COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-0050-00
DATE: 2022-12-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
G. Fillmore and T. Bud, for the Crown
- and -
Peter Keeash
G. Joseph and P. Vo, for Peter Keeash
Accused
HEARD: Aug 22, 23, 24, 25, September 6 and 9, 2022 at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Mr. Justice W. D. Newton
Criminal Judgment
Overview
[1] Peter Keeash is charged with:
a. the second degree murder of Irene Barkman;
b. uttering a death threat to Emily Mamakwa;
c. uttering a death threat to Troy Keeash; and
d. forcibly confining Emily Mamakwa.
[2] All these charges arise from a short series of events on October 29, 2018.
[3] In this case, the forensic evidence is of little assistance in determining guilt. The Crown relies upon the evidence of Emily Mamakwa, the half-sister of the accused, Troy Keeash, the brother of the accused, and Geoffrey Filmore, the partner of the accused’s mother. The evidence of these witnesses is contradictory and, for some, impaired by intoxication by alcohol at the time and, for all, by the passage of almost four years.
The Evidence
The Location
[4] Ms. Barkman was stabbed in a second-floor apartment located at 334 Dufferin Street in Thunder Bay. The apartment had 2 bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, and bathroom. When police and EMS arrived at about 11:00 p.m. Ms. Barkman was still alive, laying in a pool of blood on the living room floor. Attempts to save Ms. Barkman’s life at the hospital were not successful.
The People Involved
[5] Emily (“Emily”) Mamakwa, then 17, lived at 334 Dufferin with her mother, Jessie Keeash, and her mother’s partner, Geoffrey (“Geoff”) Filmore. Emily occupied one bedroom and Geoff Filmore and Jessie Keeash occupied the other.
[6] Troy Keeash (“Troy”) lived in Thunder Bay and often visited at 334 Dufferin. Irene Barkman was his common law partner for about five years.
[7] Peter (“Peter”) Keeash is Troy’s brother. They share the same father. Peter is Emily’s half-sister.
Cause of Death
[8] Irene Barkman died of blood loss caused by a stab wound that punctured her carotid artery. There were three other stab wounds and contusions and abrasions on the right side of her face and neck and other parts of her body. Her blood alcohol level was .321 mg.
Arrest of Peter Keeash
[9] Peter was arrested when he arrived at 334 Dufferin Street the next day, October 30, 2018, at about 9:45 p.m. by uniformed officers who were securing the scene from a cruiser parked there in full view. He was described as very compliant, calm, and co-operative and told the officers he was coming to get his clothes.
[10] When processed at the police station, there was no evidence of injuries to his hands or forearms. His shoes appeared to be stained by a blood-like substance and were seized and sent for analysis.
The Forensic Evidence
[11] A knife handle and a blade broken from that handle were found in the living room. The blade was found on the living room floor and the knife handle on an end table in the living room.
[12] Not surprisingly, blood found on the broken knife blade and the knife blade attached to the handle matched the profile of Ms. Barkman.
[13] Although not tested for fingerprints until the trial was underway, no fingerprints were detected on the knife handle.
[14] DNA found on the fingernail clippings from Ms. Barkman were analyzed and the male-specific DNA was linked to the Peter Keeash, but close paternal male relatives, like his brother Troy, could also not be excluded.
[15] The shoes worn by Peter tested positive for blood but there was insufficient DNA for comparison purposes.
[16] Troy’s jacket was seized because it had a blood-like stain. It was not sent for analysis.
Emily Mamakwa
[17] Emily testified that Peter had been staying at his mother’s apartment for about a week.
[18] Emily testified that Irene arrived at the apartment at about 3:00 p.m. and that before Irene arrived, Emily, Troy, Peter, and Geoff were present. Her mother, Jessie Keeash, had left for Ottawa.
[19] Emily said that Irene, Troy, and Peter were in the living room drinking hard liquor. She said she had one ‘little cup” of alcohol to drink. She said that both Peter and Troy were “drunk”. She described Irene as “buzzing”.
[20] She heard Peter and Irene arguing. She said Peter was yelling. She thought she was in her bedroom, sleeping, when she heard the yelling. She testified that when Peter came into her room, he was drunk and saying that someone was in her room with her.
[21] She said Peter grabbed her off her bed with her blanket and carried her to the couch in the living room and told her to sit there.
[22] Troy and Irene were also in the living room, with Irene sitting on a little couch. Emily said that Peter was threatening her and Troy, “that he would kill us, I think.”
[23] Irene said something that triggered Peter. Peter started punching Irene. Emily covered her head with the blanket after three punches. She heard punches while her face was covered. Once the punching stopped, “everything went quiet for a bit”. She took the blanket off. She saw Peter grab Irene from the little couch and throw Irene to the floor. Peter said she can’t bleed over the chair.
[24] Emily saw blood “all over” Irene’s face and then a “big like pile of blood” started flowing on the floor.
[25] Emily said that she and Troy were trying to help Irene, but Peter told them to sit there “because he still had a big knife, but I didn’t see that knife that he was holding when he was punching Irene.”
[26] She said that Peter had run into the kitchen to get a knife before he punched Irene and that he threatened her and Troy with the knife. She thought that Peter then dropped the knife and then “got triggered” by whatever Irene said. She did not see the knife while Peter was punching Irene but saw him grab the knife after Irene was on the floor.
[27] She said that Peter told them to sit there and then he called 911. Peter “ran off” when the paramedics arrived.
[28] She said Geoff was in the kitchen but came into the living room to try and clean up the blood before the paramedics arrived.
[29] She has not seen Troy since this incident.
[30] In cross-examination, she said that, prior to October 2018, she had last seen Peter when she was about nine years old and that she had much more contact with Troy prior to October 2018.
[31] She testified that she did not remember telling an investigating officer that evening that she was sleeping in her bedroom when she heard arguing and yelling from Peter and then heard the sound of someone getting punched. She told police that she walked out of her bedroom and observed Irene lying on her side bleeding and Peter was on the couch. She also agreed that in her video statement to the police she said that she did not see Peter beat Irene up.
[32] She agreed that she did not see Peter use the knife on anyone.
[33] She described Peter and Troy as drunk and testified that Irene was the least drunk of all of them.
Geoffrey Filmore
[34] Geoff testified that Peter came to visit his mother and had stayed at 334 Dufferin for about a week.
[35] On the day of Irene’s death, Geoff was drinking fortified wine and started at about 2:00 p.m.. He was drinking with Troy and Peter. He believed that Troy had arrived at around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. and that Irene arrived later, about 5:00 p.m.. He thought that Troy was drinking beer and that Peter was drinking gin.
[36] He was in the kitchen, cooking for Emily who had also been in the kitchen before, when he heard a thud and screaming. He looked into the living room from the kitchen and saw Peter kneeling on top of Irene who was on the floor. He saw Peter’s arms moving up and down, four maybe five times, over top of Irene. He could not see whether Peter had anything in his hands or whether his hands were covered. He said he went back into the kitchen. Later, he went back into the living room and saw Irene and a pool of blood on the floor. He said that Peter was not there. He thought that Troy was also in the living room at the time. He did not see Emily. He did not see anyone else, other than Emily sometime before, enter the kitchen.
[37] Geoff was interviewed by the police briefly at the scene, again at 1:13 a.m. the next morning, October 30, and again on November 2.
[38] In in his second interview, he acknowledged that drinking, “probably more than a few, played a role in my memory.” He confirmed that he checked the living room twice. In cross-examination he admitted that he told the police that he saw Peter on top of Irene but “really couldn’t see his arms or his hands.” He testified that he remembers seeing Peter’s arms moving because, over the course of the three years, “memory came back.” He also admitted that his initial thought was that Irene was drunk and had fallen down and that Peter might have been standing over her to help her up.
[39] When he returned to the living room the second time, he testified that he saw Irene laying on the floor in a pool of blood but did not see Peter or Emily. However, he told the police at the scene that Peter was sitting in the chair when he returned to the living room the second time.
[40] He admitted that he was not really sure what happened.
[41] In re-examination by the Crown, he said that he was “pretty sure that he saw Irene on the floor in the living room” and he “was pretty sure that that he saw Peter over top of her in the living room”. When asked if there was anything else that he was sure of he replied “that’s pretty much it basically. And the fact that I was drinking along with everybody else. We were all drinking.”
Troy Keeash
[42] Although served with a subpoena and although he advised the police that he would attend at trial, even on the morning that he was to attend, Troy did not appear and did not respond to attempts to contact him by telephone. A material witness warrant was issued, and he was eventually arrested and detained in custody until he was required to testify.
[43] The Crown’s examination in chief of Troy began with a review of Troy’s criminal record. He admitted that he was convicted of assaulting Irene in March 2017. He testified that they had been in a relationship for about two years.
[44] In cross-examination, he also admitted being convicted of assaulting another woman in June of 2018. He said she attacked him and then he blacked out after. He was intoxicated during both assaults.
[45] On the day of Irene’s murder, he said that he and Irene had been at the Shoreline Hotel and left there that morning and went to 334 Dufferin, arriving there in the late morning or early afternoon. He dropped off a bag containing work clothes. Present were Geoff, Emily, and Peter. He and Irene then walked to Walmart to return his work boots to get money to buy alcohol. He bought four one litre containers of fortified wine at an LCBO and returned to 334 Dufferin at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. He said that Peter was drinking gin when he returned. He did not know whether Geoff or Emily were drinking. He and Irene then drank in the living room with Peter. Later, he and Peter walked to a beer store to buy beer as all of the wine had been consumed.
[46] After Troy and Peter returned, Troy and Irene started arguing. Troy said that she wanted $20. He said that she would not be quiet, and that Peter came out of a room and said that he was going to punch Irene because he did not want Troy to be treated like that. Troy said that Peter asked him if he wanted Irene dead. Troy said, “I agreed”. Troy testified, “I was drunk, and then he just continued to kill her.” He said that Peter “kept beating on her and wailing on her head, I don’t know, 30 times.” Troy said that Peter was wearing yellow and black gloves that belonged to Troy. Troy said that he tried to tell Peter to stop, and Peter responded, “you told me to kill her.” As Peter would not stop Troy went downstairs and tried to use the phone to call 911 from the stairwell. When asked whether he saw anything in Peter’s hands when he was hitting Irene he said “no, I think he went to go grab a knife or something, I don’t know, in the kitchen.”
[47] Troy said that, after knocking Irene “out completely on the ground” Peter “proceeded to slide the knife through her right side of the neck.” He said he saw the stab.
[48] He said that Peter left as the fire trucks arrived.
[49] He said that Emily was in her room and that Geoff was in his room when Peter was punching Irene.
[50] He said that Peter did not say anything else to him and did not recall if Peter said anything to Emily.
[51] He described the knife as having a 4 to 8 inch blade and a grey handle.
[52] He said he did not try to give any assistance to Irene, he “didn’t touch her” as the ambulance was there to help her.
[53] In cross-examination, he confirmed that Peter was in the living room when he returned to 334 Dufferin and that Emily was in the living room but went to her room and remained there until the ambulance arrived. He said that Geoff was in his room, not the kitchen.
[54] When he and Peter went to the beer store, he did not recall being denied service and thought that Peter bought the beer. He admitted taking a knife from Geoff’s kitchen for protection. He described the knife as having a black handle and a 3 inch blade. He said he put the knife back in the kitchen when they returned from the beer store.
[55] He said that Irene was not at 334 Dufferin when he returned and that she had said she was going for a walk somewhere. He described her as “quite intoxicated.”
[56] He admitted that he spoke to the police on 3 occasions, at the scene when police arrived, later that night at the police station while still intoxicated, and later again, on November 2, at the police station when he was sober.
[57] Confronted with his statement to the police at the scene that “suddenly Peter was punching her in the head and face 10 to 15 times” he replied, “around there, lots of times, 15 at least.”
[58] He clarified that when Peter came out of the room with gloves on it was from Emily’s room but was confronted with his statement from November 2 in which he said that Peter went into the kitchen and put on black gloves. He responded “actually, I didn’t even know where he got the gloves.”
[59] He said he would not have been close enough to get Irene’s blood on him. Detective Constable Toneguzzi saw what he thought was blood on Troy’s jacket and seized his jacket.
[60] With respect to the 911 call, Troy said he called on the cordless landline phone. When the 911 call was played he thought that it was Peter’s voice making the call. Photographs show that the phone in the apartment was not a cordless phone and not located near the stairwell.
[61] Although he testified in chief that he saw Peter stab Irene in the neck with a knife when confronted with his statement from October 29, 2018 in which he told the police that “I didn’t see him (Peter) use a knife” and on November 2 “I didn’t see him stab her”, “no I didn’t see him use the knife, he must’ve stabbed her when I was down the stairs” he said that he did not remember saying that to the police and that he was lying to the police.
[62] The cross-examination elicited Troy’s evidence as follows:
Q. How much time passes, sir, between the time you say Peter assaults Irene to the time he stabs Irene?
A. Pretty fast, one minute.
Q. Okay. Do you see where he gets the knife from?
A. The kitchen.
Q. Okay. So, according to you, what you see on the couch is Peter attacking Irene, leaving her, going to the kitchen, getting a knife, and coming back into the living room.
A. Yes.
Q. And to be clear, no one else is around, correct?
A. No one.
Q. Emily’s not in the living room or the kitchen, right?
A. No.
Q. And Jeff’s [sic] not in the living room or the kitchen, correct? Correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Sir, isn’t it true that you’re the one that stabbed Irene?
A. No.
Positions of the Parties
The Crown
[63] The Crown submits that I should accept the evidence of Emily as all other involved persons were very intoxicated. She saw Peter with the knife before he punched Irene. The Crown explains the inconsistency in what Emily told the police at the scene as resulting from her shock following a brutal murder. The Crown also relies upon the evidence of Troy that he saw Peter strike Irene many times and that Troy saw Peter stab Irene in the neck.
The Defence
[64] Counsel for Peter Keeash acknowledges that certain facts are uncontroversial based on the evidence. It is not an issue that Irene and Troy were present at 334 Dufferin on October 29, 2018, that everyone was consuming alcohol, and that there was an altercation between Peter and Irene.
[65] He describes Geoff’s evidence as often nonsensical and submits that the reliability of his testimony is very suspect because of his intoxication.
[66] He describes Troy Keeash’s evidence as “unlikely, improbable or impossible” and submits that Troy had lied about making the 911 call and about seeing the stabbing. He notes Troy’s convictions for assaulting women, including Irene. He submits that the reliability of Troy’s evidence is also very suspect because of his intoxication.
[67] Although conceding that Emily Mamakwa is the most compelling witness, defence counsel submitted that her evidence has its “frailties”. At the scene she told the police that she heard an altercation. At trial she testified that she heard and saw the altercation. She testified that her head was covered with a blanket at times. She admitted that she never saw Peter stab Irene or saw that Peter had a knife while he was punching Irene.
[68] The Defence submits that presence of what appears to be a blood like substance on Troy’s jacket raises the possibility that it was Troy, not Peter, who stabbed Irene. No forensic analysis was done on Troy’s jacket. The defence argues that the presence of blood like substance on the jacket is inconsistent with Troy’s assertion that he never approached Irene. The defence notes Troy’s admission that he took a kitchen knife with him when he and Peter went to the beer store.
[69] Counsel for Peter Keeash reminds me that, if I am left with circumstantial evidence, the inference that Peter Keeash is guilty has to be the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence[^1].
The Law
[70] The basic tenet of criminal law is that everyone charged with an offence is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown proves his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[71] To prove any person’s guilt of the offences charged, the Crown must prove each and every essential element of those offences beyond a reasonable doubt. Peter Keeash does not have to prove anything.
[72] The phrase, “beyond a reasonable doubt”, is a very important part of our criminal justice system. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, far-fetched, or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence, or the absence of evidence.
[73] Proof of probable guilt is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[74] To find Peter Keeash guilty of second-degree murder, the Crown must prove each of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: that Peter Keeash caused Irene Barkman’s death; that Peter Keeash caused Irene Barkman’s death unlawfully; and that Peter Keeash had the state of mind required for murder. For an unlawful killing to be murder, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter Keeash either meant to kill Irene Barkman or meant to cause Irene Barkman bodily harm that Peter Keeash knew was likely to kill Irene Barkman and was reckless as to whether Irene Barkman died or not.
[75] To find Peter Keeash guilty of threatening to cause death to Emily Mamakwa or Troy Keeash the Crown must prove each of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: that Peter Keeash made a threat; that the threat was to cause death; and that Peter Keeash made the threat knowingly.
[76] To find Peter Keeash guilty of unlawful confinement of Emily Mamakwa, the Crown must prove each of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; that Peter Keeash intentionally confined Emily Mamakwa; and that the confinement was without lawful authority.
Analysis
[77] It is obvious in this case that the evidence of the three witnesses is inconsistent on some facts. Where was Emily – bedroom or living room? When did Irene arrive – with Troy or after? Who called 911 – Peter or Troy? Where was Geoff– kitchen or bedroom?
[78] How do I reconcile these inconsistencies? On the evidence, Troy and Geoff were intoxicated and, likely highly intoxicated. Everyone, except Emily, had been drinking for hours from as early as 2:00 or 3:00 p.m., or earlier, to about 10:00 p.m. Emily described Peter and Troy as “drunk”. She described Irene as “buzzing” and that Irene was the “least drunk”. Irene’s blood alcohol level was .321 mg at the time of her death. I am satisfied that both Troy and Geoff were highly intoxicated and, to the extent that their evidence contradicts Emily’s evidence, I disregard their evidence and accept Emily’s evidence.
[79] However, I must also be very careful in assessing Emily’s evidence. Although Emily testified that Peter came into her room and carried her to the couch where she witnessed Peter punching Irene, she did not remember telling an officer at the scene that she was in her bedroom, heard yelling and punching and then came out of her bedroom to observe Irene laying on her side bleeding. And she also agreed that when she gave her video statement to the police later that night, she said that she did not see Peter beat Irene up. Both statements given shortly after the incident contradict what she testified to almost four years later – that she was in the living room and saw Peter punching Irene.
[80] Geoff saw something but he was not sure what. Geoff had thought that Irene was drunk, and that Peter was standing above her to help her up.
[81] Troy, who had to be located and arrested to secure his attendance at trial, also gave evidence at trial inconsistent with his statements to the police almost four years earlier: 30 versus 15 punches; Peter getting gloves in Emily’s room versus getting gloves in the kitchen – “actually, I didn’t even know where he got the gloves”; and, seeing Peter stab Irene versus “I didn’t see him use a knife”, “I didn’t see him stab her”. His statement that he called 911 is contradicted by Emily’s evidence that Peter called 911 and the location of the telephone.
[82] When Emily said that Peter was threatening her and Troy, she was sitting in the living room and Irene was on a couch. She said that Peter had run into the kitchen to get a knife before he punched Irene. She and Troy were told to sit down by Peter when she and Troy were trying to help Irene after she was bleeding.
[83] Irene was stabbed in the neck with a knife – the knife that was found broken in the living room. The stab wound caused her death.
[84] Notwithstanding the inconsistencies in the narrative supplied by Emily, based on the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter Keeash had a knife, knowingly threatened to cause death to Troy and Emily while holding that knife, and that Peter Keeash forcibly confined Emily, without lawful authority, when he told her to sit down while holding that knife. While other aspects of Emily’s testimony were contradicted by her out-of-court statements, her testimony that Peter had a knife and threatened both Emily and Troy, was not.
[85] I am also satisfied that neither Emily nor Troy saw Peter stab Irene. As counsel for Peter Keeash caution, if I am left with circumstantial evidence, the inference that Peter is guilty has to be the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence.
[86] As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Villaroman[^2]:
If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown’s evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt[^3];
a reasonable doubt, or theory alternative to guilt, is not rendered “speculative” by the mere fact that it arises from a lack of evidence[^4]; and
when assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider “other plausible theories” and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt…”. “Other plausible theories” or “other reasonable possibilities” must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation[^5].
[87] While I am satisfied that neither Emily nor Troy actually saw Peter stab Irene, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter Keeash did stab Irene Barkman causing her death and reach that conclusion based on the totality of the evidence that I do accept which consists of the following:
Peter had a knife;
Peter threatened both Emily and Troy with the knife;
Irene was stabbed with a knife; and
Peter left before the police arrived while the others remained.
[88] Peter’s departure from the scene constitutes evidence of after-the-fact conduct. Evidence of after-the-fact conduct is received if it is relevant, material, not contrary to any applicable admissibility rule and its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect.[^6]
[89] In R. v. Adan, 2019 ONCA 709, the Court of Appeal wrote that
[67] Evidence of after-the-fact conduct is circumstantial evidence and, like all circumstantial evidence is all about inferences grounded on logic, common sense, and human experience. Accordingly, a single piece of circumstantial evidence may sponsor a range of inferences but that does not nullify it as a means of proof or render it irrelevant: Calnen, at para. 112 per Martin J. (dissenting, but not on this point); Luciano, at para. 205. In most instances, it is for the trier of fact to choose the inference it will draw from the array of possibilities: Calnen, at para. 112 per Martin J. (dissenting, but not on this point), citing R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, 333 C.C.C. (3d) 534, at para. 78.
[90] Only where the overall conduct and context is such that choosing between available inferences as a matter of logic, common sense and human experience becomes impossible is relevance lost.[^7]
[91] To be material, the evidence must be offered to prove a fact in issue.[^8] I find the evidence of Peter’s departure from the scene is material because it is offered to prove that Peter fled the scene after stabbing Irene.
[92] To be relevant, the evidence must only make, "the fact for which it is tendered slightly more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”.[^9] I find the evidence of Peter’s departure from the scene is relevant because it makes it more probable that he possessed a consciousness of guilt, and sought to escape liability after Irene was stabbed.
[93] I find the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. The evidence of Peter’s departure is highly probative. While Irene lay bleeding in the living room, Peter left the scene before police arrived. After calling 911, he disappeared until returning to the Dufferin Street address to retrieve his belongings.
[94] In finding that Peter’s flight from the scene supports the conclusion that Peter stabbed Irene, I find that no other reasonable inference arises from the evidence.
[95] Evidence of after-the-fact conduct should be viewed as a whole, in light of all the evidence presented at trial.[^10] Here, Peter had threatened the occupants of the apartment with a knife. He left the scene no more than a few short minutes after Irene was stabbed. He only returned to the Dufferin Street address, where he was arrested, late the following evening.
[96] In its closing submissions, the Defence pointed to Peter’s calm and cooperative demeanor when he was arrested by police. However, Peter had disappeared for nearly 24 hours after calling 911 to report an emergency.
[97] The other theory, that Troy stabbed Irene, is not a reasonable possibility given that Peter was threatening both Emily and Troy and that Peter left while Troy remained before police arrived.
[98] I am also satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, notwithstanding his intoxication, Peter Keeash had the state of mind required for murder. That is, he intended to kill Irene Barkman, by stabbing her in the neck, or meant to cause Irene Barkman bodily harm, by stabbing her in the neck, that he knew was likely to kill her and was reckless as to whether she died or not. He had a knife in his hand while threatening to cause death. He used that knife to stab Irene in the neck. The natural consequences of a stab wound to the neck is an injury likely to kill. Despite his intoxication, these actions represent the state of mind required for murder. That Peter called 911 is evidence that he was aware of the consequences of his actions. That he left before the police arrived is evidence that he was aware of what he had done.
Disposition
[99] Accordingly, I find Peter Keeash guilty on all counts on the indictment.
“Original signed by”
The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Released: December 9, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-0050-00
DATE: 2022-11-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Crown
- and –
Peter Keeash
Accused
CRIMINAL JUDGMENT
Newton J.
Released: December 9, 2022
[^1]: R. v. Spencer, 2020 ONCA 838 at para. 41 and 44. [^2]: 2016 SCC 33. (Villaroman) [^3]: Villaroman at para. 35. [^4]: Villaroman at para. 36 [^5]: Villaroman at para 37. [^6]: R. v. Adan 2019 ONCA 709 at para 64 (“Adan”), citing R v Calnen 2019 SCC 6 at para 106. [^7]: Adan at para 70. [^8]: Adan at para 68. [^9]: Adan at para 66. [^10]: Adan at para 70.