Andrea VanderHeyden

The accused, charged with first degree murder and attempted murder, applied to sit at counsel table rather than in the dock during his trial.

The court balanced the interests of a fair trial and courtroom security.

Given the accused's in-custody status, criminal record, and institutional infractions, along with the critical need for the jury to have an unobstructed view of the accused for identification purposes, the application was dismissed.

The Crown applied for an order to permit two police officers to give non-expert opinion evidence identifying the accused from surveillance video in a first-degree murder and attempted murder trial.

The defence resisted the application.

The court found that both officers met the threshold for giving such evidence, having prior acquaintance with the accused and being in a better position than the jury to make the identification due to changes in the accused's appearance and their close interactions.

The court acknowledged potential issues regarding the weight of the evidence and prejudice from prior police contact but ruled the evidence admissible, inviting counsel to minimize the prejudicial risk.

The offender, Lauralee Walker, was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of crack cocaine, and significant mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of prior record, young age, strong family ties, employment history, limited role in the offences, and the context of domestic abuse by her co-accused.

The court also noted the offender's remorse and voluntary disassociation from the co-accused.

Despite the general requirement for custodial sentences in crack cocaine trafficking cases, the court found that the unique circumstances, including over 600 days under restrictive bail conditions, warranted a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA sample order, and victim surcharges.

J.C. was charged with sexual assault and voyeurism (Counts 1 & 2) and extortion and sexual assault (Counts 3 & 4).

The court acquitted J.C. on Counts 1 and 2, finding insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant, H.D., was incapable of consenting or that the video was made surreptitiously.

However, the court convicted J.C. on Counts 3 and 4, finding that he extorted sexual favours from H.D. by threatening to post a compromising video online, and that H.D. did not consent to subsequent sexual acts due to duress and power imbalance.

Nicholas Apan pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (51.8 grams).

The Crown sought two years' incarceration, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court considered principles of proportionality, parity, denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, noting the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts since the offence, his mental health issues, and family support.

The court distinguished between conditional sentences (not available for this offence) and probation regarding their denunciatory effect.

The judge imposed an intermittent sentence of 90 days, in addition to 30 days credit for time served, followed by 18 months of probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.