Mareike Noona Godbout Newhouse

Kevin Barreau was convicted after trial of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

The sentencing judgment details the circumstances of the offences, the severe impact on the victim (A.D.), and the offender's personal history, including the influence of systemic anti-Black racism as presented in an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA).

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's youth and the lasting impact of the offences, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's youth at the time of the offences, lack of prior criminal record, expressed remorse, strong rehabilitation prospects, and the contextualizing role of systemic racism.

The Crown sought a global sentence of seven years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day with restitution.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months imprisonment, applying a two-month credit for a Charter breach (denial of access to counsel).

Ancillary orders included restitution to the victim, forfeiture of seized items, a non-communication order, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The applicant, Roger Boissé, sought to exclude DNA evidence and/or stay proceedings under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 10(b), 15, and 16.

The core of the application concerned the validity of his consent to provide a DNA sample, arguing it was not informed or voluntary due to linguistic issues (English consent form for a French speaker) and alleged police coercion.

The court found that the Crown successfully demonstrated that the consent was informed and voluntary, and that no Charter rights were violated.

Specifically, the court determined that the applicant was not detained, had prior legal counsel, and understood his rights despite the language challenges.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the DNA evidence was deemed admissible for trial.

The accused, Kevin Barreau, was charged with five Criminal Code offences related to human trafficking and procuring.

The trial involved complex procedural issues, including an application to excuse a witness (P.C. Rice) due to PTSD and a Charter application for a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct, including racial slurs and denial of counsel.

The court found the accused guilty of human trafficking, receiving material benefit from human trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

The charge of facilitating another offence was acquitted.

The Charter application for a stay was dismissed, but a s. 10(b) breach (denial of counsel) was found, entitling the accused to sentencing credit.

This criminal trial concerned a single count of sexual assault against B.B., based on his daughter T.B.'s recovered memory of an incident from her childhood.

T.B. experienced a "flashback" in 2018, recalling her father touching her nipples when she was around 11 years old.

The court meticulously assessed the reliability of T.B.'s recovered memory, noting the absence of independent corroborating evidence and the potential for confabulation, despite T.B.'s sincere belief in its truth.

The judge also considered B.B.'s exculpatory statements and the complex family communications surrounding the allegation.

Ultimately, the court found that the Crown did not prove B.B.'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The accused brought an application to question potential jurors for cause, arguing that the "Me Too" Movement had potentially affected juror impartiality, making them more likely to convict in sexual assault cases.

The Crown opposed, asserting this constituted an impermissible offence-based challenge.

The court dismissed the application, reaffirming that strong public opinions or views about a type of crime do not automatically translate into juror partiality against an accused.

The court emphasized that the trial process, including juror oaths and judicial instructions, is designed to ensure impartiality, and that the "Me Too" Movement, by raising awareness, reinforces the seriousness of such offences rather than undermining the rule of law.

The applicant brought a motion under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging that the delay of approximately four years, nine months, and nine days between his charge and anticipated sentencing constituted an unconstitutional delay.

The applicant was charged with six counts of child pornography offences in November 2011 and was found guilty on two counts in February 2016.

The motion was brought in August 2016, following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan, which established new presumptive ceilings for trial delay.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases, the delay was justified under the transitional exceptional circumstances framework established in Jordan, as the parties had relied on the law as it previously existed for the majority of the delay period.

The applicant, Timothy Hewton, sought an order for separate trials on two sets of charges: prostitution-related counts and firearm-related counts.

Hewton argued that a joint trial would prejudice his fair trial interests due to the risk of propensity reasoning and his intention to testify on the prostitution counts but not the firearm counts.

The Crown opposed, asserting a factual and legal nexus between the charges and concerns about increased court time and a vulnerable witness testifying twice.

Applying the principles from R. v. Last, the court found that the interests of justice required separate trials, primarily due to the danger of propensity reasoning and the objective reasonableness of the applicant's testimonial intention.

The defendant, Michael Campbell, challenged the constitutionality of section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, specifically the 'misconduct exception' which limits pre-sentence custody credit to a 1:1 ratio when an offender is denied bail under section 524(4) or (8).

The court found this provision to be overbroad and in violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, declaring it of no force and effect.

Consequently, the defendant was granted enhanced pre-trial custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, along with additional credit for harsh institutional conditions and successful house arrest.

The court then proceeded to sentence the defendant for exercising control over a prostitute and possessing a prohibited firearm, imposing a total sentence of 45 months imprisonment, reduced by the enhanced pre-trial credit, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders.

The defendant, A.S., was found guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm (and failure to provide necessaries of life, which was judicially stayed).

The case involved her failure to protect her nine-year-old daughter, I.B., from protracted sexual abuse by her stepfather, J.K., despite having clear knowledge of the abuse for nearly a year.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation and deterrence for offences against children, and aggravating factors such as breach of parental trust and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and a low risk of re-offending, though remorse was deemed tepid.

The court granted six months credit for pre-trial custody and stringent bail conditions.

A penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed, reduced to two years and six months after credit.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, firearm prohibitions, communication prohibitions with the victim and abuser, and a victim surcharge.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case rested on breathalyzer readings of 118 mg and 110 mg.

The accused raised a bolus drinking defence, arguing that she had consumed most of the alcohol immediately before being stopped and that it had not been fully absorbed into her bloodstream at the time of driving.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence regarding the timing and volume of her alcohol consumption, finding her testimony not credible.

The trial judge also found problems with the expert evidence that was based on the accused's account.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle following a three-vehicle collision.

The impairment element was conceded; the sole issue was whether the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea.

The defendant had unknowingly received a prescription for Lorazepam at double his usual dose due to a pharmacy error.

The court found that while the defendant was objectively impaired, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he voluntarily consumed the drug with knowledge that it might impair his ability to drive, given the accidental doubling of his prescription and his lack of prior experience with side effects at higher doses.

During a criminal trial for robbery, the court considered whether to conduct a voir dire into the competence of two proposed Amharic interpreters who lacked accreditation under the Ministry of the Attorney General’s new interpreter testing regime.

Both interpreters had failed the Ministry’s English‑only interpreter test and had previously been accredited under an earlier system later found invalid.

The court held that the failed test results demonstrated that the interpreters had not reached the required threshold of competence.

Given the absence of accreditation and the judge’s inability to independently assess Amharic interpretation, the court concluded that a voir dire would serve no useful purpose.

The interpreters were therefore deemed incompetent to act in the trial.