Central East - Bracebridge 08-1161 and 09-1147-01 & -02 DATE: 2012-01-12 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN = AND = BRIAN DOUGLAS COLDIN and JOHN CROPPER Before Justice Jon-Jo A. Douglas Heard on September 27, 28, 29, November 22, 29, 2010 January 25, March 1, July 5, September 28, 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on January 12, 2012 . for the Crown for the Defendant Brian Douglas Coldin M. Newell, R. Charney, and Z. Green C. Ruby and N. Hassan... ‘The Defendant John Cropper on his own behalfDOUGLAS J.: 1. INTRODUCTION This decision addresses four issues. The first is whether Mr. Coldin or Mr. Cropper were factually and legally “nude” at the places alleged in the information on the dates noted. The second is what is the law to apply to those found facts. The third is, on the application of the found law to the found facts, whether Mr. Coldin or Mr. Cropper are thus apparently guilty of one or more offences. ‘The fourth is whether the law, as found, in its application to the facts, as found, breaches one of two constitutional principles: being, first, the right to freedom of expression and, second, the right to security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice; and, if that law as applied breaches either of those principles, whether the law still is salvageble as demonstrably Justified in a free and democratic society. 2, FINDINGS OF FACT RESPECTING NUDITY Respecting Information 08-1161 Respecting B. Coldin, Count One ~ Ms. Kulehycki Picture on Highway 11, April 19, 2008 0] Ms. Kulchycki was driving down Highway 11 when she stopped and photo- graphed the Defendant Coldin walking on the side of the road, clearly in a public place. He was unclothed, in the sense of not wearing anything which covered his buttocks or genitals, but was not nude, in the sense noted below, in that he was wearing sandals. It is not clear why this woman stopped and photographed the Defendant Coldin, but she does appear to have had some concern about his practices and she noted that children on school buses could see him. Respecting B. Coldin, Count Two ~ Ms. Marshall on Park Bridge, April 1, 2008 [2] Ms. Marshall saw the Defendant Coldin in High Falls Park, near the bridge. The Defendant Coldin crossed the bridge towards her and said hello. He was certainly un- clothed, in the sense noted below, but not likely nude, as probably, again, wearing foot- wear and his phone. 3] ‘Ms. Marshall commented on his manner, noting that, to her, he was ‘flaunt-ing...his nakedness...to shock me’. The Defendant Coldin denied the flaunting, emphasiz- ing his friendliness, and suggested it would be contrary to naturist practice to deliberately seek to embarrass 14) On the totality of the evidence from and about the Defendant Coldin, while I may not characterize his conduct as quite ‘flaunting of his nudity’, I take the point of this complainant that the Defendant Coldin in no significant sense modifies his behaviour so as to account for the feelings of those he encounters in such circumstances. Here, for ex- ample, rather than retreat or stand apart until the complainant had passed, he appears to have quite deliberately tumed and walked towards her. In addition, while this park is ad- jacent to his premises, it is a public park, within which the public can be expected. [5] Hence, the Defendant Coldin not only chooses to go unclothed, but clearly chooses to do so in places and in a manner that more or less ensures he will be confront- ing the clothed. This form of expression of his naturism does not seem fully consistent with his own descriptions of this philosophy. His frontal approach, so to speak, is spoken of by the Defendant Coldin as a means to reassure people who are querulous of his nu- dity, so as to somehow assure them that he is harmless (See 28/9/10, p. 158). While I ac- cept that some direction from the Defendant Coldin in such circumstances could ease one’s concerns, I do sense, there is, if not a sense of exhibitionism about the Defendant Coldin, then certainly some missionary zeal in his persistence in appearing in places that will ensure the sorts of observations of him that are at issue here. Respecting B. Coldin, Count Three - Mr. Adamou at swim area, July 16, 2008 (6] Mr. Adam Adamou testified about his and his family’s unfortunate encounter with Defendant Coldin. PC Smith testified about his investigation of the matter. Ms. Bar- clay testified about her observations from a motor vehicle. Defendant Coldin also pro- vided his perspective. (7]____ The charge in respect of this matter is very narrow, yet the evidence of Adamou is fairly wide ranging and there are many conflicts between that and that of Defendant Coldin. I cannot reconcile those conflicts, nor do I find it necessary to do so. (8) In my view, the real issue in this case is not whether or not Mr. Adamou saw a sign or not, or whether he would pay or not, or whether Defendant Coldin was right to demand payment or not, or whether Mr. Adamou was right to take and try to keep a pic- ture of Defendant Coldin. While I may think that Mr. Coldin should approach such mat- ters with a more level manner, if only because he might be dealing with a new customer, it was clear that to some extent Mr, Adamou is both an excitable and a determined person. ‘As the police saw fit to lay no further charges, it strikes me that their more immediate as- sessment must have been similar to my own- that Mr. Coldin and Mr. Adamou had a dif- ficult and unexpected confrontation over the use of and payment for the water park, which was exacerbated by the issue of a picture being taken, but which did not become physical.