CITATION: R. v. Croteau, 2016 ONSC 1515
COURT FILE NO.: 15-7874
DATE: 2016/03/04
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
KEANU CROTEAU Accused
– and –
MOHAMAD HAMADE Accused
Fara Rupert and Julian Daller, for the Crown
Mark Ertel and Michelle O’Doherty, for the Accused Mr. Croteau
Richard Addleman and M. Frouhar, for the Accused Mr. Hamade
HEARD: December 14, 16, 17, 2015 and January 26,27,28, 2016
REASONS FOR Decision
R. Smith J.
Overview
[1] The applicants are jointly charged with second degree murder of Issaiah Clachar (“Clachar”) and the attempted murder of Jeremy Cameron (“Cameron”) on September 20, 2015. The applicants seek release from custody pending their trial pursuant to section 522 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (“Criminal Code”). The applicants must show cause why their detention is not justified under the above section.
[2] Keanu Croteau was 18 years of age and Mohamad Hamade was 25 years of age at the time the offences are alleged to have been committed. They are jointly charged with the second degree murder of Issaiah Clachar and also with the attempted murder of Jeremy Cameron by stabbing. Because the accused are charged with second degree murder, the provisions of section 522(2) of the Criminal Code are applicable.
[3] section 522(2) of the Criminal Code states:
That the accused be detained in custody unless the accused…,shows cause why his detention in custody is not justified within the meaning of subsection 515(10).
Summary of factual allegations
[4] Factual allegations are based on the outline set out in the Crown’s factum and the evidence given at the hearing.
[5] On September 19, 2015, the deceased refused to pay for marijuana he received from Michelle Joly. Ms. Joly was Croteau’s girlfriend. Clachar refused to pay after he received the marijuana citing a grievance over a previous deal with Croteau.
[6] On the evening of September 19, 2015, Clachar attended Kayla Larocque’s home located at 1204-2000 Jasmine Crescent together with his two friends, Cordell Claybourne-Lavigne and Jeremy Cameron. Clachar told Cameron that he had taken the marijuana from Ms. Joly without paying her, committing a “drug rip”.
[7] Ms. Joly contacted Clachar’s group that evening and stated that they would slash Clachar’s tires and that he “has what is coming to him” due to his theft of the marijuana.
[8] Shortly after 12:00 a.m. that night, Clachar agreed to drive his friends Cameron and Claybourne-Lavigne to their homes. When they approached his 2006 Nissan Altima, they saw that all four tires were slashed.
[9] The video surveillance of the parking lot at 2000 Jasmine Crescent on September 20, 2015 showed the following:
(a) At 11:37 p.m., Clachar, Cameron and Claybourne-Lavigne arrived at the building;
(b) At 12:08 a.m. “a black Acura drove by the parking area and stopped near the Nissan Altima;
(c) At 12:10 a.m., a passenger returned from the parked cars and re-entered the black Acura. The black Acura then began to exit the parking lot in front of 2020 Jasmine Crescent going in wrong direction through the front parking lot at 2000/2020 Jasmine Crescent;
(d) At 12:12:00 a.m., Cameron, Claybourne-Lavigne and Clachar exited the 2000 Jasmine Crescent lobby and shortly thereafter are seen walking through the parking lot;
(e) At 12:12:38 a.m., the black Acura drove by Cameron, Claybourne-Lavigne and Clachar in the parking lot;
(f) At 12:13:00 a.m., the black Acura pulled onto Jasmine Crescent but stopped and made a 3-point turn on Jasmine Crescent;
(g) At 12:13:13, the black Acura pulled back into the front parking lot at 2000/2020 Jasmine Crescent towards Clachar’s vehicle.
[10] Cameron and Claybourne-Lavigne told police that they noticed a black Acura driving slowly along Jasmine Crescent. The car then sped back into the front parking lot of 2000/2020 Jasmine Crescent and parked directly behind Clachar’s Nissan. Their evidence is consistent with the video surveillance of the parking lot area.
[11] Both Croteau and Hamade exited the dark Acura and rushed Clachar and Cameron. Clachar went into his Nissan and pulled out a pellet gun. Claybourne-Lavigne was not attacked, did not suffer any injuries and walked away.
[12] Cameron stated that Croteau and Hamade attacked Clachar and him as they approached Clachar’s Nissan vehicle. Cameron was stabbed once in the lower right abdomen by Hamade, he suffered a broken rib, and fled to the lobby of 2000 Jasmine Crescent. He stated that he did not fight back and stated that as he ran, he could see Clachar was still fighting with Croteau.
[13] Clachar was stabbed multiple times; twice in the back, at least one of those wounds to his back was fatal.
[14] Cameron stated that Hamade was the individual who stabbed him in the stomach. He was unarmed at the time and he had not been involved in the earlier drug theft by Clachar.
[15] After the stabbing, Hamade and Croteau ran back to their vehicle but did not drive away; instead, they ran away from the scene on foot to the south of the apartment building towards the Queensway.
[16] The police K-9 unit was called and were able to track the two individuals from the scene of the stabbing across Highway 174. The search dogs discovered Croteau and Hamade lying in a grassy area, near a golf course immediately south of Highway 174.
[17] Hamade was shot at some point previously with a pellet gun by Clachar after he retrieved the gun from his vehicle. Hamade was taken to hospital where a pellet was removed from his forehead. He received one stitch for the removal of the pellet.
[18] Hamade also suffered several other bruises to his face and nose which is consistent with him having been punched by Clachar when he was being stabbed.
[19] Croteau suffered no injuries and after his arrest he was taken to jail.
[20] The photographs filed as exhibits show that Croteau had blood on his face, and in his abdomen area, and on his left shoulder of his white T-shirt. His brown shorts were also covered with blood. Hamade was wearing black clothing and blood is not visible on his clothing from the photographs.
[21] Clachar was found at the scene with blood all around him. He had several stab wounds to his chest and upper abdomen. He died on the operating table at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”). A stab wound to his back was the fatal wound. Two puncture marks were observed on the back of Mr. Clachar’s hoodie.
[22] Cameron was also taken to the hospital. He had been stabbed in the abdomen and his shirt was covered in blood. Cameron observed the fighting between Clachar and Croteau. Cameron stated that Croteau rushed Clachar and that Hamade came at him. Cameron testified that Croteau had a knife and ran at Clachar with it. Cameron stated that Croteau attacked Clachar and that Hamade assisted him in attacking the victim.
[23] Claybourne-Lavigne told police that he saw three males fighting and they were attacking Clachar. He observed one of the males stabbing Clachar. Claybourne-Lavigne stated that he knew the suspects.
[24] When Clachar’s vehicle was searched, the police discovered a pair of brass knuckles, a machete, and another knife.
[25] Hamade refused to identify himself when he was arrested but was otherwise cooperative. Both of Hamade’s hands were bloody when he was arrested.
[26] Cameron told the police that Clachar went to his car to get a black BB gun, which he had in his hand. The gun was found at the scene soaked in blood, which was likely Clachar’s blood, as Hamade and Croteau did not suffer any bleeding wounds.
[27] The officers who attended the scene followed the accused’s tracks, which went over two fences that each had blood on them. Two gold Nike running shoes were also found along their path. Hamade was not wearing shoes when arrested. A black and white Nike running shoe was also found near the scene of the crime. Croteau was wearing one black and white Nike running shoe when arrested.
[28] The Acura vehicle was registered in the name of Croteau’s grandmother and had the key in the ignition, the gear shift was in drive and blood was found on the driver’s seat, steering wheel and gear shift. There appeared to be vomit on the ground at the front of the vehicle on both sides. A folding silver knife covered with blood was found on the ground 10 meters in front of the Acura. Neither Hamade nor Croteau suffered any stab wounds but Hamade appeared to have been in a physical fight and had several facial injuries and bruises, and he had a pellet in his forehead.
The proposed plan of release for Croteau
[29] Croteau has proposed four sureties as well as electronic monitoring to be arranged through Recovery Science. All four sureties are prepared to pledge a bond and to supervise him while he lives in the community. The three sureties other than Mr. Cotter are of modest means and as such the bond proposed would not be a large amount but would be significant to them.
[30] The first surety proposed is Marlene Lediet, who is Croteau’s maternal grandmother. Croteau was living with her at the time of the alleged offences together with his girlfriend, Michelle Joly. Ms. Lediet has recently lost her job and is presently attending school to retrain herself. Ms. Lediet had good intentions as she initially registered Croteau at Algonquin College commencing in January. However, in view of the delay of the bail hearing, he no longer plans to attend Algonquin College during the winter session.
[31] Ms. Lediet was supervising Croteau when the stabbing occurred and Croteau was driving a black Acura car with tinted windows which was registered in her name. Croteau also appears to have been trafficking in marijuana while he was being supervised by Ms. Lediet. Her inability to control Croteau’s behaviour in the past is a negative factor.
[32] The second surety proposed is Michelle Lacombe who is Croteau’s mother. Ms. Lacombe has had drug and alcohol issues in the past; however, she is currently working for a moving company and plans to start work in the spring. She plans to move from her current apartment into her mother’s home, together with Croteau. She will be available to supervise Croteau when her mother is attending classes or otherwise out of the apartment. The negative factor for Ms. Lacombe is that she has her own drug and alcohol issues and the fact that she was unable to care for her son who had been living with Ms. Lediet, her mother. (Croteau’s grandmother)
[33] The third surety proposed is Linda Croteau, the paternal grandmother. She works at a body shop along with her partner, David Cotter, who owns the body shop. The proposal was initially that Croteau would attend Algonquin College and during his breaks, he would work at the body shop assisting his father Don, who would work with him.
[34] A number of changes have occurred as Don Croteau has recently passed away and Croteau is not planning to attend Algonquin College. The revised plan is that Croteau would work at the body shop, even though he does not have any training or skills in that area. The negative factor for Linda Croteau acting as a surety is that she omitted to mention her criminal record for impaired driving in her affidavit. I accept that this was an omission and not a deliberate falsehood; however, she also did not report her son when she acted as a surety for him and allowed him to move out of her residence to an apartment without advising police. The excuse offered was that she believed that her son’s lawyer had approved his move. Finally, during the break while she was giving her evidence, it became obvious that the bail hearing would not be completed before Christmas. Ms. Croteau had an outburst where she used inappropriate language stating “then f…you’s all.”
[35] The final person proposed as a surety is David Cotter. I find that Mr. Cotter would be a good surety as he owns the body shop and has operated it for some time and is a solid individual who has substantial assets. However, I find he is not really involved with Croteau and would rely on the grandmother to supervise and deal with her grandson.
Electronic Monitoring For both Croteau and Hamade
[36] Both Croteau and Hamade have proposed that electronic monitoring be arranged. The sureties are prepared to pay the approximate $600 monthly cost of the electronic monitoring. The weakness of the proposed electronic monitoring is that the monitoring agency will call the designated person, in this case either of the two grandmothers, the two mothers or Hamade’s brother Ali. The two grandmothers wish to protect Croteau. Ms. Lediet was previously unable to supervise Croteau and, in fact, loaned him her Acura car or allowed it to be registered in her name. Linda Croteau expressed disdain for the court system by the language she used and by failing to report her son when he moved from her home. Hamade’s mother and Ali both have criminal records. Given the background of the proposed sureties, I have some doubt as to whether they would report any breach by Croteau or Hamade detected by the electronic monitoring.
The Release Plan for Hamade
[37] Hamade proposes two sureties, plus electronic monitoring and he is prepared to post $20,000 cash bail.
[38] His mother, Fatima Hamade (“Fatima”) and his brother Ali were proposed as sureties. Both Ali and Hamade resided with their mother when the stabbing occurred. Fatima is in receipt of disability benefits and she has a prior criminal conviction for smuggling cigarettes. The mother was uncertain about whether Hamade had worked in 2013 or 2014. Her evidence was vague and contradictory. She initially testified that he had worked then subsequently testified that he had not worked and then finally confirmed that she did not know whether he was working or not. This leads me to conclude that she did not exercise any supervision or control over Hamade while he lived with her, which was the situation when the stabbing occurred.
[39] Ali is Hamade’s 33 year old brother. He is currently facing charges of operating a gaming house as well as possession of marijuana. He has a prior conditional discharge for possession of marijuana. He testified that he is in the process of pleading guilty to being a found-in in a gaming house and that the operating of the gaming house charge will be withdrawn.
[40] He also testified that he consumes marijuana on a regular basis as he finds that it is helpful. He is prepared to borrow $15,000 from a friend in order to post the bail for his brother. Both Ali and his mother testified that Hamade did not have any friends. His mother testified that Mohamed had no friends, yet Mohamed went to help Croteau attack Clachar and Cameron with a knife. It is hard to imagine what other motivation Hamade would have had for assisting Croteau to pay back Clachar by stabbing him if he was not a close friend.
[41] Ali also agreed that his brother had not worked in 2013 because he was injured in a snowboarding accident which also contradicts the evidence that Hamade has worked in 2013. Ali gave unusual evidence that Hamade was the most law abiding member of his family. Usually the sureties are law abiding members of society and are more law abiding than the accused, especially where the accused faces serious criminal charges.
Positions of the Parties
Secondary Grounds
[42] The defence for both Croteau and Hamade submit that the secondary grounds do not apply and submit that they have shown that there is not a substantial likelihood that either accused would commit an offence or interfere with the administration of justice, nor is it necessary for the protection of the public or witnesses, as neither accused has a criminal record, have never been on probation or subject to bail, and have no prior breaches.
[43] The defence further submits that the sureties provided, together with the electronic monitoring, meets their onus of demonstrating that there is not a substantial likelihood that either accused would commit an offence or interfere with the administration of justice, and detention is not necessary for the protection of the public or witnesses.
[44] The Crown argues that both accused have not met their onus to satisfy the court that there is not a substantial likelihood that they would commit an offence or interfere with the administration of justice or that their incarceration is not necessary for the protection of the public and/or witnesses because the sureties are not sufficiently reliable to meet the secondary grounds and the electronic monitoring relies on the sureties reporting any breaches to the police. The Crown therefore submits that the electronic monitoring with unreliable sureties does not meet the accused’s onus on the secondary ground.
Tertiary Ground
[45] The accused submit that they are presumed innocent regardless of the gravity of the offences involved and submit that they have satisfied the factors under the tertiary ground and have shown that the detention of the accused is not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
[46] The Crown submits that when the four factors are weighed that the accused have not met their onus on this ground. These are serious offences, namely a murder and attempted murder charges. If convicted, the accused are liable for lengthy terms of imprisonment both on the murder charge of the victim Clachar and also on the charge of attempted murder for the stabbing of Mr. Cameron.
[47] The Crown submits that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence including the stabbing of Cameron, who was not involved with the drug theft, and the four factors dictate that detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Analysis
[48] Pursuant to section 522(2) of the Criminal Code, the accused must show cause why their detention in custody is not justified within the meaning of section 515(10), namely, considering the primary, secondary and tertiary grounds.
[49] The Crown relies on the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention which are as follows: (515(10)(b), and 515(10)(c))
(b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and
(c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all circumstances, including:
(i) The apparent strength of the prosecution’s case,
(ii) The gravity of the offence,
(iii) The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and
(iv) The fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.
Secondary Ground for Croteau
The Sureties Proposed by Croteau
[50] I find that the sureties proposed by Croteau do not assure that there is not a substantial likelihood that he would commit further criminal offences or interfere with the administration of justice for the following reasons:
(a) Ms. Lediet is the Croteau’s maternal grandmother and Croteau was residing with her when the offences were alleged to have been committed. While I find that she is a well-intentioned individual and a good person, she is attending school and was not able to exercise any control over Croteau while he lived at her residence. I also find that allowing Croteau to drive or to register in her name, the black Acura vehicle which was used in the commission of the offence, is a concerning aspect.
(b) His mother, Michelle Lacombe had not cared for him for several years before the offences were committed as he had not lived with her and he lived with his maternal grandmother. She has drug and alcohol issues which she is addressing. I am not satisfied that she is able to control or monitor her son.
(c) Linda Croteau is the paternal grandmother and works at a body shop. She made statements to the court indicating a lack of respect for the court when the matter of the bail hearing had to be adjourned for Christmas and stated: “f…you’s all”, also she did not report her son when he had moved and breached his conditions, albeit, she was acquitted of the charge.
(d) I find David Cotter to be a solid individual who has assets and owns his body shop. However, I am not satisfied that he has any control over Croteau or that he would be extensively involved in his supervision.
(e) The electronic monitoring depends on the sureties calling the police if he is in breach, and Ms. Croteau has shown that she is reluctant to call for her own son as she failed to confirm with police to ensure that he was authorized to move from her residence. This reduces the reliability and the value of the electronic monitoring.
[51] I find that the sureties and the plans proposed by Croteau are weak, and do not give the Court confidence that given the serious murder charges that there is not a substantial likelihood that Croteau will not commit a further criminal offence. The fact that Croteau is young and does not have a prior criminal record is not sufficient evidence to satisfy his onus. As a result, I am not satisfied on the secondary ground that Croteau has shown that there is not a substantial likelihood that he would not commit a further criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released.
The secondary ground for Hamade
[52] I am also not satisfied that Hamade has demonstrated that there is not a substantial likelihood that he would commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released for the following reasons:
(a) I find that the sureties proposed by Hamade, are weak and would not adequately supervise Hamade as his mother has a prior criminal conviction for smuggling cigarettes and his brother is facing a charge of operating a gaming house which he advised he intended to plead guilty to being a found-in and to prior offences for possession of marijuana. I do not give great weight to the possession of marijuana charges given his admission that he uses marijuana to self-medicate. However, both Hamade’s mother and his brother lived with him while the offence was committed and I am not satisfied that they would necessarily report him if he breached the terms as they have demonstrated a lack of respect for complying with the law themselves.
(b) The weakness of the sureties reduces the effectiveness of the proposed electronic monitoring.
(c) His relative youthful age of 25 years and the fact that he does not have any prior criminal record is not sufficient to meet his onus.
(d) As a result of the weakness of the proposed sureties and the release plans for Hamade, I find that he has not shown that there is not a substantial likelihood that he would commit a further criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice if released from custody pending trial.
Tertiary Ground for Croteau and Hamade
[53] The tertiary ground addresses the question of whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to the following circumstances:
(i) The apparent strength of the prosecution’s case,
(ii) The gravity of the offence,
(iii) The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and
(iv) The fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.
[54] In R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, 384 D.L.R. (4th) 676, the Supreme Court stated that the tertiary ground should not be interpreted narrowly or applied sparingly in only rare or exceptional cases or only to certain types of crimes.. The St-Cloud decision also confirmed that the tertiary ground set out in section 515(10)(c) is not a residual ground for detention that applies only where the first two grounds are not satisfied, rather it is a distinct ground that itself provides a basis for ordering the pre-trial detention of an accused.
[55] At para 88 of the St-Cloud decision, the Supreme Court stated as follows:
In conclusion, if the crime is serious or very violent, if there is overwhelming evidence against the accused and if the victim or victims were vulnerable, pre-trial detention will usually be ordered.
(i) The apparent strength of the prosecution’s case
[56] I find that the prosecution has a strong case against both Croteau and Hamade for the following reasons:
(a) Both accused fled on foot after they fatally stabbed Clachar and they were tracked by police dogs. They crossed the Queensway and were found hiding in long grass covered in blood. I infer that the blood on their clothing was from Mr. Clachar and possibly Mr. Cameron because Croteau suffered no apparent injuries and Hamade had a BB pellet in his forehead which required one stitch and had some bruising to his face and nose which indicated that he may have been struck. However, the two accused did not have any stab wounds or any other wounds that would cause bleeding and the strong inference is that they had the victims’ blood on their persons.
(b) The victim, Clachar was stabbed eight or nine times, two times in the back, one of which was the fatal blow. A knife covered in blood was found near the victim.
(c) The surveillance video confirmed that the accused’s black Acura drove up near Clachar’s Nissan vehicle.
(d) As the Acura was leaving the parking lot, Clachar and his friends crossed the parking area and approached their vehicle. On the video, the Acura is observed making a 3-point turn and returning towards the Clachar and his two friends.
(e) The eye witness evidence of Mr. Cameron is that Croteau and Hamade rushed Clachar, carrying knives. Croteau stabbed Mr. Clachar during an altercation after Mr. Clachar had run to his vehicle and retrieved a pellet gun. Hamade then stabbed Mr. Cameron while he was unarmed and where he had not been involved in the prior “drug rip-off”. Mr. Cameron stated that Hamade stabbed him in the stomach. The evidence of Mr. Cameron being stabbed in the stomach is confirmed by the video surveillance as he entered 2000 Jasmine Crescent after being stabbed.
(f) Croteau had a motive for his actions as the deceased victim had just stolen marijuana from his girlfriend. The deceased suffered wounds to his arm and hand and blood was observed on the grip of the pellet gun, which indicates some defensive action was taken on his part. Croteau’s vehicle was found next to the deceased’s Nissan. The Acura was found in drive, the key was in the ignition and there was blood on the driver’s seat and on the steering wheel and on the gear shift. Both accused fled on foot for unexplained reasons.
(g) The identification of the two individuals as the individuals who fatally stabbed Clachar and stabbed Mr. Cameron in the abdomen will not be an issue for trial as they were arrested, covered in the victims’, blood after being tracked by the K-9 dogs.
(h) Croteau an air of reality to a claim of self-defence with regards to fatally stabbing Mr. Clachar, because Clachar was holding a BB gun which resembles a real firearm and the incident occurred at night. However, after slashing Clachar’s tires, and while leaving the parking area, Croteau turned his vehicle around and sought a further confrontation with Clachar and his friends. He approached Clachar and his friends while armed with at least one knife. Croteau did not retreat and could have easily continued to exit the parking lot. The video confirms that Croteau and Hamade turned around and sought out the confrontation with the victim and his friends. Neither of the accused had suffered stab wounds and Hamade received a BB pellet in his forehead which required only a stitch and was not serious. Clachar was stabbed nine times, including the fatal wound in his back.
(i) The argument for self-defence to the charge of attempted murder of Mr. Cameron is much weaker as he was not involved in the drug rip-off which occurred earlier that day, was unarmed, and ran back to the apartment. The argument that either accused acted in self-defence when stabbing Mr. Cameron in the above circumstances is very weak. In fact, Mr. Cameron was a vulnerable person because he was unarmed when he was stabbed.
(ii) The gravity of the offence
[57] Both accused are charged with second degree murder of Mr. Clachar as well as attempted murder of Jeremy Cameron. Both offences are very serious and involve extreme violence which caused Mr. Clachar’s death and involve a knife attack against Mr. Cameron, who was unarmed and was not involved in the previous drug “rip”.
(iii) The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used
[58] The circumstances involve the stabbing of the deceased multiple times, including stab wounds in his back as well as the stabbing of his unarmed and uninvolved friend, Jeremy Cameron. The stabbing occurred after the deceased’s tires had already been slashed and the accused were departing in the Acura when they decided to turn their vehicle around to confront the victim and his two friends as they were observed walking across the parking lot. The accused were armed with at least one knife.
[59] The neighbourhood of Jasmine Crescent has been subject to serious violence in recent months as Mr. Stevenson was stabbed to death in the spring of 2015 in a drug related incident at the apartment complex next door. Mr. Dubois, who was the accused in the stabbing death of Mr. Stevenson, was also detained in custody in September of 2015. Mr. Dubois was 19 years of age at the time of the stabbing and his release plan also included electronic monitoring.
[60] Croteau and Hamade’s actions were a retaliation or payback for the theft of marijuana from Croteau’s girlfriend that had occurred earlier that day. The incident was made more serious by the fact that Croteau obtained assistance from a friend, Hamade, who also participated in the stabbing of, Clachar and was involved the stabbing of Mr. Cameron, an innocent unarmed friend of Clachar.
(iv) Liable for a Lengthy Term of Imprisonment
[61] The accused are liable on conviction for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment as each accused faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole for 10 years upon conviction for second degree murder. The stabbing of Cameron would elevate the sentence in the event that either accused is convicted of a lesser offence such as manslaughter.
[62] Having considered all of the factors on the tertiary ground, and particular gravity of the offence and the strength of the Crown’s case, which involved the fatal stabbing of Clachar and the stabbing of Mr. Cameron, who was uninvolved in the marijuana theft, was an unarmed vulnerable person; the violent circumstances of the commission of the offence, the fact that the accused are liable for a lengthy term of imprisonment and the fact that the accused were tracked by the K-9 unit and as a result, identity will not be an issue in the upcoming trial. In view of these factors, I find that the accused have not met their onus of satisfying me that their detention is not necessary in order to maintain the confidence in the administration of justice in the above circumstances.
Disposition
[63] For the above reasons, the application by Mr. Croteau and Mr. Hamade for bail pending trial is denied.
Justice Robert J. Smith
Given orally on: March 4, 2016
CITATION: R. v. Croteau, 2016 ONSC 1515
COURT FILE NO.: 15-7874
DATE: 2016/03/04
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
KEANU CROTEAU Accused
– and –
MOHAMAD HAMADE Accused
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R. Smith J.
Given orally on: March 4, 2016