R. v. Fewer, 2019 NLSC 221

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Fewer , 2019 NLSC 221 Date : December 11, 2019 Docket : 201906G0033 Her Majesty The Queen v. MICHAEL WILLIAM FEWER Before: Justice Katherine O'Brien Reasons for Judgment Given Orally Place of Hearing: Grand Bank, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: November 28, 2019 Date of Oral Judgment: December 11, 2019

Summary: The accused pled guilty to arson pursuant to

section 434 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and two years of probation. A storage shed was destroyed in the fire. Appearances:

Alison J. Manning Appearing on behalf of the Crown Marcus A. Evans, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of the Offender Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Mitchell, 2008 NLTD 23; R. v. Fewer, 2004 CarswellNfld 389, [2004] N.J. No. 433 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); R.v. Crocker, 2013 NLTD(G) 1; R. v. Rowsell, (2002) (NL SC), 210 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 226, 630 A.P.R. 226(Nfld.S.C.T.D.); R. v. Young, (N.L.P.C.); R. v. Peddle, 2013 CarswellNlfd 225, 338 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143, (N.L. Prov.Ct.); R. v. Clifford, 2015 BCSC 875; R. v. Cole (1991), (NL SC), 308 A.P.R. 307, 97 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 307(Nfld.S.C.T.D.); R. v.

Popert, 2010 ONCA 89; R. v. Pidgeon, 2016 ONCJ 334; R. v. Yellowknee, 2017 ABCA 60; R. v. M.(C.A.), 1996SCC 230; R. v. Ludwig, 2018 ONCA 885 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT O'Brien, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] Michael William Fewer pled guilty to intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to a storage shed owned by RuebenSimms in Marystown contrary to

section 434 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. [2] On November 28, 2019, I heard submissions from counsel on sentence and today I am here to give my sentencing decision. FACTS [3] The facts underlying this offence are summarized as follows. On November 3, 2018, Mr. Fewer had been drinking. He wantedto go to Burin and he wanted his mother, Cora Rogers, to give him a vehicle to do so. When she refused, Mr. Fewer became upset to thepoint that his mother felt he was “out of control” and left the house because she was afraid. Mr. Fewer’s grandparents, Ruben andBeatrice Simms, remained in the house.

They are in their 80s, and the house is theirs. Ms. Rogers called housing support worker JoanBrown to go to the house to be with Mr. and Mrs. Simms who were upset. [4] Ms. Brown went to the home and found Mr. Fewer there arguing with his mother over the phone. After he hung up the phone,he put on his boots. Ms. Brown asked him where he was going and he responded, “I guess I’m gonna go get two hots and a cot. I guess Iam going to jail.” Ms. Brown attempted to dissuade Mr. Fewer and told him she could get him help. However, Mr.

Fewer proceeded togo to the shed behind the house, take a gas can, fling gas all over the shed and set the shed on fire with a lighter. [5] Ms. Brown called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) and the Marystown Fire Department. Although Mr. Fewerinitially fled the scene, he returned while the emergency responders were there and was eventually found hiding under a bed in thehouse. The fire was extinguished but not before the shed and its contents were destroyed. The shed ultimately had to be torn down, as itwas no longer structurally safe. [6] The shed was located in close proximity to Mr. and Mrs.

Simms home; there was just a short walkway between the twobuildings. The Simms live in a residential neighborhood in Marystown and other buildings were nearby. Decision [7] I have determined that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Fewer is two years of imprisonment and two years of probation. Myreasons are as follows. SENTENCING OBJECTIVES [8] Determining an appropriate sentence starts with the principles of sections 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which Iwill briefly outline. [9] The sentence must contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

It should meet oneor more of the following objectives: denunciation, deterrence, separation of offenders from society (where necessary), rehabilitation,reparation, and general promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and tothe community.

[ 10 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 11 ] It is also important to consider the offender’s personal circumstances and family and social background, alternatives to incarceration where they are available and appropriate, and any factors that mitigate or aggravate the offences. [ 12 ] Finally, while each case and each offender is unique, a fit sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This is known as the principle of parity.

To arrive at a sentence that is in parity with other sentences , courts look at comparable sentencing decisions. Any disparity between sanctions for different offenders should be justified. [ 13 ] In

summary, the sentencing sections of the Criminal Code have as their primary focus the protection of the public, which is best achieved by crafting a sentence that fits both the offence and the offender. [ 14 ] For cases of arson, which pose serious threat to public safety, the primary principles of sentencing are general deterrence and denunciation [see R. v. Mitchell , 2008 NLTD 23 , R. v. Fewer , 2004 CarswellNfld 389, [2004] N.J. No. 433 (N.L. Prov. Ct.) ]. RANGE OF SENTENCE UNDER CRIMINAL CODE [ 15 ] The maximum punishment for arson pursuant to

section 434 of the Criminal Code is 14 years of imprisonment. There is no minimum sentence prescribed. [ 16 ] By its very nature, a maximum penalty will be imposed only rarely and is only appropriate if the offence is of sufficient gravity and the offender displays sufficient blameworthiness. CROWN POSITION [ 17 ] The Crown asked the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years plus two years of probation.

The Crown has also noted that a DNA order is within the Court’s discretion for this offence. [ 18 ] In support of its position, the Crown has filed the cases listed in Appendix A, and has distinguished cases filed by the Defence on various grounds, including that a majority of the cases address insurance fraud where people burn their own property, as opposed to the property of others. [ 19 ] As mitigating factors, the Crown points to Mr.

Fewer’s limited and dated criminal record, and the fact that he has pled guilty and saved his mother and grandmother from testifying against him. [ 20 ] As aggravating factors, the Crown notes that the fire was set in a residential area, in close proximity to other buildings and in very close proximity to Mr. Fewer’s grandparents’ home, which was occupied by his grandparents. The Crown describes fire as erratic and unpredictable and notes that Mr.

Fewer’s actions could have had significant potential consequences to the lives of others. [ 21 ] The Crown also expressed some concern with the Pre-Sentence Report (the “PSR”) and queried how much the Court can rely on it based on contradictions between what is contained in the PSR as reported by Mr. Fewer in late 2019 and what is contained in a Criminal Responsibility Assessment Report of Dr. Jasbir Gill (the “Gill Report”) as reported by Mr. Fewer in late 2018. The Crown has identified what counsel referred to as “stark contrasts” between the reports and questions whether Mr.

Fewer was forthcoming with the adult probation officer who completed the PSR. DEFENCE POSITION [ 22 ] Defence counsel asked the Court to impose a sentence of 19.5 months imprisonment, which applying a credit of 1.5 to 1 for the 390 days that Mr. Fewer had served in remand at the date of his sentencing hearing, amounts to time served. Defence counsel did not directly address probation but submitted that a DNA order was not warranted. [ 23 ] In support of its position, the Defence has filed the cases listed in Appendix B.

Defence counsel submits that the sentencing treatment of those who burn their own property for insurance fraud should not be less severe than for those who commit arson out of anger. He addressed each of the cases filed by the Crown in turn, noting distinguishing and similar features. Defence counsel challenged the view, expressed in some of the cases, that it is rare to see sentences of less than two years imprisonment for arson, submitting that this was incorrect based on a broad review of the caselaw. [ 24 ] As mitigating factors, the Defence also points to Mr.

Fewer’s limited and dated criminal record and his guilty plea. He also noted that Mr. Fewer’s mother and his grandparents remain very supportive of him and are receptive to him returning home to the house where they all live. Mr. Fewer’s mother was present in the courtroom in a show of support for her son. [ 25 ] With respect to any differences between the PSR and the Gill Report, Defence counsel did not see any “stark contrasts” and did not view the reports as contradictory.

He noted that given the reports are prepared for different purposes and by different types of professionals, he would not expect them to be identical. He saw similarities between the two, particularly with alcohol addiction being a significant issue for Mr. Fewer going back to his mid-teens. [ 26 ] In comparing the positions of the Crown and of Defence, the most significant difference between them is whether a sentence of less than two years is appropriate in this case of arson. analysis Circumstances of the Offender [ 27 ] Mr. Fewer is 29 years old and was born and raised in the Marystown area.

He has two half-siblings from his mother’s first

marriage. Mr. Fewer’s parents separated when he was 12 or 13 years old and he remained in the care of his mother, living in thebasement of his grandparent’s home until sometime in his early or mid-teens when he began living independently or “couch surfing” atfriends’ homes. It is during this period that Mr. Fewer began drinking and taking other drugs and eventually quit school either duringgrade 10 or after completing it. [28] It is not possible for me to recount Mr. Fewer’s circumstances with accuracy. There are numerous differences between thereports of Mr.

Fewer’s childhood and young adult life contained in the PSR and the Gill Report. Generally speaking, the PSR paints amore positive childhood and early adult life for Mr. Fewer than does the Gill Report. Because of the significant number and degree ofdifferences, I conclude that Mr. Fewer was not completely honest and forthcoming in one or both of his interviews, as opposed to thedifferences being a matter of different approaches or possible recording errors on the part of the report authors. There are similaritiesbetween the reports and I will mostly focus on those.

To the extent that I have to make a determination on facts that are reporteddifferently in the reports, I will. [29] Starting from his early teens, Mr. Fewer has fairly consistently abused alcohol, and to a lesser extent, other drugs. He did notcomplete high school but, in 2019, he completed a Canadian Adult Achievement test that enabled him to qualify for a 14-weekscaffolding course at the College of the North Atlantic in Burin.

He received his diploma for that in 2009, when he was 19 years old. [30] He worked at a few seasonal jobs in the Marystown area in his teens, but at some point following the completion of hisscaffolding course, he moved to Alberta and began working in that field. According to the PSR, Mr. Fewer was employed as a scaffolderor general laborer fairly consistently following his move to Alberta. The only interruption shown on his work history listing in the PSR isa layoff between January and June 2018. The PSR states that the accused advised he has never been dismissed from an employmentposition.

The Gill Report notes that Mr. Fewer endorsed being fired a couple of times, and gave an example of being fired from HuskyEnergy because he told his colleagues about layoffs when he was not supposed to. According to the Gill Report, Mr. Fewer’s lastconsistent job was in 2017 and since then he has had difficulty securing work. Prior to returning to Newfoundland he was receivingsocial assistance in Alberta. To the extent that there are differences in the reports as to Mr. Fewer’s work history, I prefer that of the GillReport, it is more detailed and relevant aspects of it are corroborated by statements from Mr.

Fewer’s mother. [31] Mr. Fewer has suffered some traumatic events in his life. There is no need for me to recount the particulars further than to notethat he has experienced them and they have left him with some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, although he does not meet thefull criteria for this disorder according to Dr. Gill. In Dr. Gill’s opinion, Mr. Fewer suffers from alcohol abuse disorder and may meet thecriteria for cannabis use disorder. Mr. Fewer is currently being treated for his health issues and both report authors endorse furthercounselling and treatment in the future.

Victim Impact Statement [32] No Victim Impact Statement was filed. As noted, despite the hardship they have suffered because of his actions, Mr. Fewer’sfamily remains supportive of him. Comparable Sentencing Decisions [33] In R. v. Crocker, 2013 NLTD(G) 1, Mr. Crocker was sentenced following a guilty plea to three years for setting fire to amedical clinic after hours, when it was not occupied. He was impaired at the time, and his PSR indicated that he was a high risk toreoffend. [34] In R. v. Mitchell, as referenced by Butler J. (as she then was), Mr.

Mitchell pled guilty to a number of offences including theoffence of arson for setting fire to a camper using kerosene as an accelerant. His wife was in the camper when he spread the kerosene butwas not in the camper when he set the fire. The property damage was minimal and Mr. Mitchell was intoxicated at the time.

He wassentenced to two years less a day imprisonment, which included a period of six months for the arson charge, and two years of probation. [35] In her reasons for judgment at paragraph 47, Butler J. recited and agreed with sentencing principles applicable to the offence ofarson that had previously been recognized in R. v. Fewer, 2004 CarswellNfld 389, [2004] N.J. No. 433 (N.L. Prov.

Ct.): 1. the danger posed by the unpredictable and erratic nature of fire is such that protection of the public through general deterrencemust be the sentencing principle given the greatest emphasis by the sentencing Court; 2. the risk to life that arson subjects emergency personnel and others too, requires an emphasis on the sentencing principle ofdenunciation; 3. a period of imprisonment will normally be the appropriate sentence to be imposed and rarely will it be for a period of less thantwo years.

Normally, it will be one of three years or more; and 4. periods of imprisonment of five years or more may be imposed in those cases where the offender has a history of arson offencesor where someone is harmed. [36] Although Butler J. recognized that, as confirmed in Fewer, it would be rare for a term of imprisonment on an arson charge to beless than two years, she found that Mr. Mitchell’s was such a case. [37] In R. v. Rowsell, (2002) (NL SC), 210 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 226, 630 A.P.R. 226 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.), Mr. Rowsell

was sentenced to imprisonment of two years less a day and three years of probation for burning his mother’s home because he was upsetat her for selling it. Mr. Rowsell, who pled guilty, was intoxicated at the time and suffered from some mental illness. At paragraph 13,LeBlanc J. wrote: The cases that have been submitted by the Crown and other cases that I have had an opportunity to review suggest that the appropriaterange of sentence for arson is anywhere between two years less a day up to six years imprisonment.

I have reviewed all of the casesprovided to me by Crown counsel, particularly those cases wherein there was some suggestion of alcohol consumption and/or mentaldisorder as a precipitating factor for the commission of the offence. I am satisfied that in this particular case the appropriate range is asput forward by the parties. [38] The Crown in Rowsell submitted that a sentence of two years less a day was appropriate and although LeBlanc J. referred to thisas “somewhat surprising and lenient”, he accepted it.

In the present case, Defence counsel identified Rowsell as similar to the presentfacts, although more serious because it was a house, not a shed, that was lost. [39] In R. v. Young, (N.L.P.C.), Mr. Young was sentenced to two years of imprisonment plus one year probationfor burning someone else’s motor vehicle after he had an accident with it. Mr. Young had a significant criminal record. [40] In R. v. Peddle, 2013 CarswellNlfd 225, 338 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143, (N.L. Prov. Ct.), Mr. Peddle set fire to an apartment whileother people were in the building upstairs. He pled guilty to arson pursuant to

section 433(

a) of the Criminal Code and breach ofprobation. In reviewing sentencing precedents, Gorman, P.C.J. made the following comment at paragraph 57: In considering the range of sentence established by these precedents, a distinction must be made between those involving

section 433 andsection 434 of the Criminal Code, the former being a significantly more serious offence. [41] I agree that the offence of

section 433 of the Criminal Code, which requires that the arson either cause bodily harm to anotherperson or that the offender knows or is reckless with respect to whether the property is inhabited or occupied at the time of the fire, ismore serious than the offence of

section 434. Gorman, P.C.J. would have sentenced Mr. Peddle to three years for the arson, but basedsolely on the fact that the Crown requested lesser sentence, he reduced the arson sentence to 24 months. Mr. Peddle was also sentencedto three years of probation. [42] In Fewer (2004), referenced above, Mr. Fewer was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment for burning down a house. Mr.Fewer was intoxicated at the time of the offence and had a lengthy criminal record.

The sentencing judge would have imposed a sentenceof three to three and a half years imprisonment, as requested by the Crown, but for the unusual circumstances of the offence. Mr. Fewerburned down a house in which his brother had been sexually abused in a misguided effort to ease his brother’s pain. [43] In R. v. Clifford, 2015 BCSC 875, Mr. Clifford was convicted for arson and mischief for burning down a garage and causingsignificant damage to an orchard. Mr. Clifford had no prior record, but his motivation for the arson was revenge.

He had had arelationship with a member of the complainant’s family and, as found by the trial judge, he snuck “onto the isolated residential propertyin the night, to menace a family”. Mr. Clifford was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the arson charge. [44] In R. v. Cole (1991), (NL SC), 308 A.P.R. 307, 97 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 307 (Nfld.S.C.T.D.), Mr. Cole wassentenced to eight months in prison for burning a commercial property he owned for insurance fraud contrary to section 435(1) of theCriminal Code.

Although Defence counsel in the present case submitted that arson for the purpose of insurance fraud is no less seriousthan arson motivated by anger, I cannot agree. The maximum sentence for arson for fraudulent purposes contrary to

section 435(

a) of theCriminal Code is ten years, whereas the maximum sentence for arson pursuant to

section 434 of the Criminal Code is 14 years. Byimposing a greater maximum sentence for offences pursuant to

section 434 of the Criminal Code, Parliament has signalled it as the moreserious offence. While all arson offences are serious, insurance fraud cases are less helpful in terms of sentencing precedent than aresection 434 of the Criminal Code arson cases for this reason. [45] In R. v. Popert, 2010 ONCA 89, Mr. Popert successfully appealed the restitution portion of his sentence for arson following aguilty plea. He did not appeal his sentence of imprisonment of nine months. Although Mr. Popert was convicted under

section 434 of theCriminal Code, the facts of that case are distinguishable from those of Mr. Fewer. Mr. Popert and his friend set fire to a house after theywere asked by the owners to do so. The owners were engaging in insurance fraud and offered to pay Mr. Popert and his friend. Mr.Popert and his friend testified as Crown witnesses against the homeowners. [46] In R. v. Pidgeon, 2016 ONCJ 334, Ms. Pidgeon was sentenced to five months imprisonment and two years probation for arson.Although Ms. Pidgeon pled guilty to an offence under

section 434 of the Criminal Code, the property was her own and she burned itdown because it was in disrepair and a financial burden to her. She staged the fire to look like an accident. Ms. Pidgeon was 55 years oldwith no prior criminal record. [47] In R. v. Yellowknee, 2017 ABCA 60, Mr. Yellowknee appealed his global sentence of 12 months of imprisonment and 12months of probation for arson of a dwelling house, mischief and two breaches of a recognizance. The focus of his appeal was whetherthe sentencing judge had failed to give appropriate weight to Gladue factors, as Mr. Yellowknee was Indigenous.

Defence counsel filedthis case because of the minority reasons for judgment given by Wakeling, J.A. Wakeling, J.A. concurred in the result of the majority,which was to dismiss the appeal, but went on to propose a sentencing framework for arson cases. Although the majority did not agreewith his framework, citing the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. M.(C.A.), 1996 SCC 230 for the proposition that there is no such thingas a uniform sentence for a particular crime, Wakeling, J.A. proposed categorizing arson and providing a range of suitable sentences foreach category.

For arson involving property damage of less than $40,000.00 and involving property such as garages, sheds, most cars andmany types of equipment, Wakeling J.A. proposed a range including non-incarceration options to a term of imprisonment of less thantwo years. [48] Wakeling J.A.’s proposal was not adopted by the majority. In so far as he proposed a sentencing range for property damage ofless than $40,000.00, that range does not appear accord with statements from this court in Mitchell and Rowsell.

It is difficult to assesswith accuracy because dollar amounts for property damage are often not cited in reasons for judgment. While there is merit to consistent

sentencing practices throughout the county, in M.(C.A.) the Supreme Court of Canada signaled that there must also be room for regional differences, stating at paragraph 92: It has been repeatedly stressed that there is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime. See Mellstrom , Morrissette and Baldhead. Sentencing is an inherently individualized process, and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction.

As well, sentences for a particular offence should be expected to vary to some degree across various communities and regions in this country, as the "just and appropriate" mix of accepted sentencing goals will depend on the needs and current conditions of and in the particular community where the crime occurred.

For these reasons, consistent with the general standard of review we articulated in Shropshire , I believe that a court of appeal should only intervene to minimize the disparity of sentences where the sentence imposed by the trial judge is in substantial and marked departure from the sentences customarily imposed for similar offenders committing similar crimes. [ 49 ] In R. v. Ludwig , 2018 ONCA 885 , Mr. Ludwig successfully appealed his conviction on two of three charges laid as a result of his setting fire to his own home when he was very intoxicated and emotionally distraught.

He had threatened suicide earlier in the evening. Mr. Ludwig set a small fire by a television that was quickly located by firefighters and extinguished in a matter of seconds. The Court of Appeal did not assess Mr. Ludwig’s sentence for his conviction pursuant to

section 434.1 of the Criminal Code , which they upheld, but did affirm it as 12 months in jail, two years’ probation with various ancillary orders. sentence [ 50 ] Having reviewed the above cases, I accept that for arson pursuant to

section 434 of the Criminal Code , a period of imprisonment will normally be the appropriate sentence and rarely will a sentence for less than two years be appropriate. The focus is on general deterrence and denunciation and sentences reflect the danger that fires pose to the public and emergency personnel.

Cases of arson where a person burns their own property for the purpose of insurance fraud generally attract lower sentences, particularly where there has been no harm to others. [ 51 ] Sentencing judges regularly consider the value and type of property involved in rendering their decisions, and I accept that arson involving dwelling houses and a high value of property damage are generally considered more serious than cases involving little damage, out buildings and vehicles. [ 52 ] Given that the danger posed to the public and to emergency personnel by the unpredictable and erratic nature of fire is well recognized, I also consider the extent to which others have been put at risk to be a relevant consideration.

Factors to consider include: the proximity of other buildings, whether they are inhabited, the use of accelerants, and the surreptitiousness of the act. [ 53 ] I have decided that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Fewer is two years of imprisonment with two years of probation. This puts his sentence at the low end of the descriptive range identified in Mitchell and Rowsell , but does not make it one of those exceptional or rare cases for which a sentence of less than two years imprisonment is appropriate. [ 54 ] In coming to this decision , I have considered that Mr.

Fewer has no relevant criminal record, and what record he does have is very dated. I have also considered that Mr. Fewer expressed his deep sorrow for the people he has hurt. He feels he has paid the price for what he has done, and he is trying to do better. He noted that he has studied to better himself in prison. I accept that Mr. Fewer is remorseful and note that he continues to have the support of his family. Mr. Fewer has pled guilty and saved his family the need of a trial. All of these circumstances are mitigating. [ 55 ] However, there are aggravating factors too.

The most important of these is that the shed was in a residential neighborhood and in very close proximity to an occupied house and other buildings. Mr. Fewer used an accelerant in setting the fire and, from the photographs, it is clear that the shed was being used for storage. The danger inherent in fire becomes even greater when accelerants are used and fuels, which are frequently stored in in sheds, are present. Although I was not provided with a dollar value of the damage, the shed and its contents were destroyed. Credit for Pre-Trial Custody [ 56 ] At the time of the sentencing hearing, Mr.

Fewer had spent 390 days in remand. As of today’s date he has spent 403 days. Both Crown and Defence counsel agree that pre-trial custody should be credited on a 1.5 times basis. This results in 605 days of credit. Two years of imprisonment is 730 days. Less 605 days, Mr. Fewer has 125 days left to serve. Probation Order [ 57 ] In addition to the statutory conditions which apply, Mr. Fewer must: 1. Report to an adult probation officer within three working days, of his release and thereafter as required by the probation officer; and 2.

Abstain from the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or any other intoxicating substance. [ 58 ] In addition to the above, there will be conditions with respect to providing samples of a bodily substance to enable testing of compliance with the no alcohol or non-prescription drug condition and with respect to attending counselling and treatment as recommended by the probation officer. I ask the Crown to draft the Probation Order.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​_____________________________ KATHERINE O’BRIEN Justice Appendix A Authorities Submitted by the Crown 1. R. v. Crocker, 2013 NLTD(G) 1 2. R. v. Mitchell, 2008 NLTD 23 3. R. v. Rowsell, (2002) (NL SC), 210 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 226, 630 A.P.R. 226 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.) 4. R. v. Young, (N.L.P.C.) 5. R. v. Peddle, 2013 CarswellNlfd 225, 338 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 143, (N.L. Prov. Ct.) 6. R. v. Fewer, 2004 CarswellNfld 389, [2004] N.J. No. 433 (N.L. Prov. Ct.) 7. R. v. Clifford, 2015 BCSC 875 Appendix B Authorities Submitted by the Defence 1. R. v. Cole (1991), (NL SC), 308 A.P.R. 307, 97 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 307 (Nfld.

S.C.T.D.) 2. R. v. Popert, 2010 ONCA 89 3. R. v. Pidgeon, 2016 ONCJ 334 4. R. v. Yellowknee, 2017 ABCA 60 5. R. v. Ludwig, 2018 ONCA 885