R v. Caldi

R v. Caldi Court Supreme Court Date 2025-10-22 Citation 2025 NSSC 426 Docket CRH 532452 / 540391 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Duncan, Patrick J. (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R v. Caldi, 2025 NSSC 426 Date: 20251022 Docket: CRH 532452 / 540391 Registry: Halifax Between: His Majesty the King v. Dominic Anthony Caldi DECISION on SENTENCING Judge: The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Duncan Heard: October 21 and 22, 2025, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Decision: February 3, 2026 Counsel: Michael E. Berrigan for the Crown Dominic Anthony Caldi, Self-Represented By the Court: NOTE: In reducing to writing the oral decision rendered in this matter, editing has taken place to include omitted citations and quotes from secondary sources and to make changes to format or to grammar for readability. No changes have been made to the substantive reasons for decision. Introduction [1] Mr. Caldi has entered pleas of guilty to four counts in CRH 532452: Count 2: unlawfully wound, maim, disfigure and endangered the life of Amanda Linn Morgan thereby committing an aggravated assault, contrary to Section 268(1) of the Criminal Code. Count 5: at the same time and place [being August 24, 2023] did carry or possess a prohibited weapon, to wit, “a sawed-off shotgun” for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence contrary to Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum for that offence is a period of imprisonment for 10 years. Count 7: that he at the same time and place aforesaid did possess a prohibited firearm, to wit, “a sawed-off shotgun” knowing that he was not the holder of a license under which he may possess it, and in the case of a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, without being the holder of a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to Section 92(1) of the Criminal Code. The penalty for this is a maximum of 10 years in prison. Count 10: that he at the same time and place aforesaid, being at large on his Release Order, given to or entered into before a Justice or Judge, on the 24th day of July, 2023, and being bound to comply with a condition of that Release Order, to wit, “Do not possess any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or explosive substance” did without lawful excuse fail to comply with that condition, contrary to Section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code. This carries a maximum of not greater than 2 years’ imprisonment. [2] In relation to the second Indictment, CRH 54039, Mr. Caldi has entered a plea of guilty to the single count of that Indictment which reads: That he on or about the 7th day of October, 2023 at or near Dartmouth, Nova Scotia did in committing an assault on Correctional Officer, Jamie David Richardson, a Peace Officer, did cause bodily harm to Jamie David Richardson, contrary to Section 270.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. The Facts [3] The Agreed Statement of Facts are: August 24, 2023 Facts [1] On Thursday, August 24, 2023, HRP received a 911 call regarding a female that had been violently stabbed with a knife. Multiple witnesses heard a single gunshot coming from the apartment. When police arrived, the Victim advised that the person responsible for stabbing her, Dominic Caldi (the “Accused”), may still be in the apartment armed with a sawed-off shotgun. The Victim described the sawed-off shotgun and the knife to police. The Accused was known to police. [2] The Victim explained the incident to police. She had demanded that the Accused leave the apartment, otherwise she would call the police. The Accused refused to leave as he was looking for the Victim’s roommate. The Accused entered a bedroom and exited with a knife. There was one other person in the apartment during this incident. [3] The Accused attacked the Victim with the knife in the kitchen. First, he slashed her from her left ear, down the side of her neck, onto her chest and under her right breast. The Victim turned to run, and the Accused stabbed her in the back with the same knife. She continued to run away from the Victim as she was afraid for her life. At this time she started to feel blood gurgle in her lungs. She was able to escape the apartment. The Victim asked the building manager to call police. [4] Police arrived and observed that a shotgun had been discharged in the kitchen. The apartment complex was searched, and police were notified that a person had run from the apartment. Using various investigative techniques, the Accused was located by police on a nearby residential street. [5] Cst. Nancy Miller was in uniform and was a passenger in an unmarked police vehicle driven by Cst. Mark Forrest. She had seen a photograph of the Accused, and the officers spotted him on a nearby street. She radioed the Watch Commander and requested additional units for assistance. Cst. Forrest recalled that the Watch Commander had previously advised not to approach the Accused on his own given the fact that he may be armed, and that if they encountered him, they would get additional resources. [6] Cst. Joseph Hayward came on the radio and advised he was two minutes away. When Cst. Hayward pulled up, he told Cst. Miller they were going to do a high-risk takedown. There was no other pedestrian or vehicle traffic in the area at the time. [7] Cst. Hayward drove toward the Accused and activated his emergency lights. Cst. Forrest saw the lights activate and also activated his lights. Cst. Hayward said something to the effect of “Dominic Caldi, stop, you’re under arrest.” The Accused turned and reached to his waist, pulling out a shotgun. As the Accused turned towards the officers, the shotgun pointed in their direction. [8] At this moment Cst. Hayward unholstered his firearm and fired 7 rounds at the Accused. One bullet struck the Accused in the groin area. He instantly fell to the ground. Officers provided immediate medical assistance. Police took custody of the shotgun. The chamber was empty. October 7, 2023 Facts [9] On October 7, 2023 Jamie Richardson (the “Victim”) was working as a correctional officer at the Central Nova Correctional Facility located at 90 Gloria McCluskey Avenue in Dartmouth, NS. At 4:06 pm, the Victim entered West 2 of the Correctional Facility to carry out his duties. [10] The Victim was approached by Dominic Caldi (the “Accused”), who was standing in front of cell W2-12. As the Victim passed cell W2-12, the Accused started assaulting him with his hands. The Accused began by striking the Victim on the right side of his head. He used his right arm to strike the Victim, and his left arm to hold him. The Victim was able to break free from the Accused after being struck several times. [11] Multiple correctional officers responded to the assault. They physically restrained him and placed him in a Close Confinement Unit Cell. [12] The Victim sustained injuries to the right side of his face, including his skin breaking and causing heavy bleeding. The assault was captured on CCTV. [13] The Accused told a different Correctional Officer that he assaulted the Victim because he was being disrespectful. [4] Other relevant exhibits filed in this case include the Pre-Sentence Report, the Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (“IRCA”), and Mr. Caldi’s criminal record. I will speak, in this decision, to some of the factors that come from that information and that are relevant to my conclusions. [5] The common fact in relation to the offences in both Indictments is Mr. Caldi's resort to the use of violence. [6] In the case of Ms. Morgan, it was life-threatening violence which Mr. Caldi admits was fueled by his mental state at the time combined with his use of drugs. He describes Ms. Morgan as having been a good friend which speaks to, as we see in so many cases, the devastating effects drug addiction can have on an individual’s life and on those around them. [7] In the second Indictment, it was his use of violence as a reaction to the “disrespect” that Mr. Caldi felt the Correctional Officer showed toward him. [8] Both cases ended up in injury to the victims. [9] Mr. Caldi acknowledged that in both cases his use of force was unjustifiable. [10] The circumstances charged in the first Indictment, involving Ms. Morgan, are aggravated by the facts that it took place in her own apartment and that a knife and a gun were used in the commission of these offences. [11] It is difficult, based on the information I have, to attribute any premeditation to Mr. Caldi for these events. Given Mr. Caldi’s medical and personal background, his conduct seems more consistent with his issues of substance abuse, a lack of necessary mood management medications in place at the time of the attack on Ms. Morgan, and of course his history of pre-existing issues with anger and self control. [12] I note as well that at the time of his apprehension by police in relation to the Morgan assault, he was shot in the groin by police who were responding to his producing a sawed-off shot gun. Mr. Caldi has informed me that it was not his intention to use the gun. But, of course, the police could not know that in circumstances where they were seeking to arrest him for what had been already described as a violent act, and in a situation where he may have been out of control. Circumstances of the Offender [13] I have had the benefit of the Pre-Sentence Report and the IRCA Report. [14] These Reports have provided much more detail than I could ever refer to in this decision today. I think Mr. Berrigan accurately summed up some of the key aspects of Mr. Caldi’s described circumstances, as they relate to the principles of sentencing that I must consider. I would say that they should, and I hope they will, guide Corrections Canada in providing Mr. Caldi with relevant and intensive assessment and treatment, including appropriate therapies to address his lifelong struggles with addiction and mental health problems. [15] To the extent that his rehabilitation may yet be achieved, the work he has been doing with his current counsellors, while on remand, should be instructive. [16] I am not going to refer in detail to the Pre-Sentence Report, but I have considered the comments made by the various persons who were interviewed for that report. [17] I was impressed by the degree of investigation that Ms. Paris Hoyte conducted in preparing the IRCA. I agree with Mr. Berrigan; I have seen a number of these, and it is one that I can say was very important to the outcome here. To some extent it reaffirms what we already knew but more so, for reasons I will explain in a moment. [18] I will refer to some of the most significant comments that have arisen. [19] Mr. Caldi has been strongly influenced in his life by an upbringing that included family violence, conflict with the law and substance abuse. He mentions that at one point he and his father, who had a long criminal history, were co-accused of criminal charges. It was striking that at the age of 13, and influenced by his father, he was engaged in the use of, and criminal activity relating to, drugs. [20] He has indicated that he spent more time of his life in jail than out. He started his conflict with the law even as a youth, spending time at a youth custody facility where we are told he was subject to abuse. [21] He is not a young, or a first, offender but the cultural, medical and social issues that have influenced his behaviour over most of his life have left him very susceptible to recidivism, to repeating the behaviours that have put him before the court in the past. [22] At the same time, as Mr. Berrigan has also noted, there does seem to be some reason for hope that he can ultimately manage the impulses that drive him to violence. [23] I could quote the IRCA at length – I am not going to do that. I draw attention particularly to the Recommendations at page 39 of Ms. Paris Hoyte’s Report. [24] She said in summary: Dominic Caldi’s story exemplifies the intersection of racial trauma, mental illness and systemic neglect that the Supreme Court sought to address in R v. Anderson. His demonstrated insight, participation in healing programs and commitment to education and fatherhood showed genuine rehabilitative potential. The court is therefore urged to craft a sentence that embodies Anderson’s vision. One that recognizes the moral blameworthiness of the offence while refusing to perpetrate the structural inequities that produced it. A culturally informed, treatment orientated disposition will serve the objectives of accountability, rehabilitation and community safety while affirming the principles of substantive equality and human dignity central to Canadian sentencing law. [25] I can say, having read the previous 38 pages of the Report, that she lays out in detail the factual foundation and the academic, if you will, foundation for those conclusions. [26] And so, again, that is part of the picture too. It is not just about what Mr. Caldi did but why and where he is going to be in the future. [27] In her closing recommendations, Ms. Paris Hoyte recognizes that he has had prior periods of incarceration but sets out some things which she believes can positively impact his immediate future while in a Correctional facility. For example, she recommends “… placement in a treatment-oriented correction environment with continuous psychiatric and mental wellness oversight, medication management and access to trauma informed culturally competent psychotherapy”. She then describes the type of work that should be done with therapists and counselors, and she speaks to topics such as educational, vocational programming, family and parenting support, structured reintegration plans and sentencing considerations. [28] Obviously, my function in relation to Mr. Caldi’s situation ends today but there are other people who are going to be instrumental in his future and, Ms. Paris Hoyte has, I think, done a good job of indicating how that might work. [29] Mr. Caldi entered a guilty plea, and I am told that he sought a resolution at a very early stage. It did not happen as fast as it might have but there are reasons for the delay. [30] It is important to recognize that in pleading guilty it saves the trauma that is attached to having to testify and undergo cross-examination for Ms. Morgan and Mr. Richardson and other witnesses. It is well understood that the justice system is under a lot of stress for resources. Resolving this matter frees up court time to be used for other trials which are waiting to be heard. [31] Mr. Caldi also expressed his remorse today. He has said to me on prior appearances that he acknowledges his guilt. That all stands to the good at the end of the day. [32] The Report writer states that you [Mr. Caldi] are gaining some insight at this point in your life. Mr. Berrigan has pointed out that there was a period after the last lengthy sentence that you served during which you were able to operate successfully in society. These are indicators of the potential you have for avoiding future conflict with the law. [33] The objective in sentencing is to protect society and the courts are guided in how to meet that objective through the provisions of the Criminal Code and through the case law that speaks to sentences that were handed out in similar circumstances with offenders whose circumstances were also similar. To the extent that we can, we try to apply this principle of similarity. [34] I am familiar with and have instructed myself on the principles of sentencing as set out in the Code and in case law. I draw attention to section 718 of the Criminal Code in particular. In a case like this, the emphasis is on denunciation and deterrence - deterrence both generally, to tell the public that there is a punishment to be paid for these crimes; and specific to you, to say this is what happens if you do this. The theory being that it will deter you from doing it again. [35] These principles of denunciation and deterrence are specifically mandated by the Criminal Code, and section 178.02 makes them primary considerations where the offence relates to, as in this case, bodily harm to Correctional Officer Richardson. [36] The sentences that have been proposed as a joint recommendation, in my view, are completely consistent with these principles of sentencing and with the available case law. I have considered Mr. Caldi’s criminal record which is relevant and somewhat recent. I have also noted the recommendation that there will be a jail sentence for each one of his offences. [37] The sentences proposed vary according to the circumstances of each offence, including the maximums available for each. I must also consider what the totality of those sentences should amount to. I accept that the penalties that have been put forward for the offences recognizes them individually, and with the obligation to have regard for the totality of the imprisonment. [38] Mr. Berrigan’s submissions, in a matter where the offender is self-represented, were ably stated, carefully considered and provided a very fair representation in relation to what the appropriate penalty should be, the reasons therefore, and in doing so recognizing the rehabilitative possibilities. [39] In saying all of this, we are saying that we see the possibility for rehabilitation in circumstances where it would have been easy to see none, frankly, when you think about your history. But you have earned some credibility with the people who are treating you. There is a belief that you can benefit from the continued focus on your counselling. However, I also want to say, before I close, that it must be clear that I have not forgotten, nor do I minimize in any way, the trauma that Ms. Morgan and Correctional Officer Richardson suffered because of your conduct. I know you have expressed your remorse for your conduct, but the damage cannot be forgotten. I would never gloss over their trauma and the wrongfulness of the conduct and your blameworthiness by simply saying “well the offender is remorseful… Mr. Caldi is sorry”. That does not fix their trauma. I see you nodding “yes”. They will carry this memory forward and it is because of that trauma that people seek to lock away offenders for lengthy periods of time. In this case, that has and will take place but with the hope for you, Mr. Caldi, that you will adopt a lifestyle that is no longer a threat to public safety. Conclusion [40] For these reasons I am prepared to accept the joint recommendation. The sentence of the court is as follows: 1. In relation to count 2 of CRH 532452, a charge under 268(1) of the Criminal Code the sentence is 6 years’ imprisonment. 2. In relation to count 5, the charge of possession of a prohibited weapon contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code, the sentence of the court is 1 year to be served concurrent to all other sentences. 3. In relation to count 7, possession of a prohibited firearm, a shotgun, contrary to section 92(1), the sentence of the court is 18 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutive to other sentences. 4. In relation to count 10, breach of your conditions of release by having in your possession a weapon, contrary to 145(5)(a), the sentence of the court is imprisonment for a period of 6 months, also to be consecutive to all other sentences being served. [41] In relation to the second indictment, CRH No. 540391, a single count alleging an offence contrary to section 270.01(1)(b), an assault causing bodily harm on Correctional Officer Richardson, the sentence of this court is 1 year to be served in prison consecutive to all other sentences being served. [42] That totals a go forward sentence of 9 years. [43] I have been advised and it is by agreement between Mr. Caldi and the Crown that he should receive a credit based on 1.5 to 1 for time served in custody pending of 2 years and 8 months, making the go forward sentence of this court in total 6 years 4 months. [44] In addition to these sentences there are some ancillary orders that have to be made: 1. s. 109 CC: a mandatory prohibition from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition for life and from possessing any other firearm or ammunition or any crossbow restricted weapon or explosive substance also for life. And there is a provision for surrendering any of these types of prohibited items. That will be reviewed with you and a copy provided to you when executed. 2. s. 487.051 CC: a mandatory order to authorize the taking of a bodily substance for forensic DNA analysis. 3. s.743.21 CC: a prohibition on communicating directly or indirectly, except through a lawyer, with Amanda Linn Morgan, the complainant in relation to the first Indictment, during the custodial period of your sentence and with an exception to allow contact, if necessary, through a lawyer. You can also apply to contact her through the court for an exception if necessary. [45] It is mandatory that I have to consider whether to issue an order for you to pay a Victim Surcharge pursuant to s. 737. Given the length of the punishment and your inability to have an income of any sort, and your uncertain future employment possibilities, requiring you to pay is not a practical consideration. I am not satisfied in this case that it makes any sense to do that, so I am not ordering a victim surcharge. Duncan J.