IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           Mr. Miller is charged with entering the premises of Thompson Rivers University after being directed in writing by an authorized person that his entry upon those premises was prohibited, contrary to s. 4(1) of the Trespass Act, R.S.B.C. [1996] c. 462.

[2]           That section reads:

[3]           Mr. Miller does not dispute that he was present on the lands belonging to Thompson Rivers University, but denies he had any notice from anyone that he was prohibited from doing so.

[4]           Mr. Miller has had some conflict with the Thompson Rivers University where he was formerly registered as a student.  The conflicts involved academic performance, fee payment and conduct.  The conflict escalated to the point that Mr. Miller was suspended from the University and banned from its premises.  One of the people involved in the threat assessment leading to the ban was Stacey Jyrkkanen, Manager of Occupational Health and Safety.  Another was Duane Seibel, Manager of Student and Judicial Affairs.  They are appointed to the threat assessment team and were authorized at all times to take the actions they took.

[5]           The chronology of events is important given the notice issued. 

[6]           On September 21, 2011, Martha White, Student and Judicial Affairs Support, e-mailed to Mr. Miller a copy of Duane Seibel, Manager, Student and Judicial Affairs’ letter of September 20, 2011 respecting his course status. 

[7]           On September 22, 2011, Mr. Seibel sent an e-mail to Mr. Miller respecting unpaid fees and a follow-up e-mail on the same subject dated October 5, 2011. 

[8]           On February 23, 2012, Duane Seibel wrote to Dr. Alan Shaver, President of Thompson Rivers University advising of unsatisfactory conduct by Mr. Miller, as well as concerns regarding his educational progress.  The letter recommended that Mr. Miller be suspended. 

[9]           Dr. Shaver wrote to Mr. Miller on February 29, 2012 advising Mr. Miller that Dr. Shaver had been asked to suspend Mr. Miller and attaching the February 23, 2012 letter from Mr. Seibel.  There were additional documents enclosed which formed the basis for the concerns regarding Mr. Miller’s conduct.  Dr. Shaver gave Mr. Miller until March 13, 2012 to respond to the recommendation letter.  He also gave Mr. Miller the opportunity to ask for an extension if he required it as a result of being incarcerated.  Dr. Shaver specifically instructed how Mr. Miller could respond to him by mail, fax or e-mail.  This letter was sent by e-mail with a notation that the original was to be hand delivered. 

[10]        The University subsequently learned Mr. Miller was incarcerated.  When it attempted to have the letter delivered to him at Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre, it was told Mr. Miller had been released.  The University had no new address for him, so Dr. Shaver had the letter delivered to Community Corrections at the Probation Office.

[11]        Mr. Miller admitted that he received Dr. Shaver’s letter of February 29, 2012 on March 2, 2012.  He said he received it from Ms. Hodgson on that date.  Mr. Miller distinctly remembered receiving a letter on March 2, 2012.  He cannot remember precisely that it was Ms. Hodgson he received it from. 

[12]        On March 3, 2012, Stacey Jyrkkanen wrote to Mr. Miller addressed to “no fixed address” giving notice to Mr. Miller that he was banned from entering any Thompson Rivers University campus or facility, effective that day.  This prohibition was to remain in place until Mr. Miller’s issues in the criminal justice system had been resolved and the University’s Threat Assessment Team concluded that he no longer posed a risk.  He was advised that a copy of the letter would be given to the Kamloops RCMP.  He was warned that if Mr. Miller came onto the campus, a complaint would be laid and charges would be pursued through the RCMP.  In that letter, Ms. Jyrkkanen said:

[13]        Ms. Jyrkkanen testified that she wrote the letter on March 3, 2012.  She gave it to Mr. Seibel to pass along to the probation officer.  As Mr. Miller pointed out, this letter was written on a Saturday.  Ms. Jyrkkanen does not dispute that.  By the time this letter was written, Mr. Miller had already received the February 29, 2012 letter from Dr. Shaver. 

[14]        On March 15, 2012, Dr. Shaver wrote to Mr. Miller confirming that he had received Mr. Miller’s e-mail of March 13, 2012 requesting an extension of time to respond to the suspension.  In that letter, Dr. Shaver referred to a comment made by Mr. Miller that he had just come into contact with the letter.  Dr. Shaver advised Mr. Miller that he had confirmation the letter was hand delivered to Mr. Miller on March 2, 2012.  

[15]        On March 21, 2012, Mr. Miller e-mailed Mr. Seibel the following:

[16]        Mr. Seibel responded to that e-mail advising Mr. Miller to access the course through the Moodle as directed by the professor of that course. 

[17]        On May 28, 2012, Dr. Allan Shaver, President and Vice Chancellor of Thompson Rivers University wrote to Mr. Miller confirming that he had received a letter on February 23, 2012 from Mr. Seibel recommending that Mr. Miller be suspended as a student.  Dr. Shaver confirmed that on February 29, 2012 he forwarded the letter to Mr. Miller.  He had requested a response no later than March 13, 2012.  Two extensions were apparently provided to this deadline at Mr. Miller’s request but no response was forthcoming.  This letter was sent by e-mail with a notation that it would also be hand delivered to the probation officer. 

[18]        Mr. Seibel said that he hand delivered the letter from Ms. Jyrkkanen to Community Corrections at the Probation Office.  He believed he delivered it on the date of the letter (March 3) or the following day.  That would make it a Saturday or Sunday when the probation offices are not open. 

[19]        Mr. Seibel said that the University had no fixed address for Mr. Miller.  Mr. Seibel contacted the main liaisons with law enforcement and confirmed with Probation that he could deliver the letter to Mr. Miller through that office.  Mr. Seibel called Mr. Serown, Mr. Miller’s probation officer, to ask if he could take the letter.  It was confirmed it would be delivered and he would be notified when that happened.  Mr. Seibel believed he delivered at least three letters in that manner, this being the first.

[20]        Mr. Seibel said that he dropped the letter at the front desk at the Probation Office.  He confirmed that he received notification that it had been delivered. 

[21]        The letter was in an envelope identifying it as from Thompson Rivers University and addressed to Adrian Miller, c/o Community Corrections.  Despite Mr. Seibel’s confusion regarding the date he delivered the letter, I am satisfied he delivered it after it was prepared on March 3 but not until Probation was open, on either March 5 or 6, 2012.

[22]        Jenna Hodgson is a Probation Officer in the Kamloops office.  She was working on March 6, 2012.  She confirmed she met with Mr. Miller that day.  She provided him with the letter from Thompson Rivers University.  The letter was in a white envelope stamped to indicate that it was from Thompson Rivers University and it was addressed to Mr. Miller.  She did not open or read it.  She said this occurred at the front counter.  Mr. Miller testified that he received a letter from Ms. Hodgson but it was not the letter banning him from the property.  Mr. Miller testified that it was the letter of February 29, 2012 from Dr. Shaver that he received.

[23]        This case is not about whether the University had a right to suspend Mr. Miller from classes or whether the University had a right to ban him from the property.  It is about whether or not Mr. Miller received notice that he was prohibited from entering the premises. 

[24]        On October 4, 2012, Mr. Seibel was running with a group through the campus.  As he was running through the campus, he saw two men walking on a campus road toward McGill Road.  He recognized one of those men as Adrian Miller.  He knew Mr. Miller was not permitted on the campus so, at the conclusion of his run, he notified the RCMP.

[25]        There followed in the cross-examination an odd exchange about whether Mr. Miller’s e-mail to Mr. Seibel was referring to Mr. Miller’s professor’s letter, Mr. Seibel’s letter or Dr. Shaver’s letter.  Mr. Miller’s evidence in this regard was coy and not credible.

[26]        The manner in which the University chose to deliver the notice to Mr. Miller that he was banned from the premises was not desirable or certain.  It is because Mr. Miller specifically recalls Dr. Shaver’s letter being given to him on March 2 and Ms. Hodgson specifically remembers handing another letter to Mr. Miller on March 6 that I can be satisfied Mr. Miller did receive notice of that ban.  He received it on March 6, 2012 from Ms. Hodgson and from that date had notice that he was not to enter the premises of the University.

[27]        I am satisfied that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that an authorized person gave notice to Mr. Miller that he was prohibited from entering the premises of the University.  There is no issue that he was at the University on its property on October 4, 2012.  I am satisfied the Crown has proved the trespass beyond a reasonable doubt and convict Mr. Miller of the charge.

[28]        I am also satisfied that Mr. Miller read the letter from Ms. Jyrkkanen and was aware that he was banned because he referred to the content of the letter, not the ban, in his responsive e-mail to Mr. Seibel.