Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2026-03-23 Docket: COA-24-CR-0572

Fairburn A.C.J.O., Simmons and Trotter JJ.A.

Parties

Between

His Majesty the King — Respondent

and

Jade Robert Freeswick — Appellant

Counsel

Miranda Brar and Jackson Brown, for the appellant

Tom Lemon and Brandt Chu, for the respondent

Heard and rendered orally: March 20, 2026

On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Thomas A. Heeney of the Superior Court of Justice, on March 20, 2023, and from the sentence imposed on June 15, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is an appeal from conviction and sentence for drug-related offences. The appellant was tried with a co-accused. In this judge-alone trial, the co-accused was acquitted and the appellant was convicted of three counts under the *Controlled Drugs and Substances Act*, S.C. 1996, c. 19. Both accused testified. The trial judge explained in detailed reasons why he accepted the evidence of the co-accused and rejected the appellant's evidence.

[2] The appellant argues that the trial judge erred by failing to self-instruct on *Vetrovec v. The Queen*, 1982 CanLII 20 (SCC), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811, in relation to the appellant's co-accused. We disagree that this case required self-instruction. Even if the appellant were right that a co-accused could be the subject of a Vetrovec instruction in a judge-alone trial, a proposition which we should not be taken as accepting, nothing would have changed in the trial judge's reasons. There was ample independent, corroborative evidence of the co-accused's testimony. The trial judge addressed that evidence and accepted it.

[3] The appellant also advances an uneven scrutiny ground. He argues that the trial judge unevenly assessed the evidence of the appellant and his co-accused. We disagree. It was open to the trial judge to arrive at the credibility findings he reached, and he explained them well.

[4] The appellant also seeks leave to appeal from sentence on the basis that the trial judge, while he acknowledged the appellant's Indigeneity, failed to perform a proper analysis pursuant to *R. v. Gladue*, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688. The Gladue Writer Program advised the trial judge that a report could not be prepared because they were "unsure, as is [the appellant], about the specific nature of his Indigenous ancestry and second, even if his ancestry was somehow able to be confirmed, we cannot address how being an Indigenous person has affected his life circumstances." In these circumstances, we see no error in how the trial judge approached the issue. In any event, the trial judge gave careful consideration to the appellant's upbringing, his life circumstances and his challenges.

[5] The conviction appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence is granted. The sentence appeal is dismissed.

"Fairburn A.C.J.O."

"J. Simmons J.A."

"G.T. Trotter J.A."