Kelli Frew

The defendant was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against a five-and-a-half-year-old complainant on March 13, 2014.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial centered on credibility and the identity of the assailant.

The complainant testified via CCTV that the defendant showed her his genitals and touched her inappropriately.

However, during cross-examination, the complainant indicated that it was the defendant's 17-year-old son who committed these acts, not the defendant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable and malleable, influenced by the questioning of various adults.

The investigating officer failed to properly investigate the alternate suspect despite being informed by the suspect's counsel that he wished to provide an inculpatory statement.

The defendant testified in his own defence and denied the allegations.

The court found his evidence left a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual touching of a person under 16 years contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred in January 2013.

The trial proceeded over multiple court appearances spanning 17 months.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The court further found that the accused's rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated due to abuse of process resulting from the Crown's breach of undertakings given at the judicial pre-trial and the failures of Legal Aid Ontario.

The court also found a violation of section 11(b) Charter rights due to unreasonable delay caused by the actions of the prosecuting Crown and Legal Aid Ontario.

The defendant was charged with two offences under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act: operating a motor vehicle without insurance and knowingly using a false insurance card.

The trial proceeded in the defendant's absence.

The Crown proved that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle on Highway 403 in Oakville on November 7, 2011, and that she was the registered owner of the vehicle.

The defendant's insurance policy had been cancelled on October 8, 2011, due to non-payment of premiums.

The defendant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was insured at the time of the offence.

The defendant also failed to establish the defence of reasonable care.

The Crown stayed the second count, and the defendant was convicted on the first count.

The accused was charged with accessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought Charter applications challenging the validity of the search warrant under section 8 and alleging breaches of the right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court found that the Information to Obtain the search warrant contained significant embellishments and generalizations about offender behaviour that were devoid of meaningful factual support.

The court determined that the ITO provided only suspicion and speculation rather than reasonable and probable grounds that evidence would be found at the residence 13 months after the alleged offence.

The court also found multiple breaches of the accused's section 10(b) rights during questioning by police before he was informed of his right to counsel.

Both the physical evidence and the accused's statements were excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual interference with a young person under 16 years contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The alleged offences occurred on June 6, 2011, in Milton, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, her sister, the accused's girlfriend at the time, and the accused himself.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and consistent, while rejecting the testimony of the defence witnesses as unreliable and self-serving.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts and registered a stay on one count pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that printed materials containing child pornography, found in a drawer in the defendant's home, were in the defendant's possession.

The defendant denied knowledge of or possession of the materials and suggested that a family member, specifically his grandson Matthew Butwick, had printed and planted the materials to implicate him.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the child pornography and had printed the materials himself, rejecting the defendant's implausible alternative explanation.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision on December 14, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the arrest, the admissibility of statements, and the right to counsel.

The court found no violation of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) regarding the arrest, as the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on civilian witness information and observations.

The court found no s. 7 violation regarding compelled statements, as the accused's statements to the officer were not compelled by a statutory duty to report.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation due to inadequate police note-taking regarding the accused's request to speak to counsel, resulting in exclusion of all statements made at the scene and en route to the detachment.

Under s. 24(2), the breath test results were admitted as the breach was minor and the public interest in highway safety favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving based on circumstantial evidence establishing he was the driver and that the driving occurred within the two-hour window required by statute.

The appellant brought a summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault and sexual assault following a trial.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence arising from a later civil discovery in which the complainant made statements inconsistent with her trial testimony regarding whether she worked the day after the alleged sexual assault.

Applying the principles governing fresh evidence under s. 683(1) of the Criminal Code and the Palmer test, the court held the inconsistent statements were admissible and had significant impeachment value concerning the credibility of the key Crown witness.

The court also found the trial judge’s reasons were deficient, particularly in addressing the third step of the W.(D.) analysis and in failing to grapple with major inconsistencies and evidentiary conflicts.

The convictions were therefore set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor.

The Crown presented evidence from two complainants and an undercover police officer, all of whom described similar patterns of sexually inappropriate conduct during taxi rides.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming intoxication on the part of the complainants and accidental contact.

The court found the complainants and undercover officer credible and rejected the accused's testimony as inconsistent and evasive.

The court convicted on two counts: sexual interference with a minor and sexual assault.

A stay was entered on the third count (sexual assault of the minor) pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault arising from an incident involving his employee.

He argued the trial judge improperly presumed the complainant’s truthfulness, misapprehended evidence, and failed to properly apply the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.).

The court rejected these arguments and upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge’s credibility findings and reliance on corroborative text message evidence were open on the record.

However, the sentencing judge erred by relying on unproven medical diagnoses in the victim impact statement and by treating the nature of the touching (over or under clothing) as irrelevant to sentence.

The appellate court set aside the custodial sentence and imposed a conditional sentence in the community.

The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle following an incident during a traffic stop.

The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge’s reasons were inadequate.

The summary conviction appeal court held that while the evidence could support a conviction, the trial judge’s reasons failed to explain why key factual findings were made in the face of conflicting testimony.

Because the reasons did not address credibility conflicts or explain the basis for rejecting parts of the defence evidence, they did not permit meaningful appellate review.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The offender was convicted by a jury of sexual assault and assault arising from an incident involving forced intercourse and physical violence in the complainant’s home, and later pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an undertaking prohibiting contact with the complainant.

The court considered the seriousness of non-consensual intercourse, the physical injuries inflicted, the impact on the complainant, and the intimate relationship between the parties as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, some expressions of remorse, and otherwise stable personal circumstances.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in intimate partner sexual violence, the court imposed a custodial sentence within the range reflected in comparable authorities.

Concurrent and consecutive sentences were structured to reflect that the breach offence occurred weeks later.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and pointing a firearm after a confrontation with another individual in a fast‑food drive‑through.

Evidence showed the accused possessed a pellet pistol capable of discharging projectiles at velocities exceeding the threshold for serious bodily harm.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court rejected the accused’s denial that he pointed the gun.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused committed an assault or possessed the weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The court held that a pellet gun may constitute a firearm for Criminal Code offences even if it is not operational at the moment due to an empty compressed air cylinder.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the delay between his arrest on October 5, 2010 and his trial date of March 7, 2012 (17 months and 2 days) violated his right to trial within a reasonable time.

The Crown conceded that the total delay warranted Charter scrutiny but argued that the institutional delay, after appropriate deductions for intake and neutral periods, was approximately 11 months, which fell within acceptable guidelines.

The court found that while the accused suffered some prejudice from the frustration of his first trial date, the majority of his claimed prejudice was charge-related rather than delay-related.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the accused had not satisfied the balance of probabilities test for establishing a section 11(b) breach.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault and assault, the defence argued the verdict was ambiguous because the jury may have relied on different factual bases ranging from touching to intercourse.

The court held that the Crown’s closing submissions created the possibility that jurors reached a unanimous verdict based on different evidentiary foundations.

In such circumstances, sentencing requires the trial judge to independently determine the relevant facts using the criminal standard of proof.

After reviewing the trial evidence, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed both digital penetration and sexual intercourse without consent as part of a continuous sexual assault.

These findings were adopted as the factual basis for sentencing.

The accused was charged with break and enter, possession of stolen property, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eye-witness identification from a photo line-up and the doctrine of recent possession.

Two independent witnesses identified the accused: the homeowner who saw him leaving her property, and a construction worker who saw him dumping the stolen safe in a ravine.

The court found the photo line-ups were fair and the identifications reliable.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused was charged with break and enter of a residential dwelling, theft, possession of stolen property (a vehicle and a safe), and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification evidence from two independent witnesses who identified the accused in photo line-ups, combined with the doctrine of recent possession.

The court found the identification evidence reliable and the photo line-up procedures fair, complying with Sophonow Inquiry recommendations.

The accused was convicted on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Count 5 was dismissed at the Crown's request.