Andrew Falls

The accused was charged with second-degree murder after bludgeoning his father to death with a hammer.

The accused had a long history of severe, poorly controlled schizophrenia and substance abuse.

At trial, the sole issue was whether the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

Relying on unchallenged expert psychiatric evidence, the court found that while the accused understood the physical consequences of his actions, his severe delusions and command hallucinations rendered him incapable of knowing that the killing was morally wrong.

The court found the accused not criminally responsible and remanded him to a secure psychiatric facility for a Review Board disposition hearing.

The accused was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, assault with a weapon, and uttering a death threat after she and her son attacked their neighbour and police officers.

The Crown subsequently applied for an assessment to determine if the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR).

Based on a psychiatric report, the court found that the accused suffered from a psychotic disorder, likely schizophrenia, and experienced severe delusions at the time of the offences.

The court concluded that her mental illness rendered her incapable of knowing her actions were morally wrong.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on all counts and the matter was referred to the Review Board.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

At trial, the Crown relied on an unsigned certificate of a qualified technician to establish the accused's blood alcohol concentration pursuant to section 258(1)(g) of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that while a signature is typically required, the lack of a signature does not foreclose reliance on the certificate provided that the conditions set out in section 258(1)(g) have been established.

The court found that the certificate identified the qualified technician, was provided by him after administering breath tests, and was corroborated by a signed test record.

The accused was found guilty on the count of driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit and acquitted on the impaired driving count.

At a preliminary hearing, the Crown sought committal on second degree murder charges following the death of a victim from injuries sustained in a physical altercation.

The defendant conceded that he was involved in a consensual fight with the deceased and that he unlawfully caused the injuries leading to death, but argued there was insufficient evidence of the specific intent required for second degree murder.

The Crown argued that circumstantial evidence supported an inference that the defendant intended to cause bodily harm he knew was likely to cause death and proceeded recklessly.

The court examined the evidence regarding the nature and severity of the assault, the relative physical condition of the parties, and the defendant's post-incident statements and conduct.

The accused and her son threatened their neighbour with death and threw a knife at her.

When police arrived to arrest them, a chaotic altercation ensued at the front door of their home, during which the accused struck two officers with a pot, and her son was fatally shot after stabbing an officer.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, uttering a death threat, and three counts of assault with a weapon.

The court rejected the accused's defence that the murder plot was merely a ruse to attract police attention, and found that the police were acting within their lawful authority when they attempted to arrest her son due to imminent safety concerns.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, Wayne Isaacs and Azhar Hussain, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in their criminal fraud trial.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, considering total delay, defence delay, exceptional circumstances (discrete events and case complexity), and transitional provisions.

The court found significant defence-caused delay due to issues with retaining counsel and bringing necessary applications.

While the total delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling, the case was deemed particularly complex, and the Crown had taken reasonable steps to expedite the matter under the pre-Jordan legal framework.

The court found no evidence of actual prejudice related to the delay.

Consequently, the motions to stay proceedings were denied for both accused.

The Crown sought to admit two statements made by Azhar Hussain to police on April 29, 2011, and September 30, 2011.

Hussain sought to exclude these statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in breach of his Charter rights.

The court found the April 29, 2011 statement involuntary and inadmissible because Hussain was not adequately informed of his jeopardy as a suspect.

However, the September 30, 2011 statement was found voluntary and admissible, as Hussain had access to counsel, understood his rights, and his will was not overborne by the interview conditions, despite his claims of fatigue and fear.

The accused, Wayne Isaacs and Azhar Hussain, applied to adjourn their jury trial, citing insufficient time for counsel preparation, lack of retainer, and funding issues, despite a previously agreed-upon trial date.

The Crown initially opposed the adjournment but conceded its necessity.

The court granted the adjournment, acknowledging the practical difficulties and the accused's s. 11(b) Charter concerns, and set new dates for pre-trial motions and the trial.

The accused was charged with attempting to administer a noxious thing with intent to cause bodily harm, after allegedly lacing his pregnant former partner's drink with synthetic hormones to induce an abortion.

The trial proceeded before a judge alone.

The Crown conceded that the complainant was not a credible or reliable witness, but argued that circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt.

The court found that the complainant's evidence was fraught with inconsistencies and animus, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.