Zvaniga 21-845 Evidence-Tampering Dossier

Per Crown disclosure (Arrest/Charged Report, Form OT 053), Francesco was arrested at 18:15 PM on 6 May 2021 at 150 Goyeau Street (Windsor Police HQ) and booked at 18:16 PM — a one-minute window.

Standard Canadian police booking procedure requires 45–90 minutes minimum: transportation, identity verification, property inventory, rights advisement per s.10(b) Charter, fingerprinting, photographing, detention sergeant intake review, and Form 10 release condition drafting. A one-minute booking is physically impossible and evidence of fabricated timestamps.

Legal weight: R. v. Harrison 2009 SCC 34 — fabricated police records alone warrant exclusion under s.24(2).

Hayley Zvaniga's own surveillance system is described by PC Gratton as motion-activated, capturing 5–10 second clips. The system captured Francesco arriving at 12:04 PM and departing at 12:07 PM. The 911 call was placed at 12:54 PM — a 47-minute interval.

During those 47 minutes, the motion-activated system recorded nothing — yet this is when all damage to water lines, fountain, filter, jet, and cement allegedly occurred. Motion-activated cameras by definition record any motion. The absence of any footage between 12:07 and 12:54 is either (a) cameras were disabled, (b) footage was destroyed, or (c) no damage was actually occurring because Francesco had left.

Legal weight: Prima facie exculpatory; triggers R. v. La 1997 SCC duty to preserve evidence.

Supplementary Report MCMS 08, authored by PC Phillipe Gratton #19407 on 6 July 2022, states verbatim:

"On Tuesday, July 5th 2022 I Constable Gratton received follow-up from Constable DAVIS, advising to locate and upload the video surveillance of this case. On Wednesday, July 6th 2022, I contacted the victim, Hayley ZVANIGA who then sent me the video surveillance from May 6th 2021. I uploaded 8 videos to DEMS."

The arrest occurred 6 May 2021. Video surveillance — the alleged centerpiece of the Crown's case — was not uploaded until 6 July 2022, fourteen months later. The Crown therefore prosecuted Francesco for 14 continuous months without the video evidence existing in the disclosure record. The officer also refers to the complainant on first-name familiarity ("Hayley"), an irregular departure from formal investigative documentation.

Legal weight: Direct Stinchcombe 1991 SCC 326 breach — duty of prompt, continuous disclosure violated by deliberate 14-month withholding.

Email from complainant Hayley Zvaniga to "Alana" at Virtual Crown Windsor (Ministry of the Attorney General), dated 13 June 2023, 8:20:16 AM:

"I am not exactly sure what we are able to include in with the restitution amounts ... As this happened two years ago and was a whirlwind of a day as you can imagine, it is hard to recall all of the costs from that day ... We were not asked for this information before our original trial date and I was told that restitution is usually submitted if the person is found guilty. Is that correct? ... We have never been through anything like this before and are unsure of the process."

This is the complainant's own admission that the Crown prosecuted this file from 6 May 2021 through at least 13 June 2023 — 25+ months — without ever requesting damage proof. Section 430(1)(a) mischief-over-$5,000 requires documented damage exceeding the $5,000 threshold as an element of the offence. The Crown proceeded to trial-readiness with zero evidence meeting the statutory floor.

Legal weight: Textbook malicious prosecution per Nelles v. Ontario [1989] 2 SCR 170 — prosecution without reasonable and probable grounds, with malice inferred from 25-month duration.

The "damages" document eventually supplied to the Crown (Teknickal Konstrux, Maidstone, ON) is not an invoice for completed work. It is an ESTIMATE, dated 16 May 2021, total $9,435.50. By its own printed terms: "Estimate is valid for 30 days." It therefore expired on 15 June 2021 — more than two years before it was submitted as Crown evidence in June 2023.

Additionally, the alleged incident occurred on 6 May 2021. The estimate is dated 16 May 2021 — 10 days AFTER the alleged damage. A document commissioned and dated after the alleged event cannot constitute contemporaneous damages evidence.

Further: the estimate's own text concedes "Values based on visual inspection, these are only estimates of materials and labour. The actual on-site conditions may vary greatly." This is expressly disclaimed as hypothetical.

Legal weight: An expired, post-dated, self-disclaimed estimate is not evidence of actual damage under s.430(1)(a). Compare the $300 plumber invoice for actual completed work — 94% below threshold.

Francesco preserved two disclosure packages received from the Crown at different dates. Both contained the cover documents:

• ACSF.pdf (99.19 KB)
• Notice to Counsel re Pascal-.pdf (72.01 KB)
• Notice to the Accused - Digital Evidence.pdf (92.72 KB)
• 1012001 Letter to Self Rep re Disclosure June 27, 2025.pdf (161.35 KB)
• Set 1 Initial, Set 2 Further & Further Email Chain - Self Rep Redactions - June 27, 2025.pdf

Identical filenames and identical file sizes — but different presentation order between the two versions. The second version's content also contains textual divergences from the first that Francesco noted on first inspection ("that whole statement is missing, that's not what he wrote the first time").

Legal weight: Sending two materially different disclosure packages for the same file violates Stinchcombe continuity-of-disclosure and establishes consciousness of guilt. A single, frozen, authoritative disclosure record is a due-process minimum.

On 15 September 2025 at approximately 10:00 PM, 79 additional files were deposited into the digital disclosure portal for file #21-845. On the same night, Justice Bazylko dismissed the case without hearing any of the 17 constitutional motions Francesco had filed on 4 July 2025 exposing the fabrications.

The temporal proximity is not coincidental. A late-night bulk upload of 79 files hours before a same-night dismissal without motion hearings establishes a strategy of burying exculpatory records in noise while extinguishing the forum that could examine them.

Legal weight: Denial of audi alteram partem (right to be heard); Charter s.7 and s.11(d) violations; abuse of process warranting stay under R. v. Babos 2014 SCC 16.

Justice Bazylko served as a Crown Attorney from 2009 to 2023 before appointment to the bench. His 14-year tenure on the Crown side overlaps precisely with the 2021–2023 prosecution window of Zvaniga 21-845. On 15 September 2025 he dismissed, without hearing, 17 motions that directly allege Crown misconduct.

Where a former Crown Attorney adjudicates motions alleging Crown misconduct from the jurisdiction where he served, the Committee for Justice and Liberty v. NEB [1978] 1 SCR 369 reasonable-apprehension-of-bias test is triggered automatically. His failure to recuse is itself reversible error.

Legal weight: Automatic recusal grounds; all 15 September 2025 orders void for lack of jurisdiction; conviction quashed on bias alone per Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada 2003 SCC 45.