R. v. Patrick Fox; Court of Appeal No CA47391 [Patrick Fox; David Layton (BCPS)]

Dear Mr. Layton:

It seems to me, based on the cases you had provided me, that the accepted procedure for me to refute the sworn statements made by Johnson in his affidavit is for me to submit another affidavit stating the truth of the pertinent matters and perhaps showing how what he stated, under oath, could not possibly be true.

Therefore, I will prepate such an affidavit, have it sworn, and forward it to you. Will this require another Notice of Application to Adduce Fresh Evidence, or can this third affidavit be covered by the previous notice?

Obviously, you can infer from this that there are a number of sworn statements made by Johnson in his affidavit which cannot possibly be true.

And finally, while I was out of custody you had persistently requested I provide you a copy of the correspondence I sent to Johnson, even though I had said I did not intend to rely on it in the appeal. This seemed suspicious to me because I did not believe Johnson had failed to provide you the copies I had sent him. In fact, I believed you already had the copies I had mailed Johnson in 2020. I believed they were already part of the file. So I assumed the reason you wanted me to provide you a copy of what I had in April 2022 is so you could see what I'd be able to prove, so you and/or Johnson could construct Johnson's sworn response based on what you/he thought I would be able to prove, rather than on the truth. So I withheld some records, expecting Johnson would lie in his affidavit if he thought I wouldn't be able to prove he was lying. And, no surprise, he did exactly as I expected he would.

I'll send you the affidavit as soon as it's done.