Corbin Francis Cawkell

The corporate defendant, operator of a short-term rental property, was charged under the Technical Standards and Safety Act after a natural gas pool heater leaked carbon monoxide, injuring three children.

The court found the offence to be one of strict liability and that the prosecution had proven the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court acquitted the defendant, finding it had established a defence of due diligence.

The defendant had reasonably relied on a licensed gas technician who failed to identify the safety hazards during an inspection six months prior to the incident.

The offender was convicted of aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and other offences against a sex trade worker.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7-9 years and a long-term offender designation.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, history of domestic violence, and psychiatric assessments indicating a moderate to high risk of sexual re-offending.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years in custody, less pre-sentence credit, and designated him a long-term offender subject to a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after his spouse, who suffered from COPD, died when her home oxygen was turned off.

During the medical emergency response, the accused made several statements to police officers and a paramedic.

The defence brought an application to exclude the statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of ss. 7, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found that statements made to the first responding officers and the paramedic were voluntary and admissible, as the accused was not detained and the paramedic was not a person in authority.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) Charter breach occurred when officers told the accused he would be arrested but delayed advising him of his right to counsel.

Statements made after this breach were excluded under s. 24(2).

Josiph Cardle, charged with first-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

While the gravity of the offence and potential sentence were significant, the court found no substantial likelihood of flight or risk to public safety.

Crucially, the court determined that the apparent strength of the Crown's case for first-degree murder was not strong, citing issues with causation and the accused's understanding of the oxygen machine's role.

The court also emphasized that poverty and homelessness should not be a basis for detention.

Cardle was released on a recognizance with conditions, without a surety or fixed residential address.

A preliminary inquiry into a robbery charge where the sole issue was identification.

The Crown sought to rely on surveillance video from the robbery, a dated mug shot, and Facebook photos to establish identification of the defendant.

The court applied the test from R. v. Nikolovski and found that the identification evidence was insufficient.

The surveillance video was of poor quality with only generic facial features visible, and the Facebook photos lacked proper foundation and evidentiary connection to the defendant.

The court discharged the defendant, finding that no reasonable jury properly instructed could convict on the identification evidence presented.

The accused was charged with manslaughter of his mother and assault causing bodily harm to his aunt after he pushed his aunt out of the house, causing her to fall into his mother, who then fell down concrete stairs and later died.

The Crown abandoned the manslaughter charge and sought a conviction for aggravated assault based on transferred intent.

The court found that aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm were not lesser included offences of manslaughter, but unlawfully causing bodily harm was.

The court rejected the accused's defences of consensual fight, self-defence, and defence of property, finding them lacking an air of reality.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm against the aunt and unlawfully causing bodily harm against the mother.

The accused was charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of his 82-year-old mother and assault causing bodily harm in relation to his aunt.

During an argument at the front door of the family home, the accused pushed his aunt, which caused her to fall into his mother, resulting in his mother falling down concrete stairs.

His mother died in hospital several days later.

The Crown initially pursued a manslaughter charge based on transferred intent but later withdrew this charge after the pathologist's testimony.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his aunt and unlawfully causing bodily harm against his mother, rejecting defences of consensual fight, self-defence, and defence of property.

The accused, E.G.F., was found guilty of sexual assault by a jury.

The sentencing judge considered the aggravating factors, including the accused's criminal record for violence, the assault occurring in the victim's home, the continued assault despite the victim's resistance, the serious nature of the assault (vaginal ejaculation without a condom), the exploitation of the victim's trust and vulnerable state due to alcohol withdrawal, and the severe emotional, physical, and financial impact on the victim.

The only mitigating factor noted was the accused's supportive network of friends.

The court imposed a four-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and issued several ancillary orders.

Dangerous offender sentencing following guilty pleas to choking to commit sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm arising from a prolonged stranger attack.

The court held that the Crown proved all three relied-upon designation gateways under ss. 753(1)(a)(i), 753(1)(a)(ii), and 753(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, based on a lengthy history of sexual offending, enduring paraphilic disorders, antisocial traits, failed treatment, and repeated supervision breaches.

Applying the framework in Boutilier and the least-restrictive inquiry at the penalty stage, the court found no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence followed by a 10-year LTSO would adequately protect the public.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate detention.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The central issue was whether the 29-month period between the swearing of the Information and the accused's arrest should be attributed to the Crown.

The court found that the police took reasonable and diligent steps to locate the accused, characterizing the pre-arrest delay as an exceptional circumstance and discrete event.

After subtracting this period, the remaining delay fell below the presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of sexual interference relating to a single incident involving a child at a pool party.

The offender was in a position of trust as the only adult supervising the party.

The Crown sought 3 to 4 years imprisonment, while the defence sought time served.

The court considered the offender's prior record for sexual offences against a minor, the vulnerability of the victim, and the lack of mitigating factors.

After granting enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, including time spent in lockdown, the court imposed a sentence of 28 months, resulting in time served plus one day, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders.

Following convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against a minor, the Crown applied for a dangerous offender assessment under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defence applied to stay the sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching charges under the Kienapple principle.

The court stayed the sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching charges, entering a conviction only for sexual interference, finding it more accurately described the offence against a child.

The court dismissed the Crown's application for a dangerous offender assessment, concluding there was no real possibility the offender would be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender given the lack of recent similar offences and a de-escalation in his criminal record.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from an alleged incident at a childhood pool party.

The defence sought to call a memory expert to challenge the reliability of the complainant’s delayed and partially recovered recollection, but the court excluded that evidence under the Mohan framework because the proposed opinion was unnecessary and intruded on credibility assessment.

Applying the criminal standard and treating peripheral inconsistencies with caution in light of the complainant’s age at the time of the events, the court found the complainant credible and, more importantly, reliable on the core narrative.

The court rejected the suggestion that the memory had been implanted or contaminated by the complainant’s mother and entered convictions on all three counts.

The offender, a 58-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of historical sexual interference, sexual touching, and simple assault against a child who was between five and seven years old at the time.

The offences occurred approximately 30 years ago while the offender was in a position of trust living with the child's mother.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 to 4.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the significant impact on the victim, but considered the offender's age, poor health, and lack of criminal record as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.

The accused was charged with human trafficking and misrepresentation to immigration authorities under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The accused brought a third party records application seeking disclosure of Children's Aid Society records and police records relating to the complainant.

The court determined that the O'Connor regime applied to the CAS records and the Mills regime (section 278) applied to the police records.

The court denied production of the police records as the accused failed to establish they were likely relevant, relying solely on credibility arguments which are insufficient under section 278.3(4).

The court found the CAS records were likely relevant as they were compiled during a joint investigation that led to the charges, and ordered the second stage of the O'Connor test to proceed.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and threatening death following a brutal attack on a stranger on October 13, 2013.

At the time of the offence, he was bound by three probation orders.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the dangerous offender regime, arguing violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenges, relying on the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in R v Boutilier.

The defendant met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation.

The court found that while treatment options existed, there was no reasonable expectation that a fixed sentence with long-term supervision would adequately protect the public, given the defendant's severe polysubstance use disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and extensive history of non-compliance with court orders.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed.

Robert Quinn was arrested on outstanding warrants, and police seized and searched his duffel bag, finding a loaded handgun.

Quinn challenged the warrantless search as a violation of his s.8 Charter rights, seeking exclusion of the evidence.

The court found the search was a lawful search incident to arrest, justified by officer and public safety concerns, particularly given prior information about Quinn's potential possession of a firearm and violent history.

Even if a Charter breach occurred, the court determined the evidence would not be excluded under s.24(2) due to the low seriousness of the infringement, Quinn's low expectation of privacy, and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious firearms offences.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicants, Aaron Kennedy and Sean McDermott, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court applied both the R. v. Morin and the new R. v. Jordan frameworks for assessing delay.

While acknowledging significant Crown delay due to late disclosure, the court found that the total delay, after accounting for defence-attributable delays (such as Mr. McDermott's vacation choice), fell below the presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court also considered the prejudice to the accused, noting Mr. Kennedy's continued detention, but ultimately dismissed both applications, finding no Charter breach.

The applicant, facing multiple firearms charges, brought a pretrial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of the trial was 17 months.

The court applied the Morin framework, attributing portions of the delay to inherent time requirements, the accused's scheduling constraints, and the Crown's vetting of a sealed Information to Obtain.

Balancing the societal interest in trying serious gun offences against the prejudice suffered by the applicant in pretrial custody, the court concluded the delay was reasonable and dismissed the application.

Three inmates were charged with assault causing bodily harm to a fellow inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Centre on November 19, 2014.

The Crown sought to introduce video evidence of the assault with identification testimony from a correctional officer.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the identification evidence under the Leaney test.

The court found that while the officer had prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the trier of fact to make identifications, the threshold reliability of the identification evidence was not established because the Crown relied on a Historical Unit Assignment document that was demonstrably inaccurate.

The document showed 35 inmates in a unit with a maximum capacity of 32, and showed inmates in cells where they were not actually housed.

Without reliable evidence of which inmates were assigned to which cells, the officer's identification methodology—tracking blurry figures back to assigned cells—could not meet the reliability threshold.

The charges were dismissed.