, does section 293 require that the polygamy or conjugal union in question involved a minor, or occurred in a context of dependence, exploitation, abuse of authority, a gross imbalance of power, or undue influence? [214] Chief Justice Bauman noted in the Polygamy Reference that British Columbia is unusual in authorizing the referral of such questions to the trial court, as most other provinces allow only their Courts of Appeal to provide reference opinions: para. 26. [215] Chief Justice Bauman highlighted the advantages of having a reference case heard in a trial court, which include the opportunity to create an "evidentiary record impossible in the typical appellate reference": para. 27. He discussed the government's choice in referring these questions to the trial court rather than the Court of Appeal as reflecting the desire to develop "a full evidentiary record": para. 57. He also observed that even though a trial reference is "by nature abstract, the evidentiary record it permits facilitates an informed consideration of the questions posed": para. 58. [216] The three parties to the Polygamy Reference (the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of British Columbia and amicus curiae appointed to assist the Court and provide views opposing those of the governments), as well as the 11 Interested Persons representing a variety of diverse groups, embraced the opportunity to create that full evidentiary record. [217] Counsel for the parties and the Interested Persons presented and tested evidence over more than 40 court days. Described as a compilation "that is remarkable not only for its size, but also for the breadth and diversity of its contents", the Court found the evidentiary record presented "embodies the bulk of contemporary academic research into polygamy": para. 27. This evidentiary record included over 90 Affidavits and expert reports, testimony from a number of lay witnesses from polygamist communities and an extensive collection of Brandeis Brief materials, comprising several hundred legal and social science articles, books and DVDs. Nearly two dozen of the affiants and experts were examined and cross-examined at the hearing: paras. 28-32. [218] In a nearly 300-page decision, the Court ultimately answered the first question posed by finding that s. 293 of the Code is consistent with the Charter, "except to the extent that it includes within its terms, children between the ages of 12 and 17 who marry into polygamy or a conjugal union with more than one person at the same time": para. 1359. [219] The terms of the reference did not actually authorize the Court to grant a constitutional remedy. However, Bauman C.J. identified two potential remedies, in the alternative but both to the same effect: to either read into the law an exclusion of the problematic application or to read down the words "everyone" in the section to exclude the noted group of potential accused persons: paras. 1361-1362. [220] The Court answered the second question by finding, at para. 1363, that the elements of the polygamy offence (s. 293(1)(a)(i)) and those of the conjugal union offence (s. 293(1)(a)(ii)) are the same: 1. an identified person, who 2. with the intent to do so, 3. practices, enters into, or in any manner agrees or consents to practice or enter into, 4. a marriage, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, with more than one person at the same time. [221] Also in answer to the second question posed, Bauman C.J. concluded that s. 293 of the Code does not require that the polygamy or conjugal union in question involve a minor or occur in a context of dependence, exploitation, abuse of authority, a gross imbalance of power or undue influence: para. 1364. [222] Determining the precedential value of the legal conclusions in the Polygamy Reference to the issues I am to decide in determining what the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the case at bar involves a consideration of the nature of reference cases and the principle of judicial comity set out in Re Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd., [1954] 4 D.L.R. 590. [223] In Re Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd., Mr. Justice Wilson (as he then was) explained the duty of a trial judge to follow the decision of another judge of the same court, except in certain limited circumstances. In this regard, he held at 592: I think the proper discretionary duty of a trial judge, is more limited I have no power to overrule a brother Judge, I can only differ from him, and the effect of my doing so is not to settle but rather to unsettle the law, because, following such difference of opinion, the unhappy litigant is confronted with conflicting opinions emanating from the same Court and therefore of the same legal weight. This is a state of affairs which cannot develop in the Court of Appeal. Therefore, to epitomize what I have already written in the Cairney case, I say this: I will only go against a judgment of another Judge of this Court if: (a) [s]ubsequent decisions have affected the validity of the impugned judgment; (b) it is demonstrated that some binding authority in case law, or some relevant statute was not considered; (c) the judgment was unconsidered, a nisi prius judgment given in circumstances familiar to all trial Judges, where the exigencies of the trial require an immediate decision without opportunity to fully consent authority. [224] Judges of this Court have consistently applied this principle of judicial comity ever since. This principle is a "guide for one trial court judge examining an issue which had already been considered and decided by another judge of the same court": John Carten Personal Law Corp. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1997 CanLII 2008 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 7. [225] Mr. Justice Smart described the approach outlined in Re Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd. this way in R. v. Sipes, 2009 BCSC 285 at paras. 10-15: [10] The approach advocated in Re Hansard Spruce Mills is not a rule of law; rather, it is a wise and prudent prescription for the exercise of judicial discretion. It will almost always be in the interests of justice for a judge to follow the decision of another judge of the same court on a question of law. Consistency, certainty, and judicial comity are all sound reasons why this is so. It is for the Court of Appeal to decide whether a judge of this Court has erred, not another judge of the Court. [11] In my view, both the rule in Re Hansard Spruce Mills and the exceptions to it are based on common sense and a consideration of the interests of justice. At all times, the application of the rule should advance the interests of justice, not undermine them. It is for this reason that I am also of the view that the determination as to whether to follow a decision of another judge of the same court should not begin and end with a rote application of Re Hansard Spruce Mills; instead, that determination should also be informed by all relevant factors that bear upon whether it is in the best interests of justice in the context of the particular case at hand to do so. I refer to the circumstances of the present case by way of example. [12] The present application arises in the context of a trial with five accused, all in custody, facing charges of first and second degree murder arising out of three separate transactions. There are approximately 10 Crown counsel and a greater number of defence counsel engaged in this trial. The pre-trial applications will likely exceed 12 months in duration. The trial before a jury will likely exceed six months. Many witnesses, police and civilian, will be required to testify. The expenditure of public funds to complete this trial will be enormous. There is, of course, no offence more serious than murder. A fair and just determination of these charges is of critical importance to the accused, the Crown and the public. [13] Would it be in the interests of justice for a trial judge in proceedings of this nature to follow the decision of another judge of the same court on a pivotal issue that could result in a successful appeal and an order for a new trial if he or she were firmly of the view that the decision had been incorrectly decided? Would doing so enhance public confidence in the administration of justice or would it have the contrary effect? [14] Surely blind adherence to another judge's decision would not be warranted in such circumstances, and I do not believe that Wilson J. ever intended his decision in Re Hansard Spruce Mills to be applied in such rigid fashion. [15] I do not suggest that adhering to the rule in Re Hansard Spruce Mills will not usually be the correct course of action. It will be, because it will almost always be in the interests of justice for judges to follow the applicable decisions of other judges of the same court. What I do suggest, however, is that judges should always be mindful of the interests of justice and ensure that applying Re Hansard Spruce Mills will advance those interests in the particular circumstances. This will necessarily entail having regard to the broader context of the case. [226] I agree with this approach. [227] Of course, the Polygamy Reference is not a typical judgment of the trial court. Fortunately, both the CQA and the Supreme Court of Canada's approach in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 [Bedford] offer guidance on how this Court should view the Polygamy Reference, or any other reference opinion from the trial court in this province. [228] The language used in the CQA supports the view that a reference case can be considered in a manner similar to that of a judgment of the court in the ordinary course. Section 2 of the CQA states that the court must provide its opinion and reasons on the matter referred in the manner of a judgment in an ordinary action. Section 6 provides that the opinion of the court is a judgment of the court, and that an appeal lies from it, in the manner of a judgment in an ordinary action. [229] In Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the trial level application judge could re-visit the conclusions reached in Reference re: ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (Man.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123 [Prostitution Reference] as she did. [230] In concluding that the application judge could, under certain circumstances, re-visit the conclusions reached in the Prostitution Reference, the Court described the Prostitution Reference as both a "precedent" and an "advisory opinion" and observed that "[w]hile reference opinions may not legally be binding, in practice they have been followed": para. 40. [231] Proceeding on the basis that the Prostitution Reference, a decision from a higher court, was binding upon the application judge (the "vertical" question) the Court in Bedford considered and decided the circumstances upon which the application judge could re-visit the conclusions reached in the Prostitution Reference. The Court did not address the precise situation that I face (the "horizontal" question) of when a court may depart from its own precedents, but I do find the Court's descriptions, treatment and observations about reference cases to be instructive. [232] I am satisfied the approach outlined in Re Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd., as described in Sipes, applies to my consideration of the Polygamy Reference in determining the elements of the offence. While not binding authority, I am satisfied it is a decision I should follow in determining this issue. [233] Counsel have identified no subsequent decision that may have affected the validity of Bauman C.J.'s findings and conclusions on this issue. They have not pointed to some binding authority or relevant statute that the court did not consider, nor have they in any manner suggested the findings and conclusions on this issue arose out of a lack of opportunity to fully consult authorities. [234] In fact, the opposite is true. Determination of the elements of the offence in s. 293 of the Code was precisely one of the two reference questions. The Chief Justice of this Court heard 40 days of evidence comprising a large, broad and diverse body of information. The Court received the benefit of the presentation and testing of this evidence, as well as comprehensive submissions from a multitude of lawyers representing the three parties and the Eleven Interested Persons. [235] The Polygamy Reference is an extensive and carefully considered decision. In all of these circumstances, the benefits of consistency, certainty and comity as explained in Re Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd. and the interests of justice in this case persuade me to follow the findings and conclusions of Bauman C.J. in the Polygamy Reference on this issue. Does the Crown need to prove harm, compulsion or lack of consent? [236] This question flows from Mr. Blackmore's position that to prove the offence of polygamy, the Crown must prove more than that multiple marriage ceremonies occurred or that multiple conjugal unions existed at the same time. He says the offence requires proof of harm, compulsion or lack of consent. [237] Mr. Blackmore says his position is supported by the findings in the Polygamy Reference where the Court held that the polygamy prohibition in s. 293 of the Code was prompted by Parliament's reasoned apprehension of harms arising out of the practice of polygamy, including harm to women, children, society and the institution of monogamous marriage: para. 904. [238] Mr. Blackmore also suggests his submission finds support in an excerpt from Reference re: s. 293, 2010 BCSC 1308 [2010 Case Management Ruling], a ruling by Bauman C.J. made in advance of the Polygamy Reference. Mr. Blackmore argues that in the 2010 Case Management Ruling, Bauman C.J. "defined criminal polygamy" at para. 8 and that this definition supports his position. [239] The Crown submits that proof of harm, compulsion or lack of consent are not required elements of the offence. Mr. Wilson emphasizes that such a position conflicts with the Court's interpretation of s. 293 of the Code in the Polygamy Reference and does not find support in the 2010 Case Management Ruling referred to by Mr. Suffredine. [240] I conclude there is no requirement for the Crown to prove harm, compulsion or lack of consent as an essential element of s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. [241] First, nothing in the language of the section suggests that proof of such an element is required. [242] Second, such an interpretation does not find support in the two sources relied upon by Mr. Suffredine. In fact, such an interpretation conflicts with the Court's findings and conclusions in the Polygamy Reference. [243] In reaching the Court's conclusions about the essential elements of the offence, Bauman C.J. first undertook an extensive historical and contextual analysis into the purpose of s. 293 of the Code. The Court concluded that its purpose is twofold. Parliament intended to both suppress certain identified harms to individuals and society arising from and associated with the practice of polygamy and to safeguard and preserve the valued institution of monogamous marriage: paras. 881, 885 and 888. [244] While those objects informed the Court's interpretation of the section, the Court very clearly did not find that proof of those harms (or compulsion or lack of consent) is an element of the offence. On the contrary, and as noted previously, Bauman C.J. held that s. 293 of the Code "does not require that the polygamy or conjugal union in question involved a minor or occurred in a context of dependence, exploitation, an abuse of authority, a gross imbalance of power or undue influence": para. 1364. [245] Mr. Blackmore advances no reason that I ought not to follow these findings or conclusions. Indeed, I agree with Bauman C.J.'s analysis and conclusions in the Polygamy Reference. [246] The 2010 Case Management Ruling referred to by Mr. Blackmore does not support his position in any way. Mr. Suffredine relies upon an excerpt from that ruling as an "interim finding" of the court defining "criminal polygamy". He is, with respect, incorrect. [247] The Court did not make any such finding in the 2010 Case Management Ruling. This is a ruling that preceded the Polygamy Reference hearing, where the Court dismissed an application by an Interested Person seeking to have one of the parties clarify their position on the scope of s. 293 as it pertains to polyamory: paras. 1-2. The excerpt cited by Mr. Suffredine does not represent any findings of Bauman C.J. Rather, it is the Court quoting directly the position of one of the parties on the issue before the Court. [248] In the end, there is no basis upon which I could conclude the Crown must prove harm, compulsion or lack of consent as an element or elements of the offence in s. 293 of the Code. What is necessary to prove "conjugal union"? [249] This issue flows directly from Mr. Blackmore's position that "proof of more than a ceremony" is required. This issue also flows indirectly from the submissions of amicus curiae regarding the meaning the Court ought to attribute to the word "practise" in s. 293 of the Code, which I will discuss in detail later in these reasons. [250] Mr. Blackmore submits that the Crown must prove both a marriage and a conjugal union. He also says that in order for the Crown to prove a conjugal union in s. 293, it must prove a lasting conjugal relationship. This means a relationship that is spousal in nature. His position here appears to rest upon two lines of reasoning. [251] First, relying upon the legislative history of s. 293 of the Code as outlined in the Polygamy Reference, Mr. Blackmore contends that the Court must give meaning to the amendments made to s. 293 in the 1950s that removed the reference to spiritual or plural marriage among the Mormons. He submits that either Parliament intended by the removal of this language that a Mormon celestial marriage ceremony is not an offence, or that Parliament intended that proof of such a ceremony is insufficient to prove a conjugal union. Of these two potential meanings, Mr. Blackmore did not vigorously pursue the former. Pursuing the latter, he submits that proof of a conjugal union in s. 293 requires proof of a relationship that is spousal in nature; in other words, a conjugal relationship. [252] Second, Mr. Blackmore submits that the Court ought to rely upon Molodowich v. Penttinen, 1980 CanLII 1537 (Ont. D.C.), a family law case where the Ontario District Court considered whether the applicant had established she was a "spouse" under the Family Law Reform Act, 1978, S.O. 1978, c. 2 [FLRA] in respect of her application for support. [253] In that case, the FLRA defined "spouse" as "either of a man and woman not being married to each other who have cohabited" for a certain timeframe: s. 14(b). The legislation further defined "cohabit" to mean living together in a "conjugal relationship, whether within or outside marriage": s. 1(b). [254] After considering many authorities on the meaning of "cohabitation" and "consortium", the Court in Molodowich provided a list of questions whose answers could inform a finding of "cohabitation" or not: [16] I propose to consolidate the statements just quoted by considering the facts and circumstances of this case with the guidance of a series of questions listed under the seven descriptive components involved, to varying degrees and combinations, in the complex group of human inter-relationships broadly described by the words "cohabitation" and "consortium": (1) SHELTER: (a) Did the parties live under the same roof? (b) What were the sleeping arrangements? (c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation? (2) SEXUAL AND PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR: (a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not? (b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other? (c) What were their feelings toward each other? (d) Did they communicate on a personal level? (e) Did they eat their meals together? (f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness? (g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions? (3) SERVICES: What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to: (a) Preparation of meals, (b)Washing and mending clothes, (c) Shopping, (d)Household maintenance, (e) Any other domestic services? (4) SOCIAL: (a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities? (b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them towards members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties? (5) SOCIETAL: What was the attitude and conduct of the community towards each of them and as a couple? (6) SUPPORT (ECONOMIC): (a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution towards the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)? (b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property? (c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship? (7) CHILDREN: What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children? To the foregoing must be applied the following caveat of Mr. Justice Blair in the Warwick case (supra): The extent to which the different elements of the marriage relationship will be taken into account must vary with the circumstances of each case. [255] Mr. Blackmore submits the Court should ask these questions in the case at bar to determine whether the Crown has proven a conjugal union in the sense he argues. [256] The Crown submits this approach is incorrect. [257] First, Mr. Wilson emphasizes that s. 293 of the Code does not require proof of both a marriage and a conjugal union. By use of the word "or", Parliament clearly intended these to be alternatives. [258] Second, the Crown argues that in the Polygamy Reference, Bauman C.J. considered this very issue and rejected the reasoning in Molodowich. The Crown submits that I ought to reject Mr. Blackmore's position on this issue as well. [259] The Crown emphasizes that the reasoning in Molodowich, concerned only with conjugal relationships (as opposed to conjugal unions), does not apply here, for the same reasons found by Bauman C.J. The Crown also emphasizes that s. 293(2) of the Code specifically makes proof of an actual or intended sexual relationship, one of the factors identified in Molodowich, unnecessary. [260] Following the findings and conclusions in the Polygamy Reference, the Crown submits that a conjugal union is legally distinct from a conjugal relationship. A conjugal union is intended to capture a union which is a marriage. The union arises when some form of sanctioning event occurs. The Crown contends that it must prove the existence of a marriage or conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, but that concept of conjugal union is fundamentally different from the concept of conjugal relationship that Mr. Blackmore asserts must be proved. [261] I agree with the Crown's position on these issues. [262] In the Polygamy Reference, Bauman C.J. detailed that between 1890 and 1955 the criminal law in Canada expressly prohibited "what among the persons commonly called Mormons is known as spiritual or plural marriage". In 1955, Parliament enacted an overhauled version of the Criminal Code which removed the reference to Mormon spiritual or plural marriage: paras. 863-875. [263] The legislative history that Bauman C.J. reviewed suggests that legislators saw the provision as "changed in form only" and "redrawn to simplify": paras. 874-876. Further, the Court in the Polygamy Reference suggested that the original polygamy provision was "replete with superfluous inclusions", that "[t]he legislation was conceived in atmosphere of concern for loopholes", and that Parliament removed the provision "presumably as entirely superfluous": paras. 1026-1027. Bauman C.J. concluded at para. 1035 that the current version of s. 293 of the Code: is the product of 1890's drafting which, as we have seen, created an offence with a number of redundant layers. Those layers, in turn, were stripped away slowly and surely until, in 1954, we were left with the compressed kernel of the offence we see today. I must say that the metaphor of the committee designing the horse comes to mind, but s. 293 is what the Court is left to struggle with; to give effect to, if possible, in light of the rules which govern these matters. [264] In the Polygamy Reference, just as Mr. Blackmore argues here, amicus curiae argued that "conjugal union" should be interpreted to mean a "marriage-like relationship" or a "conjugal relationship". Amicus curiae in the Polygamy Reference also argued that the factors developed in Molodowich should inform a court's determination of a "conjugal union" in s. 293 of the Code. [265] In the Polygamy Reference, Bauman C.J. carefully considered these submissions and squarely rejected them, writing: [984] Parliament was intent on leaving no loophole. In this regard, I underline the prohibition against "any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time". I agree with the AG Canada that this was an anti-circumvention measure, a bit of a belt and suspenders approach to drafting the essential prohibition of any form of polygamy. This conclusion reflects my view, which I will develop below, that s. 293(1)(a)(ii) does not add much, if anything, to the prohibition in s. 293(1)(a)(i). In this regard, I disagree with the Amicus' submission that this subsection extends to conjugal relationships or common law cohabitation as those terms have been given modern meaning. [My emphasis] [266] Chief Justice Bauman explained this conclusion at paras. 986-1035 and ultimately held: [1036] From all of this, I conclude that properly interpreted, s. 293(1)(a) prohibits practicing or entering into a "marriage" with more than one person at the same time, whether sanctioned by civil, religious or other means, and whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage. [1037] The offence is not directed at multi-party, unmarried relationships or common law cohabitation, but is directed at both polygyny and polyandry. It is also directed at multi-party same sex marriages. [267] Mr. Blackmore identifies no specific reason I should decline to follow these findings and conclusions. Having considered the Court's extensive and carefully reasoned analysis, I agree with Bauman C.J.'s reasoning and adopt his conclusions. [268] Addressing Mr. Blackmore's specific arguments, I first find there is no merit to his position that the Crown must prove both a marriage and a conjugal union. Section 293(1)(a) embraces both a marriage and a conjugal union, but does not require proof of both. Precisely as the language of this section indicates, they are alternatives. In certain circumstances, they may amount to the same thing, but they are alternatives nonetheless. [269] Second, I find that Parliament's removal in the 1950s of the language specifically concerning Mormon spiritual or plural marriage from the polygamy offence does not lead inexorably to either conclusion proposed by Mr. Blackmore; that is, that either Parliament intended that a Mormon celestial marriage ceremony is not an offence, or that Parliament intended that proof of such a ceremony is insufficient to prove a conjugal union. Rather, when viewed in context, I agree with Bauman C.J.'s findings in the Polygamy Reference that the amendment at issue signifies that the language removed was redundant. [270] I also agree with Bauman C.J.'s reasoning and conclusions that a conjugal union in s. 293 of the Code is legally distinct from a conjugal relationship. The concept of conjugal union in s. 293 is intended to capture a union which is a marriage, created in a moment in time by a marriage ceremony or other sanctioning event. A conjugal relationship, on the other hand, develops only over time and without a specific moment of creation. In other words, conjugal union refers to a marital status, not the attributes of a relationship. What is the meaning of the word "practises" in s. 293(1)(a) of the Code? [271] Amicus curiae observes that the Amended Direct Indictment (the "Amended Indictment") does not charge Mr. Oler with "entering into" anything; rather, Mr. Oler is charged with "practicing" a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union over a period of almost 16 years. As a result, amicus curiae submits that more than proof of "entering into" several marriages is required. Mr. Doyle argues that the Crown must prove that Mr. Oler practised a form of polygamy or kind of conjugal union in the sense that he carried out or performed the activity or custom of polygamy habitually or regularly. [272] In advancing this interpretation of the word "practise", amicus curiae relies on the following definition of the word from the online version of the Oxford Dictionary: "Carry out or perform (a particular activity, method, or custom) habitually or regularly." Utilizing this definition, Mr. Doyle submits that the word "practise" has an ongoing and continuous quality to it. He says this is very distinct from a single event, connoted by the phrase "enters into". [273] To prove one practises an activity, he submits, requires the Crown to prove more than "simple snapshots in time". Mr. Doyle emphasizes our common knowledge that marriages do not always continue indefinitely and that separation, divorce, dissolution and reconciliation can all occur. In short, amicus curiae submits that in order to prove one has practised polygamy, proof of the ongoing prohibited status over time of the alleged marriages is required. [274] The Crown submits that the position taken by amicus curiae on the meaning of "practise" is incorrect in that it fails to consider and apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation. The modern approach involves much more than consideration of a single dictionary definition. As well, Mr. Wilson submits that the interpretation of "practise" suggested by amicus curiae is merely a variation of the conjugal relationship submission based upon Molodowich and rejected in the Polygamy Reference. [275] The Crown urges me to apply the modern approach to statutory interpretation and says that when I do, I should conclude that the word "practise" refers to a customary way of doing things, used in the sense of a "religious or cultural practice". [276] The Crown submits then that the offence occurs when someone practises a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union, not when someone is party to a polygamous relationship over some period of time. In short, the Crown says the term "practise" in s. 293 of the Code prohibits a type of customary activity (polygamy), regardless of whether an individual engages in that activity over any particular enduring period of time. [277] Any judicial interpretation of legislation invariably begins with the court setting out the modern rule of statutory interpretation. The words of a statute must be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the act, the object of the act, and the intention of Parliament: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27. [278] In Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, the Court further observed: [27] The preferred approach recognizes the important role that context must inevitably play when a court construes the written words of a statute: as Professor John Willis incisively noted in his seminal article "Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell" (1938), 16 Can. Bar Rev. 1, at p. 6, "words, like people, take their colour from their surroundings". This being the case, where the provision under consideration is found in an Act that is itself a component of a larger statutory scheme, the surroundings that colour the words and the scheme of the Act are more expansive. In such an instance, the application of Driedger's principle gives rise to what was described in R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867, 2001 SCC 56, at para. 52, as "the principle of interpretation that presumes a harmony, coherence, and consistency between statutes dealing with the same subject matter". [279] Further, s. 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21 states that: Enactments deemed remedial 12 Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects. [280] With these principles informing my analysis and for the reasons I will now develop, I conclude the interpretation of the word "practise" in s. 293 offered by amicus curiae would be inconsistent with the modern approach to statutory interpretation and would create uncertainty and potential inconsistency in the law's application. Although not explicitly addressed in the Polygamy Reference, I find such an interpretation would also be inconsistent with the findings and conclusions of Bauman C.J. in that case. I find the interpretation offered by the Crown better accords with the meaning of the word "practise" in s. 293 of the Code that emerges after applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation. [281] The Code does not define the word "practise", which appears about a dozen times scattered throughout the statute. In the absence of a statutory definition, the interpretive analysis typically begins with the dictionary definition of the term. However, it is important to remember that dictionary definitions are not definitive, as a Court can only determine the "true" meaning of a word when the Court considers the dictionary definition in the entire context of the legislative scheme: R. v. Skakun, 2014 BCCA 223 at para. 19. [282] Putting the point somewhat more forcefully, Donald J.A. stated in Mission City Holdings Ltd. v. Jim Pattison Industries Ltd., 2000 BCCA 302 at para. 19: I reject the proposition that the interpretation of the plain and ordinary meaning of a word is governed by dictionaries. Dictionaries can sometimes be helpful but they are not necessarily determinative nor are they always the best evidence. See also British Columbia (Assessor of Area No. 6 - Courtenay v. Quinsam Coal Corp., 2002 BCCA 68 at para. 67. [283] The "ordinary sense" of a word or phrase is not necessarily its dictionary definition. Dictionaries vary. The definitions contained within the various dictionaries typically list a range of potential meanings of a word or phrase in many possible contexts. Ruth Sullivan explained in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (Markham: Ontario: LexisNexis 2014) that a difference exists between a "dictionary meaning" and "ordinary meaning" of a word. As she wrote, "[t]he former is the meaning that a word can bear in many possible contexts; the latter is the meaning a word bears in the context of a particular sentence as pieced together by a particular reader": p. 33. [284] The difficulty in relying on a dictionary definition to determine the ordinary meaning of a statutory term is demonstrated by the example provided in the case at bar. Amicus curiae provided the definitions offered for the verb "practise" from the online version of the Oxford Dictionary. From this source, "practise" is said to have several meanings: 1 Perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to acquire, improve or maintain proficiency in it. 2 Carry out or perform (a particular activity, method, or custom) habitually or regularly. 2.1 Actively pursue or be engaged in (a particular profession or occupation) 2.2 Observe the teaching and rules of (a particular religion) 3 archaic Scheme or plot for an evil purpose. [285] Amicus curiae submits the term, as it appears in s. 293 of the Code, should be interpreted synonymously with definition #2 above: "Carry out or perform (a particular activity, method, or custom) habitually or regularly". The Crown submits the term should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the definition found in #2.2 above: "Observe the teaching and rules of (a particular religion)". In other words, the Crown seeks to have the court interpret the word in s. 293 to mean a customary way of doing something - as in a "religious or cultural practice". [286] Much more is required than simple reference to a particular dictionary definition. [287] Although just one factor in the analysis, the use of the word "practise" elsewhere in the Code may help illuminate its intended meaning in s. 293. [288] Elsewhere in the Code, the word "practise" usually appears in reference to a person who is entitled under provincial law to practise as a healthcare professional in one form or another, including as a psychiatrist, psychologist, nurse practitioner and pharmacist: ss. 241.1, 254(1), 268.3(a), 672.1(1), 672.39 and 672.41. The statute also refers to a practising solicitor in s. 186(2). The contexts here concern: · a medical practitioner's duties when providing medical assistance in dying; · a medical practitioner obtaining blood samples to determine a person's blood-alcohol concentrations when breath samples cannot be obtained; · aggravated assault in the form of female genital mutilation and the exception for certain legitimate surgical procedures by medical practitioners; · medical practitioner assessments to determine if an accused is not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder or is unfit to stand trial; · the composition of Boards to review the disposition concerning accused who are found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder or unfit to stand trial; and · a prohibition on judicial authorizations for intercepting communications between a person and his or her solicitor. [289] All of these uses of the term "practise", in context, seem to reflect definition #2.1 from the online version of the Oxford Dictionary: "actively pursue or be engaged in (a particular profession or occupation)". This is different from the definition suggested by amicus curiae. [290] The word "practise" as it appears in the above contexts does not necessarily require a habitual, regular, ongoing or continuous nature. For example, a person may practise law or medicine five days per week (or more) for many years in a row, but this temporal element is not intrinsic to the word itself. A person could be said to practise law on the very day of his or her call to the bar. At its essence, the term "practise" in these other contexts in the Code is more about engaging in a particular activity, such as engaging in a particular occupation like law or medicine. [291] Of course, polygamy is not a profession or occupation like medicine or law, which suggests Parliament may have intended some difference in how the word "practise" is to be used in these two senses. However, I think polygamy can broadly be seen as an activity, so the core idea of pursuing or engaging in something is instructive. [292] The above are not the only examples of where "practise" is used elsewhere in the Code. [293] Section 70(1)(a)(iii) authorizes the federal cabinet to make orders by proclamation that prohibit assemblies of persons for the purpose of practising military exercises without lawful authority. Although I could locate no authority considering this provision directly, in Pressler v. Lethbridge, 2000 BCCA 639, the Court discussed the provision briefly and noted that s. 70 of the Code relates to "engag[ing] in para-military activity": para. 40. [294] Like the "practise" of a profession or occupation, the word as it appears in s. 70 of the Code does not necessarily require habitual, regular, ongoing or continuous activity. A person could practise something (military exercises) in this sense over a certain period of time, but the word could also refer to something that occurs on a single day or in a single transaction. [295] Besides s. 293(1)(a) of the Code and the examples above, the word "practise" also appears in the marginal note to s. 365 of the Code, which states: "Pretending to practise witchcraft" etc. The provision itself does not contain the word, but reads: 365 Every one who fraudulently (a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration, (b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or (c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. [296] I am mindful that s. 13 of the Interpretation Act states that marginal notes "form no part of the enactment, but are inserted for convenience of reference only." However, I am also aware that the Supreme Court of Canada has relied on the marginal notes in the Code to help interpret the actual provisions of the statute: R. v. A.D.H., 2013 SCC 28 at para. 71 and R. v. Moore, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1097 at 1112. [297] Perhaps not surprisingly, very few courts in recent years have referred to s. 365 of the Code. In R. v. Corbeil, 1981 CarswellQue 253 (C.A.), after a review of the jurisprudence considering this offence, the Court held that a person commits the actus reus of the s. 365(b) offence, quite simply, when he or she undertakes, for a consideration, to tell a fortune. None of the three offences in s. 365 requires culpable conduct over a period of time, or anything that is habitual, regular, ongoing or continuous; instead, the actus reus of each is complete upon a single act or transaction. Again, the marginal note indicates that these offences concern the "practise" of witchcraft. [298] While only one factor to consider, I conclude that the use of the word "practise" in the context of the enactment as a whole, does not support the interpretation offered by amicus curiae. [299] Although the Court in the Polygamy Reference did not explicitly address the difference, if any, between "enters into" and "practises" in s. 293(1)(a), the Court's analysis and conclusions about the legislative purpose and scope of the offence do provide assistance in interpreting the word "practise" as it is used in the section. [300] As I have already discussed, Bauman C.J. thoroughly canvassed Parliament's intention in enacting s. 293 of the Code in the Polygamy Reference. Chief Justice Bauman held the purpose of s. 293 is to suppress the harms viewed as arising from polygamy: harms to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage: para. 881. The Court also found that these "largely secular concerns" motivated the prohibition, rather than religious animus: para. 904. [301] As "two sides of the same coin", the purpose of the polygamy prohibition is to suppress the evil reasonably apprehended to be associated with the practise of polygamy and also to safeguard a threatened interest - the institution of monogamous marriage: Polygamy Reference, at paras. 882-888. [302] That Parliament's intention in enacting the prohibition was to prevent people from ever "entering into" or "practising" polygamy is evident by the comments of the Minister of Justice on Second Reading in the House of Commons in 1890, when he said the polygamy prohibition: deals with the practise of polygamy, which I am not aware yet exists in Canada, but which we are threatened with; and I think it will be much more prudent that legislation should be adopted at once in anticipation of the offence, if there is any probability of its introduction, rather than we should wait until it has become established in Canada. (Debate of the House of Commons 6th Parl., 4th Sess., (10 April 1890 at 31644) [303] I find it would be inconsistent with Parliament's purpose in enacting the prohibition in s. 293 of the Code to interpret the word "practise" as it appears there to require ongoing, continuous, habitual or regular conduct, as amicus curiae has urged. [304] The Court in the Polygamy Reference identified a number of harms associated with polygamy. At least some of those harms do not crystalize only after a person spends an ongoing or continuous period of time in a polygamous relationship. Again, Parliament's intent was to dissuade people from entering into polygamous unions in the first place. The interpretation of "practise" offered by amicus curiae does not accord with a fair, large and liberal construction of the statue to best achieve its objects. [305] Had Parliament intended to only criminalize activity (polygamy) that is carried out habitually or regularly, in my view it would have clearly said so. Parliament would also have provided guidance on how much time can permissibly elapse before a person's conduct is culpable if it had intended to only criminalize an activity that is carried out habitually or regularly. To interpret "practise" in the way suggested by amicus curiae, without any such guidance, would leave it to individual courts to determine when enough time has passed for conduct to become culpable. To do so would impermissibly create uncertainty and inconsistency in the criminal law's application, which Parliament surely did not intend. [306] After determining the Code's objects and the intention of Parliament in enacting s. 293, Bauman C.J. then considered the proper interpretation of the section in the Polygamy Reference. Chief Justice Bauman's conclusions on what activity the words "polygamy" and "conjugal union" capture can also provide assistance in interpreting the word "practise" in s. 293. [307] In interpreting the section in light of its purpose, the Court began by setting out the positions of the parties and the Interested Persons. Chief Justice Bauman then synthesized their positions by placing them on a spectrum, from the broadest interpretation to the narrowest. [308] The amicus curiae in that case offered the broadest interpretation. He suggested that the Court ought to view s. 293 of the Code as criminalizing "all conjugality other than monogamy, regardless of gender arrangement and the manner in which the union was formed" and criminalizing all participants in the union: Polygamy Reference, at para. 973. [309] The Attorney General of Canada offered the more central position, namely that the Court ought to interpret the section as prohibiting the practising of or entering into multiple simultaneous marriages (both polygyny and polyandry), whether sanctioned by civil, religious or other means. The Attorney General of Canada argued that the section is not "directed at multi-party, unmarried relationships or to common law cohabitation": Polygamy Reference, at para. 974. [310] Moving toward the narrower end of the interpretation spectrum, the Attorney General of British Columbia argued the Court ought to interpret the section as prohibiting only duplicative marriage in polygamous relationships: Polygamy Reference, at para. 975. [311] At the narrowest end of the spectrum, one of the Interested Persons argued the Court should read down the section to apply to exploitive polygamy only and only to the exploiter: Polygamy Reference, at para. 976. [312] The Court considered, after extensive analysis, that the centrist position advanced by the Attorney General of Canada, with some minor qualifications, was "closest to the mark in this contest": Polygamy Reference, at para. 977. [313] Chief Justice Bauman began by explaining that Parliament's choice of words, including "everyone", "any form of polygamy" and "any kind of conjugal union" are unambiguous in their effort to include "all". In the context of the object of the Code and the intention of Parliament in enacting the provision, Bauman C.J. concluded that Parliament intended these words and phrases to "address the perceived threat [of harms associated with polygamy and to the institution of monogamous marriage] in all of its forms" and that "Parliament was intent on leaving no loophole": Polygamy Reference, at paras. 980-984. [314] Chief Justice Bauman then went on to explain his conclusion that the prohibition against conjugal unions in s. 293(1)(a)(ii) does not add much, if anything, to the prohibition against polygamy in s. 293(1)(a)(i). He expressly disagreed with the position taken by amicus curiae that conjugal union extends to conjugal relationships, as I have explained earlier. [315] The Court concluded that s. 293 of the Code focusses on multiple marriages or "pair-bonding relationships sanctioned by civil, religious or other means". Both polygamy and conjugal union are concerned with marriage. They are not concerned with conjugal relationships: Polygamy Reference, at paras. 986-989. [316] With respect to polygamy, the Court referred, at para. 990, to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition: Marriage with several, or more than one, at once; plurality of spouses; the practice or custom according to which one man has several wives (distinctively called polygyny), or one woman several husbands (polyandry), at the same time. Most commonly used of the former. [317] With respect to conjugal union, after several paragraphs of analysis, Bauman C.J. concluded that "the concept of 'conjugal union' in s. 293 is intended to capture a union which is a marriage": Polygamy Reference, at para. 992. A "conjugal union" is a "term of art" arising only upon the "occurrence of some form of sanctioning event": Polygamy Reference, at paras. 993-1009. [318] Chief Justice Bauman then discussed the concept of a sanctioning event. He held, at para. 1020, that the offence in s. 293(1)(a): is premised on some form of sanctioning event because the status prohibited by the section - "polygamy" and "any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time" - both have at their core, as I have discussed, "marriage" (whether or not recognized as legally binding). And "marriage" has at its core the voluntary joining of two individuals with the requisite intent to "marry" and the recognition and sanction by the couple's community. I have previously noted that a sanctioning event of some formality is contemplated by s. 293. [319] Chief Justice Bauman then discussed proof of the marriage. He held that s. 293(2) of the Code obviates the need to prove the actual method by which the marriage was entered into, but observed, at para. 1021, that in many instances the existence of the marriage: may well be established by proving the sanctioning event, but that is not absolutely necessary. The existence of the marriage, because of ss. 293(2), may be inferred from all of the circumstances before the Court. [320] The Court did make it clear, however, that proof of a sanctioning event is not a constituent element of the offence, but rather an element of the offence is a marriage with more than one person at the same time. Proof of a sanctioning event of a marriage may be an indicia of marriage: para. 1022. [321] Chief Justice Bauman then concluded that the "conjugal union" offence in s. 293(1)(a) adds little, if anything, to the prohibition against polygamy in the section. He held this was a symptom of Parliament's desire not to leave any loopholes: para. 1027. [322] Chief Justice Bauman then again emphasized the broadness of the language used in s. 293 when he next went on to consider the Attorney General of Canada's submission that s. 293 should be interpreted to prohibit the "practising or entering into multiple simultaneous marriages", whether sanctioned by civil, religious or other means. [323] The Court found this formulation lacked some precision because it would not capture all that Parliament had intended. Chief Justice Bauman found that formulating s. 293 to prohibit "practicing or entering into multiple simultaneous marriages" may "only capture a male in a polygynous relationship because he is the only one who has entered into multiple marriages. Each wife has only entered into one marriage with that male": paras. 1028-1029. [324] Consequently, the Court found that s. 293 is intended to capture all parties. Chief Justice Bauman explained that one enters the prohibited relationship of polygamy or conjugal union with more than one person by a marriage between a man and each subsequent wife (in the case of polygyny). Each marriage then brings the participants into what the Court referred to as the "capital 'M' Marriage". It is that "capital 'M' Marriage" which is Parliament's ultimate intended target of s. 293(1)(a). All participants in the "Capital "M" Marriage" are captured by the offence: Polygamy Reference at paras. 1028-1030. [325] As I have previously outlined, the Court clearly rejected the notion that "conjugal union" is the same as "conjugal relationship". One of the key differences is that the former, like any marriage, is created in a moment by a marriage ceremony or other sanctioning event. A conjugal relationship, in contrast, develops only over time and perhaps without a specific moment of creation. The Polygamy Reference makes clear that s. 293 of the Code prohibits a status and that an element of the offence is the existence of a marriage or conjugal union with more than one person at the same time: paras. 1019-1022. [326] The definition of "practise" the amicus curiae in the present case offers is inconsistent with these findings. To interpret "practise" to mean an activity carried out or performed over time habitually or regularly, would do the very thing the Court rejected in the Polygamy Reference and, in essence, require proof of a conjugal relationship. The offence in s. 293 prohibits the status of being in a marriage or conjugal union with more than one person at the same time. The Crown need not prove that the status endures over some undefined length of time. [327] I conclude that the Crown does not have to prove an ongoing state of affairs over a period of time to prove that a person has practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time. However, it is clear the Crown must establish that the accused actually was in a marriage or conjugal union with more than one person at the same time. Merely offering evidence that an accused entered into successive marriages or conjugal unions may not satisfy this burden, as the broader circumstances could reveal that the accused was simply a serial monogamist (marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce). [328] I also note that the definition of polygamy Bauman C.J. referred to in the Polygamy Reference defined polygamy as a "practise according to which one man has several wives at the same time": para. 990. The Polygamy Reference is replete with examples of "practise" being used in this same sense: a type of customary activity or religious or cultural practice. [329] The use of the word "practise" throughout the Polygamy Reference accords well with my view that a person who practises polygamy simply is in a marriage or conjugal union with more than one person at the same time. [330] To address a similar issue the parties and amicus curiae raised, I think a difference can exist between "enters into" and "practises" in s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. The difference is not, as argued by amicus curiae, that the former relates to a moment in time while the latter relates to an ongoing, habitual state of affairs. The difference, as I see it, is that the former focusses on a kind of transaction, while the latter focusses on a status. The former prohibits the action an accused person takes to come into a polygamous marriage or conjugal union. The latter prohibits the accused from being in a polygamous marriage or conjugal union. This is consistent with Parliament's intention in leaving no loophole. [331] The prohibitions in s. 293(1)(a) against "entering into" and "practising" a marriage or conjugal union with more than one person at the same time serve the same ends and, I would expect that in most cases, if the Crown were to prove an accused person "entered into" a marriage or conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, it would necessarily have proved that the person was also "practising" a marriage or conjugal union with more than one person at the same time. A person cannot enter into a marriage with more than one person at the same time without immediately practising or having that status from that point forward. However, I can envision circumstances where the prohibitions might address different circumstances. For example, the Crown may be able to prove that a person was in multiple marriages at the same time, but cannot prove the person entered into them, such as the situation where no marriage records or other evidence exists. Section 293(2) of the Code reinforces this by providing that the Crown need not adduce evidence of the method by which the accused entered into the alleged relationship. [332] When I consider the context in which the word "practises" is used, the intention of Parliament, the use of the word in context in its grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and object of the Code, I am satisfied the word "practises" in s. 293 refers to a customary way of doing things, used in the sense of a religious or cultural practice. "Practises" in s. 293 prohibits a type of activity (polygamy), regardless of whether an individual engages in that activity over any particular enduring period of time. I think this interpretation best honours Parliament's intention in enacting the provision. The Framing of the Indictment [333] The Amended Indictment charges each accused, in separate counts, with practising a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union with a number of named women over a period of time. In Mr. Blackmore's case, the count lists 24 named women and the period of time is "between on or about the 12th day of October, 1990 and on or about the 28th day of February, 2014." In Mr. Oler's case, the count lists five named women and the period of time is "between on or about the 30th day of May, 1993 and or about the 7th day of January, 2009." [334] Amicus curiae submits that since the count involving Mr. Oler is framed conjunctively, the Crown must prove that Mr. Oler engaged in the activity in question persistently or continuously through the entire time period stipulated and concurrently with all five named women. [335] The Crown disagrees. Mr. Wilson submits that the amicus curiae's position here is related to his view that "practise" should be interpreted to mean an ongoing, habitual activity. The Crown also submits the position of amicus curiae rests on a technical and outmoded approach to pleadings. Rather, the Crown contends that in this case, where it has alleged a single count of polygamy containing multiple averments, the Crown must prove the accused practised polygamy with any two or more of the women named at some point in the time period of the Amended Indictment. [336] I find the jurisprudence supports the position taken by the Crown. I conclude that the Crown is not required to prove the accused practised a form of polygamy or kind of conjugal union with all of the named women over the entire time period set out in the Amended Indictment. [337] Amicus curiae presents no case authority in support of his position that the Crown must prove all of the averments. A similar argument was advanced by the defence and rejected by the Court in R. v. Reyat, 2010 BCSC 1623; aff'd 2012 BCCA 311; leave to appeal ref'd 2013 CanLII 2399 (SCC). [338] Although Reyat involved a charge of perjury and the issue was raised in the context of jury unanimity, I find the analysis and conclusions applicable to the issue before me. [339] Mr. Reyat was charged with a single count of perjury under s. 131(1) of the Code. The Crown had to prove that Mr. Reyat made a statement under solemn affirmation, that the statement was false, that Mr. Reyat knew the statement was false when he made it, and that he intended the false statement to mislead. The Indictment particularized 19 instances of allegedly false statements. [340] When it came time to instruct the jury, the defence took the position that the trial judge ought to instruct the jury that it must be unanimous as to at least one of the particulars in order to convict. The defence argued that each of the 19 particularized allegations was a "statement" and, together with the other essential elements, was an essential element the Crown had to prove: para. 5. [341] Mr. Justice McEwan rejected this argument. After reviewing the jurisprudence in this area that emphasizes the distinction between facts and elements, McEwan J. concluded the jury must unanimously agree that the Crown had proven all of the essential elements of the offence, but they need not agree upon the facts which established those essential elements. Where there is more than one factual path to conviction, the jury need not agree on how they get to a finding of guilt, so long as each juror is satisfied, in one way or another, that all of the essential elements of the offence are proven. The Court concluded: [16] I am satisfied in the circumstances that the proper instruction for the jury is that in order to convict, it must be unanimous that the accused committed perjury with respect to at least one of the statements particularized in the indictment, although the individual jurors need not be unanimous on any one of the particulars alleged to constitute perjury. [342] I see the situation in the case at bar as analogous. The offence here occurs when the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time. The Crown particularized the individual marriages it would seek to prove, like the Crown particularized the false statements it would seek to prove in Reyat. These underlying alleged marriages are facts that would prove an element. They are not essential ingredients of the offence. [343] For the purposes of a conviction on a charge under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code, nothing turns on whether the accused is found to be married to two, 20, or perhaps 40 people at the same time. The Crown must prove the accused was intentionally practising a marriage with more than one person at the same time. The Crown does not need to prove every single alleged relationship set out in the Amended Indictment. [344] Nor does the Crown need to prove an accused practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union continuously for the time period set out in the Amended Indictment. [345] I have already determined the word "practise" in s. 293 of the Code does not require proof that an accused person practised polygamy over a habitual or continuous period of time - whether the time specified in the Indictment or otherwise. [346] The jurisprudence in this area supports the Crown's position on this point. An Indictment must provide an accused with sufficient information to enable him or her to defend against the charge. While time must be specified, the law is clear that the Crown need not prove the exact time unless time is an essential element of the offence. In this regard, in R. v. B.(G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30, Wilson J. held at 49: This longstanding rule of the common law is summarized by Ewaschuk J. in his text Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd ed. 1987) at para. 9:10050 as follows: From time immemorial, a date specified in an indictment has never been held to be a material matter. Thus the Crown need not prove the alleged date unless time is an essential element of the offence or unless there is a specified prescription period. [Emphasis added.] From the foregoing, it is clear that it is of no consequence if the date specified in the information differs from that arising from the evidence unless the time of the offence is critical and the accused may be misled by the variance and therefore prejudiced in his or her defence. It is also clear from Dossi and other authorities that the date of the offence need not be proven in order for a conviction to result unless time is an essential element of the offence. Accordingly, while it is trite to say that the Crown must prove every element of the offence in order to obtain a conviction, it is, I believe, more accurate to say that the Crown must prove all the essential elements. The Crown need not prove elements which are, at most, incidental to the offence. What the Crown must prove will, however, of necessity vary with the nature of the offence charged and the surrounding circumstances. [347] Where the charge specifies an accused committed an offence between specific dates, the law is also clear that the Crown need not prove that the offence continued during the dates specified. Rather, the Crown must prove that the accused committed the offence at some point during that timeframe. In this regard, in R. v. Douglas, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 301, Cory J. held at 314: From these cases it can be seen that an indictment is adequate if it contains sufficient details to give the accused reasonable information with respect to the charge and to enable the accused to identify the transaction so as to permit the adequate preparation of the defence. Whether an indictment is sufficient will depend on the offence charged and the facts of the case. Time is not required to be stated with exact precision unless it is an essential part of the offence charged and the accused is not misled or prejudiced by any variation in time that arises. As well, it can generally be said that a charge has been established if the evidence discloses the commission of the offence within the time period set out in the indictment. [348] On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that the Crown must prove the accused practised a form of polygamy or kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time. The Crown does not have to prove all the marriages listed in the count nor does it have to prove the practice continued during the entire time period set out in the count. Rather, the Crown must prove the accused was in more than one marriage at the same point in time within the specified timeframe, but the actual point in time within that timeframe is immaterial. Summary of the Elements of the Offence [349] I agree with the reasoning and conclusions of Bauman C.J. in the Polygamy Reference. The elements of the offence in s. 293(1)(a) of the Code are: 1. an identified person, who 2. with the intent to do so, 3. practises, enters into, or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into, 4. a marriage, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, with more than one person at the same time. [350] With respect to #2, the mens rea, I agree with the Crown's position that the Crown must not only prove the accused intended to marry a person (or enter into a marriage to a person) while in a pre-existing marriage, but must also prove the accused knew he or she was in a pre-existing marriage at the time the accused committed the prohibited act. [351] To specifically summarize my conclusions on the issues raised, a conjugal union is intended to capture a union which is a marriage. A conjugal union is legally distinct from a conjugal relationship. [352] As the Crown has charged each accused with practising a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union, it is required in this case to prove each accused "practised" the activity. The term "practise" refers to a customary way of doing things, used in the sense of a religious or cultural practice. The Crown is not required to prove the activity was carried out or performed habitually or regularly over a period of time. [353] The Crown is not required to prove harm, compulsion or a lack of consent. [354] The Crown is not required to prove both a marriage and a conjugal union. Section 293(1)(a) embraces both, but they are alternatives. In some circumstances, they amount to the same thing, but they are alternatives nonetheless. [355] The Crown is not required to prove each accused practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union with all of the persons named in the count applicable to that accused, nor is the Crown required to prove an accused did so over the duration of the time period specified in the count. Rather, the Crown is required to prove an accused was in more than one marriage at the same point in time within the specified timeframe. The actual point in time is immaterial. [356] I have specifically declined to identify the age of an accused (18 and over) as an essential element. My decision does not reflect any view about Bauman C.J.'s decision in the Polygamy Reference affirming the constitutional validity of s. 293 of the Code except to the extent it includes children between the ages of 12 and 17. Rather, I am mindful that on the evidence adduced in this case, there is no issue that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, Winston Blackmore, was 34 years old as of the earliest date stipulated in Count 1 of the Amended Indictment and that the accused, James Oler, was 29 years old as of the earliest date stipulated in Count 2 of the Amended Indictment. In these circumstances, no application for a constitutional remedy has been brought. [357] No authority has been brought to my attention where a court has been asked to grant a remedy such as those suggested by the Court in the Polygamy Reference. Granting a constitutional remedy, such as reading into the section an exclusion of the problematic application or reading down the term "everyone" in the section to exclude the problematic application, is not a matter that has been raised before me because the problematic application does not arise in the case of either accused. ANALYSIS Count 1 - Winston Kaye Blackmore Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blackmore practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time? [358] The evidence tendered against Mr. Blackmore comes from several sources - his 2009 statement to police, the evidence of Jane Blackmore, the expert evidence, FLDS Marriage Records pertaining to him and the other records pertaining to him. [359] With respect to the expert evidence, Mr. Blackmore raises no issue regarding its reliability. I have previously found the evidence to be reliable. [360] With respect to Jane Blackmore, Mr. Blackmore concedes that she is credible and her evidence reliable as it pertains to him. I have previously found Jane Blackmore to be credible and her evidence reliable. I accept her evidence in its entirety. [361] With respect to the British Columbia birth records pertaining to him, again Mr. Blackmore raises no issue with respect to their reliability. I find they are reliable. [362] With respect to his statement to police, Mr. Blackmore raises no argument that his utterances are untrue or somehow unreliable. I find they are reliable and true. As will be seen, many of Mr. Blackmore's utterances harmonize with the expert evidence, the evidence of Jane Blackmore and the facts contained within the British Columbia birth records pertaining to him. [363] Mr. Blackmore's primary challenge is with respect to the weight to be afforded the FLDS marriage records pertaining to him. He submits the court ought to give them no (or minimal) weight, for reasons I have previously summarized. One of Mr. Blackmore's central arguments here revolves around his position that the records were not kept "in the ordinary course of business". This argument, however, is not available to Mr. Blackmore as he conceded that these records were made in the ordinary course of business as a pre-condition to their admissibility. [364] Overall, I find the FLDS marriage records tendered in respect of Mr. Blackmore are ultimately reliable. Many factors support this conclusion. [365] I have identified several of the general factors supporting their ultimate reliability earlier in these reasons. The template form and standard structure demonstrate the routine and systematic nature of their creation. The templates are consistent, detailed and prepared with no apparent motive to misrepresent the information they contain. As well, the source of the records, their manner of storage and the high security under which they were kept, are all strong indicators that the records were of significant importance to the FLDS. The religious or spiritual significance of the records to the FLDS has been proven. All of these general factors promote their ultimate reliability. [366] The evidence I am about to discuss, which emanates from Mr. Blackmore's reliable admissions to police, the reliable expert evidence, the reliable evidence of Jane Blackmore and the reliable British Columbia records, all confirms many of the key facts contained within the FLDS marriage records pertaining to Mr. Blackmore. This further supports the ultimate reliability of the FLDS marriage records pertaining to him. [367] I turn now to my findings and conclusions. I will begin with more general findings and conclusions involving Mr. Blackmore's beliefs and practices and whether any proven FLDS celestial marriages are "marriages" as contemplated under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. I will then move on to my specific findings and conclusions regarding each of his alleged marriages. [368] The evidence proves that Winston Kaye Blackmore has been a practising member of the FLDS throughout his life and up to the time of his 2009 statement. He adheres to the beliefs and practices of the FLDS, including the belief in the salvific ordinance of celestial marriage and the practice of plural marriage. [369] Mr. Blackmore's status as a member and a leader of the FLDS community at Bountiful, British Columbia for many years, and his adherence to the beliefs and practices of the FLDS is beyond dispute. This is amply proven by the evidence of Jane Blackmore and through Mr. Blackmore's statement to police. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Blackmore commenced his closing submissions with the following statement: "Winston Blackmore will not deny his faith." [370] Mr. Blackmore took this same position, that he would not deny his faith, throughout his 2009 statement to police. [371] In his recorded conversation with Sergeant Jacklin, Mr. Blackmore spoke freely and openly about his beliefs and practices and his life as a member and leader of the FLDS. He spoke openly about his practising polygamy. Much of what Mr. Blackmore related about the beliefs and practices of the FLDS confirmed the expert opinion evidence of Dr. Hales and the evidence of Jane Blackmore. Much of what Mr. Blackmore said about his own life as a believing and practising member of the FLDS faith in the community of Bountiful confirmed the evidence of Jane Blackmore and, as will be seen, also confirmed much of the evidence contained within the various marriage and other records adduced in respect of him. [372] Mr. Blackmore told Sergeant Jacklin that he has lived in what is now known as Bountiful, British Columbia his entire life. He confirmed that he is an FLDS person by religion and practice. He gave Sergeant Jacklin a "little teeny history lesson" with respect to his religious beliefs, all of which is entirely consistent with the evidence of the experts and of Jane Blackmore. [373] Mr. Blackmore described that the Mormon Church is the "Mother Church" of the FLDS. He further explained that up until 1890, when the Mormon Church made an official declaration to discontinue the practice of plural marriage, a man could not be an officer in the church if he was not a polygamist. As a FLDS person, Mr. Blackmore told Sergeant Jacklin that he does not abide by the 1890 declaration discontinuing the practice of plural marriage. [374] Mr. Blackmore told Sergeant Jacklin that he was raised in a polygamous household and family. His father had more than one wife. Although his father may have had four wives, Mr. Blackmore knew three mothers that raised him. He confirmed that his father was the presiding elder in the community while he was growing up. [375] Mr. Blackmore explained that he was ordained a bishop in the FLDS in 1984 by the prophet of the day, Leroy Johnson. With this appointment, he was "given" the community of Bountiful. Jane Blackmore, who was married to him for several years already by this time, confirmed in her evidence that when Mr. Blackmore was appointed bishop and presiding elder of Bountiful, he was the main spokesperson at church services in the community. He would deliver sermons and provide instruction in FLDS doctrines to the congregation. [376] Winston Blackmore also described his own marriages to Sergeant Jacklin. He explained that in his faith he was never allowed to "court" anyone. He said that anyone who married him did so "by talking to our old church president and having their parents' permission". When asked about his numerous celestial plural marriages, Mr. Blackmore described them as a "church blessing on a common law relationship", performed by a "person with higher authority in the church than I have". [377] In his statement, Mr. Blackmore explained that after Leroy Johnson died, Rulon Jeffs became the president and prophet of the FLDS. Mr. Blackmore was very close to Rulon Jeffs, agreeing that he was Rulon Jeffs' "closest trusted advisor" and "dear, dear, dear friend" whom Rulon Jeffs told "things he never told anybody else". [378] Mr. Blackmore further told Sergeant Jacklin that Rulon Jeffs had a stroke in 1998, marking the beginning of a process whereby his son, Warren Jeffs, began to speak for his father and take over leadership of the FLDS. Warren Jeffs eventually pushed Mr. Blackmore out. Mr. Blackmore then explained what happened when Warren Jeffs succeeded Rulon Jeffs. [379] Mr. Blackmore said that Warren Jeffs removed him from the church in 2002. Mr. Blackmore continued to maintain his FLDS beliefs and practices. He said that his removal from the church created a division in the Bountiful community that saw some of the FLDS members in that community follow him and others follow a new bishop appointed by Warren Jeffs. With respect to his own family, Mr. Blackmore said that he gathered: [m]y family, my ladies all together and I said to them you girls are, you know how you came here. And you're all free to stay or go. And if you chose to go I'll help you go. If you chose to stay I'll help you stay. I want you to stay. But if, if you don't want to stay then I'll help you go. And I have been true to that and that agreement with them [380] Mr. Blackmore went on to say that this rift or division in the Bountiful community contributed to his divorce from his first wife, Jane Blackmore. Jane Blackmore confirmed this as well. As the mother of his seven children and a "good person", Mr. Blackmore told Sergeant Jacklin that he bears her no ill will. [381] During the course of the interview, Sergeant Jacklin showed Mr. Blackmore a list of names of women that investigators believed to be his plural wives. Now marked exhibit 50 in this trial, this list identifies 24 women and includes, beside their names, some of their biographical information. [382] Mr. Blackmore reviewed this list. He told Sergeant Jacklin the list was not necessarily complete, but the names and information contained in the list were accurate, with only two corrections. Mr. Blackmore identified those two corrections and changes were made to the document accordingly at the time of the interview. [383] Mr. Blackmore confirmed that all of his marriages were celestial marriages in accordance with the FLDS beliefs and practices. He confirmed he also married his first wife, Jane, in a civil ceremony. He also said that with the exception of one child (whom he has raised as his own), he is the biological father of all children born to the wives listed, except the wives he married as widows. He said he "owns" these children and "claims" them as his own. [384] On the topic of Mr. Blackmore's children, I will pause here to say that I will be discussing the Registrations of Live Birth and Declarations of Particulars in respect of children born to women alleged to be Mr. Blackmore's wives (exhibits 17-35) in detail shortly. This evidence, along with his admissions regarding children he fathered, is circumstantial evidence of the marriages alleged. Insufficient as proof of the marriages on its own, this evidence does constitute circumstantial evidence which, taken in context, supports an inference that Mr. Blackmore was in a marriage with the women involved. In the context of the evidence against Mr. Blackmore, it is a reasonable inference to draw. However, as will be seen, reliance on such an inference is ultimately unnecessary in light of the strength of the other evidence adduced. [385] I return now to Mr. Blackmore's statement to police and the list of his wives he confirmed. Exhibit 50 appears as follows: 1. Jane BLACKMORE - 1st and only legal wife, now divorced. 2. Christina Gallup BLACKMORE - Winston's 1st plural wife. Married at 15 years old. Wasn't long after when they had sexual relations 3. Mary Ann BLACKMORE (GALLUP) - Married at 16 years old. Oldest child born when she was 20 years old. 4. Marjorie JOHNSON - married at 19 years old. 21 years old when she had her first child. 5. Sharon JOHNSON - married at 20 years old. 21 years old when she had her first child. 6. Susan GALLUP - married at 16 years old, first child when she was 17. 7. Harmony QUINTON - married at 15 years old, first child when she was 18 years old. 8. Edith BARLOW - married at 17 years old, had trouble getting pregnant, first child at 20 years old. 9. Leah BARLOW - married at 23 years old. 10. Marsha CHATWIN - married at 17 years of age, first child when 18 years old. 11. Zelpha CHATWIN - married at 20 years of age. 12. Marlina FISHER - married at 18 years old. First child at 20 years old. 13. Janelle FISHER - married at 17 years old. First child 21 years old. 14. Shirley Black JESSOP - left approx. 3 years ago 15. Jennifer JOHNSON - married at 21 years old 16. Lorraine JOHNSON - Married at 15 years old, first child at "17" years old 17. Diana LANE - Married at "19" years old 18. Ruth LANE - married at 21 years old 19. Shelina PALMER - married at 15 years old, first child at 17 years old 20. (Aloha) Alaire OLER - religious marriage but not like a real wife, married Winston at age 53. 21. (Janella) Cherene PALMER - religious marriage, not like a real wife, married at age 51. 22. Carlene Gallup BLACKMORE - religious marriage, not like a real wife Married at age 50. 23. Catherine BROADBENT - left 3 years ago. Married Winston at 17 1/2 years old. 24. (Luella) Elise BARLOW - married at age 21. [386] The ages of Lorraine Johnson and Diana Lane that appear in bold and quotation marks above indicate the corrections made by Mr. Blackmore at the time of his interview. Investigators had originally written that Lorraine Johnson had her first child at 16 years of age. Mr. Blackmore corrected him and advised that her first child was born when she was actually 17 years of age. The correction was made by hand on the document. As well, investigators had originally written that Diana Lane married Mr. Blackmore when she was 18 years old. Mr. Blackmore corrected Sergeant Jacklin and advised that they were married when she was actually 19 years old. Again, this correction was made by hand on the document. [387] When discussing his various wives with Sergeant Jacklin, Mr. Blackmore said that he had not married anyone that was "not of age" (18 years old) since 1998, when the prophet told FLDS members that they were no longer to participate in plural marriage with underage women. [388] Jane Blackmore testified about each of Mr. Blackmore's alleged wives as listed in Count 1 of the Amended Indictment. She confirmed that each person listed was also one of Mr. Blackmore's plural wives. She provided details with respect to some of those marriages and wives and details about some of her relationships with them. Jane Blackmore was friends with most of Mr. Blackmore's other plural wives. [389] At the time of his statement, Mr. Blackmore said he did not anticipate being married to anyone else in the future. He explained that a marriage in the FLDS must be appointed by someone higher ranking than himself. As the leader of his group, he indicated that there is no such person higher in rank. [390] Winston Blackmore emphasized several times in his statement that he firmly believes in and practises the fundamentals of the FLDS faith. He is a polygamist. At one point, he told Sergeant Jacklin: I've never denied that in a hundred ways in a hundred times I'm born what I am and you know if I'm guilty of something that's being born what I am. So in, our faith, there's so many people that are my age that never even -- I mean some of them have never even had a chance to get married. Why that is I don't know. But certainly to have a family like I have has you know been a, a huge um reason for many people to be jealous of me although it's way more work than it ever is fun you know? [391] Again, the Crown has overwhelmingly proven that Winston Kaye Blackmore, the accused before the court, subscribed to the beliefs and practices of the FLDS, including the belief in the salvific ordinance of celestial marriage and the necessity of the practice of plural marriage, throughout his life and up to the time of his statement in 2009. [392] I turn now to consider whether the Crown has proven Mr. Blackmore's FLDS celestial marriages are "marriages" or "conjugal unions" under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. [393] Mr. Blackmore admitted all of his marriages were FLDS celestial marriages. Based upon all of the evidence tendered against Mr. Blackmore, I conclude Mr. Blackmore's celestial marriages are "marriages" under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code, as it has been interpreted. I find they would also properly be considered "conjugal unions", as that phrase has been interpreted. [394] The statuses prohibited by s. 293(1)(a) of the Code, practising a form of polygamy or any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, both have at their core, "marriage", whether legally binding or not. A "marriage" has "at its core the voluntary joining of two individuals with the requisite intent to "marry" and the recognition and sanction by the couple's community": Polygamy Reference, at para. 1020. Marriage is a "pair-bonding relationship sanctioned by civil, religious or other means": Polygamy Reference, at para. 987. [395] In the FLDS, a celestial marriage is a salvific ordinance, one of tremendous importance that binds a couple together on earth and in Heaven. The ordinance is performed by the president and prophet (the person holding the authority to do so) in a formal sanctioning event. The event is witnessed by others, involves a blessing, is recorded and is recognized in the couple's community. As I have and will now continue to outline, the evidence overwhelmingly proves that Mr. Blackmore adheres to these beliefs and practices. All of his FLDS celestial marriages have the above-noted features, and are pair-bonding relationships sanctioned by religious means. They are, I find, "marriages" contemplated under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. [396] I will now discuss the evidence adduced and make findings in respect of each of Mr. Blackmore's alleged marriages, organizing them in chronological order. 1. Jane Blackmore - Celestial Marriage May 4, 1975 and Civil Marriage June 19, 1975 [397] Jane Blackmore was the first wife of Winston Kaye Blackmore. [398] As I have previously described, in accordance with the FLDS beliefs and practices, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore were first married when they were both 18 years of age, in a celestial marriage ceremony performed by Leroy Johnson at Rosemary, Alberta on May 4, 1975 at the home of Jane Blackmore's grandparents. [399] The evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and the admissions of Mr. Blackmore establish that Leroy Johnson was indeed the president and person with the authority to perform the ordinance of celestial marriage in 1975. Immediately following the celestial marriage ceremony, the couple went to a church service together, where the community learned they were married. [400] Jane and Winston Blackmore were then married in a civil ceremony at Bonner's Ferry, Idaho on June 18, 1975. Jane Blackmore's evidence about details of their civil marriage is supported by the documentary evidence adduced in this case and by the information provided by Mr. Blackmore in his statement to police. [401] Exhibit 44, a copy of a State of Idaho Marriage License, confirmed by Ms. Blackmore to be accurate, proves this civil marriage, the date and location it occurred and the ages of Mr. and Mrs. Blackmore at the time. [402] Winston Blackmore also confirmed the facts contained within exhibit 44 and its accuracy in his statement to police. He confirmed that Jane Blackmore was his first wife. He recalled many details of their civil marriage. He recalled they were both 18 years old at the time. He recalled that Jane Blackmore's father (Dalmon Oler) chose the location for the ceremony - Bonner's Ferry - because Mr. Oler wanted to treat them to a great restaurant there and knew a judge who could perform the ceremony. [403] Mr. Blackmore related that he kept in touch with that same judge after the ceremony and even recalled his name - Judge Ralph J. Mills. Exhibit 44 confirms all of these details. The document records that Dalmon Oler was one of the witnesses. Dalmon Oler is Jane Blackmore's father. The document records that Judge Ralph J. Mills was the officiant, that both Jane and Winston Blackmore were 18 years old at the time and that the ceremony was performed on June 18, 1975 at Bonner's Ferry, Idaho. [404] Exhibit 16, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars for Winston Kaye Blackmore, proves that the accused before the Court was born on August 25, 1956 to Joseph Raymond Blackmore and Anna Mae Johnson at Lister, British Columbia. This constitutes conclusive proof that Mr. Blackmore was 18 years old at the time he married Jane Blackmore, both celestially and civilly. [405] Jane Blackmore remained married to Winston Blackmore for nearly three decades. They had seven children together. Two of their children were specifically mentioned in the course of the evidence in this trial. Winston Blackmore told Sergeant Jacklin the name of their oldest child together is Jacob. Exhibit 35, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Jacob Lorin Blackmore was born to Jane and Winston Blackmore in 1976, the year following their celestial and civil marriages. [406] Jane Blackmore also discussed their oldest daughter together, Susie, in the context of their attendance at Susie's celestial marriage ceremony, an event that I will discuss further in these reasons. [407] Jane Blackmore testified that her husband took many plural wives after they were married. As it was the common practice in the FLDS for men to have plural marriages, Jane Blackmore expected this would occur. When Mr. Suffredine asked her about living arrangements, Jane Blackmore explained that Mr. Blackmore and all of his wives and children did not live in one house altogether. She explained that with that number of wives and children, unless it was a "very, very big" house, a single house could not accommodate all of them. Instead, she explained that Winston Blackmore's wives and children lived in several houses in close proximity to one another. [408] Other than on one occasion where her husband's proposed new wife was entering the family with a child born out of wedlock, Jane Blackmore was never consulted or asked to consent to the addition of each new wife to their family. She was simply informed of the new marriage, either before or after it occurred. [409] On only one occasion in their 27 years together as husband and wife did Jane Blackmore confront Mr. Blackmore with the number of wives he was taking. This confrontation occurred at the point in time when Winston Blackmore had 12 wives and approximately "40 some children". I will discuss the details of this confrontation later in the course of this chronology. [410] Both Jane and Winston Blackmore confirmed they were divorced following the split in the Bountiful FLDS community in 2002. Jane Blackmore left Mr. Blackmore in 2003. In cross-examination, Mr. Suffredine put to Jane Blackmore that she and Mr. Blackmore divorced in 2004 and that their divorce occurred in part owing to the split in the Bountiful community (in 2002). Jane Blackmore agreed. I find the Crown has proven that the marriage between Winston Kaye Blackmore and Jane Blackmore was in existence from 1975 until 2004. [411] Winston Blackmore's marriage to Jane Blackmore was his only civil marriage, a marriage recognized by law as a binding form of marriage. His subsequent marriages, which I will now discuss, were all FLDS celestial marriages. 2. Christina Maud Gallup (Blackmore) - 1982 [412] Christina Maud Blackmore is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Mr. Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [413] Jane Blackmore testified that Christina Maud Gallup was Mr. Blackmore's first celestial or plural wife. In addition to her friendship with Christina Gallup as Mr. Blackmore's second wife, Jane Blackmore got to know her quite well through their employment. [414] Jane Blackmore is a registered nurse and midwife. She practised in the community for many years. Following the birth of her sixth child to Mr. Blackmore in approximately 1986 and at the age of 30, Jane Blackmore decided to pursue a career in nursing. She graduated from Selkirk College in Castlegar and became a registered nurse. She began her nursing career at Creston Valley Hospital in 1988 and worked there for many years. She took additional training in obstetrics and practised primarily as an obstetrical nurse. She is a member of the College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia. [415] In approximately 1995, at the request of FLDS leaders, Jane Blackmore also trained to become a registered midwife. After completing her studies and additional training, she obtained her certificate and became a registered midwife with the College of Midwives of British Columbia. In October 2000, Jane Blackmore opened a birthing clinic in Bountiful (the "Bountiful Midwifery Clinic"). As the sole midwife working out of that clinic for the next three years, Jane Blackmore estimates that she assisted in approximately 50 births each year. She kept records of her patients and their births. [416] Although Jane Blackmore left Mr. Blackmore in 2003, she continued working at the Bountiful Midwifery Clinic until approximately the mid-summer of 2004. She did so because at the time she was supervising the conditional midwife practices of three other women in the community. One of those women was Christina Maud Gallup. [417] Jane Blackmore continued to supervise Christina Maud Gallup and the other two women following the split in the community until the three were ready to work on their own in the summer of 2004. When this occurred, members of the community aligning with Warren Jeffs sought Esther Palmer for midwifery care and members of the community aligning with Winston Blackmore sought Leah Barlow and Christina Gallup for midwifery care. [418] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed his first plural marriage was to Christina Gallup (Blackmore) in 1982. Mr. Blackmore confirmed that Christina Gallup was 15 years old when they married and 17 years old when she gave birth to their first child. [419] Exhibit 34, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Christina Maud Gallup was born on August 24, 1966. She gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital in Creston, British Columbia on November 24, 1983. These facts accord with Mr. Blackmore's statement that Christina Gallup was 17 years old when she gave birth to their child. [420] In 1982, Christina Gallup would have turned 15. This further accords with Mr. Blackmore's recollection of her age when they married. [421] No FLDS marriage or other records were tendered in respect of the marriage ceremony between Winston Blackmore and Christina Maud Gallup, but the evidence from Jane Blackmore, Winston Blackmore's admissions to police and the reasonable inference to be drawn from exhibit 34 all prove that Mr. Blackmore married Christina Maud Gallup, also known as Christina Maud Blackmore, in a celestial marriage ceremony in 1982, at a time when Mr. Blackmore was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 3. Mary Anne Blackmore - Between 1982 and 1990 [422] Mary Anne Blackmore is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Mr. Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [423] Jane Blackmore testified that Mary Anne Gallup is Christina Maud Gallup's sister and the third wife taken by Winston Blackmore, one of his plural wives. Mr. Blackmore confirmed that Mary Anne Blackmore (Gallup) was his third wife. He also confirmed that Mary Anne Blackmore (Gallup) was 16 years old at the time of their marriage, and that their first child was born when she was 20 years old. [424] No FLDS or other marriage record was tendered in respect of the marriage ceremony between Winston Blackmore and Mary Anne Blackmore (Gallup). No birth certificates were tendered for her or any of her children. [425] I am satisfied that Mr. Blackmore's admissions to police and the evidence from Jane Blackmore prove that Mr. Blackmore married Mary Anne Blackmore (Gallup) in a celestial marriage ceremony and that she was his third wife. [426] As his third wife, I draw the common sense inference that his marriage to Mary Anne Blackmore (Gallup) occurred between his second and his fourth marriages. He married his second wife, Christina Maud Gallup (Blackmore) in 1982. As will be seen below, Winston Blackmore married his fourth (and fifth) wife on October 12, 1990. From this, I infer and find that the marriage between Winston Blackmore and Mary Anne Blackmore (Gallup) occurred between 1982 and October 12, 1990. During this timeframe, Winston Blackmore was already in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. 4. Marjorie Johnson - October 12, 1990 [427] Marjorie Johnson is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Mr. Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [428] Jane Blackmore testified that Marjorie Esther Johnson was also married to Mr. Blackmore. In cross-examination by Mr. Suffredine, she was asked which of Mr. Blackmore's plural wives were American citizens, to her knowledge. She identified Marjorie Johnson as one of those persons. [429] In his statement to police, Mr. Blackmore confirmed that Marjorie Johnson is his wife, that they married when she was 19 years old and had their first child when she was 21 years old. [430] Exhibit 26, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, establishes that Marjorie Esther Johnson was, as Jane Blackmore recalled, born in the United States. She was born in Hildale, Utah on December 8, 1970. She gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on March 4, 1992. These facts accord with Mr. Blackmore's statement that Marjorie Johnson was 21 years old when she gave birth to their child. [431] Exhibit 14A (lower) is a FLDS marriage record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. [432] Jane Blackmore, the wife of Winston Blackmore for nearly three decades and familiar with his handwriting, was shown this marriage record, as well as the other handwritten FLDS Marriage Records pertaining to Winston Blackmore found in exhibits 14A through G. [433] Without objection, Jane Blackmore provided lay opinion evidence with respect to the handwriting on these documents and identified those records, other than exhibit 14F, as written by Winston Blackmore. Given her familiarity with Mr. Blackmore and his handwriting over the years and the lack of any objection or challenge to this evidence, I am satisfied Jane Blackmore is competent to give this evidence. She identified exhibit 14F as written by Leah Barlow. I will address this record further in these reasons. [434] Exhibit 14A (lower) documents that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Marjorie Esther Johnson (Blackmore) were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on October 12, 1990. Both of their parents are named. Mr. Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [435] On October 12, 1990, Marjorie Esther Johnson was 19 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of her age at the time of their marriage. [436] Exhibit 14A (lower) also records that this marriage ceremony was performed by President Rulon T. Jeffs. The evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's admissions all prove that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and the prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1990. The duration of this marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Mr. Blackmore's statement that his plural marriages were celestial marriages. [437] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find that this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Marjorie Johnson. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. [438] I also find that the marriage between Winston Blackmore and Marjorie Johnson would have been proven without this FLDS Marriage Record on the strength of the other evidence tendered against this accused. [439] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Marjorie Johnson on October 12, 1990, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. [440] Winston Blackmore was also married to Marjorie Johnson's half-sister, Sharon Johnson, that same day. There is no evidence to determine which marriage ceremony occurred first on that day. 5. Sharon Johnson - October 12, 1990 [441] Sharon Johnson is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Mr. Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [442] Jane Blackmore testified that she knew Sharon Johnson well and that Sharon Johnson was also married to Winston Blackmore. Sharon Johnson was one of the persons Jane Blackmore identified as an American citizen. [443] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Sharon Johnson is his wife, that they married when she was 20 years old and that she gave birth to their first child when she was 21 years old. [444] Exhibit 28, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Sharon Johnson was born in Hildale, Utah on October 31, 1969. This accords with Jane Blackmore's recollection that Sharon Johnson was born in the United States. Sharon Johnson gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Cranbrook Regional Hospital on July 26, 1991. This accords with Mr. Blackmore's statement that Sharon Johnson was 21 years old when she gave birth to their child. [445] Exhibit 14A (top) is a FLDS Marriage Record filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. This record documents that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Sharon Johnson (Blackmore) were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses on the same day Winston Blackmore married Marjorie Johnson. Both of their parents are named. Sharon Johnson and Marjorie Johnson are half-sisters, as they share the same father. Mr. Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [446] On the date of their marriage, October 12, 1990, Sharon Johnson was 20 years old. This accords with Mr. Blackmore's confirmation of Sharon Johnson's age at the time of their marriage. [447] Exhibit 14A (top) also records that the marriage ceremony was performed by "Pres R.T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's statements that Rulon Timpson Jeffs was the FLDS president and the prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1990. The duration of the marriage is recorded as "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [448] This marriage was recorded to have occurred in "CC USA". Ranger Hanna testified that he believes "C.C.USA" to refer to Colorado City, Arizona, the companion city to Hildale, Utah that comprised the community of Short Creek. Given that this ceremony occurred on the same day and was performed by the same person as the ceremony involving Marjorie Johnson that occurred in Hildale, Utah, I find that "C.C.USA" refers to Colorado City, Arizona. [449] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Sharon Johnson on October 12, 1990. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [450] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Sharon Johnson on October 12, 1990, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 6. Susan Eleene Gallup - September 11, 1991 [451] Susan Eleene Gallup is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [452] Jane Blackmore testified that Susan Eleene Gallup was also married to Winston Blackmore. She did not identify Susan Eleene Gallup as one of his wives that was an American citizen. In his statement to police, Mr. Blackmore confirmed that Susan Gallup is his wife, that they married when she was 16 years old and that she was 17 years old when they had their first child. [453] Exhibit 27, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Susan Eleene Gallup was born in Canada on January 12, 1975. [454] Exhibit 27 also proves that Susan Eleene Gallup gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on February 21, 1999. [455] Exhibit 14B (top) is a FLDS Marriage Record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Susan Eleene Gallup were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on September 11, 1991. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [456] On September 11, 1991, Susan Gallup was 16 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of her age at the time of their marriage. [457] Exhibit 14B (top) also records that this marriage ceremony was performed by "President Rulon Timpson Jeffs" in Salt Lake City, Utah. This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's statements that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1991. The duration of this marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [458] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence tendered against this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Susan Eleene Gallup. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [459] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Susan Eleene Gallup on September 11, 1991, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 7. Harmony Quinton - April 15, 1993 [460] Harmony Quinton is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [461] Jane Blackmore testified that Harmony Quinton was also married to Mr. Blackmore. She identified Harmony Quinton as an American citizen, but believed that Harmony Quinton had emigrated because she had a Canadian family. [462] In his statement to police, Mr. Blackmore confirmed Harmony Quinton is his wife, that they were married when she was 15 years old and that she had their first child when she was 18 years old. [463] Winston Blackmore also told Sergeant Jacklin that Harmony Quinton was from the United States, but was Canadian, as she had a Canadian father. Her father's name was Barlow Blackmore Quinton. This confirms Jane Blackmore's evidence about Harmony Quinton's background. Winston Blackmore also explained, in some considerable detail, the circumstances that led to his marriage to Harmony Quinton and their resulting five children. At the time of his statement to police, Mr. Blackmore said that Harmony Quinton was "estranged", but he said that she was a good person, mother and friend. [464] Exhibit 20, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Harmony Quinton was born in Hildale, Utah on May 26, 1977. This accords with both Jane Blackmore's recollection and Winston Blackmore's statement about the country of Harmony Quinton's birth. [465] Exhibit 20 also proves that Harmony Quinton gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on August 18, 1995. This accords with Mr. Blackmore's statement that Harmony Quinton was 18 years old when she gave birth to their child. [466] Exhibit 20 also proves that, at the time of this child's birth, Harmony Quinton and Winston Blackmore had the same usual place of residence in Lister, British Columbia. They had the same mailing address and telephone number. [467] Exhibit 14C (top) is a FLDS Marriage Record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. The record documents that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Harmony Quinton were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on April 15, 1993. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [468] On April 15, 1993, Harmony Quinton was 15 years old. This accords with Mr. Blackmore's confirmation of Harmony Quinton's age at the time of their marriage. [469] Exhibit 14C (top) also records that this marriage was performed by "Pres R.T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's statements that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and the prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1993. The duration of the marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [470] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Harmony Quinton. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [471] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Harmony Quinton on April 15, 1993, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 8. Marsha Carol Chatwin - November 12, 1994 [472] Marsha Carol Chatwin is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [473] Jane Blackmore testified that Marsha Carol Chatwin was another plural wife of Mr. Blackmore. She identified Marsha Carol Chatwin as an American citizen. [474] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Marsha Chatwin is his wife, that they married when she was 17 years old and that they had their first child together when she was 18 years old. [475] Exhibit 19, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Marsha Carol Chatwin was born in Hildale, Utah on July 9, 1977. This accords with Jane Blackmore's recollection about her origins. Exhibit 19 also proves that Marsha Carol Chatwin gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on November 28, 1995. This accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that Marsha Chatwin was 18 years old when she had their child. [476] Exhibit 14D (lower) is a FLDS Marriage Record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Marsha Carol Chatwin were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on November 12, 1994. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [477] On November 12, 1994, Marsha Carol Chatwin was 17 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of her age at the time of their marriage. [478] Exhibit 14D (lower) also records that the marriage ceremony was performed by "Pres. R.T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's statements that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and the prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1994. The duration of the marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [479] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Marsha Carol Chatwin. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find that this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [480] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Marsha Carol Chatwin on November 12, 1994, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. [481] Winston Blackmore also married Marsha Carol Chatwin's half-sister, Zelpha Ann Chatwin, that same day. There is no evidence before the Court to determine which marriage ceremony occurred first that day. 9. Zelpha Ann Chatwin - November 12, 1994 [482] Zelpha Ann Chatwin is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [483] Jane Blackmore testified that Zelpha Ann Chatwin was another wife of Mr. Blackmore. She identified her as an American citizen. [484] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Zelpha Chatwin is his wife and that they married when she was 20 years old. [485] Exhibit 23, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Zelpha Ann Chatwin was born in Hildale, Utah on May 14, 1974. This accords with Jane Blackmore's evidence about her origins. Exhibit 23 also proves that Zelpha Ann Chatwin gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on September 13, 1995. Zelpha Ann Chatwin was 21 years old at this time. [486] Exhibit 18, another British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Zelpha Ann Chatwin gave birth to another child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, on July 16, 2014 at Creston, British Columbia. This document contains the same biographical information for Zelpha Ann Chatwin as contained within exhibit 23. At the time of this child's birth, Zelpha Ann Chatwin was 40 years old. [487] Exhibit 14D (top) is a FLDS Marriage Record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. This record documents that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Zelpha Ann Chatwin were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony on the same day, by the same presider, in the same location and with the same witnesses as the marriage between Marsha Carol Chatwin and Winston Kaye Blackmore described above. Marsha Carol Chatwin and Zelpha Ann Chatwin are half-sisters, as they share the same father. [488] On November 12, 1994, Zelpha Ann Chatwin was 20 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of her age at the time of their marriage. As exhibit 23 proves, Zelpha Ann Chatwin and Winston Kaye Blackmore had a child together approximately ten months after their marriage. [489] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Zelpha Ann Chatwin. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [490] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Kaye Blackmore married Zelpha Ann Chatwin on November 12, 1994, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 10. Ruth Ann Lane - November 18, 1994 [491] Ruth Ann Lane is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [492] Jane Blackmore testified that Ruth Ann Lane was another wife of Winston Blackmore. She identified her as an American citizen. [493] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed Ruth Ann Lane is his wife and that they married when she was 21 years old. Mr. Blackmore discussed many details about what led to his marriage to Ruth Ann Lane. He also told Sergeant Jacklin that he and Ruth Ann Lane had children together, one of whom was, at the time of the statement, a "toddler". [494] Exhibit 21, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Ruth Ann Lane was born in Hildale, Utah on December 16, 1973. This accords with Jane Blackmore's evidence about her origins. Exhibit 21 also proves that Ruth Ann Lane gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on November 1, 1995. She was 21 years old at the time. This child is clearly a child other than the child referred to by Winston Blackmore as a "toddler" in 2009. [495] Exhibit 14E (top) is a FLDS marriage record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Ruth Ann Lane were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses on November 18, 1994. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. Ruth Ann Lane's parents are the same as the names recorded for the parents of another woman, Diana Lyn Lane, in the marriage record immediately below (exhibit 14E - lower). Ruth Ann Lane and Diana Lyn Lane are sisters. [496] On November 18, 1994, Ruth Ann Lane was 21 years old. This accords with Mr. Blackmore's confirmation of her age at the time of their marriage. [497] Exhibit 14E (top) also records that this marriage ceremony was performed by "Pres. R.T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's statements that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and the prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1994. The duration of the marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [498] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Ruth Ann Lane. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven even without the marriage record. [499] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Ruth Ann Lane on November 18, 1994, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 11. Diane Lynn Lane - January 14, 1995 [500] Diane Lynn Lane is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [501] Jane Blackmore testified that she knows Diane Lynn Lane well and that she was a member of the family, another wife of Winston Blackmore. Jane Blackmore identified her as an American citizen. [502] In his statement to police, when shown exhibit 50, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Diana Lane is his wife. He corrected Sergeant Jacklin to say that he married Diana Lane when she was 19 years old, not 18 years old as police had recorded. [503] Exhibit 24, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Diana Lyn Lane was born in Hildale, Utah on July 3, 1976. This confirms Jane Blackmore's evidence about her origins. Exhibit 24 also proves that Diana Lyn Lane gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Trail Regional Hospital in Trail, British Columbia on June 7, 1996. Diana Lyn Lane was 19 years old at the time. [504] Exhibit 14E (lower) is a FLDS marriage record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Diana Lyn Lane were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on January 14, 1995. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [505] On January 14, 1995, Diana Lyn Lane was 18 years old. This accords with her age at the time of their marriage originally suggested by Sergeant Jacklin. [506] Exhibit 14E (lower) also records that this marriage ceremony was performed by "Pres. Rulon T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's statements that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and the prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1995. The duration of the marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [507] Mr. Blackmore raised no issue with the difference in spelling between Diane Lynn Lane and Diana Lyn Lane. In all of the circumstances, I find these names refer to the same person. [508] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Diane Lynn Lane, also known as Diana Lyn Lane. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [509] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Diane Lynn Lane, also known as Diana Lyn Lane, on January 14, 1995, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 12. Leah Barlow - June 6, 1995 [510] Leah Barlow is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [511] Jane Blackmore testified that Leah Barlow was another wife of Winston Blackmore. She identified Leah Barlow as an American citizen. Although unsure of the exact year Leah Barlow and Winston Blackmore married, Jane Blackmore estimated they were married at least 20 years ago, as she knows they have a son who is currently 19 years old. [512] In addition to her familiarity with Leah Barlow through their shared husband for many years, Jane Blackmore came to know Leah Barlow very well through their employment. [513] Leah Barlow was one of three women Jane Blackmore supervised during their conditional midwifery training at the Bountiful Midwifery Clinic. Jane Blackmore, as I have previously described, continued to supervise Leah Barlow (and the two others) following the 2002 split in the Bountiful FLDS community until they were ready to work on their own by approximately mid-2004. Jane Blackmore also worked again with Leah Barlow in Cranbrook in approximately 2011, for about a year. [514] Jane Blackmore is familiar with Leah Barlow's handwriting and identified, without objection, Leah Barlow's handwriting on both FLDS Marriage Records found at exhibit 14F. Given her familiarity with Leah Barlow and Leah Barlow's handwriting, I am satisfied Jane Blackmore is competent to give this evidence and I accept it. I find that Leah Barlow filled in, by hand, the information contained in both marriage records found at exhibit 14F. [515] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Leah Barlow is his wife and that they married when she was 23 years old. At one point during his interview, Sergeant Jacklin remarked about Leah Barlow's physical state at the time of the interview, saying that Winston Blackmore's family was "continuing to grow". From this I infer that Leah Barlow was visibly pregnant at the time of the statement. Winston Blackmore agreed with Sergeant Jacklin's remark and then told Sergeant Jacklin that Leah Barlow is a registered nurse and a registered midwife and "very deliberate in what she does". [516] Exhibit 30, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Leah Susannah Barlow was born in Hildale, Utah on December 22, 1972. This accords with Jane Blackmore's evidence about her origins. [517] Exhibit 30 also proves that Leah Susannah Barlow gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on December 5, 1997. She was 24 years old at the time. As at the time of trial, this child was 19 years old, which accords with Jane Blackmore's recollection. [518] Exhibit 14F (top) is a FLDS marriage record, filled out by hand by one of the participants to the marriage. This document records that Leah Barlow and Winston Blackmore were in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on June 6, 1995, the same day that Mr. Blackmore married Leah Susannah Barlow's half-sister, Edith Barlow. Both of their parents are named. Leah and Edith Barlow share the same father. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [519] On June 6, 1995, Leah Barlow was 22.5 years old. This closely accords with Winston Blackmore's recollection that she was 23 years old when they married. [520] Exhibit 14F (top) also records that this marriage was performed by "Pres. Rulon T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's admissions that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1995. The marriage was witnessed by the same three individuals who are recorded to have witnessed Winston Blackmore's marriage to Edith Barlow that same day (exhibit 14F - lower). [521] The duration of the marriage is recorded as "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [522] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Leah Barlow. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the fact it was written by one of the participants to the marriage and the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [523] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Leah Barlow on June 6, 1995, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. [524] As I have indicated, Winston Blackmore married Leah Barlow's half-sister, Edith Louise Barlow, that same day. There is no evidence to establish which marriage ceremony occurred first that day. 13. Edith Louise Barlow - June 6, 1995 [525] Edith Louise Barlow is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [526] Jane Blackmore testified that Edith Barlow was a member of Winston Blackmore's family, another of his plural wives. She identified Edith Barlow as an American citizen. [527] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Edith Barlow is his wife, that they married when she was 17 years old and that they had their first child together when she was 20 years old. [528] Exhibit 22, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Edith Louise Barlow was born in Hildale, Utah on July 7, 1977. This accords with Jane Blackmore's recollection about her origins. Exhibit 22 also proves that Edith Louise Barlow gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on January 26, 1998. This confirms Winston Blackmore's statement that Edith Barlow was 20 years old when they had their child. [529] Exhibit 14F (lower) is a FLDS marriage record, filled out by Edith Barlow's half-sister, Leah Barlow, documenting this marriage. This record documents that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Edith Louise Barlow were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on June 6, 1995. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [530] On June 6, 1995, Edith Barlow was 17 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of Edith Barlow's age at the time of their marriage. [531] Exhibit 14F (lower) also records that this marriage was performed by "Pres. Rulon T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's statements that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and the prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1995. The duration of the marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [532] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence against this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Edith Louise Barlow. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [533] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Edith Louise Barlow on June 6, 1995, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. [534] I pause in this chronology to note that it would have been in and around this timeframe that Jane Blackmore expressed her concerns to Winston Blackmore about his numerous plural wives and children. [535] Jane Blackmore was feeling, around this point in time, a very heavy responsibility with the number of Mr. Blackmore's wives and children ("40-some") who were all in need of their care and support. Jane Blackmore expressed her concerns to her husband and asked him where he was "taking this". Mr. Blackmore replied that he was only doing what God had asked him to do. Jane Blackmore told him that she did not believe in a God that would tell him to do something that was impossible. In reply, Mr. Blackmore told her that if he did not accept future responsibilities and blessings that he would no longer be of use to the prophet and could not maintain his position. Jane Blackmore communicated that she thought this might not be a bad idea, but Mr. Blackmore disagreed. Jane Blackmore described Mr. Blackmore as "unhappy" about her confronting him in this way. 14. Marlina Fisher - August 30, 1997 [536] Marlina Fisher is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [537] Jane Blackmore testified that Marlina Fisher was another wife of Mr. Blackmore. She identified Marlina Fisher as an American citizen. [538] Jane Blackmore attended the FLDS celestial marriage ceremony between Marlina Fisher and Winston Blackmore. She recalls this because she also attended another FLDS celestial marriage ceremony, on the same day and at the same location, between Winston Blackmore and Marlina Fisher's half-sister, Janelle. [539] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Marlina Fisher is his wife, that they married when she was 18 years old and that they had their first child when she was 20 years old. [540] Exhibit 25, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Marlina Fisher was born in Hildale, Utah on February 8, 1979. This accords with Jane Blackmore's recollection about her origins. Exhibit 25 also proves that Marlina Fisher gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on September 18, 1999. This accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that Marlina Fisher was 20 years old when they had their child. [541] Exhibit 14G (top) is a FLDS marriage record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. This record documents that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Marlina Fisher were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on August 30, 1997. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [542] On August 30, 1997, Marlina Fisher was 18 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of Marlina Fisher's age at the time of their marriage. [543] Exhibit 14G (top) also records that this marriage ceremony was performed by "Pres. R.T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's submissions that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1997. The duration of this marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [544] Like all of the other marriage records, exhibit 14G also records the witnesses to the ceremony. Marlina Fisher's father, Warren Jeffs and Uncle Wendell are named. That Jane Blackmore's name is not recorded as an official witness does not undermine her evidence that she was present for this ceremony. I accept Jane Blackmore's unchallenged evidence that she was present for this ceremony, just as I accept her evidence that she was present for the other ceremonies she identified. [545] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Marlina Fisher. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined and in light of the fact that Jane Blackmore witnessed this marriage ceremony. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [546] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Marlina Fisher on August 30, 1997, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. [547] Winston Blackmore also married Marlina Fisher's half-sister, Janelle Fisher, that same day. There is no evidence to establish which marriage occurred first on that day. 15. Janelle Lona Fisher - August 30, 1997 [548] Janelle Lona Fisher is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [549] Jane Blackmore testified that Janelle Fisher was another wife of Winston Blackmore. She identified Janelle Fisher as an American citizen. [550] As I described above, Jane Blackmore attended the celestial marriage ceremony between Janelle Fisher and Winston Blackmore, a ceremony which occurred on the same day as the marriage ceremony between Marlina Fisher and Winston Blackmore. [551] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Janelle Fisher is his wife, that they married when she was 17 years old and had their first child when she was 21 years old. [552] Exhibit 31, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Janelle Lona Fisher was born in Hildale, Utah on September 12, 1979. This accords with Jane Blackmore's recollection about her origins. Exhibit 31 also proves that Janelle Lona Fisher gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Lister, British Columbia on November 27, 2000. This accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that Janelle Fisher was 21 years old when they had their child. [553] Exhibit 14G (lower) is a FLDS marriage record, filled out by hand, documenting this marriage. This record documents that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Janelle Lona Fisher were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on August 30, 1997. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [554] On August 30, 1997, Janelle Lona Fisher was 17 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of Janelle Fisher's age at the time of their marriage. [555] Like the marriage record for her half-sister, Marlina, exhibit 14G (lower) also records that the marriage ceremony was performed by "Pres. R.T. Jeffs". This accords with the evidence of Dr. Hales, Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's admissions that Rulon Jeffs was the FLDS president and the prophet with the authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies in 1997. The duration of the marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [556] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage Janelle Lona Fisher. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined and in light of the fact that Jane Blackmore witnessed this marriage ceremony. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [557] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Janelle Lona Fisher on August 30, 1997, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 16. Jennifer Johnson - October 20, 1998 [558] Jennifer Johnson is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [559] Jane Blackmore testified that Jennifer Johnson was another wife of Winston Blackmore. She identified Jennifer Johnson as an American citizen. [560] Jane Blackmore also attended the celestial marriage ceremony between Jennifer Johnson and Winston Blackmore. Jane Blackmore recalls this event because she also attended the celestial marriage ceremony for her own daughter, Susie Blackmore, that same day. [561] Winston Blackmore confirmed Jennifer Johnson is his wife and that they married when she was 21 years old. [562] Exhibit 17, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Jennifer Johnson was born in Hildale, Utah on May 17, 1977. This accords with Jane Blackmore's recollection about her origins. Exhibit 17 also proves that Jennifer Johnson gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on September 6, 1999. Jennifer Johnson was 22 years old at the time. [563] Exhibit 14H (top) is a FLDS marriage record, typed, documenting this marriage. This record documents that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Jennifer Johnson were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on October 20, 1998. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [564] On October 20, 1998, Jennifer Johnson was 21 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of Jennifer Johnson's age at the time of their marriage. [565] Exhibit 14H (lower) does not involve one of Winston Blackmore's marriages, but it is relevant. [566] Exhibit 14H (lower) documents a marriage between Ben Edward Johnson and Susie Blackmore. Bed Edward Johnson is the brother of Jennifer Johnson. Susie Blackmore is the oldest daughter of Jane and Winston Blackmore. The celestial marriage ceremony recorded at exhibit 14H (lower), between Ben Edward Johnson and Susie Blackmore, occurred on the same day, at the same location and was performed by the same person as the celestial marriage ceremony between Jennifer Johnson and Winston Blackmore. Susie Blackmore's parents are recorded on the document as Winston Kaye Blackmore and Jane Oler Blackmore. Jane Oler Blackmore is Jane Blackmore. [567] A comparison of the witnesses recorded in the two documents reveals that Winston Kaye Blackmore was an official "witness" to his daughter's celestial marriage ceremony and that Ben and Jennifer Johnson's father was an official "witness" to Winston Blackmore's celestial marriage ceremony that day. I am satisfied that Jane Blackmore, as Susie's mother, was present for both marriage ceremonies that day. [568] The duration of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Jennifer Johnson is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [569] Exhibit 14H (top) also records that this marriage ceremony was performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth President Rulon T. Jeffs present". This accords with the statement of Winston Blackmore that in and around this time, President Rulon Jeffs' health was such that his son, Warren Jeffs, often spoke for him. [570] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Jennifer Johnson. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined and in light of the fact that Jane Blackmore witnessed this marriage ceremony. I find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [571] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Jennifer Johnson on October 20, 1998, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 17. Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler - November 1, 1998 [572] Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [573] Jane Blackmore testified that Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler was another wife of Winston Blackmore. She described that Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler was originally married to Ray Blackmore. When he died, she married Jane Blackmore's own father, Dalmon Oler. When Dalmon Oler died, she married Winston Blackmore. [574] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that he married Aloha Alaire Oler, a widow, when she was 53 years of age. [575] Exhibit 14I (top) is a FLDS marriage record, typed, that documents this marriage. The document records that Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler, wife of Joseph Raymond Blackmore (deceased) and married to Dalmon Allen Oler for time (deceased), married Winston Kaye Blackmore in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on November 1, 1998. This accords with the evidence of Jane Blackmore regarding Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler's prior marriages and deaths of her husbands and with Mr. Blackmore's statement that Aloha Alaire Oler was a widow when he married her. [576] This marriage was recorded to have been performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth, President Rulon T. Jeffs present" at the home of Winston Blackmore. This accords with the statement of Winston Blackmore that in and around this time, President Rulon Jeffs' health was such that his son, Warren Jeffs, often spoke for him. The duration of the marriage is for "time only". This is all consistent with the evidence of Jane Blackmore and Winston Blackmore's statement to police. [577] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [578] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler on November 1, 1998, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 18. Susie Lorraine Johnson - January 15, 1999 [579] Susie Lorraine Johnson is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [580] Jane Blackmore testified that Susie Lorraine Johnson, a person she also referred to as Lorraine Johnson, was another wife of Winston Blackmore. She identified Susie Lorraine Johnson as an American citizen. [581] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed Lorraine Johnson is his wife and that she was 15 years old when they married. Mr. Blackmore corrected Sergeant Jacklin to say that he and Lorraine Johnson had their first child when Lorraine Johnson was 17 years old, not 16 years old as recorded by police. [582] Exhibit 33, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Susie Lorraine Johnson was born in Colorado City, Arizona on June 7, 1983. This accords with Jane Blackmore's evidence about her origins. Exhibit 33 also proves that Susie Lorraine Johnson gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, in Victoria, British Columbia on May 20, 2000. This proves that Susie Lorraine Johnson gave birth to this child when she was just a few weeks shy of her seventeenth birthday, which closely accords with Winston Blackmore's recollection of Susie Lorraine Johnson's age at the time of the birth of their child. [583] Exhibit 14J (top) is a FLDS marriage record, typed, documenting this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Susie Lorraine Johnson were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on January 15, 1999. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [584] On January 15, 1999, Susie Lorraine Johnson was 15 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of the age of Susie Lorraine Johnson at the time of their marriage. I am satisfied, in all of the circumstances, that Susie Lorraine Johnson and Lorraine Johnson are the same person. [585] Exhibit 14J (top) also records that this marriage ceremony was performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth, President Rulon T. Jeffs present". This accords with the statement of Winston Blackmore that in and around this time, Rulon Jeffs' health was such that his son often spoke for him. The duration of this marriage is for "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [586] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Susie Lorraine Johnson. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I also find this marriage would have been proven without a marriage record. [587] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Susie Lorraine Johnson on January 15, 1999, at time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. 19. Shalina Ann Palmer - February 20, 1999 [588] Shalina Ann Palmer is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [589] Jane Blackmore testified that Shalina Ann Palmer was another wife of Winston Blackmore. [590] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Shalina Ann Palmer is his wife, one of his two youngest wives. Mr. Blackmore explained that he was unaware of Shalina Ann Palmer's actual age at the time of their marriage. He told Sergeant Jacklin that Shalina Ann Palmer was born in the Bountiful community. He said that she and her family lied to the church about her age at the time of her marriage to him. They told the church that she was 17 years old because they wanted her to marry Mr. Blackmore. After they wed, Winston Blackmore said that he learned the truth about her age and that she was actually "just shy of 16 years old" when they married. [591] Winston Blackmore also confirmed that they had their first child together when Shalina Ann Palmer was 17 years old. [592] Exhibit 32, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Shalina Ann Palmer was born in Creston, British Columbia on July 29, 1983. Exhibit 32 also proves that Shalina Ann Palmer gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Creston Valley Hospital on December 13, 2000. This accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that Shalina Ann Palmer was 17 years old when they had their first child. [593] There are two FLDS Marriage Records pertaining to the marriage between Shalina Ann Palmer and Winston Kaye Blackmore. [594] Exhibit 14B (lower) is handwritten. This document records the celestial marriage ceremony between Shalina Ann Palmer and Winston Kaye Blackmore to have occurred on February 20, 1999, at "S.L.C. USA". The marriage ceremony is recorded as performed by "Warren S. Jeffs" and its duration is for "time and eternity". Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those identified on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. Shalina Palmer's parents are identified as Morgan Shane Palmer and Ruth Ann McKinlay. The witnesses are identified as Rulon T. Jeffs, Morgan Palmer and Wendall Neilson. This is one of the marriage records Jane Blackmore identified as filled in by Winston Blackmore. [595] Exhibit 14K (top) is typed. It contains most of the same information as exhibit 14B (lower), with a few exceptions. It records the marriage ceremony between these two same persons as occurring on February 20, 1999, and its duration for "time and eternity", but records it as occurring at Sandy, Utah. The marriage ceremony is recorded as performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth, President Rulon T. Jeffs present". Both of their parents are named. Their parents are the same as those identified on exhibit 14B (lower), though the spelling of their names is not identical in every case. The witnesses on this document are identified as Wendell Nielson and Issac S. Jeffs. [596] Although there are some differences in the two documents, I find them to be minor and inconsequential. The names of the husband and wife and their parents are the same and the date of the marriage is the same. The officiant is the same. The location and one of the witnesses are different. There are some spelling differences. [597] I find the differences are not significant enough so as to undermine the reliability of the records establishing that this marriage occurred on February 20, 1999. In particular, I note the consistency of the information contained in the documents with the other evidence I have identified, and that Jane Blackmore identified exhibit 14B (lower) in the group of records written by Winston Blackmore. [598] On February 20, 1999, Shalina Ann Palmer was 15 years old. She would turn 16 just over five months later. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of her age at the time of their marriage. The duration of the marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [599] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find these marriage records reliably prove the significant details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Shalina Ann Palmer. The potential frailties in the records identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, in light of the factors I have discussed. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage records. [600] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Shalina Ann Palmer on February 20, 1999, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. 20. Constance Catherine Broadbent - March 22, 1999 [601] Constance Catherine Broadbent is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [602] Jane Blackmore testified that Constance Catherine Broadbent was another wife of Winston Blackmore. She also referred to her as Catherine Broadbent and identified her as an American citizen. [603] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed Catherine Broadbent is his wife and that they married when she was 17.5 years of age. Mr. Blackmore also said that she "left" him about three years earlier, so approximately 2006. He further advised that, as of 2009, Ms. Broadbent was living in Arizona and that they had one boy together whom Mr. Blackmore "can't even get close to". He said that Catherine Broadbent has not permitted any contact with him because she is on the side of Warren Jeffs. [604] Exhibit 14C (lower) is a FLDS marriage record, handwritten, that documents this marriage. This document records that Winston K. Blackmore and Constance Catherine Broadbent were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on March 22, 1999 at "SLC USA". Both of their parents are named on this document. Winston Blackmore's parents' names are consistent with the names of his parents recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. The duration of the marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [605] Exhibit 14C (lower) also records that this ceremony was performed by "Warren S. Jeffs", which accords with the statement of Winston Blackmore that in and around this time, Rulon Jeffs' health was such that his son often spoke for him. [606] Upon consideration of all of the evidence in respect of this marriage, I am satisfied that Constance Catherine Broadbent and Catherine Broadbent are the same person. [607] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find the FLDS marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Constance Catherine Broadbent. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine, including the unknown origin of the words written on the document, "Not in our records", do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined and that Jane Blackmore identified this as one of the group of marriage records written by Winston Blackmore. I also find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [608] I am satisfied the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Constance Catherine Broadbent on March 22, 1999, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. 21. Janella Cherene Palmer - May 30, 1999 [609] Janella Cherene Palmer is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [610] Jane Blackmore testified that Janella Cherene Palmer, a person she also referred to as Cherene Palmer, was another wife of Winston Blackmore. In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed she is his wife and that they married when she was 51 years old. She was a widow when they married. [611] Exhibit 14L (lower) is a FLDS marriage record, typed, that documents this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Janella Cherene Palmer were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on May 30, 1999. The names of their parents are listed. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those identified on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [612] Exhibit 14L (lower) also records that this ceremony was performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth, President Rulon T. Jeffs present". This accords with the statement of Winston Blackmore that in and around this time, Rulon Jeffs' health was such that his son often spoke for him. [613] Also in accordance with Winston Blackmore's statement to police, this record documents that Janella Cherene Palmer was the former wife of Everard Charles Clinton at the time she married Winston Blackmore. [614] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Janella Cherene Palmer. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [615] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Janella Cherene Palmer on May 30, 1999, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. 22. Shirley Karma Black - June 21, 1999 [616] Shirley Karma Black is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [617] Jane Blackmore testified that Shirley Karma Black was another wife of Winston Blackmore. Jane Blackmore also referred to her as Shirley Black Jessop and identified her as an American citizen. [618] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that Shirley Black Jessop is his wife, but indicated that she had "left" in approximately 2006. Winston Blackmore further told Sergeant Jacklin and that Shirley Black Jessop was approximately 23 or 24 years old when she joined the family. When she joined the family, she already had a little boy, one that Mr. Blackmore described as "one that she would never, ever let us get close to". He told Sergeant Jacklin that he and Shirley Black Jessop had a child together, a little girl. [619] Exhibit 14M (lower) is a FLDS marriage record, typed, documenting this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Shirley Karma Black were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on June 21, 1999. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those identified on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. Beneath the name of Shirley Karma Black is recorded "former wife of Theryl Jessop". [620] On the basis of Jane Blackmore's evidence and Winston Blackmore's statement alone, I am satisfied that Shirley Karma Black and Shirley Black Jessop are the same person. The marriage record only confirms this conclusion. This marriage record documents that Shirley Karma Black's first husband's surname was Jessop. From this, I draw the common sense inference that Shirley Black had originally taken her first husband's surname. Her previous marriage to Mr. Jessop also explains the child she brought with her into Winston Blackmore's family when she married him. [621] Exhibit 14M (lower) also records the marriage ceremony was performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth, President Rulon T. Jeffs present". This accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that in and around this time, Rulon Jeffs' health was such that his son often spoke for him. The duration of this marriage is "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [622] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Shirley Karma Black, also known as Shirley Black Jessop. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I find this marriage would have proven without the marriage record. [623] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Shirley Karma Black, also known as Shirley Black Jessop, on June 21, 1999, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. [624] Winston Blackmore also married Carlene Thomson, also known as Carlene Gallup, that same day. The evidence does not disclose which marriage occurred first that day. 23. Carlene Thomson - June 21, 1999 [625] Carlene Thomson is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [626] Jane Blackmore testified that Carlene Thomson was another plural wife of Winston Blackmore. [627] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed Carlene Gallup Blackmore is his wife and that she was 50 years old at the time they married. She was a widow. At the time of his marriage to her, Winston Blackmore explained to Sergeant Jacklin that "there was this huge end of the world thing" and that Warren Jeffs was "pushing the idea that everybody needed to be sealed to somebody, to be married". Winston Blackmore described Carlene Gallup as one of the "old widows that just thought well you know let's just get this over with for us". [628] Exhibit 14M (top) is a FLDS marriage record, typed, documenting this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Carlene Thomson were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on June 21, 1999 at the same location and by the same presider as Winston Blackmore's marriage to Shirley Karma Black, as outlined above. Again, Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those identified on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. Beneath the name of Carlene Thomson is written "former wife of Shannon John Gallup". This accords with Mr. Blackmore's statement that she was a widow when he married her. [629] From Jane Blackmore's evidence and Winston Blackmore's statement alone, I am satisfied that Carlene Thomson and Carlene Gallup (Blackmore) are the same person. This marriage record only confirms this conclusion. This marriage record documents that Carlene Thomson's first husband's surname was Gallup. From this, I draw the common sense inference that Carlene Thomson had taken her first husband's surname. [630] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Carlene Thomson, also known as Carlene Gallup (Blackmore). The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record. [631] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Carlene Thomson, also known as Carlene Gallup (Blackmore), on June 21, 1999, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. 24. Elise Marie Steed - May 10, 2001 [632] Elise Marie Steed is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [633] Jane Blackmore testified that Elise Marie Steed was another plural wife of Winston Blackmore. [634] The name of Elise Marie Steed does not appear on exhibit 50, so Winston Blackmore was not asked about any marriage to her during his statement. However, as I have noted, Mr. Blackmore did tell Sergeant Jacklin that the list of names on exhibit 50 was not necessarily complete. [635] Exhibit 14N (lower) is a FLDS marriage record that records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Elise Marie Steed were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on May 10, 2001 in Caliente, Nevada. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [636] Exhibit 14N (lower) also records that this marriage ceremony was performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth, President Rulon T. Jeffs present", which accords with the statement of Winston Blackmore that in and around this time Rulon Jeffs' health was such that his son often spoke for him. The duration of this marriage is recorded as "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [637] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Elise Marie Steed. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. [638] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Elise Marie Steed on May 10, 2001 at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. 25. Luella Elise Barlow - August 24, 2001 [639] Luella Elise Barlow is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Winston Blackmore practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [640] Jane Blackmore testified that Luella Elise Barlow was another member of Winston Blackmore's family, another of his plural wives. She identified Luella Elise Barlow as an American citizen. [641] In his statement to police, Winston Blackmore confirmed that she is his wife and that they were married when she was 21 years old. [642] Exhibit 29, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Luella Elise Barlow was born in Hildale, Utah on May 11, 1980. This accords with Jane Blackmore's evidence about her origins. [643] Exhibit 29 also proves that Luella Elise Barlow gave birth to a child, fathered by Winston Blackmore, at Lister, British Columbia on October 19, 2002. Norma Jane Blackmore is recorded as the "attending physician" for this birth. Jane Blackmore testified that she was the registered midwife who delivered this child. Luella Elise Barlow was 22 years old when, with the assistance of Jane Blackmore, she gave birth to Winston Blackmore's child. [644] Exhibit 14O (top) is a FLDS marriage record, typed, documenting this marriage. This document records that Winston Kaye Blackmore and Luella Elise Barlow were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on August 24, 2001. Both of their parents are named. Winston Blackmore's parents are the same as those identified on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars. [645] On August 24, 2001, Luella Elise Barlow was 21 years old. This accords with Winston Blackmore's confirmation of Luella Elise Barlow's age at the time of their marriage. [646] Exhibit 14O (top) also records that this marriage was performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth, President Rulon T. Jeffs present". This accords with the statement of Winston Blackmore that in and around this time, Rulon Jeffs' health was such that his son often spoke for him. The duration of this marriage is recorded as "time and eternity", which accords with Winston Blackmore's statement that his marriages were celestial marriages. [647] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of Winston Blackmore's marriage to Luella Elise Barlow. The potential frailties in the record identified by Mr. Suffredine do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. I find this marriage would have been proven without the marriage record as well. [648] I find the Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore married Luella Elise Barlow on August 24, 2001, at a time he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. [649] On the basis of all of the foregoing, I conclude the Crown has proven the actus reus of this offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown has proven that Winston Blackmore, the accused before the court, married 24 women at times when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. Mr. Blackmore's plural wives and the dates of his marriages to those wives are summarized as follows: 1. Jane Blackmore - May 4, 1975 (celestial marriage) and June 19, 1975 (civil marriage); 2. Christina Maud Gallup (Blackmore) - 1982; 3. Mary Anne Blackmore - Between 1982 and 1990; 4. Marjorie Johnson - October 12, 1990; 5. Sharon Johnson - October 12, 1990; 6. Susan Eleene Gallup - September 11, 1991; 7. Harmony Quinton - April 15, 1993; 8. Marsha Carol Chatwin - November 12, 1994; 9. Zelpha Ann Chatwin - November 12, 1994; 10. Ruth Ann Lane - November 18, 1994; 11. Diane Lynn Lane - January 14, 1995; 12. Leah Barlow - June 6, 1995; 13. Edith Louise Barlow - June 6, 1995; 14. Marlina Fisher - August 30, 1997; 15. Janelle Lona Fisher - August 30, 1997; 16. Jennifer Johnson - October 20, 1998; 17. Aloha Alaire Blackmore Oler - November 1, 1998; 18. Susie Lorraine Johnson - January 15, 1999; 19. Shalina Ann Palmer - February 20, 1999; 20. Constance Catherine Broadbent - March 22, 1999; 21. Janella Cherene Palmer - May 30, 1999; 22. Shirley Karma Black - June 21, 1999; 23. Carlene Thomson - June 21, 1999; 24. Elise Marie Steed - May 10, 2001; and 25. Luella Elise Barlow - August 24, 2001. [650] Although the precise number of marriages Mr. Blackmore was in at the same time is immaterial, the collective force of the evidence against this accused proves beyond a reasonable doubt that as at his last marriage in 2001, Mr. Blackmore was married to Jane Blackmore and each of the other 24 women identified above at the same time. From Mr. Blackmore's 2009 admissions alone, it is clear many of his multiple marriages were still in existence years after the unions were formed. [651] The Crown has overwhelmingly proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blackmore, the accused before the Court, practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time within the time period set out in the Amended Indictment. In fact, the Crown has proven both that Mr. Blackmore entered into marriages with more than one person at the same time and that he practised marriages with more than one person at the same time. In other words, the Crown has proven both the transactions and the status prohibited under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. [652] While it is the collective force of the evidence adduced against him that proves this element beyond a reasonable doubt, I would have concluded that the Crown had proven Mr. Blackmore practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time in the absence of the FLDS Marriage Records. Also, while the Crown need not prove Mr. Blackmore participated in polygamous relationships over any enduring period of time, the evidence easily proves that he did in fact live in polygamous relationships over a significant number of years. [653] I turn now to consider the mens rea. Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blackmore intended to practise a marriage with more than one person at the same time? [654] To prove the mens rea of the offence charged, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blackmore intended to practise a marriage with more than one person at the same time. I agree with the Crown's position that this element requires the Crown to prove not only that Mr. Blackmore intended to marry the other person while in a pre-existing marriage, but that he also had knowledge that he was in an existing marriage at the time of the prohibited act. [655] For the reasons I will now develop, I conclude that the Crown has proven both of these elements of the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. [656] Mr. Blackmore made many admissions to Sergeant Jacklin in 2009. These admissions, viewed in context, leave no reasonable inference other than that Mr. Blackmore's marriages to all of his wives were deliberate in the sense that he intended to enter into all of those plural marriages when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Jane Blackmore. [657] Mr. Blackmore's statement is replete with admissions that he adheres to the doctrines and practices of the FLDS, including the practise of polygamy. He made it clear he would not deny who he was or what he believes in. [658] For example, Mr. Blackmore told Sergeant Jacklin that he would cooperate because "the truth is way easier for me to remember than a story". He also said "I don't hide because I can't hide". At another point in the interview, Sergeant Jacklin stated, "You have never denied you are a polygamist", to which Mr. Blackmore replied "No, I, I, don't deny that". [659] Mr. Blackmore also told the officer that others were jealous of his large family, but went on to say that his having such a family is "way more work than it ever is fun". [660] As I have previously discussed, Mr. Blackmore admitted to marrying his first wife, Jane Blackmore, both civilly and celestially, in 1975. They had seven children together. Mr. Blackmore also admitted that his first plural marriage, to Christina Maud Gallup, occurred in 1982. He further agreed that his third wife was Mary Ann Blackmore. [661] When asked how many celestial marriages he had been engaged in, Mr. Blackmore gestured to the chart of his wives affixed to the wall of the interview room and said "Um, well, you've pretty much got a list". As I have explained in some detail earlier in these reasons, Mr. Blackmore admitted the list of his celestial wives found at exhibit 50 was accurate, although perhaps not complete. [662] Mr. Blackmore also told Sergeant Jacklin that he had not married anyone who was "not of age" since 1998 when the president prohibited the practice. He said he did not foresee any future marriages for himself because he held the highest office and he could not appoint someone to authorize him to marry. [663] Mr. Blackmore also discussed the steps he took with his family in 2002, when the division in the Bountiful community occurred. He said he gathered "my family, my ladies altogther". He related that he told them all "you girls are .free to stay or go" and communicated to them that he would help them all, no matter what they decided to do. Jane Blackmore was one of his wives that chose to go. He explained that Jane Blackmore told him that she did so because she felt like she would have "better access to her family because it was an Oler family split". Elsewhere in his statement Mr. Blackmore discussed wives that were still in his life. [664] Mr. Blackmore also shared the circumstances leading to some of his celestial marriages, a few in considerable detail. [665] With respect to one wife listed on exhibit 50, Mr. Blackmore explained how he "stepped in" and "defended her" from being cut off from the church by marrying her. He further explained that this young woman had born a child out of wedlock. He said she had approached him to take her child. Mr. Blackmore declined. Mr. Blackmore also volunteered that by having a child out of wedlock, this young woman was "never ever even a candidate for someone like me". [666] It is unnecessary to canvas the specific details provided by Mr. Blackmore here, but he did explain how he was persuaded to reconsider and speak to this young woman's father. He told Sergeant Jacklin that he was initially not interested in marrying this young woman. He did, however, do exactly that. He explained his decision to marry her in these terms: "I surely did have poor judgment because she was a real fun girl". He agreed with Sergeant Jacklin that she was a very attractive girl. [667] I pause here in my description of some of Mr. Blackmore's admissions relevant to his intent to note that Jane Blackmore testified about the only occasion where Mr. Blackmore asked her permission to marry someone. His statements to her also indicate his intent. [668] Jane Blackmore testified that Mr. Blackmore never asked or consulted her on any of the occasions that he took a new wife, except one. On this occasion, Mr. Blackmore was offered, and wanted to accept in marriage, a young woman who had born a child out of wedlock. Mr. Blackmore asked Jane Blackmore if she approved of his marriage to her. [669] Returning to Mr. Blackmore's admissions, Mr. Blackmore told Sergeant Jacklin significant details about another wife listed on exhibit 50, including how he came to marry her. Mr. Blackmore explained that this young woman was 15 years old and causing difficulties at home, so she was sent to stay with Mr. Blackmore, so he could get her on the right path. Again, it is unnecessary to discuss the details provided by Mr. Blackmore, but he did provide many details about what eventually led this young woman to ask Mr. Blackmore if she could marry him. He told her that he was the wrong guy to be talking to about this. She spoke to Uncle Rulon and her own father about her request. She told Mr. Blackmore that she felt he was the only person that ever cared about her. Mr. Blackmore then got the call and the two were married. As of 2009, they had five children together. [670] At another point in his statement, Sergeant Jacklin asked Mr. Blackmore if there would have been a "sanction" against him as an officer of the church, if he would have refused to marry a potential wife identified to him. Mr. Blackmore replied "Oh, I would have been in trouble. I probably wouldn't have been in trouble in 2000, 2001 because I actually did say that several times, eh?" He went on to say that on ten occasions when he was asked what he thought about a potential celestial wife identified to him, he "said what he thought" each time and "those ten people never got anywhere near me you know". [671] All of these utterances, when viewed in context, again leave no reasonable inference other than that Mr. Blackmore was deliberate in his marriages to all of his plural wives in the sense that he intended to marry them when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Jane Blackmore. I find the Crown has proven this element of the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. [672] There can also be no doubt that Mr. Blackmore also knew he was in an existing marriage with Jane Blackmore at the time of each of his subsequent plural marriages. [673] Exhibit 44, the State of Idaho Marriage License for Winston Blackmore and Jane Oler (Blackmore) proves the 1975 civil marriage between Winston Blackmore and Jane Blackmore. Mr. Blackmore was 18 years of age at the time. [674] Mr. Blackmore's presence at and participation in this marriage ceremony, if it were the only evidence before the Court, would be sufficient for me to draw the common sense inference that, absent some cognitive deficit or other mental infirmity, that as an adult Mr. Blackmore had knowledge he was, from the time of that marriage ceremony, in an existing marriage. There is no evidence of any cognitive deficit or other mental infirmity that could cause any doubt on this issue. [675] However, there is a great deal more evidence that directly proves Mr. Blackmore's knowledge that he was in an existing marriage with Jane Blackmore at the time of each of his subsequent celestial marriages. [676] In his 2009 statement to police, Mr. Blackmore admitted the accuracy of exhibit 44. He admitted his presence at and participation in the ceremony. He also recalled significant details about his civil marriage to Jane Blackmore, details which accord with the information recorded on exhibit 44. Mr. Blackmore recalled the location of the civil marriage, the reason that location was chosen, the name of the judge who performed the ceremony and even recalled his continued relationship with that judge thereafter. [677] Mr. Blackmore also admitted that Jane Blackmore chose to separate from him in 2002. He admitted that they divorced thereafter. All of these admissions conclusively prove Mr. Blackmore's knowledge that he was in an existing marriage at the time of all of his plural marriages subsequent to his marriage to Jane Blackmore. [678] I also refer to the evidence of Jane Blackmore. Her testimony is particularly compelling evidence that supports a finding that Mr. Blackmore knew he was in an existing marriage at the time he married all of his other celestial wives. [679] Here, I refer particularly to her evidence that Mr. Blackmore consulted her, his first wife, on one occasion when he wished to marry a young woman who had born a child out of wedlock. I also refer to the fact that Jane Blackmore actually attended a few of Mr. Blackmore's celestial marriages and witnessed them. Finally, I also refer to her evidence that she confronted Mr. Blackmore when he had approximately 12 wives and "40 some" children to ask him where he was "taking this". I have related the details of that conversation previously, but will summarize here by saying that Mr. Blackmore responded that he was only doing what God asked him to do and that if he did not then the prophet would have no use for him and he would lose his position. [680] Collectively, all of Mr. Blackmore's admissions, the evidence of Jane Blackmore, and the facts contained within, and inferences to be drawn from, exhibit 44, constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Blackmore knew he was in an existing marriage with Jane Blackmore at the time of each of his subsequent 24 marriages. [681] I conclude the Crown has proven both elements of the mens rea of this offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Conclusion [682] Having concluded the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Winston Kaye Blackmore, the accused before the Court, with the intent to do so, practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time within the timeframe specified, I find Mr. Blackmore guilty of practising polygamy, as charged in Court 1 of the Amended Indictment. Count 2 - James Marion Oler Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time? [683] James Marion Oler has taken no position, asked no questions and made no submissions in this trial. [684] Amicus curiae, Mr. Doyle, has greatly assisted me in fulfilling my obligations to ensure Mr. Oler receives a fair trial. As I have already discussed, Mr. Doyle participated in cross-examination of Crown witnesses and made detailed submissions on issues of law relating to the charge of polygamy generally and on issues of fact and law relating to the charge against Mr. Oler particularly. [685] The evidence tendered against Mr. Oler comes from several sources: the expert evidence, the evidence of Jane Blackmore, the various British Columbia records pertaining to him, Mr. Oler's 2005 and 2006 admissions to police and the various FLDS Marriage and Personal Records pertaining to him. [686] I have found the expert evidence is reliable. I have also found that Jane Blackmore is credible and her evidence is reliable in all respects. No one has raised an issue concerning the ultimate reliability of the British Columbia records pertaining to Mr. Oler. Further, I see no basis upon which the reliability of the facts contained within them could be undermined. I will, of course, have to consider what reasonable inferences I may draw from these records. [687] With respect to Mr. Oler's statements to (and conduct with) the police, I find that while Mr. Oler may have omitted some information when speaking with them, the information he did provide is reliable. As I will discuss, the information Mr. Oler provided harmonizes with the evidence of Jane Blackmore and with the facts contained within the British Columbia records pertaining to him. [688] Amicus curiae raised a number of issues pertaining to the ultimate reliability of the FLDS Marriage and Personal Records adduced in respect of Mr. Oler and, as a result, urges the court to give the FLDS Marriage and Personal Records no (or minimal) weight. The issues raised relate to the lack of evidence regarding their authors and dates of creation, their apparent lack of contemporaneity with the recorded event, the lack of evidence regarding the length of their storage in the YFZ Ranch and where they may have been kept previously, and misspellings, unidentified markings and/or omissions on some of the documents. [689] After careful consideration, I find the FLDS Marriage and Personal Records pertaining to Mr. Oler are ultimately reliable. Many factors support this conclusion. [690] I have identified several of the general factors earlier in these reasons. Their template and standard structure speaks to the routine and systematic nature of their creation. The templates are consistent, detailed and prepared with no apparent motive to misrepresent the information the records contain. The source of the records, their manner of storage and their high security in the location they were found are all indicators that the records were highly important to the FLDS. The Crown has proven their religious or spiritual significance to the FLDS and this speaks to their probative value. All of these general factors promote the ultimate reliability of these records. [691] Specific to the records pertaining to Mr. Oler, the evidence that I am about to discuss, which emanates from Mr. Oler's admissions to police, Jane Blackmore's evidence, the other records and the expert evidence confirms many of the key facts contained within the FLDS records involving Mr. Oler. This further supports their ultimate reliability. The misspellings and omissions seen in some of the records and other issues identified do not, in light of all of these factors, undermine their ultimate reliability. [692] I turn now to my findings and conclusions. I will begin with more general findings and conclusions involving Mr. Oler's beliefs and practices and whether his FLDS celestial marriages are "marriages" as contemplated under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. I will then move onto my specific findings and conclusions regarding each of Mr. Oler's alleged marriages. [693] I will start by observing the caution emphasized by amicus curiae regarding the extent to which the court may attribute the beliefs and practices of a particular faith to a particular member. With that caution in mind, based on all of the evidence adduced in respect of Mr. Oler, I find the Crown has proven that Mr. Oler, the accused before the Court, has been a practising member of the FLDS throughout his life and up to the time of his 2005/2006 admissions to police. The Crown has proven that Mr. Oler adheres to the beliefs and practices of the FLDS, including the belief in the ordinance of celestial marriage and the practice of plural marriage. The evidence of Jane Blackmore and Mr. Oler's admissions to police amply prove these facts. The FLDS records pertaining to Mr. Oler simply reinforce these findings. [694] Jane Blackmore was born in 1956 to Joanne Gallup and Dalmon Allen Oler. Joanne Gallup was Dalmon Oler's first wife. [695] Jane Blackmore's young family moved to the FLDS community, now called Bountiful, in 1957. Shortly after their move, Dalmon Oler married his first plural wife, Memory Blackmore. [696] Jane Blackmore's biological mother, Joanne Gallup, died in 1961 when Jane Blackmore was only five years old. Jane Blackmore was then raised by her father's other wives. [697] Exhibit 36, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that James Marion Oler, the accused before the Court, was born in 1964. Jane Blackmore was seven years old when he was born. [698] Exhibit 36 also proves that James Marion Oler was born in Canyon, British Columbia, to Dalmon Allen Oler and Memory Dawn Blackmore. Jane Blackmore and James Oler have the same father. [699] James Oler and Jane Blackmore were raised in the same family, as siblings. Their father was the presiding elder of the Bountiful community from 1974 to 1983. They both, along with the rest of the family, received regular religious instruction at home and at church gatherings. I have previously described this instruction, which included significant emphasis on the FLDS belief in the necessity of practising plural marriage. [700] James Oler's prominence in the FLDS community at Bountiful was confirmed when he became bishop or presiding elder of those FLDS members who chose to follow Warren Jeffs in 2002. Jane Blackmore testified about the division that occurred in the Bountiful community following the death of Rulon Jeffs. She testified about her brother's assignment as bishop of those who chose to follow Warren Jeffs. [701] In 2004, then RCMP Sergeant Fisher (now Chief Superintendent Fisher) assumed command of the Creston RCMP detachment. Responsible for policing the community of Bountiful, he contacted the person he understood to be its leader, its bishop, James Marion Oler. [702] On December 13, 2004, James Oler met with Sergeant Fisher. The officer wanted to learn more about the community and its needs. Mr. Oler was very accommodating. He gave Sergeant Fisher a tour of the community and the Bountiful Elementary School. While together, the men discussed a number of general topics, including the FLDS United Effort Plan. [703] Following a voir dire, in oral reasons for judgment, I ruled that Mr. Oler's 2005 and 2006 statements to police (and conduct) were voluntary and, therefore, admissible at trial. The evidence from the voir dire became evidence in this trial. [704] In 2005, Creston RCMP initiated an investigation into complaints of "underage wives" in Bountiful. Specifically, the investigation focused on the offence of sexual exploitation of a person under the age of 18 years by a person in a position of trust or authority, contrary to s. 153 of the Code. The investigation focused on the former bishop of Bountiful, Winston Blackmore, and the bishop of the day, James Oler. [705] Investigators prepared an operational plan which included, as a first step, in regard to Mr. Oler, contacting Mr. Oler to seek his cooperation in speaking to his wives. The RCMP needed to interview his wives for the investigation. Once they had interviewed the wives, investigators planned to obtain relevant documents and then attempt to take a "Chartered and warned" statement from Mr. Oler. [706] On September 23, 2005, Sergeant Fisher went to Mr. Oler's home in an effort to advise him of the RCMP investigation into the s. 153 offence, to advise him that he could potentially be considered a person in authority and to seek his assistance into making arrangements to interview his wives. Mr. Oler was not home at the time. The officer obtained his cellular telephone number and decided to call him at a later time. [707] Sergeant Fisher called Mr. Oler on October 4, 2005. As he planned, he told Mr. Oler that police were investigating the offence of sexual exploitation of a person under 18 by a person in a position of authority, that investigators felt that he might be such a person in authority and that they were looking to him to assist them in making arrangements to interview his wives in their investigation. Sergeant Fisher told Mr. Oler that another officer, Constable Schaigec, would be contacting him further. [708] On October 5, 2005, at 8:36 a.m., Constable Schaigec called Mr. Oler on his cellular telephone and left a message. Mr. Oler returned the telephone call at 10:15 a.m. that same day. Constable Schaigec told Mr. Oler that he and Constable Livingstone wanted to meet with his wives. Constable Schaigec also explained the nature of their investigation: sexual exploitation of persons under the age of 18 by a person in authority. Constable Schaigec then asked Mr. Oler details about his wives. [709] Mr. Oler told Constable Schaigec that he had three wives. He explained that one was a "legal" wife, one was separated from him and that there was another one. Mr. Oler told Constable Schaigec that he would check his schedule and get back to him about their interviews. [710] At 1:45 p.m. that same day, Constables Schaigec and Livingstone met Mr. Oler at his workplace in Bountiful. They asked Mr. Oler whether his wives would speak to police in their investigation. Mr. Oler said that his wives were not able to speak with them on that date, but if the officers called him, he would ensure that they would be able to meet. [711] During the same conversation, the officers asked Mr. Oler about the number of wives he had, their names and dates of birth. Mr. Oler told the officers the names of three persons: Gwen Renae Oler, Chantelle Quinton and Rachel Holm. [712] Mr. Oler told police Gwen Renae Oler, his first wife, was his "legal" wife, that she lived with him and that he was unaware of her date of birth. Mr. Oler told the officers that he could not recall Chantelle Quinton's date of birth either. Mr. Oler told police that he and Rachel Holm were separated. He said that Ms. Holm lived with Chantelle on communal property on the "Oler" side and that he could not recall her date of birth either. [713] Although Mr. Oler could not recall their dates of birth, he told the officers that both Rachel Holm and Chantelle Quinton were 18 to 19 years of age when he married them. [714] Constable Schaigec told Mr. Oler that he would like to speak with his wives. Mr. Oler said that he would contact his wives and let the officers know. Constable Schaigec also told Mr. Oler that if his wives chose not to speak with police, he would like to hear that from them himself. Mr. Oler said that if investigators wanted that, it would be no problem. If police called him and pre-arranged a time, he said he would make sure the three women would be available. [715] On January 26, 2006, Constable Livingstone followed up with Mr. Oler. At 9:34 a.m. she called him on his cellular telephone. They arranged to meet at 10:30 a.m. that day. Constable Livingstone and another officer attended to Mr. Oler's workplace in Bountiful at 10:41 a.m. Chantelle Quinton was with Mr. Oler. Mr. Oler told the investigators that he brought Chantelle with him so that she could tell them that his wives did not wish to speak to police. [716] Constable Livingstone spoke to Chantelle Quinton for a very short time. She provided her name and date of birth, but answered no other questions. The officers told Mr. Oler they would need to speak to all of his wives in person. Mr. Oler agreed. He told them to come to his office at 6 p.m. that same day and he would bring his wives to meet them. [717] Constable Livingstone and another officer arrived at Mr. Oler's workplace that same day at 6:04 p.m. Mr. Oler was outside his office with Rachel Holm and Gwen Renae Oler. Mr. Oler explained that he had forgotten the keys to his office. He introduced the officers to his wives and said that the officers could speak to them there. [718] The investigators told Mr. Oler that they would have to speak to Rachel Holm and Gwen Renae Oler in private. They offered to do so in their nearby police vehicle, with Mr. Oler standing nearby. Mr. Oler was hesitant to agree to this, but after the officers told him that they would not be leaving or taking the women away in their vehicle, Mr. Oler told Rachel Holm that she could go and sit in the police vehicle. [719] The officer spoke with Ms. Holm for approximately five minutes. Gwen Renae Oler was interviewed next, again for only a very short time. [720] Mr. Oler also provided investigators with his home address. He told the officers that his address was 4609 46th Street in Canyon, British Columbia. Constable Livingstone testified that 46th Street in Canyon turns into Osbourne Road. The end of 46th Street is known as Osborne Road. [721] Jane Blackmore lived in the FLDS Bountiful community from infancy until 2003. She grew up with James Oler. She attended many family, church and community gatherings as a child and as an adult raising children of her own in the community. Bountiful is a small community. [722] Jane Blackmore was the sole midwife at the Bountiful Midwifery Clinic for three years. As James Oler's close family member, she testified that she was aware, up until the time she left the community, that James Oler had three plural wives, Renae, Chantelle and Rachel. She saw her brother with his wives in the community, in church and at Mr. James Oler's home in Canyon. She also gave evidence about the birth of several of her brother's children with these women. [723] Based upon all of the foregoing, there simply is no doubt that James Marion Oler, at times material to the Amended Indictment, adhered to the beliefs and practices of the FLDS, including the belief in the salvific ordinance of celestial marriage and the necessity of the practice of plural marriage. [724] I turn now to consider whether the Crown has proven Mr. Oler's FLDS celestial marriages are "marriages" or "conjugal unions" under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. [725] Mr. Oler admitted two of his wives were not "legal" wives. The Crown has tendered FLDS marriage records in respect of those wives and others. On the basis of all of the evidence tendered against Mr. Oler, I conclude that any proven FLDS celestial marriages are "marriages" under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code, as it has been interpreted. I find they would also properly be considered "conjugal unions", as that phrase has been interpreted. [726] The statuses prohibited by s. 293(1)(a) of the Code, practising a form of polygamy or any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, both have at their core, "marriage", whether legally binding or not. A "marriage" has "at its core the voluntary joining of two individuals with the requisite intent to "marry" and the recognition and sanction by the couple's community": Polygamy Reference, at para. 1020. Marriage is a "pair-bonding relationship sanctioned by civil, religious or other means": Polygamy Reference, at para. 987. [727] In the FLDS, a celestial marriage is a salvific ordinance, one of tremendous importance that binds a couple together on earth and in Heaven. The president and prophet (the person holding the authority to do so) performs the ordinance in a formal sanctioning event. The event is witnessed by others, involves a blessing, is recorded and is recognized in the couple's community. As I have and will now continue to outline, the evidence overwhelmingly proves that Mr. Oler adheres to these beliefs and practices. All of his FLDS celestial marriages have the above-noted features and are pair-bonding relationships sanctioned by religious means. They are, I find, "marriages" contemplated under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. [728] I will now discuss the evidence adduced and make findings in respect of each of Mr. Oler's alleged marriages, organizing them in chronological order. 1. Gwen Renae Oler - Civil Marriage October 13, 1983 [729] Gwen Renae Oler is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom James Marion Oler practised a form of polygamy or kind of conjugal union. [730] Jane Blackmore testified that Renae Quinton was one of James Oler's plural wives, his first of three plural wives. While she was not present at any marriage ceremony, Jane Blackmore knew Renae very well before her marriage to James Oler. As a member of James Oler's family and a member of the community of Bountiful, she knew the two were married. Jane Blackmore saw Mr. Oler and his three wives together at church meetings, in the community and when she visited at Mr. Oler's home while Jane Blackmore was still a member of the FLDS community until 2002. [731] Jane Blackmore is also familiar with Renae's children. She knew Renae had children before Jane Blackmore was a practising midwife, but she also attended the births of several of Renae's children as well. [732] On October 5, 2005, Mr. Oler told police that he had three wives at that time, the first of whom was his "legal" wife. He identified this wife as Gwen Renae Oler. I am satisfied on the whole of the evidence regarding this marriage that the person Jane Blackmore identified as Renae Quinton is the same person as Gwen Renae Oler. [733] On January 26, 2006, Mr. Oler told police that he would facilitate a meeting between police and his wives. He first brought Chantelle Quinton to meet them in the morning and then later that same day, he brought Gwen Renae Oler and Rachel Holm to meet with police. [734] Exhibit 45, a British Columbia Registration of Marriage, accords with Mr. Oler's admission that Gwen Renae Oler was his "legal" wife. This document proves that James Marion Oler married Gwen Renae Blackmore in a civil marriage ceremony on October 13, 1983. This marriage ceremony occurred at the residence of D. Oler, located at Osborne Road in Canyon, British Columbia. Mr. Oler was 19 years old and Gwen Renae Blackmore was 16 years old at the time. [735] Exhibit 36, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that James Marion Oler was born on April 2, 1964. This confirms his age at the time of his civil marriage, as documented in exhibit 45. [736] Exhibit 43, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Gwen Renae Blackmore gave birth to a child, fathered by James Oler, at Creston Valley Hospital on July 8, 1988. Gwen Renae Blackmore's own date of birth is recorded as September 1, 1967, confirming her age on exhibit 45. [737] Exhibit 43 also establishes that Mr. Oler and Gwen Renae Blackmore had the same usual residence as Mr. Oler when this child was born, "46th Street Osbourne Rd.", in Canyon, British Columbia. [738] Exhibit 43 also shows that Gwen Renae Blackmore signed her name as "Gwen Oler". This, considered in light of the other evidence, satisfies me that Gwen Renae Blackmore and Gwen Renae Oler are the same person. [739] The fact that James Oler and Gwen Renae Oler had children together and the fact that they shared the same residence are pieces of circumstantial evidence of the marriage alleged. Insufficient proof on their own, this evidence does constitute circumstantial evidence which supports an inference they were married. However, in light of the overall evidence regarding this particular marriage, this inference is unnecessary to my conclusion. [740] I find, on the basis of exhibits 36 and 45 and Mr. Oler's admissions, the Crown has proven that James Marion Oler married Gwen Renae Oler in a civil marriage ceremony in Canyon, British Columbia on October 13, 1983, a marriage recognized by law as a binding form of marriage. Mr. Oler was 19 years of age at the time. [741] I also find the Crown has proven that James Oler was still married to Gwen Renae Oler on January 26, 2006. His subsequent alleged marriages, which I will now discuss, were all FLDS celestial marriages. 2. Chantelle Quinton - May 30, 1993 [742] Chantelle Quinton is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Mr. Oler practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [743] Jane Blackmore testified that Chantelle Quinton was one of James Oler's wives. Jane Blackmore was unsure when this marriage occurred exactly, but knew it was during the time that she was still a member of the FLDS community at Bountiful. While Jane Blackmore was not present at any marriage ceremony between the two, she knew Chantelle Quinton very well before her marriage to James Oler. As a member of James Oler's family and a member of the community, she also knew that they were married. Jane Blackmore saw Mr. Oler together with his three wives, one of whom was Chantelle Quinton, at church meetings, in the community and at visits to Mr. Oler's home while she was a member of that community. [744] Jane Blackmore is also familiar with Chantelle Quinton's children. Jane Blackmore knew Chantelle Quinton had children before she was a practising midwife, but she also attended the births of several of her children through her work at Creston Valley Hospital. Jane Blackmore also provided pre-natal care and delivered one of Chantelle Quinton's babies at Bountiful Midwifery Clinic. [745] In this regard, Jane Blackmore kept a personal log of her midwife records, including births she attended and other relevant information. [746] Jane Blackmore assisted Chantelle Quinton in giving birth to a child on February 10, 2002. Jane Blackmore believes that James Oler attended this birth, but could not be 100% certain due to the passage of time. [747] Exhibits 40, 41 and 42, all British Columbia Registrations of Live Birth and Declarations of Particulars, prove that three other children were born to Chantelle Quinton and James Marion Oler. These records prove that Chantelle Elaine Quinton, born on November 5, 1974, gave birth to children fathered by James Marion Oler on May 23, 1994, February 29, 1996 and October 25, 1997. [748] Exhibits 40, 41 and 42 also provide proof that Mr. Oler and Chantelle Quinton had the same usual place of residence when these children were born to them. On exhibit 40, both of their addresses are recorded as "46th Street Osbourne Road" in Canyon, British Columbia. On exhibit 41, there is no box to be filled for Mr. Oler's address, but Ms. Quinton's address is recorded again as "46th Street Osborne Road" in Canyon, British Columbia. On exhibit 42, both of their addresses are recorded as "4609 Osborne Road" in Canyon, British Columbia. [749] I note the congruence in the evidence with respect to these addresses. In 1988, Gwen Renae Oler and James Oler lived at 46th Street Osborne Road. In 1994, 1996 and 1997, Chantelle Quinton and James Oler lived at the same address. Mr. Oler admitted in 2005 that he lived at 4609 46th Street with Gwen Renae Oler. 46th Street turns into Osborne Road. [750] The fact that James Oler and Chantelle Quinton had children together and the fact that they shared the same residence are pieces of circumstantial evidence of the marriage alleged. Insufficient proof on their own, this evidence does constitute circumstantial evidence which supports an inference they were married. However, in light of the overall evidence regarding this particular marriage, this inference is unnecessary to my conclusion. [751] On October 5, 2005, Mr. Oler admitted to police that Chantelle Quinton was one of his three wives at the time. He could not recall her date of birth, but did recall that she was 18 or 19 years old when he married her. He identified another of his wives as his only "legal" wife. [752] On January 26, 2006, Mr. Oler agreed to facilitate police interviews of his wives. At the first of two meetings that day, Mr. Oler brought Chantelle Quinton to meet police. He told the officers that Chantelle Quinton was there to tell them that his wives did not wish to speak to police. [753] Exhibit 14P is a FLDS Marriage Record filled out by hand. As I have previously described, it is a template, standard form with detailed instructions below on how to fill it out. [754] Exhibit 14P documents that James Marion Oler and Chantelle Eleene Quinton Oler were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on May 30, 1993. Both of their parents are named. Mr. Oler's parents' names are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars and as Jane Blackmore testified. Chantelle Quinton Oler's parents' names are the same as recorded on Ms. Quinton Oler's FLDS Personal Record (Exhibit 14V) and as Jane Blackmore testified. [755] On May 30, 1993, Chantelle Quinton was 18.5 years old. This accords with James Oler's statement that she was between 18 and 19 years old at the time of their marriage. [756] Exhibit 14P also records this celestial marriage ceremony was performed by "Uncle Warren" in Bountiful. The duration of the marriage is recorded as "time and eternity". As a celestial marriage, this accords with Mr. Oler's statement that only Gwen Renae Oler was his "legal" wife. [757] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of James Oler's marriage to Chantelle Quinton, also known as Chantelle Quinton Oler. The spelling of her middle name on the marriage record differs slightly than the spelling of her middle name in other records, but I consider this to be a minor spelling error. The handwritten fax number for the Bountiful Midwifery Clinic that appears at the bottom of the record and the other potential frailties identified by amicus curiae do not undermine the probative value of this record, particularly in light of the consistency with some key information and the other evidence I have outlined. [758] I would find that the Crown had proven the marriage between James Marion Oler and Chantelle Quinton even without the FLDS records on the strength of the other evidence pertaining to Mr. Oler that I have outlined. [759] I find that the Crown has proven that James Marion Oler married Chantelle Quinton on May 30, 1993, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Gwen Renae Oler. 3. Rachel Holm - August 2, 2002 [760] Rachel Holm is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Mr. Oler practised a form of polygamy or kind of conjugal union. [761] Jane Blackmore testified that Rachel Holm was one of James Oler's plural wives. Jane Blackmore was unsure when the marriage occurred, but knew it was during the time that she was still a member of the FLDS at Bountiful. While she was not present at the marriage ceremony, Jane Blackmore knew, as a member of James Oler's family and as a member of the community, that they were married. She saw Mr. Oler and his three wives, one of whom was Rachel Holm, together at church meetings, in the community and when she visited Mr. Oler's home. [762] Jane Blackmore is also familiar with Rachel Holm's children. She also attended the births of several of Rachel Holm's children through her work at Creston Valley Hospital. Jane Blackmore also attended at least one of Rachel Holm's births at the Bountiful Midwifery Clinic during the time that Jane Blackmore was there. [763] Exhibit 37, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Rachel Holm gave birth to a child, fathered by James Oler, on September 4, 2003 at Creston Valley Hospital. As Rachel Holm was born on March 7, 1983, she was 20 years old when this child was born. Rachel Holm's residence is listed as Osbourne Road, Canyon, British Columbia. As has been shown throughout the evidence, this is the street where Mr. Oler lived. [764] Jane Blackmore is listed as the "attending physician" on Exhibit 37. Jane Blackmore was shown exhibit 37 and confirmed that she did provide pre-natal care for Rachel Holm during this pregnancy and did deliver this baby. James Oler was present at the birth. [765] The fact that James Oler and Rachel Holm had children together and the fact that they shared the same residence are pieces of circumstantial evidence of the marriage alleged. Insufficient proof on their own, this evidence does constitute circumstantial evidence which supports an inference they were married. However, in light of the overall evidence regarding this particular marriage, this inference is unnecessary to my conclusion. [766] On October 5, 2005, Mr. Oler told police that Rachel Holm was one of his three wives. He could not recall her date of birth, but did recall that she was between 18 and 19 years old when he married her. He identified another of his wives as his only "legal" wife. [767] On January 26, 2006, Mr. Oler agreed to facilitate police interviews of his wives. At the second of two meetings that day, Mr. Oler produced Rachel Holm to be interviewed. [768] Exhibit 14Q (lower) is a typed FLDS Marriage Record that documents that James Marion Oler and Rachel Holm were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on August 2, 2002 in Nevada. Both of their parents were named. Mr. Oler's parents' names are the same as recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars and as Jane Blackmore testified. Rachel Holm's parents' names are the same as recorded on her FLDS Personal Record (exhibit 14W). [769] Exhibit 14Q (lower) also records that the celestial marriage ceremony was performed by "Warren S. Jeffs as mouth, President Rulon T. Jeffs present". The duration of the marriage is for "time and eternity". As a celestial marriage, this accords with Mr. Oler's statement that of his three wives, only Gwen Renae Oler was his "legal" wife. [770] On August 2, 2002, Rachel Holm was 19 years old. This accords with Mr. Oler's statement that she was between 18 and 19 years old at the time of their marriage. [771] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this accused, I find this marriage record reliably proves the details of James Marion Oler's marriage to Rachel Holm. Any potential frailties identified by amicus curiae do not undermine its probative value, particularly in light of the consistency of its information with the other evidence I have outlined. [772] I would also find that the Crown had proven the marriage between James Marion Oler and Rachel Holm even without the FLDS records, on the strength of the other evidence pertaining to Mr. Oler I have outlined. [773] I find the Crown has proven that James Marion Oler married Rachel Holm on August 2, 2002, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Gwen Renae Oler. 4. Amelia Steed - December 20, 2003 [774] Amelia Steed is identified on the Amended Indictment as one of the persons with whom Mr. Oler practised a form of polygamy or a kind of conjugal union. [775] Jane Blackmore left the FLDS Bountiful community following its division in 2002. Consequently, she did not offer evidence regarding any direct knowledge of any plural wives Mr. Oler may have taken following her departure. [776] In October 2005, James Oler did not tell police he had any wives other than the three I have already discussed. In January 2006, James Oler did not produce any wives for interviews by the police, other than the three I have discussed. [777] The Crown seeks to prove that Mr. Oler was married to Amelia Steed in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony at a time he was in a pre-existing marriage on the basis of the FLDS records and upon any inferences to be drawn from the evidence related to the birth of a child by Amelia Steed in 2005, in the context of the beliefs and practices of the FLDS, to which James Oler adhered. [778] Exhibit 38, a British Columbia Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves Amelia Dawn Steed gave birth to a child at Cranbrook Regional Hospital on August 6, 2005. This child has the surname "Oler". [779] Exhibit 38 also shows that the "attending physician" for the birth of this child was Esther Palmer. Esther Palmer was one of the midwives whom Jane Blackmore supervised for a time at the Bountiful Midwifery Clinic and who went on to attend to pregnant women in the FLDS who followed Warren Jeffs after Jane Blackmore's departure from the community. The Crown has proven that James Oler was the local leader or bishop of the Bountiful community for those following Warren Jeffs at that time. [780] No father is identified on exhibit 38. [781] Exhibit 38 also establishes that Amelia Dawn Steed was born on December 13, 1986 in Hildale, Utah. The date and location of her birth in this British Columbia record accords with the information recorded on the FLDS Personal Record of Amelia Dawn Steed (Exhibit 14X). I find the British Columbia and FLDS records refer to the same person and that Amelia Steed was 18 years old at the time of this child's birth. [782] Exhibit 38 also establishes that Amelia Dawn Steed's usual residence at the time of the birth of this child was 4609 Osbourne Road, Canyon, British Columbia. As I have found, this is the address where Mr. Oler also lived. [783] Jane Blackmore was present at Cranbrook Regional Hospital, in a nearby birthing room in the obstetrical unit, when Amelia Steed gave birth to this child. Jane Blackmore was assisting in another delivery at the same time. After hearing the familiar noises that a woman makes during childbirth in the nearby room, Jane Blackmore heard the cries of a baby. She went into the room. Inside the room were Esther Palmer, the baby, Amelia Steed and James Oler. Jane Blackmore congratulated Mr. Oler and Amelia Steed on the birth. [784] Mr. Oler's presence at the birth of the child on August 6, 2005, considered in the context of the evidence of the FLDS beliefs and practices to which Mr. Oler adhered, allows me to draw the reasonable inference that Mr. Oler is the father of this child. This inference is strengthened by the fact that the child was given Mr. Oler's surname and by the fact that the usual place of residence identified by Amelia Dawn Steed at the time was the same residence as Mr. Oler. The absence of Mr. Oler's name on exhibit 38 as the father does not create any doubt about this fact. [785] As the Crown concedes, while proof of the facts that Amelia Dawn Steed and James Marion Oler had a child together and shared the same residence are not proof that they were married or in a conjugal union on their own, I do agree that it is some circumstantial evidence to be considered, along with the rest of the evidence pertaining to this marriage. [786] Exhibit 14R (top) is a FLDS Marriage Record, typed, that documents that James Marion Oler and Amelia Dawn Steed were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on December 20, 2003 in Hildale, Utah. Both of their parents are named. Mr. Oler's parents are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars and as Jane Blackmore testified. Amelia Steed's parents' names are the same as those recorded on her FLDS Personal Record (exhibit 14X). [787] Exhibit 14R (top) also establishes that this marriage ceremony was performed by "Pres Warren S. Jeffs as mouth". This accords with the expert evidence and the evidence of Jane Blackmore, that as at December 2003, Warren Jeffs was the president and person with authority to perform celestial marriages for those FLDS members following him. The duration of the marriage is for "time and eternity". As a celestial marriage, this accords with Mr. Oler's admission that his only "legal" wife was Gwen Renae Oler. [788] On December 20, 2003, Amelia Dawn Steed had just turned 17 years old. [789] Mr. Oler's FLDS Personal Record (exhibit 14T) records five marriages, one of which is his celestial marriage to Amelia Dawn Steed on December 20, 2003. Ms. Steed's Personal Record (exhibit 14X) records her only marriage to James Marion Oler on December 20, 2003. All of the particulars about this marriage are identical on the two documents and identical to the Marriage Record itself. [790] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this marriage, including the reasonable inference to be drawn from their shared child and residence in the context of Mr. Oler's FLDS beliefs and practices, I find this FLDS Marriage Record reliably proves this marriage and its details. The potential frailties identified in the FLDS records by amicus curiae do not undermine its probative value. [791] That Mr. Oler did not identify Amelia Steed as one of his plural wives to police in October 2005 or January 2006 does not cause me any doubt on this issue. Mr. Oler was aware he was under investigation for offences under s. 153 of the Code as of October 2005. To identify Ms. Steed as one of his wives, given her age at the time of their marriage, could have exposed him to potential culpability. [792] I find that the Crown has proven that James Marion Oler married Amelia Steed on December 20, 2003, at a time when he was in an pre-existing marriage to Gwen Renae Oler. 5. Carole Barlow - June 25, 2004 [793] Carole Barlow is identified on the Amended Indictment as a person with whom James Marion Oler practised a form of polygamy or kind of conjugal union. [794] Jane Blackmore did not offer any direct evidence in respect of Carole Barlow. In October 2005, Mr. Oler did not tell police that he had any wives other than the three I have previously discussed. In January 2006, he did not produce any wives for police interviews other than the three I have discussed. [795] The Crown seeks to prove that Mr. Oler married Carole Barlow in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony at a time he was in a pre-existing marriage on the basis of the FLDS records and upon any reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence related to the birth of a child by Carole Barlow in 2006, in the context of FLDS beliefs and practices, to which Mr. Oler adhered. [796] Exhibit 39, a Registration of Live Birth and a Declaration of Particulars, proves that Carole Barlow gave birth to a child on October 8, 2006. The child has the surname "Oler". Ms. Barlow gave birth to this child at a "home birth", identified as "46th St. Osborne Road" in Canyon, British Columbia, the same address identified as Ms. Barlow's "usual residence". This was, as I have found, James Oler's address. [797] Exhibit 39 also establishes that Esther Palmer was the "attending physician" for this birth. Esther Palmer was one of the midwives whom Jane Blackmore supervised at the Bountiful Midwifery Clinic and who went on to attend to pregnant women in the FLDS who followed Warren Jeffs after Jane Blackmore's departure. [798] No father is identified on exhibit 39. [799] Exhibit 39 also establishes that Carole Barlow was born in Hildale, Utah and was 17 years old when she gave birth to this child. Above her recorded age of "17" is a space for her date of birth to be recorded by hand. Recorded in that space is January 6. The year is either 1989 or 1984, it is difficult to tell from the certified copy and the handwriting. However, Carole Barlow's FLDS Personal Record (exhibit 14Y) establishes that Carole Barlow's place of birth was Hildale, Utah. Her date of birth is recorded as January 6, 1989. This accords with the age recorded in Exhibit 39. I find the documents refer to the same person and that Carole Barlow was 17 years old when she gave birth to this child. [800] Considering the context of the evidence of FLDS beliefs and practices to which Mr. Oler adhered, the surname of the child, the location of the child's birth and that Carole Barlow and Mr. Oler shared the same home, I draw the reasonable inference that Mr. Oler is the father of this child. I see no other rational inference to be drawn. That Mr. Oler's name as the father is not recorded does not cause me any doubt on this issue. At the time of the birth of this child, Mr. Oler was aware, for a year by this time, that he was under investigation for potential offences under s. 153 of the Code. Formally acknowledging his parenthood of this child could have exposed him to potential culpability. [801] As the Crown concedes, while proof that James Oler and Carole Barlow had a child together and shared a home is not proof they were married or in a conjugal union on its own, I agree that it is some circumstantial evidence to be considered along with the rest of the evidence pertaining to this marriage. [802] Exhibit 14S (lower) is an FLDS Marriage Record, typed, that documents that James Marion Oler and Carole Barlow were married in a FLDS celestial marriage ceremony in the presence of witnesses, on June 25, 2004 in Nevada. Both of their parents are named. James Oler's parents' names are the same as those recorded on his Registration of Live Birth and his Declaration of Particulars and as Jane Blackmore testified. Carole Barlow's parents' names are the same as recorded on her FLDS Personal Record (exhibit 14Y). [803] Exhibit 14S (lower) also establishes that the marriage ceremony was performed by "President Warren S. Jeffs as mouth". This accords with the expert evidence and the evidence of Jane Blackmore that at the time of this marriage, Warren Jeffs was the President and person with authority to perform celestial marriage ceremonies for those FLDS members following him. The duration for this marriage is documented as "time and eternity". That this is a celestial marriage accords with Mr. Oler's statement that Gwen Renae Oler was his only "legal" wife. [804] Mr. Oler's Personal Record (exhibit 14T) records five marriages. The first four relate to the marriages of Mr. Oler I have found. The fifth records his celestial marriage to Carole Barlow on June 25, 2004. Ms. Barlow's Personal Record records her only marriage to James Marion Oler on June 25, 2004. All of the particulars about this marriage are identical on the two documents and identical to the Marriage Record itself, with the exception that the Marriage Record identifies two additional witnesses to the ceremony. [805] When considered in light of the whole of the evidence pertaining to this marriage, including the reasonable inference to be drawn from their shared child and residence in the context of Mr. Oler's FLDS beliefs and practices, I find this FLDS Marriage Record reliably proves James Marion Oler's marriage to Carole Barlow and its details. The potential frailties identified in the FLDS records identified by amicus curiae do not undermine its probative value. [806] That Mr. Oler did not identify Carole Barlow as one of his plural wives in October 2005 or January 2006 does not cause me any doubt on this issue. Mr. Oler was aware he was under investigation for offences under s. 153 of the Code as of October 2005. To identify Mr. Barlow as one of his wives, given her age at the time of their marriage, could have exposed him to potential culpability. [807] I find that the Crown has proven that James Marion Oler married Carole Barlow on June 25, 2004, at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Gwen Renae Oler. [808] On the basis of all of the foregoing, I conclude the Crown has proven the actus reus of this offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown has proven that James Oler married four women at times when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Gwen Renae Oler. Mr. Oler's plural wives and the dates of his marriages to those wives are summarized as follows: 1. Gwen Renae Oler - civil marriage October 13, 1983; 2. Chantelle Quinton - May 30, 1993; 3. Rachel Holm - August 2, 2002; 4. Ameila Steed - December 20, 2003; and 5. Carole Barlow - June 25, 2004 [809] Although the precise number of marriages Mr. Oler was in at the same time is immaterial, the collective force of the evidence against this accused proves beyond a reasonable doubt that as at his last marriage in 2004, Mr. Oler was married to Gwen Renae Oler and each of the other four women I have identified above at the same time. From Mr. Oler's 2005 and 2006 admissions, it is clear that at least the first three of his multiple marriages were still in existence years after the unions were formed. [810] The Crown has overwhelmingly proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler, the accused before the Court, practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time within the time period set out in the Amended Indictment. In fact, the Crown has proven both that Mr. Oler entered into marriages with more than one person at the same time and that he practised marriages with more than one person at the same time. In other words, the Crown has proven both the transactions and the status prohibited under s. 293(1)(a) of the Code. [811] While it is the collective force of the evidence adduced against him that proves this element beyond a reasonable doubt, I would have concluded the Crown would have proven he practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time - pertaining to the first three marriages identified above - in the absence of FLDS Marriage and Personal Records. Also, while the Crown is not required to prove Mr. Oler participated in polygamous relationships over any enduring period of time, the evidence proves he did in fact do so for many years. [812] I turn now to consider the mens rea. Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler intended to practise a marriage with more than one person at the same time? [813] As I have explained earlier, to prove the mens rea of the offence charged, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler intended to practise a marriage with more than one person at the same time. This requires that the Crown prove not only that Mr. Oler intended to marry the other person while in a pre-existing marriage, but that he also had knowledge that he was in a pre-existing marriage at the time of the prohibited act. [814] For the reasons that I will now develop, I conclude the Crown has proven both of these elements of the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. [815] Mr. Oler made several admissions to Constables Schaigec and Livingstone in 2005 and 2006. When these admissions are viewed in context, they leave no reasonable inference other than that Mr. Oler's marriages to the three wives he admitted to having at that time were deliberate in the sense that he intended to enter into all of those plural marriages when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Gwen Renae Oler. [816] Mr. Oler not only told police he had three wives and then produced them for interviews, he provided details about his marriages to them that directly address the issue of intent. [817] Mr. Oler told police that his first and "legal" wife was Gwen Renae Oler. He added a second wife and then a third wife, marrying each of them at a time when they were each 18 or 19 years old, for a total of three wives. [818] His admissions prove that Mr. Oler knew of his first and only marriage recognized by law, yet went on to marry other persons. These admissions also raise the reasonable inference, which I draw, that by emphasizing his knowledge that his marriage to Gwen Renae Oler was the "legal" marriage, Mr. Oler knew his subsequent two marriages (that he admitted to) were not recognized at law. [819] Mr. Oler made no admissions about his fourth and fifth marriages, his marriages to Amelia Steed and Carole Barlow. [820] In determining whether the Crown has proven whether Mr. Oler intended to marry his second, third, fourth and fifth wives at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage to Gwen Renae Oler, I am entitled, as a matter of common sense, to draw an inference that a sane and sober person intends the natural and probable consequences of his or her voluntary actions. Of course, this is an inference that I may (not must) draw, upon careful consideration of all of the circumstances. [821] At the time James Oler married Chantelle Quinton on May 30, 1993, he was 29 years old. At the time he married Rachel Holm on August 12, 2002, he was 38 years old. At the time James Oler married Amelia Steed on December 20, 2003, he was 39 years old. At the time Mr. Oler married Carole Barlow on June 25, 2004, he was 40 years old. At the time of these marriages, Mr. Oler was a practising FLDS member, and then later the bishop, of the FLDS community at Bountiful of those members following Warren Jeffs. As I have found, there is no doubt that Mr. Oler was a practising member of the FLDS, adhering to its beliefs and practices, at all times, including at the times of his celestial marriages to Chantelle Quinton, Rachel Holm, Amelia Steed and Carole Barlow. [822] There is no suggestion on the evidence that Mr. Oler suffered from any cognitive deficit, mental infirmity, or other cause that could create a reasonable doubt that anything might have affected his ability to foresee the natural and probable consequences of his action of participating in these marriage ceremonies. In all of the circumstances, I do draw the common sense inference and conclude that by marrying Chantelle Quinton, Rachel Holm, Amelia Steed and Carole Barlow that he intended to marry each of them at a time when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Gwen Renae Oler. [823] This inference, along with Mr. Oler's admissions, when viewed in context, again leaves no reasonable inference other than that Mr. Oler was deliberate in his celestial marriages in the sense that he intended to marry these women when he was in a pre-existing marriage with Gwen Renae Oler. I find the Crown has proven this element of the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. [824] I also conclude the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler had knowledge he was in an existing marriage with Gwen Renae Oler at the time of each of his subsequent celestial marriages. [825] Exhibit 45, the British Columbia marriage license for James Marion Oler and Gwen Renae Blackmore (Oler), proves that Mr. Oler married Gwen Renae Oler in a civil ceremony on October 13, 1983. The ceremony was held at Mr. Oler's father's residence, Dalmon Oler, on Osborne Road, in Canyon, British Columbia. Mr. Oler was 19 years old at the time. Mr. Oler admitted that this wife was his "legal" wife. [826] Mr. Oler's presence at and participation in this marriage ceremony, if it were the only evidence before the court, would be sufficient for me to draw the common sense inference that, absent some cognitive deficit or other mental infirmity, that as an adult Mr. Oler had knowledge he was, from the time of that marriage ceremony, in an existing marriage. There is no evidence of any cognitive deficit or other mental infirmity or other cause that could create any doubt on this issue. [827] However, Mr. Oler's admissions also prove he knew he was in an existing marriage with Gwen Renae Oler at the time of each of his subsequent celestial marriages. By admitting that Gwen Renae Oler was his first and "legal" wife and identifying two other wives, Mr. Oler demonstrated his full awareness of his existing marriage to Gwen Renae Oler in 2005 and 2006. This was well after all four of his subsequent celestial marriages. [828] Taken as a whole, the evidence constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler had knowledge he was in an existing marriage with Gwen Renae Oler at the time of each of his subsequent four marriages [829] I conclude the Crown has proven both elements of the mens rea of this offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Conclusion [830] Having concluded the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that James Marion Oler, the accused before the Court, with intent to do so, practised a marriage with more than one person at the same time within the timeframe specified, I find Mr. Oler guilty of practising polygamy as charged in Count 2 of the Amended Indictment. "S.A. Donegan J." DONEGAN J.