Robert Carew

The Crown brought an application to remove the accused's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The defence counsel's daughter and colleague had previously provided legal advice to the complainant upon her arrest for impaired driving.

The defence counsel intended to cross-examine the complainant using records from that impaired driving charge.

The court found that a solicitor-client relationship existed between the complainant and the firm, creating a clear conflict of interest.

The application was granted and counsel was removed to preserve the public perception of fairness in the administration of justice.

The applicant sought a review of a bail judge's decision detaining him on secondary and tertiary grounds for charges relating to domestic violence and firearms.

The reviewing judge found the bail judge erred in law by faulting the proposed sureties for not knowing about unproven allegations, effectively violating the presumption of innocence, and by failing to consider the strength of the Crown's case.

Conducting a de novo hearing, the reviewing judge found the proposed sureties were suitable and that the secondary and tertiary grounds did not justify detention.

The applicant was ordered released on bail.

The accused was convicted of manslaughter by a jury for his role as an aider and abettor in a shooting death.

The Crown sought a sentence of 6 to 8 years and a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew about the firearm prior to its use.

The court sentenced the accused to 4 years imprisonment, which was satisfied by pre-sentence custody, followed by 3 years of probation.

The LTO application was dismissed, as the court was not satisfied the accused posed a substantial risk to violently reoffend.

The accused was charged with assault, forcible confinement, mischief, choking, and theft arising from a domestic dispute.

The court found the complainant's uncorroborated evidence regarding the choking allegation to be unreliable due to her history of manipulation and dishonesty under oath, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

However, relying on the credible and independent testimony of the accused's roommate, the court found the accused guilty of forcible confinement for blocking the complainant from leaving the bedroom, assault for knocking her down in the bathroom, and mischief for taking her phone to prevent her from calling for help.

The theft charge was dismissed as there was no intent to convert the phone.

During a first-degree murder trial, the court issued written reasons for three oral evidentiary rulings.

First, evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct was admitted as its probative value in assessing the reliability of his confession outweighed its prejudicial effect.

Second, a spontaneous inculpatory utterance made by the accused to special constables while being transported was ruled voluntary and admissible.

Third, the defence was permitted to call a psychiatrist and psychologist as non-expert witnesses to testify about the accused's demeanour and pre-confession statements, but they were restricted from providing a diagnosis or testifying about post-confession statements.