Alexander Cornelius

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter following an armed home invasion that resulted in the fatal shooting of an unarmed victim.

The court found the accused was a party to the robbery and had subjective foresight that a loaded gun would be used, though it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the shooter.

Weighing the significant aggravating factors of an armed home invasion against the accused's youth, first-time adult offender status, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns and COVID-19, the court imposed a sentence of 8.5 years.

After applying Summers and Duncan credits, the remaining sentence to serve was 39 months.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 34 months and 9 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and case complexity were exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The court found the pandemic was a discrete exceptional event and deducted 187 days, bringing the net delay to just under 28 months.

The court declined to find the case particularly complex and held that a stay was not warranted for the sub-ceiling delay, as the Crown's refusal to consent to a judge-alone re-election was reasonable given the joint trial context.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with two counts of first degree murder and one count of aggravated assault arising from two separate shooting incidents hours apart, applied to sever the counts.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding a strong factual and legal nexus between the counts, including the use of the same firearm and an alleged confession linking the two homicides.

The court concluded that the interests of justice required a joint trial, as evidence from one homicide would likely be admissible in the trial of the other even if severed.

The accused, Justine Ordonio, sought to adduce expert evidence from Todd Barron regarding the tendency of certain interview techniques to produce unreliable or false information, personal characteristics increasing suggestibility, and the implications of techniques used in this case for reliability.

The court dismissed the application, finding the evidence not necessary to assist the jury, as common sense and judicial instructions were sufficient.

Furthermore, the proposed expert lacked the required objectivity and did not fully review the evidence.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to quash search warrants and exclude evidence obtained from searches of his residences and storage lockers, alleging police misconduct and fabrication of information in the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

The court rejected the defence theory that police had planted firearms and drugs, finding the accused’s explanation for the incriminating evidence implausible.

However, the court found that the affiant officer deliberately fabricated portions of the ITO, including altering dates and inventing information to strengthen the grounds for the warrants.

Although the remaining evidence could have supported the issuance of the warrants, the deliberate fabrication was found to be so subversive of the prior authorization process that the warrants were quashed.

Applying the framework in Grant, the court excluded the seized guns, drugs, and related evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the police misconduct, while admitting the accused’s voluntary statements to police.