Adrian Forsythe

The appellant, Matthew Desouza, appealed his seven-year sentence for human trafficking, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with a release order.

He argued that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply Gladue principles and that the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge gave appropriate consideration to Gladue factors, the seriousness of the offence, and mitigating factors such as remorse and a guilty plea.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of second degree murder following the shooting death of the victim in a restaurant washroom.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting surveillance video of the appellants at a motel with a firearm on the night prior to the shooting as prior discreditable conduct evidence, and whether the jury was properly instructed as to its permissible uses.

The majority of the Court of Appeal had found no error in the admission or instruction, while the dissenting judge would have ordered new trials.

A majority of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, affirming the convictions.

The applicant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder for killing his father.

Prior to sentencing, the applicant brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years violates sections 12 and 15 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that his long-standing mental disorders and substance-induced psychosis at the time of the offence reduced his moral blameworthiness, making the mandatory sentence grossly disproportionate and discriminatory.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.

The court held that it was bound by the jury's verdict, which necessarily found that the applicant had the requisite specific intent for first degree murder, representing the highest level of moral culpability.

The court found no violation of section 12, as the sentence is not grossly disproportionate for an offender with such high moral blameworthiness.

The court also found no violation of section 15, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the mandatory minimum sentence disproportionately impacts persons with mental illness, noting that those who lack criminal responsibility or the requisite intent due to mental illness are not subject to the mandatory sentence.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, assault, and criminal harassment, alleging errors by the trial judge in assessing the complainant's credibility, placing undue weight on demeanour, accepting specific evidence, assessing photographic evidence, and unevenly scrutinizing evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered all inconsistencies, did not overemphasize demeanour, and was entitled to her conclusions on the evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.