A. Anderson

The offender, an Indigenous man, was convicted of five counts of second-degree murder after setting fire to a home, killing his intimate partner and four children.

The Crown sought a 25-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 18 years, citing Gladue factors.

The court found that the extreme gravity of the offences and the compelling aggravating factors, including the creation of a firetrap and the vulnerability of the victims, meant the offender's moral blameworthiness was not diminished despite significant Gladue factors.

The court imposed a life sentence with 25 years of parole ineligibility.

This decision concerns the prosecution of Archie McKay for five counts of first-degree murder following a fatal house fire in Kitchenuhkoosib Inninuwug, Ontario.

The court reviews extensive circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony, extrinsic misconduct, and ante-mortem statements, to determine whether McKay deliberately set the fire and possessed the requisite intent for murder.

The court finds McKay guilty of second-degree murder in relation to all five victims, concluding that the evidence does not establish planning and deliberation or criminal harassment necessary for first-degree murder.

The Crown applied to admit ante-mortem statements of the deceased, Geraldine Chapman, made to four individuals (Cheryl Meekis, Stewart Albany, Tom Chapman, Thyra Chapman) under the state of mind or principled exceptions to the hearsay rule in a first-degree murder trial.

The court assessed the relevance, necessity, and reliability of each set of statements.

Statements to Cheryl Meekis were ruled inadmissible due to lack of relevance and witness credibility issues.

Statements to Stewart Albany regarding fear/worry were admissible under the state of mind exception, while those alleging direct threats were inadmissible under the principled exception due to insufficient reliability.

Most statements to Tom Chapman were inadmissible, being deemed irrelevant or the witness's conclusions/biased interpretations.

Statements to Thyra Chapman regarding accusations of cheating and property damage were admissible under the principled exception, as their substantive reliability was established.

The Crown applied to admit three out-of-court statements made by three witnesses under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule during a trial for first-degree murder.

The statements included a police interview report and two sets of medical notes.

The court applied the four-part test for past recollection recorded, assessing reliability, timeliness, absence of memory, and present voucher for accuracy.

The court admitted the police statement with redactions and one set of medical notes in full, but excluded the psychiatric consult note due to reliability concerns regarding the source of the recorded information.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow six witnesses to testify remotely at a first-degree murder trial.

The witnesses included one civilian and five medical professionals, two of whom were proposed expert witnesses.

The court granted the application for the civilian witness due to her documented health issues and panic attacks related to traveling.

However, the court dismissed the application for the medical professionals, finding that the presumptive rule of in-person testimony should not be displaced merely for the convenience of busy professionals, especially given the seriousness of the charges and the high materiality of the expert evidence.

This is an application by the Crown in a first-degree murder trial to admit 'extrinsic misconduct evidence,' comprising police occurrence reports, 911 calls, and ante-mortem statements of the deceased, Geraldine Chapman, to friends and family.

The accused, Archie McKay, is charged with five counts of first-degree murder arising from a fire that killed Ms. Chapman and four children.

The Crown seeks to admit this evidence to prove the underlying offence of criminal harassment (s. 231(6) of the Criminal Code), establish the accused's state of mind (intent), and demonstrate motive and animus, which are probative of identity.

The accused argued that much of the evidence was irrelevant, lacked probative value, or was unreliable.

The court conducted an individual analysis of each piece of evidence, ruling some admissible for narrative, context, animus, motive, and to prove elements of criminal harassment, while deeming others inadmissible due to lack of relevance or probative value.

The admissibility of ante-mortem statements is subject to a further hearsay voir dire at trial.

The parties requested a teleconference call as they could not agree on the order of evidence for an upcoming hearing regarding a proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law to permit a 17-storey development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal reviewed the written submissions and issued an order establishing the sequence in which evidence will be presented at the hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of London Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application for a lot boundary adjustment.

The adjustment would reduce the lot area of the subject property and increase the lot area of an adjacent lot to form a larger lot utilizable for residential development.

The Tribunal found that the consent application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan and the London Plan.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of London's approval of Official Plan Amendments and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development of 88 units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the appellant withdrew its appeals of the Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposed development, which includes a buffer for the adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Area, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan.

The appeal of the Zoning By-law Amendment was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The City of London brought a motion on consent to approve modifications to its new Official Plan, the 'London Plan', to resolve all remaining City-wide appeals.

The modifications address building heights, residential intensification, and the removal of bonusing provisions in accordance with changes to the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence that the modifications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represent good planning.

The modifications were approved, bringing the London Plan fully into force except for a few remaining site-specific appeals.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding various remaining appeals to the City of London's new Official Plan, known as the 'London Plan'.

The Tribunal scheduled hearing dates for the remaining city-wide appeals and site-specific appeals, approved a Procedural Order, and provided directions for future case management conferences.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking to alter a prior order that required the child to be returned to the mother’s care and requesting that the child remain temporarily in his custody with supervised access to the mother.

The court reviewed newly disclosed materials, including information from the Children’s Aid Society raising concerns about the mother’s mental health, instability regarding parenting responsibilities, and risk of emotional harm to the child.

Although the court noted problematic past behaviour by both parents, evidence indicated a more stable environment for the child while residing with the father.

Applying the best interests of the child principle, the court concluded the child should remain in the father’s care pending further review.

Temporary sole care and control was granted to the father, with the mother limited to supervised access until the adjourned hearing date.