IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation:

R. v. Blackmore,
2017 BCSC 192
Date: 20170203
Docket: 31248
Registry: Cranbrook

Regina
v.
Brandon James Blackmore and
Emily Ruth Gail Blackmore and
James Marion Oler
Restriction on Publication: A publication ban has been mandatorily imposed under s. 486.4 of the
Criminal Code restricting the publication, broadcasting or transmission in any way of evidence that
could identify a complainant or witness, referred to in this judgment by initials. This publication ban
applies indefinitely unless otherwise ordered.
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pearlman

Reasons for Judgment
Counsel for the Crown:
Counsel for Brandon James Blackmore:

Peter Wilson, Q.C.
& Micah Rankin
John Gustafson

Emily Ruth Gail Blackmore

Self-represented

James Marion Oler

Self-represented

As Amicus Curiae
Place and Date of Trial:

Place and Date of Judgment:

INTRODUCTION

Joseph Doyle
Vancouver, B.C.
November 22-24, 28-29,
December 5-7, 2016
Cranbrook, B.C.
February 3, 2017

 [1]
The accused, Brandon James Blackmore, Emily Ruth Gail Blackmore and James Marion
Oler are each charged with one count of removing a child from Canada contrary to s. 273.3 of the
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
[2]

In 2004, at the time of the offences alleged, s. 273.3 provided as follows:
Removal of child from Canada
273.3 (1) No person shall do anything for the purpose of removing from Canada a person
who is ordinarily resident in Canada and who is
(a) under the age of 14 years, with the intention that an act be committed outside
Canada that if it were committed in Canada would be an offence against section 151
or 152 or subsection 160(3) or 173(2) in respect of that person;
(b) 14 years of age or more but under the age of 18 years, with the intention that an
act be committed outside Canada that if it were committed in Canada would be an
offence against section 153 in respect of that person;
…

[3]
The charges against Brandon James Blackmore and Emily Ruth Gail Blackmore in Counts 1
and 2 of the Indictment engage s. 273.3(1)(a), while the charge against James Marion Oler in
Count 3 of the Indictment involves s. 273.3(1)(b).
[4]
In 2004, the accused were all members of a community of the Fundamentalist Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “FLDS”) located at Bountiful, British Columbia, near Creston.
[5]
Brandon James Blackmore and Gail Blackmore are the natural parents of M.M.B. The Crown
alleges that on or about February 27, 2004 Brandon James Blackmore, assisted by Gail
Blackmore, removed M.M.B., who was then 13 years old, from Canada and transported her to the
United States to facilitate her marriage to Warren Steed Jeffs, then the Prophet and President of
the FLDS Church.
[6]
With respect to Count 3, the Crown contends that on or about June 24, 2004 Mr. Oler
removed his daughter C.E.O., then 15 years old, from her ordinary residence at Bountiful, British
Columbia and took her to Mesquite, Nevada to facilitate her marriage to another member of the
FLDS Church.
[7]
Neither M.M.B. nor C.E.O. testified. In the absence of evidence from any complainant, the
Crown relies largely upon circumstantial evidence, and upon certain Marriage Records, Personal
Records and Priesthood Records kept by the FLDS and seized by Texas Rangers in 2008 from the
Yearning for Zion Ranch, near El Dorado, Texas to prove elements of each offence.
[8]

Counsel informed the Court that, to their knowledge, this is the first prosecution of offences

 under s. 273.3 of the Code. In these circumstances, I am grateful to all counsel for the care they
took it in their submissions. As Amicus Curiae, Mr. Doyle assisted the Court in fulfilling its
obligations to ensure that the self-represented accused, Emily Blackmore and James Oler, received
a fair trial. To that end, Mr. Doyle participated in the cross-examination of some Crown witnesses
and made submissions on issues of fact and law relating to the charges against Ms. Blackmore and
Mr. Oler.
[9]
I begin these reasons with a discussion of the evidence admitted following the voir dire, and
at trial. I will then set out a chronology of events relating to the alleged removals of M.M.B. in
February 2004 and C.E.O. in June 2004. Next, turning to the law, I will identify the elements of the
offences charged and discuss the relationship between circumstantial evidence and proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. I will also address the law concerning the proof of intent or foresight that the
child be the object of conduct which, if committed in Canada, would constitute sexual interference
or sexual exploitation. After instructing myself on the applicable law, I will then apply the law to the
facts to determine whether the Crown has met its burden of proving the guilt of each accused
beyond a reasonable doubt.
EVIDENCE
Voir Dire and Trial
[10] Following a voir dire, by Reasons for Judgment indexed as R. v. Blackmore, 2016 BCSC
2114, I ruled that certain FLDS records were admissible at trial.
[11] The categories of records in issue are described as follows at paras. 13 through 16 of my
Reasons on the voir dire:
The FLDS Records
[13] FLDS Marriage Records are kept in a standard form in either handwritten or typed
versions. The marriage record includes the names of the married parties; the names of their
parents; the name of the officiant; the duration of the marriage, whether for “time and
eternity” or for “time”; the date and location of the marriage and the names of the witnesses
to the marriage. Many of the handwritten Marriage Records include instructions on how the
form must be completed and define "witnesses" as “two or three Priesthood bearers that
were eyewitnesses.” Under FLDS doctrine, the priesthood is restricted to males only. The
Marriage Records do not state the date on which they were made. Nor do they identify the
person who made the record.
[14] The Personal Records are kept in a typewritten form filled in by hand. They contain
personal information about individual FLDS members, including the member's name; the
names of the member’s father and mother; the member’s date of birth and location of birth;
particulars of the member's baptism and priesthood ordinances. The back of the form
includes information concerning the member's marriage partner; the location and date of
marriage; the identity of the person who performed the marriage and the duration of the
marriage. Other “important events” may also be recorded in the personal record.

 [15] The Personal Record for M.M.B. omits the date of her baptism and incorrectly states
her birthdate. It also contains an unexplained alteration to the date she received the
ordinance of the Love of God from August 21, 2004 to October 9, 2004. M.M.B.’s Personal
Record does include her marriage to Warren Jeffs on March 1, 2004, and identifies the
officiant and the witnesses to that marriage. The Crown has not produced Personal
Records for C.E.O., or for the members, or former members of the FLDS Church who gave
evidence on the voir dire.
[16] The Priesthood Records purport to document the daily activities of Warren Jeffs as
Prophet and President of the FLDS, including his conversations with others, marriages and
other ordinances performed by Mr. Jeffs, corrections issued to members of the FLDS
community and his revelations and religious teachings. Warren Jeffs dictated these records,
which were later transcribed and edited by scribes and then reviewed and approved by
Mr. Jeffs. The Priesthood Records were kept in a secure vault at the YFZ Ranch. The
Priesthood Records include both Mr. Jeffs’ accounts of his own activities and the
"testimonies" of his wife Naomi Jeffs describing the Prophet’s activities or summarizing his
statements. The Crown seeks to adduce only those portions of the Priesthood Records
containing Mr. Jeffs’ statements about his own actions and what he said to Mr. Blackmore
and Mr. Oler.

[12] I found that the Marriage Records, M.M.B.’s Personal Record, and those portions of the
Priesthood Records for March 1, 2004 and June 25, 2004 listing marriages performed on those
dates by Warren Jeffs were admissible for the truth of the contents under s. 30 of the Canada
Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 as business records of the FLDS church.
[13] The list of marriages contained in Exhibit 10, the Priesthood Record for March 1, 2004,
includes the marriage of Warren Steed Jeffs and M.M.B. and identifies Brandon Blackmore as a
witness.
[14] Exhibit 13, an extract from the Priesthood Record for Friday, June 25, 2004 lists 18
marriages performed by Warren Jeffs on that date at Mesquite, Nevada. That list includes a Record
of the Marriage of James Leroy Johnson and C.E.O. at 1:23 p.m. “for time and all eternity”,
witnessed by William Edson Jessop, Lyle S. Jeffs, James Oler and W. Benjamin Johnson.
[15] I also found that part of the Priesthood Record for October 9, 2004 recording M.M.B.
receiving the ordinance of the Love of God on that date was admissible under s. 30.
[16] The Court heard evidence from Professor Richard Bennett, a Professor of Church History
and Doctrine at Brigham Young University. He was raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints (“LDS”) and was qualified as an expert on the origins of the Mormon faith, and the
practices, precepts and traditions of the Mormon church, particularly as they relate to record
keeping.
[17] Dr. Bennett said ordinances including eternal or celestial marriage, are rites or ceremonies
essential to a person's eternal salvation. Ordinances are performed by the Mormon priesthood.

 Dr. Bennett explained that the Mormon priesthood derives its authority, through the Prophet, or
spiritual leader of the Church, from God. Temple ordinances, which include eternal or celestial
marriage, are reserved for practicing LDS members, and take place in temples that are not open to
the public. Under LDS doctrine, without ordinances the power of godliness could not be made
manifest on earth. Dr. Bennett explained that it is an essential precept of Mormon doctrine that
ordinances be witnessed and accurately recorded.
[18] On the voir dire, I found that the keeping of accurate records for religious purposes is an
essential tenet of the Mormon faith. As Professor Bennett explained, “There would be no ordinance
without the record.”
[19] In cross-examination, Professor Bennett agreed that the FLDS church is an independent
church with its own Prophet and a separate priesthood and organization. He understood that
fundamentalist breakaway groups, including the FLDS, use the same scriptures as the LDS, but
follow the more literal interpretation of the scriptures and believe the church should continue the
practice of plural marriage.
[20] Rebecca Musser, a former member of the FLDS church, also testified on the voir dire. She
was raised in the FLDS community of Hildale, Utah. That community and the adjacent town of
Colorado City, Arizona, are known collectively as Short Creek.
[21]

Ms. Musser left Short Creek, and the FLDS Church, on November 3, 2002.

[22] Ms. Musser was qualified as an expert on the religious doctrines foundational to the FLDS
church and FLDS culture, conduct and practices, including the importance from a religious
perspective of keeping accurate and comprehensive records.
[23] Ms. Musser explained that under FLDS doctrine, the Prophet is the voice of God on earth.
Through his direct connection to God, the Prophet is the source of all priestly power.
[24] Ms. Musser also gave evidence that under FLDS doctrine men and women are placed in a
marriage through revelation of the Prophet. Before marriage, a woman’s Priesthood head is her
father. After marriage, her Priesthood head is her husband. The Prophet is the Priesthood head for
the whole of the FLDS community.
[25] Ms. Musser explained that ordinances within the FLDS faith are important spiritual acts
directed by the Prophet. Ordinances must be performed to demonstrate a person's worthiness and
obedience in order to gain salvation. The highest level of salvation is celestial and requires celestial
marriage (also known as marriage for time and eternity). Ms. Musser testified the ordinance of
celestial marriage must be both performed and recorded in order to seal the woman to a worthy

 man for time and eternity. Adherents to the FLDS church share the Mormon belief that an accurate
record is essential to the validity of the ordinance.
[26] I found that the accurate record keeping for religious purposes, including the recording of
ordinances, blessings, covenants and membership information is a fundamental precept of the
FLDS faith.
[27] Returning to the Priesthood Records, I found that significant portions of those documents
consisted of Warren Jeffs’ personal accounts of his daily activities, and that those portions of the
Priesthood Records were not admissible under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act, or under the
common law business records exception to the hearsay rule.
[28] The Crown sought to adduce portions of the Priesthood Records dictated by Warren Jeffs
that the Crown submits support an inference that Brandon James Blackmore, Gail Blackmore and
James Oler removed M.M.B. and C.E.O. from Canada knowing that the girls would be placed in
plural marriages in the United States. In my Reasons on the voir dire, I found those portions of the
Priesthood Records met the criteria of necessity and threshold reliability and were admissible under
the principled exception to the hearsay rule.
[29] I find that the factors supporting the threshold reliability of those portions of the Priesthood
Records admitted on the voir dire also support the ultimate reliability of those records.
[30] The Crown adduced a body of evidence corroborating events recorded in the Priesthood
Records at or about the times when Warren Jeffs recorded his directions to Brandon James
Blackmore and James Oler to bring M.M.B. and C.E.O. to the United States. For example, in the
Priesthood Record for February 27, 2004, Mr. Jeffs provides an account of an incident in which
game wardens attended the YFZ Ranch to investigate the hunting activities of an FLDS member,
Ben Johnson. Officer Marco Alvizo, a Texas State Game Warden, testified on the voir dire about
that investigation and his attendance at the YFZ Ranch on February 26, 2004. Warren Jeffs’ entry
in the Priesthood Record is consistent with the testimony of Officer Alvizo.
[31] William Edson Jessop was appointed by Warren Jeffs as the FLDS bishop of Short Creek
and served in that position through 2004. Mr. Jessop gave evidence on the voir dire of his
attendance at a meeting with Warren Jeffs on February 29, 2004 regarding the use of consecration
monies for the acquisition by the FLDS of lands of refuge. Warren Jeffs documented that meeting in
the Priesthood Record for March 2, 2004. Mr. Jessop also confirmed the accuracy of the entries in
the Priesthood Records for June 24 and 25, 2004 concerning the marriages performed by Warren
Jeffs at Mesquite, Nevada on June 25, 2004. Mr. Jessop confirmed that he witnessed those
marriages, including the marriage of C.E.O. to James Leroy Johnson. In addition, Mr. Jessop
confirmed, that as the Priesthood Records and C.E.O.'s Marriage Record indicate, James Oler was

 also present at Mesquite, Nevada and witnessed the marriage of C.E.O. on June 25, 2004.
[32] David Allred confirmed the accuracy of information recorded in the Priesthood Record of
March 2, 2004 concerning Warren Jeffs providing him with $135,000 to pay expenses incurred with
respect to the lands of refuge. Mr. Allred also confirmed the accuracy of entries in the Priesthood
Record for June 24, 2004 regarding the direction he received from Warren Jeffs to find “private
places” in the Kiabab Forest where the Prophet could perform teachings for his followers.
[33] Brandon Seth Blackmore gave evidence both on the voir dire and at trial concerning his
marriage to Rosemaria Johnson on March 1, 2004 that confirms the Priesthood Record of this
marriage, as does his Marriage Record. At trial, Brandon Seth Blackmore identified M.M.B.’s voice
in an audio recording made by Warren Jeffs of M.M.B. receiving the ordinance of the Love of God
on October 9, 2004. That evidence enhances the ultimate reliability of Exhibit 14, the Priesthood
Record for October 9, 2004, as well as the ultimate reliability of Exhibit 8, M.M.B.'s Personal
Record, which also contains an entry that M.M.B. received the Love of God on October 9, 2004.
[34] Warren Jeffs had no motive to fabricate statements about instructing Brandon James
Blackmore and James Oler to bring M.M.B. and C.E.O. to Short Creek, Arizona or Mesquite,
Nevada. As I observed at para. 198 of my Ruling on the voir dire, those statements were
inculpatory. Where a declarant admits his own culpability, “these circumstances provide a
compelling inference that that [the] statements were in fact reliable …": R. v. Youvarajah, [2013] 2
S.C.R. 730 at para. 59.
[35] It is apparent from the Priesthood Records that Mr. Jeffs was aware that he was engaging in
illegal activity. In Exhibit 9, the Priesthood Record for February 27, 2004 at p. 336, Mr. Jeffs states:
Thursday morning I called Brandon Blackmore and told him to bring Mother AnnaMae
back to Short Creek and also the Lord had revealed that his 13-year-old daughter
[M.M.B.], belonged to me and we would discuss that when he brought her down south
sometime Friday. I am praying the Lord to touch his heart to receive the Lord's will.
This event will hasten the persecutions against me and this people as the apostates
in Canada will inform the authorities that this is not in her father's home, assuming
that she is with me.
[36] As the Crown argued, it is unlikely that Warren Jeffs would falsely implicate himself in
criminal activity.
[37] Other factors which I took into account in determining the Priesthood Records met the
threshold of reliability required for their admission into evidence, and which also support their
ultimate liability, include the following:
· The Priesthood Records are transcriptions of Warren Jeffs’ daily dictations and
appear to have been made contemporaneously, or nearly contemporaneously,

 with the events described.
· The Priesthood Records contain sufficient detail to identify the recipients of the
directions given by Warren Jeffs and the nature of his instructions and
communications with Brandon James Blackmore and James Oler.
· Mr. Jeffs and the FLDS took extraordinary measures to securely store the
Priesthood Records. They were held in a bank quality vault in the Temple
Annex at the YFZ Ranch. That is a measure of both the importance attached to
these records and Warren Jeffs' determination to maintain an accurate record
of his activities as the Prophet of the FLDS.
[38] On November 28, 2016, I ruled that the admissible evidence from the voir dire, as
summarized in the Crown's Outline of Evidence to become Evidence in the Trial, would be “rolled
over” to the main trial. That evidence includes the Marriage Records and the portions of the
Priesthood Records discussed in these Reasons, and M.M.B.'s Personal Record. It also includes
the expert evidence of Professor Bennett, Rebecca Musser's testimony, the evidence of Marco
Alvizo, William Edson Jessop, David Allred and Brandon Seth Blackmore.
[39] In addition, the evidence rolled over to the main trial included testimony of Sgt. Terry Jacklin
proving the source and continuity of the FLDS records seized from the YFZ Ranch. Sgt. Jacklin
also presented photographs of the facilities and vaults where the seized records were stored and
video evidence illustrating the high level of security at the YFZ Ranch.
[40] Another investigator, Constable Shelley Livingston produced birth certificates, marked as
Exhibits 16 and 17, to establish the ages of M.M.B. and C.E.O. at the time of the alleged offences.
[41] Ranger Nick Hanna of the Texas Rangers gave evidence of the search and seizure of FLDS
records at the YFZ Ranch between April 3 and 9, 2008. Ranger Hanna participated in the searches
and served as the case manager and evidence custodian. He identified photographs contained in
Exhibit 2 depicting the walled and gated temple and Temple Annex buildings at the YFZ Ranch and
the vaults where the FLDS records were seized. Ranger Hanna described how in order to gain
access to the Temple Annex vault, where the Priesthood Records were stored, the police bored
through a two-foot concrete wall. Inside the vault, the police found stacks of boxes containing FLDS
records, and oak storage cabinets equipped with locks.
[42] Ranger Hanna’s evidence provides further support for the ultimate reliability of the FLDS
records. The extraordinary measures the FLDS took to preserve and protect these records
demonstrate the importance the church and Warren Jeffs attached to record keeping, and to the
Marriage Records, Personal Records and Priesthood Records stored at the YFZ Ranch.
[43] The evidence called by the Crown at trial included additional testimony from Brandon Seth
Blackmore, and the testimony of four former members of the FLDS, Jane Blackmore, Esther

 Palmer, Rebecca Jeffs, and B.L.B., a daughter of Brandon James Blackmore. I address their
testimony in the Reasons that follow.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
[44]

I turn now to a brief chronology of key events.
Counts 1 and 2

[45] On Sunday, February 22, 2004, Brandon Seth Blackmore, who was then 21 years old,
received a telephone call from James Oler instructing him to drive to Colorado City, where he was
to await further instructions. Mr. Oler gave Seth Blackmore a telephone number to call when he
arrived in Colorado City. Mr. Oler did not explain to Seth Blackmore why he was required to travel
to Colorado City and Brandon Seth Blackmore did not inquire about the purpose of the trip.
[46] On February 23, 2004, Brandon Seth Blackmore left Bountiful and drove alone to Colorado
City, arriving there on the morning of Tuesday, February 24, 2004.
[47] Brandon Seth Blackmore testified that when he left Bountiful on February 23, 2004, his
father, Brandon James Blackmore, Gail Blackmore, AnnaMae Blackmore and M.M.B. were all
present in the community, at Brandon James Blackmore's home.
[48] On the evening of February 24, 2004, Warren Jeffs called Mr. Oler to “have him bring his two
sisters south and their mothers, so they would be in Short Creek by Thursday some time for
weddings to be performed”. Warren Jeffs also recorded that “It has been weighing on my soul for
the Lord to prepare Brandon Blackmore for the marriage the Lord wants done of his young
daughter. I am deciding how to handle that one.” [Ex. 49: Priesthood Record, Wednesday, February
25, 2004, P327].
[49] On the morning of Thursday, February 26, 2004, Warren Jeffs called Brandon James
Blackmore and “told him to bring Mother AnnaMae back to Short Creek and also the Lord had
revealed that his 13-year-old daughter, [M.M.B.] belonged to me and we would discuss that when
he brought her down south some time Friday.” [Ex. 9: Priesthood Record, Friday, February 27,
2004, P336].
[50] United States Customs and Border Protection records show that at 12:55 p.m. on February
26, 2004 Brandon James Blackmore, Emily Blackmore and AnnaMae Blackmore crossed the
border from Canada, entering the United States through the Porthill, Idaho border crossing.
[51] On Friday, February 27, 2004, Brandon Seth Blackmore encountered his father at Colorado
City. Brandon James Blackmore picked Seth up at the home of Jeremiah Johnson, where he had

 been staying since his arrival. Brandon James Blackmore told his son that he had been called
down to Short Creek, but did not know why. Brandon James Blackmore also said that he had
dropped off AnnaMae and M.M.B. at Warren Jeffs’ home.
[52] On the morning of March 1, 2004, Warren Jeffs met with Brandon James Blackmore.
Mr. Jeffs gave the following account of that meeting in his Priesthood Record:
I had Brandon Blackmore come, and I talked to him until past 10:30 a.m. giving him a
partial training on the places of refuge. His vision opened up with rejoicing to see the
redemption of Zion was in progress. I instructed him to prepare himself and his family
more fervently and this was one reason we had not begun a house for him. I then
discussed the marriage of his young daughter to me, that it was the will of the Lord. I
asked him to bring his wife and daughter at 1 o’clock p.m. He gave full submission
and determination to me and to the Lord to submit to the Lord's will.
[Ex. 11: Priesthood Record, Tuesday, March 2, 2004, P25]
[53] On the same day, Brandon Seth Blackmore observed James Oler with his sisters in their
wedding gowns, and their mothers at Jeremiah Johnson’s home in Colorado City.
[54] At 11:25 a.m. on March 1, 2004, Mr. Oler's sister, Carita Delight Oler was married to Kendall
Lucas Johnson Jr. Warren Jeffs performed that marriage. James Oler was present as a witness.
[55] At 11:32 a.m. on March 1, 2004, James Oler witnessed the marriage of his sister Carol Diana
Oler to Jeremiah Johnson. Warren Jeffs performed that marriage.
[56] At 11:45 a.m. on March 1, 2004, Brandon Seth Blackmore was married to Rosemaria
Johnson by Warren Jeffs. Brandon Seth Blackmore testified he only learned that he was to be
married five minutes before the ceremony, and that he did not know his wife before the marriage.
[57] At 1:00 p.m. on March 1, 2004, Warren Jeffs met with Brandon James Blackmore, Emily
Blackmore and M.M.B. Mr. Jeffs’ Priesthood Record contains the following entry:
I sat down with Brandon Blackmore and his wife and his daughter, giving a training on
the redemption of Zion in brief, in summary, and this girl was called on a mission; and
they received it joyfully. And there [M.M.B.], age 13, was sealed to Warren Steed Jeffs
for time and all eternity, with James Allred and Brandon Blackmore witnesses. I
delegated Leroy Steed Jeffs to be mouth.
[Ex. 11: Priesthood Record, Tuesday, March 2, 2004, P 26]
[58] At 1:35 p.m. on March 1, 2004, M.M.B. was married to Warren Jeffs. Exhibit 3, the Marriage
Record, Exhibit 10, the Priesthood Record for Monday, March 1, 2004, and Exhibit 8, M.M.B.'s
personal record, all show that Brandon James Blackmore witnessed the marriage, which was
performed by Warren Jeffs’ brother, Leroy Jeffs. M.M.B.’s personal record identified her mother,
Gail Blackmore as a witness to her marriage to Warren Jeffs.

 [59] Warren Jeffs instructed Seth Blackmore to return to Canada immediately. Brandon Seth
Blackmore returned to Bountiful on or about March 2, 2004. When he arrived in Bountiful, neither
AnnaMae nor M.M.B. were there. When his father and Gail Blackmore returned to Bountiful the
following day, March 3, 2004, they did not have M.M.B. or AnnaMae with them.
[60] On September 27, 2004, M.M.B. turned 14 years old. [Ex. 16: Birth Certificate for M.M.B.; Ex.
39: Registration of Live Birth].
Chronology - Count 3
[61] On the evening of Wednesday, June 23, 2004, Warren Jeffs called James Oler and told him
to “bring his daughter [C.E.O.] for her to get married, that Jim Oler would receive a wife, that
Brandon Blackmore and his son Zane should come and receive training and that Brandon's
daughter B.L.B. should come and be married, that they should wait in Cedar City, Friday morning,
until I called." [Ex. 12: Priesthood Record, June 24, 2004, P234].
[62] At 10:50 a.m. on June 24, 2004, B.L.B., who was then 16 years old, crossed the border with
her father, Brandon James Blackmore, and her mother, Susan Steed at Porthill, Idaho. B.L.B., and
her mother and father drove in a minivan to a wooded rest area just off the highway. A second van
arrived. James Oler, C.E.O. B.L.B.'s brothers Zane and James Blackmore were in the second
vehicle. B.L.B. and her parents entered the second van. They then drove to Cedar City, Utah, with
James Oler, C.E.O. and Zane Blackmore.
[63] At 1:23 p.m. on Friday, June 25, 2004, C.E.O. was married “for time and all eternity” to
James Leroy Johnson in Mesquite, Nevada. Warren Jeffs performed the marriage and James Oler
was a witness. This was one of 18 marriages performed by Warren Jeffs at Mesquite, Nevada on
June 25, 2004 [Ex. 13: Priesthood Record, Friday, June 25, 2004, P236].
[64] At 1:34 p.m. on June 25, 2004, James Oler was married to Carol Barlow “for time and all
eternity” in a ceremony performed by Warren Jeffs immediately following the marriage of C.E.O.
[Ex. 13: Priesthood Record, Friday, June 25, 2004, P236].
[65] On July 8, 2006, C.E.O. turned 18 years old [Ex. 17: birth certificate for C.E.O.; Ex. 38,
British Columbia Certificate of Live Birth for C.E.O.]
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Elements of the Offences
[66]

I turn now to the elements of the offences charged.

 [67] Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment charge Brandon James Blackmore and Emily Blackmore
with offences falling within s. 273.3(1)(a) of the Code.
[68]

Count 1 charges that:
Brandon James BLACKMORE, on or about the 27th day of February, 2004, in or near
Creston, in the Province of British Columbia, and/or near the Canadian and United States
border, near Creston, in the Province of British Columbia, with the intention of facilitating an
act outside of Canada that would be an offence in Canada under section 151 or 152 of the
Criminal Code, in respect of M.M.B., a person under the age of 14 years who was ordinarily
resident in Canada, did engage in activity for the purpose of removing M.M.B. from
Canada, contrary to section 273.3(2) of the Criminal Code.

[69]

Count 2 charges that:
Emily Ruth Gail BLACKMORE, on or about the 27th day of February, 2004, in or near
Creston, in the Province of British Columbia, and/or near the Canadian and United States
border, near Creston, in the Province of British Columbia, with the intention of facilitating an
act outside of Canada that would be an offence in Canada under section 151 or 152 of the
Criminal Code, in respect of M.M.B., a person under the age of 14 years who was ordinarily
resident in Canada, did engage in activity for the purpose of removing M.M.B. from
Canada, contrary to section 273.3(2) of the Criminal Code.

[70] For ease of reference, I will repeat the provisions of section 273.3(1)(a), as they read at the
time of the alleged offences, here:
273.3 (1) No person shall do anything for the purpose of removing from Canada a person
who is ordinarily resident in Canada and who is
(a) under the age of fourteen years, with the intention that an act be committed
outside Canada that if it were committed in Canada would be an offence against
section 151 or 152 or subsection 160(3) or 173(2) in respect of that person;

[71]

The elements of the offence under s. 273.3(1)(a) are as follows:
1.

The accused must do anything for the purpose of removing a person from Canada.

2.

The person to be removed must be ordinarily resident in Canada.

3.

The person to be removed must be under the age of 14 years.

4.

The accused must know the person is under the age of 14 years.

5.

The accused must know the person is ordinarily resident in Canada.

6.

The accused must intend that an act be committed outside Canada which would be
an offence under s. 151 (sexual interference), or 152 (invitation to sexual touching)
of the Code if it were committed in Canada.

[72]

Count 3 charges James Marion Oler with an offence under s. 273.3(1)(b) of the Code.

[73]

Count 3 charges that:
James Marion OLER, on or about the 24th day of June, 2004, in or near Creston, in the

 Province of British Columbia, and/or near the Canadian and United States border; near
Creston in the Province of British Columbia, with the intention of facilitating an act outside
of Canada that would be an offence in Canada under section 153 of the Criminal Code, in
respect of C.E.O a person 14 years of age or more but under the age of 18 who was
ordinarily resident in Canada, did engage in activity for the purpose of removing C.E.O.
from Canada, contrary to section 273.3(2) of the Criminal Code.

[74]

The elements of the offence under s. 273.3(1)(b) are as follows:
1.

The accused must do anything for the purpose of removing a person Canada.

2.

The person to be removed must be 14 years of age or more but under the age of
18.

3.

The person to be removed must be ordinarily resident in Canada.

4.

The accused must know the person is 14 years of age or more but under the age of
18.

5.

The accused must know the person is ordinarily resident in Canada.

6.

The accused must intend that an act be committed outside Canada that would be
an offence under section 153(sexual exploitation) if it were committed in Canada.

[75] For each count, the Crown bears the burden of proving each element of the offence beyond
a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. Reasonable doubt
is a doubt based on reason and common sense and must be logically based upon the evidence or
lack of evidence: R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at paras. 30-31.
[76] The Crown need not prove that the act constituting an offence listed in s. 273.3 was actually
committed outside Canada. The Crown need only prove that the accused intended that the act
occur outside Canada.
Intent or Subjective Foresight
[77] The Crown must establish that when the accused engaged in an act of removal, he or she
did so with the intention that some type of sexual activity would occur which, if it took place in
Canada, would constitute one of the sexual offences specified in s. 273.3. Decisions of the Ontario
Court of Appeal in R. v. Buzzanga and Durocher (1979), 49 C.C.C. (2d) 369, and the Supreme
Court of Canada in R. v. Chartrand, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 864 provide guidance for determining the
mens rea required for the offences under s. 273.3 of the Code.
[78] In Buzzanga and Durocher, the appellants were convicted of “wilfully promoting hatred
against an identifiable group, namely the French Canadian public in Essex County” by circulating
an anti-French Canadian pamphlet. They testified that they had distributed the pamphlet not to
promote hatred toward the French Canadian community, but rather to use satire to pressure the
local school board to reinstate funding for a French language school.

 [79] Martin J.A., for the Court, held that proof of an intention to promote hatred was an essential
element of the offence of “wilfully” promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating
statements. At p. 383 he stated:
In the criminal law a person intends a particular consequence not only when his conscious
purpose is to bring it about, but also when he foresees that the consequence is certain or
substantially certain to result from his conduct.

[Emphasis added.]
[80]

As Martin J.A. explained at p. 384:
… as a general rule, a person who foresees that a consequence is certain or substantially
certain to result from an act which he does in order to achieve some other purpose, intends
that consequence.

[81] Accordingly, the appellants wilfully promoted hatred against the French Canadian
community. Their conscious purpose was to promote hatred where they foresaw that the
promotion of hatred against that group was “certain or morally certain” to result from the distribution
of the pamphlet, despite the fact that they distributed it as a means of achieving their purpose of
obtaining a French language school.
[82]

Martin J.A. then explained at p. 387:
Since people are usually able to foresee the consequences of their acts, if a person
does an act likely to produce certain consequences it is, in general, reasonable to
assume that the accused also foresaw the probable consequences of his act and if he,
nevertheless, acted so as to produce those consequences, that he intended them. The
greater the likelihood of the relevant consequences ensuing from the accused's act, the
easier it is to draw the inference that he intended those consequences. The purpose of
this process, however, is to determine what the particular accused intended, not to fix
him with the intention that a reasonable person might be assumed to have in the
circumstances, where doubt exists as to the actual intention of the accused.

[83] In Chartrand, the Court determined the intent required to establish guilt under s. 281 of the
Code. That section provides that everyone, other than a parent, guardian or care provider for a
child under the age of 14 who unlawfully takes the child “with intent to deprive” a parent, guardian
or lawful caregiver possession of the child is guilty of an offence.
[84] In interpreting the meaning of “with intent to deprive”, the Court adopted the reasoning of
Martin J.A. in Buzzanga and Durocher. Writing for the Court, L’Heureux-Dubé J. stated at p. 889:
General principles of mens rea apply to the words “with intent to”, and, accordingly, in order
to conclude that the mens rea of the offence under 281 has been made out, it is sufficient
that the taker knows or foresees that his or her actions would be certain or substantially
certain to result in the parents (guardians, etc.) being deprived of the ability to exercise
control over the child.

 [85] I interpret the phrase “with the intention that an act be committed outside Canada …” as
used in s. 273.3(1) to mean the accused must have actually intended, or subjectively foreseen, as
a matter of certainty, or substantial certainty, that the removed child would be the object of sexual
activity which, if it took place in Canada, would constitute one of the specified offences.
[86] The subjective state of mind of an accused may be established by circumstantial evidence
and the common sense inference that a sane and sober person intends the natural and probable
consequences of his or her actions: R. v. Bergeron, 2015 BCCA 177 at paras. 21 – 22.
[87] Here, the Crown contends that the accused performed acts in Canada for the purpose of
removing M.M.B. and C.E.O. from this country, and that their culpable conduct continued in the
United States. The Crown submits that as long as some part of the actus reus occurred in Canada
and there is a real and substantial link between Canadian territory and the offence, that is sufficient.
The Crown submits the Court may make findings regarding mens rea based on evidence of what
transpired in the United States.
Territoriality
[88] Mr. Gustafson, supported by Amicus Curiae, argues that both the actus reus and mens rea
must intersect at some point during the removal of the child from Canada, and before she has
entered the United States.
[89] A leading authority on the territorial limitation of the criminal law is R. v. Libman, [1985] 2
S.C.R. 178. There, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Canada's jurisdiction to try the appellant
for fraud. Under Mr. Libman's direction, sales personnel based in Toronto telephoned United States
residents and fraudulently induced them to purchase shares in two corporations. The United States
residents sent their money to Costa Rica or Panama. The accused travelled to those countries,
collected his share of the sale proceeds, then brought his money back to Canada.
[90] In Libman, at p. 212 – 213, LaForest J., for the Court, summarized the approach to the limits
of territoriality as follows:
As I see it, all that is necessary to make an offence subject to the jurisdiction of our courts
is that a significant portion of the activities constituting that offence took place in Canada.
As it is put by modern academics, it is sufficient that there be a “real and substantial link”
between an offence and this country, a test well-known in public and private international
law … [citations omitted].

[91] In R. v. Greco (2001), 159 C.C.C. (3d) 146 (Ont. C.A.), the accused appealed his conviction
for breach of a probation order imposed in Ontario which required him to keep the peace and be of
good behaviour. The accused participated in an assault while on holiday in Cuba. The Ontario
Court of Appeal held that conduct constituted a breach of the probation order.

 [92] Applying Libman, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the "real and substantial link"
test was met. The Court explained at para. 42 that Canada was the only country that had an
interest in ensuring compliance with orders made by Canadian courts; the probation order was
made by an Ontario court and required the accused to keep the peace and be of good behaviour
both at home and abroad. The offence arose from a breach of that order, a factor crucial to the
application of the real and substantial link test.
[93] Conversely, in R. v. B.(O.) (1997), 116 C.C.C. (3d) 189 (Ont. C.A.), where the appellant
transport truck driver sexually interfered with his 13-year-old granddaughter on a trip to the United
States, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the court had no jurisdiction to try an offence
committed entirely in the United States. At paras. 11 – 12, the Court held that for a Canadian court
to assume jurisdiction there must be a significant link between Canada and the formulation,
initiation or commission of the offence.
[94] The gravamen of the offence under s. 273.3 of the Code is doing something for the purpose
of removing a child falling within a certain class of children from Canada, who is ordinarily resident
in Canada. The accused, while in this country, must do something for the purpose of removing the
child from Canada. At the time the accused did something for the purpose of removing the child
from Canada, he or she must also have had the intention or subjective foresight that the child
would be the object of an act which, if it were committed in Canada, would constitute one of the
sexual offences specified in s. 273.3(1).
Circumstantial Evidence
[95] Where one or more elements of the offence depends exclusively or largely upon
circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilt
of the accused is the only reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence.
[96] In R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the relationship
between proof by circumstantial evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Cromwell J., for
the Court, stated the following principles at paras. 35-38:
[35] … In assessing circumstantial evidence, inferences consistent with innocence do not
have to arise from proven facts: R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104, at para. 58;
see also R. v. Defaveri, 2014 BCCA 370, 361 B.C.A.C. 301, at para. 10; R. v. Bui, 2014
ONCA 614, 14 C.R. (7th) 149, at para. 28. Requiring proven facts to support explanations
other than guilt wrongly puts an obligation on an accused to prove facts and is contrary to
the rule that whether there is a reasonable doubt is assessed by considering all of the
evidence. The issue with respect to circumstantial evidence is the range of reasonable
inferences that can be drawn from it. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the
Crown’s evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[36] I agree with the respondent’s position that a reasonable doubt, or theory alternative to
guilt, is not rendered “speculative” by the mere fact that it arises from a lack of evidence. As

 stated by this Court in Lifchus, a reasonable doubt “is a doubt based on reason and
common sense which must be logically based upon the evidence or lack of evidence”:
para. 30 (emphasis added). A certain gap in the evidence may result in inferences other
than guilt. But those inferences must be reasonable given the evidence and the absence of
evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense.
[37] When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider “other
plausible theor[ies]” and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt: R.
v. Comba, [1938] O.R. 200 (C.A.), at pp. 205 and 211, per Middleton J.A., aff’d [1938]
S.C.R. 396; R. v. Baigent, 2013 BCCA 28, 335 B.C.A.C. 11, at para. 20; R. v. Mitchell,
[2008] QCA 394 (AustLII), at para. 35. I agree with the appellant that the Crown thus may
need to negative these reasonable possibilities, but certainly does not need to “negative
every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent
with the innocence of the accused”: R. v. Bagshaw, [1972] S.C.R. 2, at p. 8. “Other
plausible theories” or “other reasonable possibilities” must be based on logic and
experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation.
[38] Of course, the line between a “plausible theory” and “speculation” is not always easy to
draw. But the basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in
light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that
the accused is guilty.

[Emphasis added.]
[97] At para. 41, the Court held that to justify a conviction, the circumstantial evidence, assessed
in light of human experience, should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternative. The
Court characterized this formulation of the principle as “a helpful way of describing the line between
plausible theories and speculation.”
[98] At para. 42, after citing R. v. Dipnarine, 2014 ABCA 328 at paras. 22 and 24-25, for the
proposition "circumstantial evidence does not have to totally exclude other conceivable inferences",
the Court emphasized that the trier of fact should not act on alternative interpretations of the
circumstances that it considers to be unreasonable, and that alternative inferences must be
reasonable, not just possible.
[99] Ultimately, as the trier of fact, I must be satisfied that the accused’s guilt is the only
reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence: Villaroman at para. 55.
Count 1 – Brandon James Blackmore
Age and Ordinary Residence of M.M.B
[100] I will begin by dealing with the age and residency of M.M.B. and the accused's knowledge of
those elements of the offence.
[101] Exhibit 16, the British Columbia Declaration of Particulars for M.M.B., establishes that she
was born on September 27, 1990. That document, and Exhibit 39, the British Columbia

 Registration of Live Birth for the child, are both admissible under s. 41 of the Vital Statistics Act,
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 479, as evidence of the facts they record. The Registration of Live Birth confirms
that M.M.B. was born on September 27, 1990 at Cranbrook Regional Hospital, and identifies
James Brandon Blackmore as the father and Gail Blackmore (by her maiden name of Emily Ruth
Gail Crossfield), as the mother.
[102] These documents establish that M.M.B. was under the age of 14 in February and March
2004 and support the obvious inference that Brandon James Blackmore and Gail Blackmore knew
in late February 2004 that M.M.B. was under the age of 14 years. By signing the Registration of
Live Birth, Brandon James Blackmore and Gail Blackmore certified they were, respectively, the
father and mother of M.M.B.
[103] With respect to M.M.B.'s ordinary residency, under ss. 81 and 168 of the School Act,
R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412, the Ministry of Education requires all schools in British Columbia to submit
enrollment information for each of their students, in October and February of each year. The
records submitted are kept by the Ministry of Education in the usual and ordinary course of its
business, and as such are admissible as business records for the truth of their contents. Those
records show that M.M.B. entered kindergarten at Bountiful Elementary Secondary School in
September of 1995 and that she was reported to be present at the school at the time of each data
collection without any breaks until February 2004, when she was last reported. There is no record
of M.M.B.'s attendance at Bountiful Elementary Secondary School after February 2004.
[104] Brandon Seth Blackmore testified that in 2004 he lived in a house adjacent to his father
Brandon James Blackmore's home, and that until he left to drive to Short Creek in late February
2004, M.M.B. lived at Brandon James Blackmore's home, in Bountiful.
[105] B.L.B., another daughter of Brandon James Blackmore, gave evidence that M.M.B. was her
half-sister, and that M.M.B. lived at Brandon James Blackmore's home. She recalled that M.M.B.
was no longer in Bountiful after about March 1, 2004.
[106] All of this evidence establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time of the offence
alleged, M.M.B. was ordinarily resident in Canada, at Bountiful. M.M.B., her father, and her mother
all lived in the same house. There can be no doubt the accused knew that M.M.B. was ordinarily
resident in Canada.
[107] I turn now to consider whether the Crown has established Brandon James Blackmore did
anything for the purpose of removing M.M.B. from Canada.
Did the Accused do anything for the purpose of removing M.M.B. from Canada?
[108] The Priesthood Record for February 27, 2004 establishes that on the morning of Thursday,

 February 26, 2004, Warren Jeffs called Brandon James Blackmore and directed him to bring
AnnaMae and M.M.B. to Short Creek. Warren Jeffs also told Brandon James Blackmore that “The
Lord had revealed that his 13-year-old daughter, [M.M.B.] belonged to me and we would discuss
that when he brought her down south some time Friday.”
[109] United States Customs and Border Services records show that at 12:55 p.m. on February
26, 2004, within a few hours of Mr. Jeffs’ telephone call, Brandon James Blackmore entered the
United States from Canada at the Porthill, Idaho border crossing. Those records also show that he
was accompanied by Gail Blackmore and by Anna Blackmore. The date of birth for Anna
Blackmore in the US Customs and Border Services records corresponds with the British Columbia
Registration of Live Birth for AnnaMae Blackmore, which shows she was born on April 29, 1977 at
Creston, British Columbia and that her parents are Brandon James Blackmore and Gail Blackmore.
[110] I find that the “Anna Blackmore” who accompanied Brandon James Blackmore when he
crossed the border into the United States at Porthill, Idaho on February 26, 2004 was his daughter
AnnaMae.
[111] At the time of the crossing, AnnaMae Blackmore was one of Warren Jeffs’ wives.
[112] Brandon Seth Blackmore testified that until he left to travel to Short Creek on February 23,
2004, AnnaMae and M.M.B. had both been living at Brandon Blackmore's home and that AnnaMae
Blackmore had been there for about four months.
[113] After Brandon Seth Blackmore arrived in Short Creek, he encountered his father there on or
about February 27, 2004. Brandon James Blackmore told his son that he had been called down to
Short Creek, but that he did not know why. Brandon James Blackmore also told his son that he
had dropped off AnnaMae and M.M.B. at Warren Jeffs’ home. Brandon Seth Blackmore’s
evidence of what his father told him at Short Creek is admissible as a declaration against interest,
but only with respect to the Crown's case against Brandon James Blackmore.
[114] On March 1, 2004, M.M.B. was married to Warren Jeffs in Colorado City, Arizona. Brandon
James Blackmore was one of the witnesses to the marriage of his daughter M.M.B. to Warren
Jeffs.
[115] M.M.B.'s marriage to Warren Jeffs is also recorded in the list of marriages performed at Short
Creek, Arizona on March 1, 2004 contained in Exhibit 10, the Priesthood Record for that date.
[116] Exhibit 8, the Personal Record for M.M.B. also shows that she was married to Warren Jeffs
on March 1, 2004 in Colorado City, Arizona, at the home of James Allred. Exhibit 8 also shows
M.M.B.'s mother as witness to the marriage, and gives her mother's maiden name as Emily Ruth

 Gail Crossfield.
[117] M.M.B.'s Personal Record also contains an entry that on October 9, 2004 she received the
ordinance of the love of God. The ultimate reliability of M.M.B.'s Personal Record is supported by
Brandon Seth Blackmore's identification of the voice of his sister M.M.B. on an audio recording
made by Warren Jeffs on October 9, 2004 as a record of M.M.B. receiving the love of God on that
date.
[118] In the Priesthood Record dated March 2, 2004, Warren Jeffs, referring to the events of the
previous day, noted that after 1:00 p.m. he sat down with Brandon Blackmore and his wife and his
daughter, “gave a training on the redemption of Zion in brief, in summary, and this girl was called on
a mission; and they received it joyfully. And there [M.M.B.], age 13, was sealed to Warren Steed
Jeffs for time and all eternity, with James Allred and Brandon Blackmore as witnesses.”
[119] This evidence establishes that both Brandon James Blackmore and Gail Blackmore were
present in Colorado City on March 1, 2004 at M.M.B.'s marriage to the Prophet, only days after
Warren Jeffs had directed Brandon James Blackmore that M.M.B. “belonged” to him.
[120] Brandon Seth Blackmore testified that immediately following his own marriage on March 1,
2004, he returned to Bountiful. After he returned, he did not see M.M.B. or AnnaMae Blackmore
in the community. When his father and Gail Blackmore returned, they did not have M.M.B. or
AnnaMae with them.
[121] B.L.B. gave similar evidence. Although she could not give an exact date, she recalled that
after about March 1, 2004, M.M.B. was no longer at the family home. B.L.B. testified her father
“was gone at the same time as [M.M.B.] left”, and that AnnaMae and Gail Blackmore also left the
home at that time. When Brandon James Blackmore and Gail Blackmore returned to Bountiful
about four days later, they did not bring M.M.B. or AnnaMae back. When B.L.B. asked Gail
Blackmore where M.M.B. was, Gail Blackmore told her that she was “just visiting”. B.L.B. testified
in cross-examination that it was not unusual for members of the Bountiful community to visit
relatives in the United States and that the idea of doing so was fairly normal.
[122] On the whole of the evidence, I find that on February 26, 2004 M.M.B. left her home in
Bountiful with her parents and travelled with them to Short Creek where she was married to Warren
Jeffs on March 1, 2004. I find that Brandon James Blackmore, Gail Blackmore, AnnaMae and
M.M.B. all left Bountiful at the same time on February 26, 2004.
[123] Brandon James Blackmore and Gail Blackmore left Canada within hours of Brandon James
Blackmore receiving the direction from Warren Jeffs to bring M.M.B. down south.

 [124] The fact that AnnaMae Blackmore crossed the border into the United States with Brandon
James Blackmore and Emily Blackmore is consistent with him acting on the Prophet's direction to
bring Mother AnnaMae back to Short Creek.
[125] M.M.B. was a 13-year-old child raised in a community where obedience to her father, the
Priesthood head of her family, was a fundamental tenet. She would not have left Bountiful and
travelled to the United States without her father’s permission. It is implausible that she would have
crossed the border on her own and without her father’s knowledge and approval. It is even more
implausible that M.M.B. would independently depart from Bountiful and travel to the United States
at or about the time her father received Warren Jeffs’ direction to bring her down to Short Creek.
[126] The child's age, FLDS religious doctrine, and the fact that Brandon James Blackmore had
been directed by the Prophet, to whom he owed obedience, to bring M.M.B. to Short Creek, all lead
me to conclude that the accused did something to facilitate M.M.B.'s removal from Canada to the
United States. I draw the following inference. Either M.M.B. was in Brandon James Blackmore’s
vehicle, together with her mother, and her sister AnnaMae, and was concealed or not documented
by the United States Customs and Border Protection Services at the border crossing, or the
accused otherwise arranged for M.M.B. to cross the border nearby and at or about the same time
that he, Gail Blackmore and AnnaMae did so, and then transported her to Short Creek.
Did Brandon James Blackmore intend or subjectively foresee that M.M.B. be the object of an
act, which if committed in Canada, would be an offence under ss. 151 or 152 of the Code?
[127] When Brandon James Blackmore was told by Warren Jeffs that the Lord had revealed that
M.M.B. “belonged to me and we should discuss that when he brought her down south sometime
Friday”, he knew or foresaw that a marriage would take place between M.M.B. and the Prophet.
He also knew or foresaw as a certainty, or a substantial certainty, that sexual activity would take
place between M.M.B. and Warren Jeffs as a consequence of the marriage.
[128] The following evidence supports the inference that Brandon James Blackmore, as a member
of the FLDS, either intended or foresaw with certainty, or substantial certainty that marriage and
subsequent sexual contact would occur between M.M.B. and Warren Jeffs while the child was
under the age of 14 years.
[129] The FLDS tract In Light and Truth teaches that upon marriage couples are directed to
“multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy in rejoicing in your posterity …”; that
marriage partners covenant “to bring the sons and daughters of God, these spirits into the world
…”; that matrimony “involves the law of obedience”; and that the blessings of marriage are
conditional upon “the wife and wives magnifying the Priesthood of her husband to the honour and
glory of God to bring forth pure bodies that may be inhabited by pure spirits, innocent spirits, which

 God sends forth.”
[130] Brandon Seth Blackmore testified that In Light and Truth was important to FLDS members
and that both he and his father had a copy of the book in their homes. He also testified that his
father taught him that the purpose of plural marriage was to enable souls in heaven to be born into
the FLDS religion. Brandon Seth Blackmore also gave evidence that he and his father attended
priesthood meetings where Warren Jeffs taught that the purpose of sexual intercourse in marriage
was to have children.
[131] Jane Blackmore testified that she was taught to obey the wishes of her husband in every
way. She was also taught that celestial or plural marriage was necessary to attain the highest level
of celestial glory and also served the purpose of bringing children into the world “to raise a mighty
kingdom” for one’s husband and priesthood head.
[132] Jane Blackmore explained she was also taught that a woman was required to bring as many
children as possible into the world during her childbearing years and that sexual intercourse was
expected as soon as possible after marriage. She testified that in her case, consummation was
delayed for a few days due to her menstrual cycle.
[133] Jane Blackmore received these instructions in sermons from the presiding elders of the
church, and from her father, Dalmon Oler, at family meetings. She confirmed that all of the accused
attended meetings where these instructions on marriage were given. I infer that the accused knew
what Jane Blackmore knew about the object and purpose of marriage, a wife’s duty of obedience to
her husband and the purpose of sexual intercourse being the procreation of children.
[134] Similarly, Esther Palmer testified that at church meetings attended by the accused, she was
taught that obedience was one of the first laws of God and meant unquestioning obedience to her
Priesthood head; that obedience also involved sexual relations; and that the role of a woman in
marriage was to submit to her husband “body, mind and soul”. Esther Palmer also gave evidence
that her own marriage at age 16 was consummated in three days and that she gave birth to her first
child a little over a year after her marriage.
[135] Rebecca Musser, who was qualified as an expert on FLDS religious doctrine, testified about
placement marriage. Ms. Musser was raised in the FLDS community of Short Creek and received
much of her religious instruction from Warren Jeffs. In 1995, Ms. Musser was placed in a plural
marriage to Warren Jeffs’ father, Rulon Jeffs, the FLDS Prophet and President until his death on
September 8, 2002. Ms. Musser’s expertise on the religious doctrines foundational to the FLDS
church and FLDS culture, conduct and practices was grounded in her own experience as a wife of
one of the FLDS Prophets, and the religious instruction she received, throughout her school years,
from that Prophet’s son and successor, Warren Jeffs. She explained members of the FLDS church

 are placed in marriage through God's revelation to the Prophet, who tells worthy and obedient
young people whom they are supposed to marry. Ms. Musser testified the Prophet “will use the
verbiage to the father of the daughter, perhaps, or maybe directly to the daughter too sometimes,
where he will say, “God has revealed to me that you belong to this man, and then they proceed with
the marriage" (Transcript October 28, P8, lines 13 – 23).
[136] Ms. Musser also explained that first and foremost what was expected of a wife was absolute
obedience and submission to her husband, and that a woman had no right to resist if a man wanted
to do something to her body. FLDS girls were taught that they must give themselves sexually and
that their husbands would teach them what that meant. FLDS girls were also expected to
consummate marriage upon marriage (Transcript, October 28, P 10 line 39; P 13, lines 6-11).
[137] I find that Brandon James Blackmore, when he acted on the Prophet’s direction and
removed M.M.B. from Canada, either intended or foresaw with certainty or substantial certainty the
consequences of his action – that sexual relations would take place upon or shortly after M.M.B.'s
marriage to Warren Jeffs.
[138] Defence counsel argues that a placement marriage at age 13 was unprecedented in the
FLDS community, and that the accused may have believed that Warren Jeffs summoned Brandon
James Blackmore and M.M.B. because he wished to discuss a marriage that would take place
sometime after M.M.B. turned 14 on September 27, 2004. With respect, the defence theory is
speculative and suggests an alternative interpretation of the circumstances that is not reasonable
on the whole of the evidence. In saying that, I acknowledge that the marriage of M.M.B. at age 13
to Warren Jeffs was an extraordinary event. I also take into account the evidence of Jane
Blackmore concerning her experience as a midwife at Bountiful. In cross-examination, she agreed
that of the approximately 250 births she attended as a midwife between 2000 and June 2004, her
records revealed that only four mothers were listed as age 16. While those four may have been 15
at the time of conception, none were as young as 13 or 14 at the time of conception.
[139] However, Ms. Musser’s evidence indicates that Warren Jeffs’ announcement that M.M.B.
“belonged” to him was consistent with the manner in which the Prophet announced a placement,
and that little time elapsed between a placement and marriage. Here, each of the Crown witnesses
who gave evidence as former members of the FLDS testified that they were married within a very
short time after their placement. Jane Blackmore testified that she married her husband, Winston
Blackmore, the day after the Prophet revealed to whom she was to be married. Rebecca Jeffs also
married within a day of the Prophet's revelation. Brandon Seth Blackmore was married within one
week of being called down to Short Creek. B.L.B. travelled across the border on June 24, 2004 and
was married in Mesquite, Nevada on June 25, 2004.

 [140] Similarly, as I noted earlier, C.E.O. was married on June 25, 2004, two days after Warren
Jeffs announced to her father that she was to be married.
[141] After the Prophet announced a placement, the marriage was conducted expeditiously, and
with some degree of secrecy. The officiant, the husband and wife, and the witnesses were typically
the only persons present.
[142] I am satisfied the accused foresaw that M.M.B. would be married to and have sexual contact
with Warren Jeffs in short order, and well before she attained her 14th birthday.
[143] I find that the Crown has established, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of
the offence charged against Brandon James Blackmore.
Count 2 – Gail Blackmore
Age and Ordinary Residence of M.M.B
[144] The Declaration of Particulars and Registration of Live Birth for M.M.B., the school records
and the testimony of Brandon Seth Blackmore and B.L.B., to which I have earlier referred, establish
that M.M.B. was under the age of 14 years and was ordinarily resident in Bountiful in late February
2004. I find that Gail Blackmore, as the child’s mother, was well aware of M.M.B.’s age and
ordinary residence at the time of her removal from Canada.
Gail Blackmore’s role in M.M.B.’s removal
[145] Amicus Curiae submits that Gail Blackmore may not have learned about the intended
marriage between M.M.B. and Warren Jeffs until she and Brandon James Blackmore had crossed
the border into the United States. Mr. Doyle argues that there is no evidence that Gail Blackmore
did anything to facilitate M.M.B.'s removal from Canada or that she intended or foresaw, at any time
before her daughter’s removal from Canada, that the child was to marry Warren Jeffs.
[146] The Crown’s position is that Gail Blackmore was a party to Brandon James Blackmore’s
offence by aiding him in the removal of M.M.B. from Canada.
[147] Section 21(1) of the Code, dealing with the liability of principals and parties to an offence,
provides:
21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

 [148] The actus reus of aiding is doing or omitting to do something that assists the principal to
commit the offence. Mere acquiescence is not enough. The Crown must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused intended to assist the principal in the commission of the offence.
[149] As I have found, on the morning of February 26, 2004, shortly after Brandon James
Blackmore received Warren Jeffs’ direction, he, Gail Blackmore, their elder daughter AnnaMae and
M.M.B. all left Bountiful. Gail Blackmore was with her husband when they crossed the border at
Porthill, Idaho.
[150] Given the haste of their departure, and the fact that the trip from Bountiful to Short Creek, on
Brandon Seth Blackmore’s evidence, involves a nineteen hour drive one way, Brandon James
Blackmore must have informed Gail Blackmore of their destination and the purpose of their travel to
the United States with M.M.B. and AnnaMae.
[151] Warren Jeffs did not direct Brandon James Blackmore to bring Gail Blackmore to Short
Creek. Brandon James Blackmore chose to have Gail Blackmore accompany him for a reason.
She was the child’s mother, and a source of comfort and reassurance for M.M.B.
[152] The Prophet's revelation of February 26, 2004 that M.M.B. belonged to him and his direction
to bring the child to Short Creek was no ordinary event in the life of Brandon James Blackmore. A
placement marriage between their 13-year-old daughter and the Prophet would have been a matter
of great significance to both Brandon James Blackmore and Gail Blackmore, as parents, as
adherents to FLDS religious doctrine, and as followers of Warren Jeffs.
[153] Taking into account the extraordinary nature of the direction he had received from Warren
Jeffs concerning their daughter, I infer that Brandon James Blackmore informed Gail Blackmore of
both Warren Jeffs’ direction and the purpose of their sudden departure for Short Creek.
[154] I find that as the child’s mother, Gail Blackmore assisted Brandon James Blackmore with the
removal of M.M.B. from Canada and her transportation to Short Creek by accompanying her
husband and child and providing comfort and support for both. By doing so, she was a party to
Brandon James Blackmore's removal of the child from Canada.
Did Gail Blackmore intend or subjectively foresee that M.M.B. be the object of an act which,
if committed in Canada, would be an offence under ss. 151 or 152 of the Code?
[155] I am satisfied that before M.M.B. was removed from Canada, Gail Blackmore shared her
husband’s certain, or substantially certain foresight that the child would have sexual contact with
Warren Jeffs while under the age of 14.
[156] Gail Blackmore received the same instruction about the purpose of plural marriage, a wife’s

 duty of obedience to her husband and the early consummation of marriage as did Jane Blackmore
and Esther Palmer. By virtue of that instruction and her own knowledge as a married woman
raised in the FLDS community, Gail Blackmore would understand the Prophet’s revelation that
M.M.B. “belonged” to him meant that he intended to marry the child, and had the subjective
foresight that as a matter of certainty, or substantial certainty, M.M.B would be subject to sexual
touching or interference upon or shortly after her marriage to Warren Jeffs.
[157] The Crown has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offence
charged against Gail Blackmore.
Count 3 – James Marion Oler
[158] The Crown contends that on or about June 24, 2004, James Oler, acting on the direction
from Warren Jeffs received the previous day, did something to remove his 15-year-old daughter,
C.E.O. from Canada in order to facilitate her marriage on June 25, 2004 in Mesquite, Nevada to
James Leroy Johnson, then 24 years old. The Crown argues that Mr. Oler intended or foresaw, as
a matter of certainty or substantial certainty, not only that his daughter would be the subject of
sexual activity but also, by virtue of being placed in a plural marriage with an older man in a foreign
country, that she would be placed in a position of dependency, or in a relationship with a person
who was in a position of authority within the meaning of s. 153 of the Code.
[159] Amicus Curiae submits that the evidence adduced by the Crown falls short of establishing
beyond a reasonable doubt that in June 2004, C.E.O. was ordinarily resident in Canada. Further,
Mr. Doyle submits there is no evidence that Mr. Oler was in Canada at the time of the summons
from Warren Jeffs or the alleged removal, and no evidence of when Mr. Oler or C.E.O. entered the
United States. Amicus Curiae also submits that the evidence of several former FLDS members
concerning their personal experience of placement marriages is insufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler was certain or substantially certain that C.E.O. by her marriage
would be placed in a relationship of dependency or in a relationship with a person in a position of
trust or authority contrary to s. 153.
C.E.O.’S Age and Ordinary Residence
[160] Exhibit 17, C.E.O.'s birth certificate, establishes that she was born at Creston, British
Columbia on July 8, 1988. Exhibit 38, the Registration of Live Birth for C.E.O., confirms her date
and place of birth and contains the certification of James Oler that he is C.E.O.’s father. These
documents establish that in late June 2004 C.E.O. was a person 14 years of age or more, but
under the age of 18 years. I am satisfied that the accused, as C.E.O.’s father, was well aware in
June 2004 that she was 15 years old.

 [161] School enrollment records maintained by the Ministry of Education show that C.E.O. entered
kindergarten at Bountiful Elementary Secondary School in September 1993 and that she was
reported to be present in that school at the time of each data collection (September and February
of each school year) without any breaks until February 2004, when she was last reported. The
Ministry has no record of C.E.O. being present at Bountiful Elementary School after February 2004.
[162] B.L.B. testified that she knew C.E.O. well and that they were in the same class at school,
although she gave no evidence about whether C.E.O. was in Bountiful on or about June 23, 2004.
[163] The record of C.E.O.’s school attendance for 11 years at Bountiful, supplemented by B.L.B.’s
evidence that she and C.E.O. were friends and classmates at the same school, persuades me
beyond a reasonable doubt that in June 2004 C.E.O. was ordinarily resident in Canada. However,
the fact she was ordinarily resident in Canada is not proof that she was actually in Canada at the
time James Oler is alleged to have removed her from the country.
Did James Oler do anything to remove C.E.O. from Canada?
[164] In his Priesthood Record for June 24, 2004, Warren Jeffs recorded:
I called Jim Oler last night and told him to bring his daughter [C.E.O.] for her to get
married, that Jim Oler would receive a wife, that Brandon Blackmore and his son
Zane should come and receive the training and that Brandon's daughter B.L.B. should
come and be married, that they should wait in Cedar City, Friday morning, until I
called.
[165] B.L.B. testified that on June 24, 2004, when she was 16, her parents, Brandon James
Blackmore and Susan Steed, took her to the United States to be married. She testified, and United
States Customs and Border Protection records confirm, that she crossed the border at Porthill,
Idaho on June 24, 2004 with her father and mother.
[166] Shortly after crossing the border, the van in which she was travelling pulled off the highway
into a wooded rest area. B.L.B. left the van to relieve herself. When she returned, a second van
had arrived. In the second van were James Oler, B.L.B.'s brothers Zane and James Blackmore,
and C.E.O. B.L.B. and her parents climbed into the second van. She shared the rear seat with
C.E.O. Brandon James Blackmore and Susan Steed occupied the middle seat. Her brother Zane
and James Oler were in the front seats. They all travelled together in the second van to Cedar City,
Utah. In cross-examination by Amicus Curiae, B.L.B. described C.E.O. on the drive to Cedar City
as “happy”, “relaxed” and “ecstatic” about getting married. B.L.B. testified that the spot where the
vans stopped in the rest area felt very private. She said she did not see the highway from that point
but thought “you could if you really tried”. Her testimony and the photographs of the wooded rest
stop, marked as Exhibit 52, lead me to conclude the two vans pulled off the highway to a place that

 would be difficult to observe from the highway. I am also satisfied the meeting was planned, rather
than a chance encounter. It was no coincidence that the day after Warren Jeffs had communicated
his instructions to James Oler, all of the persons Mr. Jeffs had summoned to Cedar City met at the
rest stop and then travelled south together.
[167] The Crown submits B.L.B.'s evidence establishes that James Oler and Brandon James
Blackmore were both acting on the directions Warren Jeffs had provided to Mr. Oler on June 23,
2004, and provides proof that Mr. Oler did something to remove C.E.O. from Canada.
[168] James Oler travelling with C.E.O. from Idaho to Cedar City, Utah on June 24, 2004 is entirely
consistent with his acting on Warren Jeffs’ instructions that he bring C.E.O. “for her to get married”.
The timing and circumstances of Brandon James Blackmore's border crossing with B.L.B. and her
mother, and their subsequent travel with James Oler, Zane Blackmore and C.E.O. is also
consistent with Warren Jeffs’ direction of June 23, 2004.
[169] However, as Mr. Doyle submits, there is no U.S. Customs and Border Protection record in
evidence of James Oler entering the United States from Canada in June 2004, or indeed, at any
other time.
[170] B.L.B. testified that in June 2004 James Oler was the FLDS bishop of Bountiful. However,
there is no evidence from any witness placing James Oler in Bountiful, or at any other location in
Canada, at any time in June 2004 before B.L.B. saw him at the rest area on the Idaho side of the
border on June 24, 2004 with C.E.O and her brothers Zane and James Blackmore.
[171] Similarly, there is no U.S. Customs and Border Protection record in evidence showing when
or where C.E.O., or Zane and James Blackmore, crossed the border.
[172] Nor is there is any evidence of where James Oler was on the night of June 23, 2004, when
Warren Jeffs called him.
[173] What the evidence does show is that James Oler and C.E.O. were in the State of Idaho on
June 24, 2004 at a rest stop south of the Porthill border crossing, and that they then drove to Cedar
City, Utah, and later to Mesquite, Nevada.
[174] Mr. Doyle submits that both C.E.O. and James Oler may already have been in the United
States when Warren Jeffs called. As the Court explained in Villaroman at para. 36, a theory
alternative to guilt is not rendered “speculative” merely because it arises from a lack of evidence. A
gap in the evidence may result in inferences other than guilt. However those inferences must be
reasonable given the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically and in light of
human experience and common sense.

 [175] I must be satisfied that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available on the
whole of the evidence. Here, the evidence, and the lack of evidence, give rise to competing
inferences. The Prophet’s direction to James Oler, C.E.O.’s ordinary residence in Bountiful, the
rendezvous at the rest stop in Idaho and Mr. Oler’s transportation of C.E.O. to Mesquite, Nevada all
suggest he may have done something to remove C.E.O. from Canada. However, the absence of
any evidence placing Mr. Oler in Bountiful on June 23, 2004 when he received the Prophet’s
direction, the absence of any record of his crossing the border at any time that month, and the
paucity of evidence concerning C.E.O.’s location at the relevant time, when considered together,
are capable of supporting an alternative and reasonable conclusion that the accused did nothing in
Canada for the purpose of removing C.E.O. from this country. On the totality of the evidence, I am
left with a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler did anything in Canada for the purpose of removing
C.E.O. from this country.
[176] I conclude that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt an essential
element of the offence against James Oler.
[177] In light of that finding, I must acquit Mr. Oler on Count 3.
[178] Although, strictly, it is unnecessary for me to do so, I will address the final element of the
offence.
Did Mr. Oler intend or subjectively foresee that C.E.O. be the object of an act, which if
committed in Canada, would be an offence under s. 153?
[179] The offence charged against Mr. Oler under s. 273.3(1)(b) imposes criminal liability for the
removal of a child between the ages of 14 and 18 when the accused intends or foresees as a
matter of certainty, or substantial certainty, that the child be placed in the position of sexual
exploitation within the meaning of s. 153 of the Code.
[180] At the time of the offence charged, s. 153(1) of the Criminal Code provided:
153(1) Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person or is
a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency and who
(a)
for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body,
or with an object, any part of the body of the young person, or
(b)
for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites the young person to touch,
directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any
person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the
body of the young person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 [181] Subsection 153(2) provides:
In this section, young person means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the
age of eighteen years.

[182] In R. v. Audet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171 at para. 16, La Forest J. for the majority, stated that
s. 153 applies to three separate categories of persons: those in a position of trust towards a young
person, those in a position of authority towards a young person and those with whom the young
person is in a relationship of dependency.
[183] Here, the Crown contends the accused’s mens rea for the offence under s. 273.3(1)(b) is
made out because Mr. Oler would foresee, with substantial certainty, that C.E.O. would be in a
position of dependency or in a relationship with a person who was in a position of authority as she,
at age 15, was placed in a plural marriage to an older man in a foreign country.
[184] In Audet at para. 34, a majority of the Court held that the term “position of authority" referred
to any person who is in a position to exercise a power or right to enforce obedience and to
influence the conduct and actions of others. The term is not restricted to situations in which the
relationship of authority stems from the role or status of the accused, but extends to any
relationship in which the accused actually exercises such a power.
[185] On a prosecution under s. 153(1), the Crown is not required to prove that a person in a
position of authority abused their authority, but only that they were in a position of authority: Audet
at para. 26.
[186] Section 153(1) is aimed at the protection of the sexual integrity of children and prohibits a
person in a position of trust or authority from engaging in sexual activity with a child: R. v. G.B.,
2009 BCCA 88 at para. 27.
[187] Whether a child is in a “relationship of dependency” depends upon an examination of all of
the circumstances on a case by case basis: R. v. Galbraith (1994), 90 C.C.C. (3d) 76 (Ont. C.A.) at
para. 18. In Audet, at para. 38, the Court held:
It will be up to the trial judge to determine, on the basis of all the factual circumstances
relevant to the characterization of the relationship between a young person and an
accused, whether the accused was in a position of trust or authority towards the young
person or whether the young person was in a relationship of dependency with the accused
at the time of the alleged offence. One of the difficulties that will undoubtedly arise in some
cases concerns the determination of the times when the “position” or “relationship” in
question begins and ends. It would be inappropriate to try to set out an exhaustive list of
the factors to be considered by the trier of fact. The age difference between the accused
and the young person, the evolution of their relationship, and above all the status of the
accused in relation to the young person will of course be relevant in many cases.

 [188] In R. v. Anderson, 2009 PECA 4, at paras. 73 -74, the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal
explained that in the exploitative relationships prohibited by s. 153(1) the young person is
vulnerable by virtue of a power imbalance:
[73] Indeed in all the types of relationship referred to among that special class of
relationship set forth in s. 153(1), the courts have found that the nature of the relationship is
such that the young person is the subject to the influence of the accused. This influence
may be exerted simply by reason of the accused’s position of authority or trust and, as well,
by placing the young person in one’s dependency.
[74] I consider an exploitative relationship to exist where there is a power imbalance
between the accused and the younger person in circumstances other than where the
accused is in a position of trust or authority or circumstances where the young person has
developed a reliance on the accused who has assumed a position of power over the young
person. The evidence must demonstrate or, it must be possible for the court to draw the
inference from all the circumstances of the relationship and in particular those factors listed
in s. 153(1.2) that the young person is, as the result of this power imbalance, vulnerable to
the actions and conduct of the accused who is taking advantage of the young person for his
or her own benefit.

[189] Here, Amicus Curiae submits the Court knows nothing about the relationship among C.E.O.,
James Leroy Johnson and the accused. The Crown presented its case without calling either C.E.O.
or Mr. Johnson. Accordingly, Mr. Doyle says the Court is not in a position to “determine, on the
basis of all the factual circumstances relevant to the characterization of the relationship” whether
James Leroy Johnson was in a position of authority towards C.E.O. or whether she was in a
relationship of dependency with him. See Audet at para. 38.
[190] As Amicus Curiae correctly points out, at the time of the offence alleged, C.E.O. was over
the age of consent. Section 153 did not prohibit all sexual contact between a young person and an
adult. Mr. Doyle submits that the Crown's evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Mr. Oler intended or foresaw that C.E.O. would, by her marriage to James Leroy
Johnson, be placed in a position of dependency or in a relationship with a person in a position of
authority.
[191] Section 273.3(1)(b) does not place any burden on the Crown to prove that C.E.O.’s marriage
to James Leroy Johnson actually resulted in an exploitative relationship. Rather, the Crown must
prove that James Oler intended or foresaw, as a matter of certainty, or substantial certainty that the
marriage would place C.E.O. or in a relationship with a person in a position of authority over her.
[192] On the totality of the evidence, the Crown has met that burden.
[193] C.E.O. was 15 years old at the time of her marriage to James Leroy Johnson. The Ministry
of Education records show that C.E.O. had, at best, completed Grade 10 at Bountiful Elementary
Secondary school. Her age, limited education, and marriage to a resident of a foreign country

 would render her dependent upon her husband for the necessaries of life.
[194] Rebecca Musser gave evidence that when an FLDS woman enters marriage "[f]irst and
foremost, what is expected is absolute obedience and submission to her husband in every aspect
of her life.” Ms. Musser testified that the husband is the wife's Priesthood head and that
disobedience to the husband is the same as the wife being shut out of heaven. She also said that if
a husband “wants to do something to your body, you have no right to resist that.” [Transcript,
October 28, P 10, lines 25 – 35].
[195] As I have discussed earlier, Brandon Seth Blackmore confirmed that obedience was
important to the FLDS, and that he was taught women had to be obedient to their husbands and
were expected to uphold their husbands in what they were told and directed to do.
[196] Jane Blackmore identified obedience as a fundamental tenet of the FLDS church and
testified that, after marriage, she had to obey the will of her husband, as her Priesthood head.
Jane Blackmore relied upon first, her father, and later her husband, as her Priesthood head for all
of the necessaries of life. She was required to give the money she earned from her employment as
a nurse to her husband, who then provided her with money for necessaries. She was only able to
pursue post-secondary education and training as a nurse, and later a midwife, with the permission
of her Priesthood head.
[197] Esther Palmer gave evidence that obedience was one of the first commandments of the
FLDS church and that “disobedience would cause you to end up in Hell.” She was taught that for
females, obedience to their Priesthood head was required. A woman was expected to submit to her
husband “mind, body and soul”. A woman's role was to serve and obey her husband in all matters,
including sexual relations.
[198] Esther Palmer also testified that she owned no assets and needed her husband's permission
to do anything, including to go to town or to make purchases. Esther Palmer also needed her
husband's permission first to attend Selkirk College, in Castlegar, for training as a nurse, and later
to pursue further education as a midwife. She also needed the Prophet's permission to work in
Bountiful as a midwife.
[199] Esther Palmer gave evidence that as a 15-year-old, she could not have travelled alone to
Cranbrook, Castlegar, or to the United States without the permission of her Priesthood head.
[200] Esther Palmer also testified about her own experience, and the difficulties her sister, Amy
Oler, encountered in leaving the FLDS Church. She gave evidence that a woman who leaves the
FLDS community becomes an apostate and can be cut off from her children and family. Referring
to her sister‘s experience, she observed that lack of education and any experience in the workplace

 makes it difficult for a woman to leave the FLDS.
[201] Rachel Jeffs, a daughter of Warren Jeffs, was raised in the FLDS community in Short Creek.
She too was taught that obedience is the first law of heaven, that children obeyed their father as
Priesthood head, and that wives obeyed their husband.
[202] At age 18, Rachel Jeffs was placed in a plural marriage with a 25-year-old husband who
already had two wives. She had a Grade 8 education. Rachel Jeffs testified that she had no assets,
finances or resources as a daughter or a wife. Rachel Jeffs, who was 33 years old at the time of
trial, described her recent decision to leave the FLDS church as the hardest decision she has ever
made. Her lack of education and work experience made it difficult for her to care for herself and her
children.
[203] The obstacles confronting a woman who seeks to leave the FLDS community underscore
the extent of her dependency on her husband and Priesthood head for her subsistence and all of
the necessities of life.
[204] Exhibit 7 is the Marriage Record of James Leroy Johnson and Amy Lorna Alaire Oler. That
document shows that on November 16, 1999 Amy Oler, a sister of James Oler, married C.E.O.’s
future husband James Leroy Johnson. The Marriage Record lists “Jim Oler” as a witness. I infer
that in June 2004 James Oler was well aware that C.E.O. was to be placed in a plural marriage to
an older husband.
[205] James Oler is the brother of both Jane Blackmore and Esther Palmer. They each testified
that he attended the family meetings and church services where they received their religious
instruction. Further, as the FLDS bishop of Bountiful, Mr. Oler would be intimately familiar with the
fundamental tenets of FLDS doctrine, including those concerning a wife's duty of obedience to her
husband and Priesthood head.
[206] I am satisfied that James Oler foresaw as a certainty, or substantial certainty, that the
marriage of a 15-year-old young person with a Grade 10 education to a 24-year-old husband, who
she was expected to obey in all matters including sexual relations, would place C.E.O. in a
relationship of dependency. C.E.O.’s placement in a plural marriage in a foreign country only
served to enhance her vulnerability and her dependency upon her husband for her subsistence and
the necessities of life.
[207] I also find that James Oler knew that upon the marriage, James Leroy Johnson would
become C.E.O.’s Priesthood head and would be placed in a position of authority towards her.
[208] James Oler would know that James Leroy Johnson, as C.E.O.'s husband, had the power to

 demand, enforce and expect obedience from C.E.O. in all matters; to determine whether she
received any further education; to control her movements, travel and social life; and to control the
time and frequency of sexual intercourse.
[209] I find that James Oler foresaw as a matter of certainty or substantial certainty that upon her
marriage, C.E.O. would be placed in a position of dependency or in a relationship with a husband in
a position of authority towards her. I am also satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that by virtue of
ordinary human experience and his own knowledge of FLDS doctrine concerning both the purpose
of marriage and its early consummation, the accused anticipated that C.E.O.’s marriage would be
consummated shortly after June 25, 2004. I find that Mr. Oler foresaw as a certainty, or substantial
certainty, that C.E.O. would be the subject of sexual contact which, if it occurred in Canada, would
be prohibited by s. 153 of the Code.
[210] My conclusion on mens rea does not affect the result on Count 3, because I have found
earlier in these reasons that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oler
did anything for the purpose of removing C.E.O. from Canada.
CONCLUSION
[211] Brandon James Blackmore, I find you guilty as charged on Count 1.
[212] Emily Ruth Gale Blackmore, I find you guilty as charged on Count 2.
[213] James Marion Oler, I find you not guilty on Count 3.
“PEARLMAN J.”