Case Name:

R. v. Kendell
Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
Travas Wade George Lawrance Kendell
[2012] N.J. No. 118
2012 NLTD(G) 52
321 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1
100 W.C.B. (2d) 489
Docket: 201104G0091
Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court,
Trial Division - General Division
Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador
A.C. Seaborn J.
March 27, 2012.
(38 paras.)
Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Criminal Code offences -- Sexual offences, public morals, disorderly conduct
and nuisances -- Sexual offences -- Sexual interference -- Particular sanctions -- Imprisonment -- Probation
-- Sentencing considerations -- Aggravating factors -- Mitigating factors -- Deterrence -- General deterrence --
Specific deterrence -- Denunciation -- Pre-sentence report -- No previous record -- Guilty plea -- Remorse --
Offence involving breach of trust -- Sexual offences against children -- Sentencing precedents or starting
point -- Health (incl. mental health) -- Seriousness of offence -- Effect on victim -- Age of accused -- Offender
sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment and 12 months' probation for sexual interference -- Offender, age 33,
conducted four-month consensual sexual relationship with complainant, age 14 -- Complainant was a
neighbour, friends with offender's son, and involved in army cadet program supervised by offender --
Aggravating factors included breach of trust and frequency of sexual activity -- Mitigating factors included
lack of prior record, guilty plea, and acceptance of responsibility -- Prevailing objectives were general
deterrence and denunciation, as positive antecedents lessened requirement for specific deterrence.
Sentencing of the offender, Kendell, for sexual interference. The offender, age 33, was an army cadet officer
who supervised shooting exercises conducted by cadet students. The complainant, age 14, was a cadet
involved in the exercises and lived on the same street as the offender. She was friends with the offender's
son and they car-pooled to the shooting exercises. The complainant frequently confided in the offender
regarding personal problems and the offender discussed his depression with the complainant. The pair
commenced a consensual sexual relationship that lasted four months and involved intimacy a few times per
Page 1
week. Electronic communications revealed the nature of their relationship. The relationship was reported to
police after the complainant quit the cadets and disclosed the matter to her father. The offender waived his
right to a preliminary hearing and entered a guilty plea. The pre-sentence report stated that the offender
experienced a major depressive episode and anxiety during the time of the relationship. The offender had no
prior convictions or substance abuse issues. The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day. The
offender sought a sentence of between 12 and 14 months.
HELD: Kendell was sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment plus one year probation. Mitigating factors
included the guilty plea, the lack of a prior record, the absence of threats or violence, and the remorse and
acceptance expressed by the offender. Aggravating factors included the breach of trust and the frequency of
the sexual involvement between the pair. The offence involved a breach of trust based on the offender's
leadership role in the cadets, the couple's age difference, the disclosure of personal problems by the
complainant, and the complainant's friendship with the offender's son. The primary sentencing objectives
were denunciation and general deterrence. The need for specific deterrence was lessened by the offender's
positive antecedents. Sentence: 21 months' imprisonment; 12 months' probation; 20 years' compliance with
Sex Offender Information Registration Act.
Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 16(1)(b), s. 16(1)(c), s. 109(1)(c), s. 109(2)(a), s. 109(2)(b), s. 151, s.
271, s. 342.2(2), s. 486.4(1)(a)(i), s. 487.04(a)(i.1), s. 487.06(1), s. 490.011(1)(a)(II), s. 490.012(4), s.
490.018, s. 490.031, s. 718, s. 718.01, s. 718.1, s. 718.2, s. 732.1(5), s. 732.2(3), s. 732.2(5), s. 733.1, s.
737(1), s. 737(2)(b)(II), s. 737(8)
Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10, s. 4(7), s. 17(1)
Court Summary:
The 33-year-old offender had an ongoing sexual relationship, including sexual intercourse and oral sex, for a
four month period, with the 14-year-old victim. For the offence of sexual interference the offender received a
sentence of 21 months imprisonment and a one year Probation Order. As well, a Firearms Prohibition, a
DNA Order, a Sex Offender Information Registration Order, an Order of Prohibition and a victim surcharge
were imposed.
Cases cited:
R. v. Atkins (1988), 69 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 99, 4 W.C.B. (2d) 348 (Nfld. C.A.).
R. v. L.F.W. (1997), 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115, 119 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (Nfld. C.A.).
R. v. Hammond, 2011 NLTD(G) 8.
R. v. Cooper, 2011 NLTD(G) 121.
Statutes, Regulations and Rules cited:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as am., ss. 16(1)(b)-(c), 109(1)(c), 109(2)(a)-(b), 151, 271, 342.1(2),
486.4(1)(a)(i), 487.04(a)(i.1), 487.06(1), 490.011(1)(a)(II), 490.012(4), 490.018, 490.031, 718(a)-(f), 718.01,
718.1, 718.2(a)-(b), (d)-(e), 732.1(5), 732.2(3) & (5), s. 733.1, 737(1), 2(b)(II), 737(8).
Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10, ss. 4-7, 17(1).
Counsel:
Trina Simms: Counsel for Her Majesty the Queen.
Gary Kearney, Q.C.: Counsel for Travas Kendell.
Page 2
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A.C. SEABORN J.:--
THE OFFENCE
1 The offender, Travas Kendell, pled guilty to two charges being that he:
Count No. 1
On or between the 1st day of November A.D., 2009 and the 4th day of April A.D., 2010
at or near Stephenville in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador did for a sexual
purpose touch E.A. a person under the age of sixteen years directly with a part of his
body, to wit: his penis, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal Code.
Count No. 2
On or between the 1st day of November A.D., 2009 and the 4th day of April A.D., 2010
at or near Stephenville in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador did commit a
sexual assault on E.A. contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code.
2 Crown counsel noted that both charges relate to the same factual incidents and requested that the
charge of sexual assault be stayed in accordance with the "Kienapple" principle, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, and I
so order. Accordingly, the offender will now be sentenced on the sexual interference charge, Count No. 1.
3 The relevant provisions of s. 151 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as am., are as follows:
151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly ..., with a part of the body ...,
any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
45 days.
4 The Agreed Statement of Facts entered in this matter reads as follows:
In the Fall of 2009 E.A. was 14 years old and was involved in the Stephenville area Air
Cadets, as well as Badminton at her school. At one point in the Fall her Air Cadet
Squadron was involved in a shooting exercise which was supervised by Army Cadet
officers, the accused, Travas Kendall (sic), being one of them. The Accused and the
complainant first met when the complainant came to the accused's house to visit their
son. After this shooting exercise, and because both badminton and Air Cadets
conflicted, E.A. left the Air Cadet Squadron and joined the Army Cadet Squadron. This
happened, she believes, in either Late November or early December of 2009.
The Accused and the complainant lived on the same street, and the complainant was
friends with the accused's son, who was in the same Army Cadet Corps. Because of
this, the complainant requested rides to and from Cadets with the accused. During these
Page 3
trips, the accused and the complainant began to talk frequently and started to get close
to one another. The complainant frequently talked to the accused about personal
problems. The accused also discussed his own mental health issues with the
complainant as he was suffering from depression.
Shortly before 2010, in December of 2009, the accused developed a physical
relationship with the complainant. The complainant indicates that the accused initiated
the physical relationship, but that it was not forced upon her, and she was compliant.
Over the next four months both the accused and the complainant frequently contacted
each other via text message, MSN, and cell phone to arrange personal meetings. This
occurred with a frequency of about two to three times a week. The complainant indicates
that at least one of these two or three times would involve sexual intercourse or other
sexual contact. Most often, the accused would arrange to pick the complainant up at
lunch time from her school, Stephenville Middle School, and the two would spend the
lunch break together. Frequently during these lunch breaks the two would engage in
sexual intercourse in the accused's vehicle, at various remote locations in the
Stephenville area.
The accused also engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant at his own home
on one occasion. The accused also engaged the complainant in oral sex, both him
performing it on her and her performing it on him. The complainant reports that this
occurred 10 to 20, and a dozen times, respectively.
Over the course of roughly a 4 month period (from December 2009 to Easter, 2010) the
accused and the complainant exchanged nearly 600 e-mail and text messages that
indicate throughout that the two were in a mutual relationship. Several of the messages
contain explicit sexual comments and remarks, both to and from the accused and to and
from the complainant, and several were sent from the accused to the complainant (and
vice versa) to arrange meetings for sexual intercourse and other sexual contact.
The complainant could not quantify the number of occurrences of sexual contact, but
stated that she would meet the accused two or three times per week for a period of four
months, and that on at least one occasion throughout the week the two would have
sexual intercourse and/or other sexual contact.
Over the course of the relevant four months the accused was 33 years old.
The sexual contact ended shortly following Easter 2010 and upon the return of the
complainant from the Newfoundland Games. Upon return she ceased contact with the
accused and quit Army Cadet Corps. The occurrences came to the attention of police in
April 2010 when the complainant reported, via written letter, to her father her reasons for
quitting Army Cadets and revealed that she had been in a sexual relationship with the
accused. On the following day the complainant's father brought her to the RCMP to
report the incident.
E.A. gave a statement to police outlining the details of the incidents. Police investigation
revealed the majority of e-mails and text messages sent between the accused and the
complainant.
Page 4
THE ISSUE
5 The main issue to be determined is what is the appropriate length of sentence for this offence and this
offender.
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
6 Crown counsel stated that the appropriate term of imprisonment for this offence and this offender would
be two years less a day. Counsel for the offender submitted that a sentence in the range of 12 to 14 months
would be appropriate in this matter.
THE PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING
7 The following are the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with the purpose and principles of
sentencing:
718 Purpose -- The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with
crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the
following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the
harm done to victims and to the community.
718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a
person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the
objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.
718.1 Fundamental principles -- A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the
offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
718.2 Other sentencing principles -- A court that imposes a sentence shall also take
into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant
aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the
offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, ...
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a
person under the age of eighteen years;
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a
position of trust or authority in relation to the victim; ...
Page 5
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for
similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
...
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions
may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the
circumstances should be considered for all offenders ...
THE ATKINS FACTORS
8 In determining an appropriate sentence in this case, the following comments of the late Chief Justice
Goodridge in R. v. Atkins (1988), 69 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 99, 4 W.C.B. (2d) 348 (Nfld. C.A.), are of assistance:
There are many factors to be considered in imposing sentence in any case. In cases of
sexual assault these factors include the extent of the assault (for sexual assault
encompasses a very wide range of human misbehaviour), the degree of violence or
force used, the impact of the crime upon the victim, the family of the victim and the
offender, the degree of trust involved, public abhorrence to the type of crime involved,
the attitude of the offender to what he has done, his plea, the biological and psychiatric
factors that lead to the commission of the offence, the need for specific and general
deterrence, the prospect of successful rehabilitation, the antecedents and age of the
offender, the time spent in custody prior to trial and sentences imposed by other courts
in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Canada.
Vengeance is not a factor. A sentence is designed to protect the public, not to abate its
anger at a particular crime. As has frequently been said, protection is attained through a
balance of deterrence and rehabilitation. Neither should overwhelm or negate the other.
The proper balance will vary from case to case.
While the offence here is sexual interference, not sexual assault, the factors noted are equally applicable and
I will now review each of these as it relates to the matter before me.
THE EXTENT OF THE ASSAULTS
9 The incidents of sexual assault have been described previously in the Agreed Statement of Facts. They
involved sexual intercourse and oral sex and occurred frequently over a period of approximately four months.
THE DEGREE OF VIOLENCE OR FORCE USED
10 In this matter, there is no evidence of threats or force other than that inherent in sexual touching.
THE IMPACT OF THE CRIME UPON THE VICTIM, THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM
AND THE OFFENDER
11 No Victim Impact Statement was submitted in this matter and there is no evidence before me as to the
impact of the crime upon the victim or the family of the victim.
12 The offender testified that as a result of this offence he changed careers and moved his family to a new
community.
Page 6
THE DEGREE OF TRUST INVOLVED
13 Because the offender was an Army Cadet officer and the victim an Army Cadet there was a degree of
trust involved in their relationship. In addition, the following facts indicate the offender had some degree of
responsibility in respect of the victim:
1) The age difference between them, the offender being 33 or 34 years of age and
the victim 14 years of age at the times of the commission of the offence;
2) The victim being a friend of the accused's son; and
3) The victim having confided in the accused about her personal problems prior to
the offence taking place.
PUBLIC ABHORRENCE TO THE TYPE OF CRIME INVOLVED
14 Sexual interference with a child, like sexual assault of a child, is viewed with repugnance by society.
The comments of Cameron J.A. in R. v. L.F.W. (1997), 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115, 119 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (Nfld.
C.A.), are applicable here:
... But I do start from the premise that sexual assault of a child is a crime that is
abhorrent to Canadian society and society's condemnation of those who commit such
offences must be communicated in the clearest of terms. As to moral blameworthiness,
the use of a vulnerable child for the sexual gratification of an adult cannot be viewed as
anything but a crime demonstrating the worse of intentions. ...
THE ATTITUDE OF THE OFFENDER TO WHAT HE HAS DONE
15 The Pre-Sentence Report at page 6 noted:
Mr. Kendell accepts responsibility for the convictions currently before the Court ... He
states he understands the impact of this type of behaviour on a child and he expressed
his remorse for any harm caused to this victim in this case.
The offender in his remarks to this Court clearly conveyed his remorse over his involvement in this matter
and accepted responsibility for his actions.
THE PLEA
16 The offender waived the right to a preliminary hearing in this matter and entered a guilty plea in this
Court.
THE BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC FACTORS THAT LED TO THE COMMISSION
OF THE OFFENCE
17 The Pre-Sentence Report and the letter from the offender's doctor, Dr. Joan Kranenka, entered at the
sentencing hearing state that during the time of commission of this offence the offender was experiencing a
major depressive episode with anxiety features.
18 Dr. Kranenka noted on page 3 of her letter:
I do not feel the patient's medications impaired his judgment, however, sometimes Major
Depresson and anxiety itself can impair judgment in terms of negative cognitive
distortions but certainly not to the degree of committing a serious criminal offense.
THE NEED FOR SPECIFIC AND GENERAL DETERRENCE AND THE PROSPECT
FOR SUCCESSFUL REHABILITATION
Page 7
19 As to general deterrence, s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code mandates that in sentencing for offences such
as this, which involved the abuse of a person under 18 years of age, primary consideration is to be given to
the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
20 As for specific deterrence, the need for this offender is relatively low. The offender has no prior criminal
record. The Pre-Sentence Report at pages 6 and 7 notes as follows:
1. Mr. Kendell further reports he has no history of substance abuse or gambling ...
2. He is currently attending mental health counselling sessions and he attends follow
up appointments with the psychiatrist every six weeks. He reports taking all
medications as prescribed for depression and anxiety ... .
3. ... Mr. Kendell ... is assessed to be very low-risk to become involved in further
criminal activities. There were no criminogenic factors which influence general
recidivism that were identified as significant for this individual.
4. Mr. Kendell has strengths in areas of family/marital, education/employment/,
prosocial support network and attitudes, alcohol/drug dependency and criminal
history. These strengths will promote his adherence to a prosocial lifestyle.
THE ANTECEDENTS AND AGE OF THE OFFENDER
21 The offender is now 36 years of age, married with two children and seasonally employed.
TIME SPENT IN CUSTODY PRIOR TO TRIAL
22 The offender has not to date spent time in custody in regard this matter.
SENTENCES IMPOSED BY OTHER COURTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND
LABRADOR AND ELSEWHERE IN CANADA
23 Counsel provided to me the cases listed in Schedule "A" to this judgment, each of which I have
reviewed. While they are helpful in highlighting the relevant legal principles to be applied and the appropriate
range of sentence for this type of offence, each case has its own unique features. I will describe two of those
cases which have some similarities to the present matter but also have significant differences.
24 In R. v. Hammond, 2011 NLTD(G) 8, Justice Dymond of this court imposed a sentence of one year's
imprisonment for the offence of sexual interference. Some of the similarities in that case to the present
matter are that the victim was 14 years of age, the offence involved sexual intercourse, no threat or coercion
was involved and the offender had no prior criminal record, pled guilty, was remorseful and was a low-risk to
reoffend. An aggravating factor present there, but not here, is that the offender had supplied liquor to the
victim prior to the commission of the offence. However, the present case has the following aggravating
factors which place it higher on the sentencing spectrum than the Hammond case:
1) In Hammond there was one incident of sexual interference. In the present case
there were multiple incidents over a four month period; and
2) The offender in Hammond was not in a position of trust to the victim, in this case
the offender was.
25 In R. v. Cooper, 2011 NLTD(G) 121, Judge Stack of this court sentenced an offender, after a trial, for
incidents of sexual interference involving two victims. The count most similar to the present case involved a
sentence of 18 months imprisonment where the victim was 15 years of age and the offence involved one
incident of sexual interference, including sexual intercourse, without force or coercion. However, again, in
that matter, unlike the present case, there was only one incident of sexual interference and the offender was
not in a position of trust to the victim.
MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS
26 The mitigating factors in this matter are the guilty plea, the remorse and acceptance of responsibility by
Page 8
the offender, his lack of a criminal record and the absence of threats or overt violence in the commission of
the acts of sexual interference.
27 The aggravating factors are the breach of the trust relationship between the offender and the victim and
the number of incidents of sexual interference over a four month period, including multiple incidents of sexual
intercourse.
CONCLUSION RE THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT
28 Bearing in mind all of the factors previously described, I am satisfied that an appropriate sentence for
this offender and this offence is a total term of imprisonment of 21 months.
OTHER ORDERS
PROBATION ORDER
29 There will be probation for a one year period at the conclusion of the term of imprisonment, which
Probation Order shall be in Form 46 of the Criminal Code. The following shall be the conditions of the
supervised Probation Order for Mr. Kendell:
1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
2) Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court;
3) Notify the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly
notify the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation;
4) Attend, participate in and co-operate with any assessment, treatment or counselling
program required by the probation officer;
5) Report to and be under the supervision of a probation officer; and
6) Have no contact or communication with E.A.
30 In accordance with s. 732.1(5) of the Criminal Code, I direct that a copy of the Probation Order shall be
given to Mr. Kendell, that the Clerk provide him with an explanation of s. 732.2(3) and (5) and s. 733.1 of the
Criminal Code and an explanation for the procedure for applying under s. 732.2(3) of the Criminal Code for a
change in any of the optional conditions. The Clerk will also explain that failure to comply with this Probation
Order is a separate offence for which the offender may be brought before the Court to be dealt with
according to law.
FIREARMS PROHIBITION
31 In accordance with s. 109(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, a Firearms Prohibition Order will issue against
Mr. Kendell for the duration set out in s. 109(2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code whereby Mr. Kendell will be
prohibited from possessing:
a) Any firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance
commencing today and continuing for ten years after Mr. Kendell' release from
imprisonment for this offence; and
b) For life, any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited
device and prohibited ammunition.
As well, Mr. Kendell is to surrender within seven days from today anything, the possession of which is
prohibited by this Order, that is in his possession and any related authorization, licence or registration
certificate.
DNA ORDER
32 Sexual interference is a primary designated offence under s. 487.04(a)(i.1) of the Criminal Code.
Accordingly, I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking from Mr. Kendell for the purpose of forensic
DNA analysis of any number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for that purpose by
Page 9
means of the investigative procedure described in s. 487.06(1).
SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION ORDER
33 Sexual interference is a designated offence under s. 490.011(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.
Accordingly, where, as here, the prosecutor requests an order under the Sex Offender Information
Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c-10, the Court shall make such an order unless the exception in s. 490.012(4)
applies. The offender has not met the burden of establishing that if the Order were made the impact on him
would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest served by registration in accordance with the Act.
Accordingly, a Sex Offender Reporting Order will be issued for this offender in accordance with Form 52 of
the Criminal Code. The offender will be subject to the Order for 20 years and will report, as required, to the
Corner Brook Detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in this regard.
34 In accordance with s. 490.018 of the Criminal Code, I direct the Clerk of the Court to:
1) Give the offender a copy of the Reporting Order;
2) Read the Reporting Order to the offender unless the offender requests that he read it
himself; and
3) Inform the offender of ss. 4 to 7 and subsection 17(1) of the Sex Offender Information
Registration Act and s. 490.031 of the Criminal Code.
ORDER OF PROHIBITION
35 As the offender:
1) Was a volunteer in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age
of 16 years, including the victim, at the time of the commission of this offence; and
2) Used a computer system for the purpose of communicating with the victim;
I am satisfied an Order under s. 161(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Code is appropriate.
Accordingly, an order shall issue prohibiting Mr. Kendell from:
1) Seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment
is remunerated, or becoming a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a
position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years; and
2) Using a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) for the
purpose of communicating with a person under the age of 16 years other than his
own children.
This Order shall be in effect for five years, commencing on the date on which Mr.
Kendell is released from imprisonment for this offence.
VICTIM SURCHARGE
36 In accordance with s. 737(1) and 2(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code, a victim surcharge of $100 is imposed to
be paid within 90 days of today's date. The Clerk will provide the offender with a notice in accordance with s.
737(8) of the Criminal Code.
CONCLUSION
37 Mr. Kendell, you have committed a serious criminal offence. You have been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 21 months to be followed by one year probation. I trust this will be your last involvement with
the criminal justice system.
Page 10
A.C. SEABORN J.
* * * * *
SCHEDULE "A"
38
Crown's List of Authorities
[1] R. v. Atkins (1988), 69 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 99, 4 W.C.B. (2d) 348 (Nfld. C.A.)
[2] R. v. Vokey (1999), 102 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 275, 16 W.C.B. (2d) 121 (Nfld. C.A.)
[3] R. v. Hammond, 2011 NLTD(G) 8
[4] R. v. Young, 2010 CarswellNfld 380, 2010 CanLII 70370 (Prov. Ct.)
[5]
[6] R. v. J.L.M. (2003), 59 W.C.B. (2d) 28, [2003] N.J. No. 204 (Prov. Ct.)
Defence's List of Authorities
[1] R. v. Hammond, 2011 NLTD(G) 8
[2] R. v. R.H.W., 1998 St. J. No. 2971, 176 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 70 (Nfld. S.C. (T.D.))
[3] R. v. Johnson, 2000 01T No. 2366, 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 185 (Nfld. S.C. (T.D.))
[4] R. v. Young, 2010 CarswellNfld 380, 2010 CanLII 70370 (Prov. Ct.)
[5] R. v. Cooper, 2011 NLTD(G) 121
cp/ci/e/qlrxg/qllmr/qlcas/qlced/qlgpr
Page 11