File no. 36179 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: DEREK RIESBERRY Appellant (Respondent) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent (Appellant) RESPONDENT’S FACTUM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, RESPONDENT Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada Ministry of the Attorney General Burke Robertson LLP Crown Law Office – Criminal 441 MacLaren Street, Suite 200 720 Bay Street, 10th floor Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2H3 Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Matthew Asma and Mike Kelly Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Telephone: 416-326-2506 Telephone: 613-236-9665 Facsimile: 416-326-4656 Facsimile: 613-235-4430 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Ottawa Agent for the Respondent, the Attorney General for Ontario the Attorney General for Ontario Lafontaine & Associates Supreme Advocacy LLP 330 University Avenue, Suite 506 340 Gilmour St., Suite 100 Toronto, ON M5G 1R7 Ottawa, ON K2P 0R3 Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Gregory Lafontaine Marie-France Major Telephone: 416-204-1835 Telephone: 613-695-8855 Facsimile: 416-204-1849 Facsimile: 613-695-8580 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant, Ottawa Agent for the Appellant, Derek Riesberry Derek Riesberry Respondent’s Factum i Riesberry v. R., 36179 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 1 Part I: Overview and Statement of Facts .............................................................................. 1 A. Respondent’s Position .................................................................................................... 1 B. Statement of Facts .......................................................................................................... 2 Part II: Question in Issue ...................................................................................................... 3 Part III: Statement of Argument ............................................................................................ 4 A. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 B. The legislation in issue .................................................................................................... 6 C. Statutory history ............................................................................................................. 7 (i) The history of ‘cheating at play’ in the Code .............................................................. 7 (ii) The history of ‘game’ in the Code ............................................................................... 9 D. Interpreting section 209 ............................................................................................... 10 (i) Principles of statutory interpretation ....................................................................... 10 (ii) Purposive interpretation of section 209 ................................................................... 10 (iii) Interpretation of the English offences ...................................................................... 12 E. Application to the present case .................................................................................... 13 F. Deceit adding an element of chance ............................................................................ 14 G. Question of mixed fact and law .................................................................................... 15 Part IV: Costs ...................................................................................................................... 16 Part V: Order Sought .......................................................................................................... 16 Part VI: Table of Authorities ................................................................................................ 17 a. Statutes and Regulations ................................................................................................. 17 b. Texts ................................................................................................................................. 17 c. Jurisprudence ................................................................................................................... 18 Part VII: Statutes & Regulations .......................................................................................... 19 Criminal Code, s. 197(1), s.v. ‘bet’ and ‘game’ ...................................................................... 19 Criminal Code, s. 209 ............................................................................................................. 19 Criminal Code, s. 691(2) ........................................................................................................ 20 Rules of Standardbred Racing, 2008, ch. 2, s.v. ‘post position’ ............................................ 21 Rules of Standardbred Racing, 2008, rr. 17.09 – 17.10 ........................................................ 21 Supreme Court Act, s. 40(3) .................................................................................................. 22 Respondent’s Factum 1 Riesberry v. R., 36179 PART I: OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Respondent’s Position 1. The trial judge’s undisputed error in acquitting the appellant entitles the Crown to a new trial on the charges of cheating at play. The appellant had injected his race horse with a performance-enhancing drug, intending to obtain advantage in an official race upon which members of the public had wagered thousands of dollars. By doping his race horse, the appellant imposed a risk of loss on the betting public. His plea for an acquittal by this Court must be rejected. 2. This appeal turns on interpreting s. 209 of the Criminal Code. As relevant to this appeal, s. 209 prohibits cheating, while playing a game, with intent to defraud any per- son. There is no dispute that the appellant cheated, given the trial judge’s factual find- ings. Rather the dispute in this Court relates to the “game” element: whether the horse race was a “game”, and whether victims must be co-competitors in the “game”. 3. The meaning of “game” is restricted by a partial definition in the Cr. Code and the jurisprudence, requiring that a “systemic resort to chance” must be built into the game. That restriction limits what counts as a “game”. The appellant seeks to impose a new, parallel restriction to also limit the meaning of “any person” – a move that is not justified by the statute or by case law. 4. The appellant would interpret the section so that doping his race horse does not make him guilty of cheating the public who were betting on the outcome. He says he can only be guilty of cheating the other competitors (which is not the charge against him). If the appellant is right, then members of the public who had legally bet money on the horse race, expecting it to be run fairly and in compliance with the law, were not cheated by him doping his race horse and depriving them of a fair result. 5. The appellant is wrong. The requirement of a “systemic resort to chance” begins and ends with proof that the horse race was a “game”. There is no further requirement that the people who were cheated were people playing the “game”. The appellant’s novel interpretation would undermine the purpose of the section and should be rejected. Respondent’s Factum 2 Riesberry v. R., 36179 B. Statement of Facts 6. The appellant’s statement of facts is accurate. The respondent also relies on the facts stated in the respondent’s factum in the fraud appeal, and adds the following facts relevant to the cheating offences. 7. Standardbred horse racing has elements of both skill and chance. Uncontested evidence at trial showed that a systemic element of chance consists in the determination of the horse’s starting position, called “post position” (“position de départ”). Post posi- tions are determined by a “random post position generator” on the Standardbred Cana- da computer system. The computer draws at random from among the horses entered in a given race to determine which horse starts in which post position. The more advanta- geous post positions are those closer to the inside rail of the track, since those post posi- tions offer the shortest travelling distance around the track. Evidence of J. Locke, R.R. tab 2 at p. 37 line 28 – p. 38 line 20 Evidence of S. Spencer, R.R. tab 3 at p. 63 line 15 – p. 64 line 23 8. The random determination of post positions is legally mandated by the Rules of Standardbred Racing, 2008 [the Rules], a regulation made by the Ontario Racing Com- mission under authority of the Racing Commission Act, 2000. The Rules, specifically rules 17.09 and 17.10, require that entrants’ post positions must be “drawn by lot” from among the entered and eligible horses that are selected to start the race. Racing Commission Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 20, s. 11(1) [R.B.A. tab 1, at p. iv] Rules of Standardbred Racing, 2008, ch. 2 (s.v. “post position”) and ch. 17, rr. 17.09 - 17.10 [R.B.A. tab 1, at p. 6 and p. 52] 9. Federal regulations require that after post positions are drawn, that information must be made available to the public, before bettors place their bets on a race. Pari-Mutuel Betting Supervision Regulations, S.O.R./91-365, r. 26(1)(c) [R.B.A. tab 2 at pp. 18-19] Respondent’s Factum 3 Riesberry v. R., 36179 PART II: QUESTION IN