Robert B. Carew

The accused was charged with sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, and inviting a person under 16 to touch for a sexual purpose.

The complainant, aged 14 (believed 15 by the accused), initiated contact to "catch a paedophile" and sent explicit content.

The court found the complainant's credibility problematic, dismissing the sexual assault and touching charges (Counts 1 and 2) due to reasonable doubt, despite finding the events "probably happened." However, the court found the accused guilty of inviting a person under 16 to touch for a sexual purpose (Count 3) based on overwhelming text evidence, emphasizing that a 36-year-old should understand a 15-year-old's sexual invitations as manifestations of immaturity.

The appellant, convicted of drugging and sexually assaulting 14 women and designated a dangerous offender with an indeterminate sentence, appealed his convictions on three counts and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

The court found no reviewable error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, the use of similar fact evidence (despite a procedural oversight which was deemed harmless), or the determination that a determinate sentence would not adequately protect the public given the appellant's high risk of reoffending due to antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy.

Juteah Downey was convicted of 16 human trafficking-related offenses involving four vulnerable complainants.

The Crown sought an 18-year global sentence, while the defence proposed 4-8 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Downey's prior human trafficking conviction, multiple victims, violence, and the sophisticated nature of his operation.

Mitigating factors were minimal.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced from an initial calculation of 26 years to respect the totality principle, with credit for pre-trial custody.

Ancillary orders for DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication were granted, but a restitution order was denied due to quantification difficulties and the accused's limited ability to pay.

The Crown applied to revoke the accused's bail on secondary and tertiary grounds following his conviction for 12 counts of human trafficking related offences.

The Crown relied on the accused's prior human trafficking conviction, historical and recent breaches of court orders, and new uncharged breaches involving recruitment of models and entertainers.

The defence argued the accused had complied with conditions and the new breach evidence was unreliable.

The court found the accused's detention warranted on both secondary grounds (substantial likelihood of re-offending given his history, nature of offences, and continued recruitment activities) and tertiary grounds (to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, considering the gravity of the offences, the strength of the case post-conviction, and the likelihood of a lengthy penitentiary sentence).

The court vacated the previous release order and ordered the accused's detention.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired care and control of a motor vehicle.

He argued the trial judge erred by applying the Hatfield test instead of the Boudreault framework to assess the presumption of care and control under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal, holding that Boudreault did not overrule Hatfield, and the relevant time to assess the driver's intention remains when occupancy of the vehicle began.

The trial judge's factual findings regarding the appellant not exiting the vehicle were also upheld as reasonable.

The Crown appealed a sentence of 90 days intermittent imprisonment and two years' probation imposed on the respondent for assault causing bodily harm.

The respondent and a friend had assaulted the victim under the mistaken belief that the victim was breaking into vehicles.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge misapprehended the victim's brain injury, improperly treated the respondent's 911 call as mitigating, and erred in applying the principle of proportionality.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the sentencing judge's factual findings or application of principles, and concluding the sentence was within the judge's discretion and entitled to deference.

The defendant brought a Stage 2 application for third-party production of the complainant's medical records in a sexual assault case.

The court reviewed thousands of pages of records from three hospitals.

While most documents were deemed irrelevant and highly confidential, specific portions (Exhibits A-2, B-2, C-2) were found to contain information relevant to trial issues, such as the complainant's suppressed memory, reported abuse, and anxiety related to testifying.

Applying the principles from R. v. Mills, the court ordered these specific exhibits to be produced to the defendant's counsel for review, with the client permitted to read but not copy them, to ensure the defendant's right to make full answer and defence.

The remaining records were sealed.

The accused, K.G.A. and A.S.A., were charged with human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, advertising sexual services, and K.G.A. was also charged with criminal harassment.

The charges stemmed from allegations by P.J., who claimed she was exploited in the sex trade in Ottawa.

The court conducted a thorough assessment of P.J.'s credibility and reliability, finding significant inconsistencies, memory issues due to intoxication and drug use, and evasiveness in her testimony.

The court concluded that it would be dangerous to convict the accused based on P.J.'s evidence.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the conduct or purpose elements for human trafficking, the material benefit, or the advertising charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

For criminal harassment, the alleged words were not found to be threatening or intimidating to a reasonable person in the circumstances.

All charges against K.G.A. and A.S.A. were dismissed, and acquittals were entered.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence of the defendant's discreditable non-charged conduct against his other children in a judge-alone trial for sexual assault and assault charges.

The defendant opposed, arguing the evidence was too prejudicial and dissimilar.

The court applied the R. v. Handy framework, finding the evidence relevant to the complainant's credibility, actus reus, and to rebut anticipated defences of recent fabrication and failure to report.

The court admitted the similar fact evidence with restrictions, excluding testimony regarding the use of a pellet gun, frying pan, and paddle, and limiting it to physical assaults (hands, feet, belts) by witnesses who would testify, to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial while acknowledging the reduced prejudice in a judge-alone setting.

The accused pleaded guilty to uttering threats to cause death, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, maiming and wounding a dog, and breach of probation.

The offences occurred while the accused was experiencing drug-induced psychosis, during which he stabbed a dog multiple times believing he needed to cleanse it of evil, and made threats to cut off the heads of the victim and her children.

The court imposed a sentence of six months for animal cruelty, three months consecutive for threatening, and concurrent sentences for the remaining charges, followed by two years probation.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and fifteen-year animal ownership ban were also imposed.

The court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, recognizing the accused's reduced moral blameworthiness due to his mental state while acknowledging the severity of the offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his sentence.

The assault occurred outside a McDonald's restaurant in Ottawa.

The main issue at trial was identification.

The trial judge provided detailed reasons supporting her conclusion that the appellant was identified as the assailant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge adequately addressed the conflicting evidence and the verdict was reasonable.

On sentence, the court found the sentence was not unfit given the serious and cowardly nature of the attack, the victim's serious injuries requiring reconstructive surgery, and the appellant's serious criminal record for violent offences.

The court rejected a parity argument, noting significant differences between the appellant and a co-accused, including the co-accused's early guilty plea and minor record.

Both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, a former RCMP officer, appealed his sentence of 15 years' imprisonment (less 22 months credit for pre-sentence custody) imposed after conviction on multiple counts involving serious abuse of his 11-year-old son, including two counts of aggravated assault, one count of assault with a weapon, one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm, one count of unlawful confinement, one count of failing to provide the necessaries of life, and two counts relating to improper storage of ammunition and a firearm.

The appellant sought a reduction of five to ten years in his term of imprisonment, advancing three grounds of appeal challenging the sentencing range, the weight given to mental health evidence, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the sentence.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning the first-degree murder of Dady Junior Jean on November 4, 2015.

Four defendants were charged: Dominique P. Chrétien, Johnnie-Dean Locey-Derochie, Candy L. Locey, and Todd S. Turner.

The Crown sought committal of all four on first-degree murder.

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to commit each defendant to trial on first-degree murder, considering the elements of planning and deliberation.

The court found that the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including motive, opportunity, communications, procurement of a firearm, and coordinated actions, supported reasonable inferences that all four defendants knew of and participated in a planned and deliberate murder.

All four defendants were committed to trial on first-degree murder.

D.D. was convicted of eight offences, including aggravated assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and failing to provide necessaries of life, against his 11-year-old son.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust, extreme violence, sexualized nature of abuse, and starvation, and mitigating factors including D.D.'s lack of criminal record and mental health issues (PTSD, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive and narcissistic personality traits).

The court found D.D.'s mental health explained his behaviour but did not cause it, thus prioritizing denunciation and deterrence over rehabilitation.

A global sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was imposed, with specific apportionments for each offence, and various ancillary orders.

The accused, Anthony Nathan Constant-Booth, was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, and aggravated assault following a parking lot altercation.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of eyewitnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault for kicking one victim, Pascal Marion, in the face, but acquitted him of the other two assault charges due to insufficient evidence of common purpose or direct participation in those specific incidents.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug (marijuana) on June 25, 2014, in Ottawa.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by marijuana.

The evidence included observations of marijuana smoke emanating from the vehicle, the accused's admission to smoking, and performance on drug influence evaluation tests administered approximately one to one and a half hours after the stop.

The court found that divided attention tests, particularly the modified Romberg balance test, heel-to-toe walk, and one-leg stand test, demonstrated significant impairment of the accused's ability to perform tasks requiring divided attention, which is essential to safe driving.

The accused was convicted on both the impaired driving charge and the marijuana possession charge.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether there is sufficient evidence to commit seven accused persons to stand trial on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and unlawful entry arising from a brutal attack on the victim in the early morning hours of November 17, 2013.

The Crown's theory is that the attack was undertaken in retaliation for an assault on the brother of one of the accused the previous day.

The court applies the prima facie case standard, examining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of each charge.

The decision addresses complex issues regarding the mens rea of attempted murder, the admissibility of hearsay statements, the evaluation of circumstantial identification evidence, and the requirements for party liability.

The Crown brought a section 540(7) application seeking to admit witness statements as evidence at a preliminary inquiry without requiring the witnesses to testify.

The application involved four key witnesses: Jessica Walker, Samantha Daoust, Mark Sudiacal, and Jason Klein.

The Crown sought to admit their statements under the Criminal Code provision that permits justices to receive evidence that would not otherwise be admissible if the justice considers it credible or trustworthy.

The court admitted the statements of Daoust, Sudiacal, and Klein, as well as the videotaped statements of Walker, but excluded Walker's off-camera statement recorded in police notes.

The decision provides comprehensive guidance on the interpretation and application of section 540(7).

The Crown sought reconsideration of a preliminary inquiry judge's ruling denying a section 540(7) application to file transcripts of witness statements.

The initial judge had rejected the application as inadequately presented and lacking sufficient grounding.

The Crown subsequently renewed the application with a fuller record.

The presiding judge ruled that reconsideration was permissible, finding that the initial ruling was not a final determination on the merits of section 540(7) admissibility but rather a rejection of the application as presented.

The judge held that interlocutory evidentiary rulings can be reconsidered where there is no prejudice to the defence and where the interests of justice support reconsideration, particularly in preliminary inquiries where evidentiary errors cannot be appealed.

Three offenders were convicted following a lengthy trial of firearms trafficking offences arising from Project Lancaster, a two-year investigation into illegal firearms and drug trafficking.

All three were convicted of various firearms offences involving restricted or prohibited handguns.

Two offenders were also convicted of drug trafficking offences.

The court imposed sentences of 5 years for the firearms offences, with an additional 7 months consecutive for drug offences where applicable.

The court rejected constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum sentence under section 99 of the Criminal Code, finding that the appropriate sentences exceeded the three-year minimum.

Enhanced credit for pre-trial custody was granted, resulting in net sentences ranging from approximately 4.7 years to 5 years and 7 months.