Kelli Frew

The offenders, foster parents to two Indigenous children, were found guilty of first degree murder of one child and unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, and failure to provide necessaries of life to the other.

The court sentenced them to the mandatory life imprisonment without parole for 25 years for the murder.

For the offences against the surviving child, the court imposed sentences of 3 years, 2 years, and the maximum 5 years respectively, to be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with the life sentence.

The court emphasized the extreme vulnerability of the victims and the profound breach of trust, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

After a lengthy judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused foster parents on counts of unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, failure to provide the necessaries of life, and constructive first degree murder.

The court rejected the defence evidence in its entirety, accepted the surviving child’s evidence on the core abuse allegations, and relied heavily on electronic communications, treating medical evidence, and expert pediatric and forensic pathology evidence.

The court held that prolonged confinement, use of zip ties and other restraints, deprivation of food, and failure to obtain urgent medical care established the offences relating to the surviving child and also formed part of the same single ongoing transaction of abuse and neglect that culminated in the older child’s death.

Applying the causation principles in Nette and the constructive first degree murder framework in Harbottle and Sundman, the court found that the accused’s failure to provide adequate food and medical attention was a substantial cause of death, that unlawful confinement was the underlying crime of domination, and that the Crown proved the requisite intent for murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing for historical child sexual offences committed by a teacher against five student complainants over multiple school years.

The court held that, following the jury verdicts, it was open to accept the complainants’ evidence in full rather than make minimum findings, and applied contemporary post-Friesen sentencing principles to historical offences.

A conditional sentence order was rejected because denunciation and deterrence predominated, the offences involved multiple vulnerable child victims and a serious breach of trust, and there was no evidence that custodial medical care would be inadequate.

The offender’s advanced age, health issues, passage of time, and pro-social life justified reduction from the Crown’s proposed global sentence on totality grounds, resulting in 65 months’ imprisonment.

Retrospective s. 109 and s. 161 orders were refused under s. 11(i) of the Charter, while DNA, SOIRA, and a custodial no-contact order were imposed.

The offender pleaded guilty to two historical sexual assault convictions: one committed in 1987 against a woman in her home using a knife as a weapon, and another committed in 1993 against a young woman in a public area.

The offences were discovered through DNA evidence linking the 1987 assault to the 1993 assault in 2003, with the offender finally identified through genealogical investigation in 2023, approximately 30 years after the second assault.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary sentence (5 years for the first assault, 3 years consecutive for the second), along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order, firearms prohibition, DNA order, and section 743.21 order.

The court rejected the defence position for a conditional sentence, finding that the gravity of the offences and the offender's degree of responsibility required a significant custodial sentence despite mitigating factors including guilty pleas, remorse, and 30+ years without further criminal conduct.

A.H. was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the victim's age (16 at the time of the offence), the profound and devastating impact on the victim (depression, self-harm, fear of intimacy), the violent and serious nature of the assault involving multiple violations (kissing, touching, forced digital penetration, forced oral sex, forced vaginal intercourse), and the presence of another male during the assault.

Mitigating factors included A.H.'s youth (18 at the time of the offence), being a first-time adult offender, having a supportive family, a stable employment history, and a newfound willingness to seek therapy for past traumas.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years in custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it inappropriate for a violent sexual assault, and sentenced A.H. to 30 months' incarceration, moderately below the typical range for forced penetration due to his youth and first-offender status.

The Crown applied to have the offender, Vezio Cardullo, declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention following his guilty pleas to sexual assault causing bodily harm, overcoming resistance by choking, and uttering threats.

The defence conceded the dangerous offender designation but opposed an indeterminate sentence, proposing a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found the offender to be a dangerous offender under all three pathways of the Criminal Code, citing his extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assaults, and the brutal nature of the predicate offences.

However, based on expert evidence indicating the offender's treatability and motivation for change, the court determined that a determinate sentence of 17 years' imprisonment (9.5 years net from judgment date) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, rather than an indeterminate sentence.

During a criminal trial for sexual offences, the Crown sought to cross-examine the accused regarding an alleged attempt to contact a potential witness on social media.

The defence objected.

The court denied the Crown's request, finding that the proposed cross-examination would only serve to show circumstantially bad character.

The court held that the prejudicial effect of allowing the jury to infer disreputable conduct outweighed any probative value, and the evidence did not tend to prove that the sexual activity with the complainant was non-consensual.

During a sexual assault trial, the Crown brought an application to admit prior consistent statements made by the complainant to a friend via Snapchat on the night of the alleged offence.

The Crown argued the evidence was necessary to rebut the defence's allegation of recent fabrication raised during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence's theory posited the motive to fabricate arose before the Snapchat conversation occurred, specifically when the complainant's mother picked her up and she feared punishment for breaking parental rules.

Consequently, the statements lacked probative value to rebut the allegation.

The Crown sought to file a letter written by the complainant as a numbered exhibit during trial.

The defence opposed this.

The court denied the Crown's request, citing a prior omnibus ruling by Justice Kurz that restricted evidence regarding certain sexual activity, and the general rule against admitting prior consistent statements as exhibits, especially when they contain information not disclosed in the witness's testimony.

The court found no unfairness to the Crown or complainant in not admitting the letter, as the complainant had an opportunity to address inconsistencies during cross-examination.

The accused, A.H., sought leave to re-open a pre-trial ruling by a case management judge (Kurz J.) that denied an. application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding evidence related to a "Spin The Vape" game.

The application for leave was based on three grounds: fresh evidence (an affidavit from A.H.), the release of a new Court of Appeal decision (R. v. Choudhary), and alleged misapprehension of evidence or submissions by the case management judge.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the affidavit did not constitute fresh evidence that could not have been adduced earlier, that R. v. Choudhary did not change the existing law, and that there was no misapprehension of evidence by the case management judge.

J.R., charged with sexual assault, brought a disclosure motion seeking various communications between the Crown and the complainant/counsel, the Victim Witness Assistant Program (VWAP), and details regarding the storage and destruction of J.R.'s DNA sample from a previous, unrelated case.

The defence argued these materials were relevant to the admissibility of extrinsic sexual activity, the similar fact witness's knowledge, and potential Crown misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the requested communications irrelevant to the evidence and the DNA sample issue unrelated to the current case.

The court also determined that the defence's claim of Crown misconduct was speculative and not supported by evidence of an abuse of process, thus not warranting the broad disclosure sought.

The offender, D.M., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the severe impact on the victim, the nature of the assault (multiple acts, physical violence, presence of another male, victim was 16), and the offender's lack of insight.

Mitigating factors included his youth (18 at the time of offence), lack of prior criminal record, good employment history, and family support.

The Crown sought 4 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence, but imposed a sentence below the typical range for forced penetration sexual assaults due to the offender's youth and first-offender status.

The Crown applied for an order permitting the adult complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) and with a support person.

The complainant suffered from an anxiety and panic disorder that she believed worsened after testifying at the preliminary inquiry.

The court granted the application, finding that testifying via CCTV would facilitate the complainant giving a full and candid account of the alleged acts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought imprisonment of three to six months followed by probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of three months imprisonment to be served in the community, followed by three years probation.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the offence (premeditation, use of a weapon, stabbing the victim in the back) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, compliance with bail conditions, engagement in counselling, and the impact of COVID-19 on custodial conditions).

The court ordered restitution of $1,500 total, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

A 25-year-old offender with a history of addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder from childhood sexual abuse pleaded guilty to multiple charges including breaches of probation, assault on a police officer, and sexual assault.

The sentencing judge imposed 30 days jail time (time served) without additional probation, rejecting the Crown's request for a two-year probation order.

The decision critically examines the criminalization of probation breaches for vulnerable individuals and the concept of "system-generated offences" drawing on the Supreme Court's recent decision in R. v. Zora regarding disproportionate impacts on marginalized populations.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a December 6, 2018 incident where a civilian witness observed erratic driving on Highway 403 and called 911.

Police attended at an ice arena parking lot where the defendant was located.

The defendant failed a roadside screening device test and was arrested.

Breath samples revealed readings of 340 and 330 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the detention, the timing of the ASD demand, the provision of rights to counsel, and the reasonableness of grounds for arrest.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the defendant guilty of both offences.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

The Crown sought 21 months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional sentence or intermittent imprisonment of 90 days.

The court imposed 9 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation, rejecting both a conditional sentence and intermittent imprisonment as inconsistent with sentencing principles for child pornography offences.

The court emphasized that denunciation and general deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives for such offences, particularly given the serious nature of child sexual abuse material and the re-victimization of children each time such material is viewed.

The Crown applied to have the offender, S.S., declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence, following his conviction for sexual interference.

The offender resisted, arguing he should be declared a long-term offender under s. 753.1, with a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order.

The court declined to find the offender a dangerous offender, concluding that the Crown failed to prove a "pattern of repetitive behaviour" or "persistent aggressive behaviour" and that the conduct was "intractable" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the court found the offender to be a long-term offender, imposing a 10-year term of imprisonment and a 10-year long-term supervision order, finding a reasonable possibility of eventual risk control in the community.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography between August 26 and October 19, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence of imprisonment and imposed a custodial sentence of seven months (less pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the accused had mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, and strong family support, the serious nature of the offence—involving over 7,900 images and 64 videos depicting young children in explicit sexual acts—required denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance for ten years, a ten-year section 161 order restricting contact with children and internet use, a five-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized computers.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young niece.

At the preliminary inquiry, the child claimed to have no memory of the events or her prior police interview.

The Crown sought to admit her video-recorded police interview under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the statement met the criteria for necessity and threshold reliability and admitted it into evidence.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the child's statement over the defence evidence and found the accused guilty on both counts.