David Robert Peterson

The accused was charged with break and enter and theft from a retail store.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence consisting of blood found on the exterior door beneath a broken window used to gain entry.

DNA testing matched the blood to the accused with an extremely high statistical probability, and the accused’s twin brother was excluded as a potential source based on alibi evidence and physical differences from the individual depicted in security video.

Applying the modern approach to circumstantial evidence following R. v. Cooper, the court found that the blood evidence was logically connected to the break‑in and that no reasonable alternative inference was supported by the evidence.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter based on criminal negligence in relation to the death of his infant child.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a six‑year penitentiary sentence but disputed the appropriate credit for pre‑sentence custody under ss. 719(3) and 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted the joint submission, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the abuse of a vulnerable infant and breach of parental trust.

Enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody was granted due to segregation, safety concerns arising from the nature of the offence, and communication restrictions with the offender’s spouse.

The court applied mixed credit rates for different custody periods and imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicant sought to quash a preliminary inquiry order committing him to stand trial for second degree murder arising from the death of his infant child.

He argued the preliminary inquiry justice committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider his exculpatory statement that the injuries resulted from an accidental fall during bathing.

The court held that the preliminary inquiry justice properly considered both inculpatory circumstantial evidence and exculpatory direct evidence in accordance with the test articulated in R. v. Arcuri.

The expert medical evidence describing the severity and nature of the injuries, combined with conflicting statements by the applicant, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of intentional infliction of injuries.

As a result, the committal for trial was proper and no jurisdictional error occurred.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference and sexual assault involving a 17‑year‑old who sought spiritual healing from him.

The offender, a respected cultural leader and pipe carrier within the Ojibway community, exploited a position of trust by persuading the complainant that sexual touching was part of a healing ritual.

The court considered significant aggravating factors including the victim’s age, the abuse of authority, and a prior conviction for sexual assault.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, remorse, deteriorating health, and extensive Gladue factors detailing systemic and personal hardships experienced by the Indigenous offender.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender’s background, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation and ancillary orders.