Allison Christine MacPherson

The defendant, Rodrigo Flores-Romero, was convicted by a jury of manslaughter in the death of a nearly 3-year-old child.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence proposed 6-8 years.

The court found the offence to be an aggravated manslaughter, emphasizing the victim's vulnerability, the breach of trust, the brutality of the assault, and the defendant's calculated efforts to conceal the crime.

The court rejected the defendant's claim of accidental injury and lack of genuine remorse.

Considering statutory directives for denunciation and deterrence, and mitigating factors such as the defendant's personal challenges and pre-trial custody, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with 4 years credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 6 years remaining.

Bismark Addo-Binney applied to terminate a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order imposed after his 2011 sexual assault conviction.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court considered the test under s. 490.016(1) of the Criminal Code, which requires the applicant to show that the impact of continuing the order is grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society.

Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Ndhlovu, the court found that the significant anxiety and interference with the applicant's career and personal life, coupled with a low risk of reoffending and limited utility of registration for this type of offence, made the continued order grossly disproportionate.

The application was granted, and the SOIRA order terminated.

Terrence Noftall, convicted of multiple sexual and child pornography offences, challenged the validity of production orders obtained by the Crown for psychiatric, psychological, medical, and employment records.

These records were sought in preparation for a potential dangerous offender application.

The defence argued that the production orders lacked statutory authority under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, as a dangerous offender application had not yet commenced, and that the disclosure of MCSCS records via a Memorandum of Understanding violated privacy rights.

The court dismissed the defence's application, ruling that s. 487.014 applies to the sentencing phase, including pre-assessment for dangerous offender applications, and that the MCSCS records were lawfully obtained under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

A preliminary inquiry into the death of a four-year-old child.

The Crown sought committal on a charge of First Degree Murder.

The defendants, the child's parents, contested committal on this charge, conceding only to Second Degree Murder.

The court found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation based on the totality of circumstances, including evidence of chronic malnutrition, vicious beating, head trauma, aspiration of gastric contents, and post-offence conduct.

The court committed both defendants to trial on First Degree Murder and on the additional charge of Failure to Provide the Necessaries of Life.

The accused, a recently turned eighteen-year-old student, pleaded guilty to threatening to shoot up his school and threatening damage to property.

The Crown sought detention pending a psychiatric assessment and sentencing, citing concerns about potential access to firearms and possible mental illness.

The court granted bail with conditions, finding that detention was not justified under the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds of the Criminal Code.

The decision addresses systemic issues in the bail system, including risk-aversion among decision-makers and the divergence between statutory bail provisions and actual bail court practices.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from a fatal stabbing during a confrontation in a public park, the court determined the appropriate sentence.

The accused, aged eighteen at the time and with no prior criminal record, stabbed the victim once in the chest after being slapped during a confrontation that followed earlier intimidation involving a knife.

The court identified significant aggravating factors including carrying a large knife in public while intoxicated, brandishing it earlier to intimidate others, failing to assist the victim, fleeing the scene, and disposing of the weapon.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, supportive background, and low risk of reoffending.

Applying the recognized sentencing range for aggravated manslaughter and balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a custodial sentence within the lower end of the established range.

During a second degree murder jury trial, the defence applied for an inquiry under s. 644 of the Criminal Code to determine whether a juror should be discharged due to alleged conduct suggesting partiality, including turning away during the accused’s testimony and making gestures during closing submissions.

The court held that the alleged behaviour did not meet the high threshold required to justify an inquiry into a juror’s fitness.

Juror conduct must raise a serious issue regarding the ability to perform duties before the court interferes with jury secrecy.

The court emphasized that jurors may form provisional views during trial provided they remain open to deliberation.

The application for an inquiry and the related request for a mistrial were dismissed.