Aniko Coughlan

Nada Court was found deceased at the bottom of stairs, initially believed to be an accidental death.

Timothy Shawn Nahmabin, her former neighbour, was charged with manslaughter following an investigation.

The Crown argued the accused unlawfully caused her death through physical assault, relying on circumstantial evidence and the accused's statements.

The defence contended there was no evidence of a deliberate act and that the accused's statements were speculative.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the unlawful act beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility of an accidental fall.

The accused was found not guilty.

Melissa Miller pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death under the Highway Traffic Act after texting while driving, resulting in the death of a cyclist.

The court considered significant mitigating factors, including her remorse, lack of criminal record, community involvement, and immediate assistance at the scene, alongside aggravating factors such as a prior HTA offence, texting in a construction zone, and the vulnerability of the cyclist.

The Crown sought the maximum sentence (2 years jail, 5 years license suspension, 2 years probation), while the Defence urged a non-custodial sentence.

The court emphasized proportionality, denunciation, and general deterrence, distinguishing between regulatory and criminal offence sentencing principles.

The final sentence imposed was 45 days jail and a 2-year driver's license suspension, with no probation.

The appellant, Kelly W. Morrison, appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and possession of stolen property, and his sentence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's consideration of the mental element of criminal harassment, the identification of stolen underwear, and the assessment of witness credibility.

The appellant also argued that the sentencing judge erred by failing to explicitly consider alternatives to incarceration.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law or assessment of evidence, and that the sentence was fit.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit evidence of the accused's post-offence internet searches.

The accused was charged with arson and mischief after his former girlfriend's parents' shed burned down.

Hours after receiving a text accusing him of the fire, the accused searched for information about arson, evidence required, and drone controllers (which were destroyed in the fire).

The accused argued the searches were consistent with an innocent person falsely accused and that he had an alibi.

The court held that the internet searches were relevant circumstantial evidence of identity and narrative.

The court found the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, leaving the ultimate weight and inferences to be determined by the jury.

The evidence was ruled admissible.

The three accused were charged with robbery with a firearm and related offences.

At their jury trial, the sole Crown witness claimed complete memory loss.

The Crown sought to introduce her preliminary hearing transcript.

The trial judge ruled the transcript admissible but subject to strong Vetrovec warnings.

Recognizing the severe prejudice to the defence, who had elected a jury trial expecting to cross-examine the witness, the judge allowed the accused to re-elect a judge-alone trial, finding the Crown's refusal to consent to the re-election was an abuse of process.

Sitting as a judge alone, the trial judge found the witness's uncorroborated evidence insufficient and acquitted all accused.

Two accused were jointly charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences following a police traffic stop and brief pursuit.

Controlled substances were discovered in plain view on the centre console of the vehicle, and a civilian witness observed the passenger discard a plastic bag containing a handgun nearby.

The court held that both accused had joint knowledge and control of the drugs and were guilty of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The driver was convicted of fleeing police and dangerous driving but acquitted of the joint firearm offences due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge of the firearm.

The passenger was found guilty of all firearm-related offences and possession while prohibited.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his step-daughter while she was sleeping by the fireplace.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming he was merely stoking the fire and had not touched her.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, finding the complainant's evidence credible and the accused's explanations untruthful and inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

During a drug raid, the accused was arrested and given his right to counsel multiple times.

He initially nodded his head indicating a desire to speak to counsel, but later told the booking officer 'not really' when asked if he wished to contact a lawyer now.

He subsequently made spontaneous statements to an investigating officer before being cautioned again.

The Crown applied to admit the statements as voluntary, while the defence applied to exclude them under ss. 7, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the statements were voluntary.

The court also found a technical breach of s. 10(b) because the police failed to clarify the accused's change of mind regarding counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), concluding the breach was minor and the accused clearly understood his rights but chose not to exercise them.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application under s. 591(3)(a) of the Criminal Code seeking severance of multiple counts on a fifteen‑count indictment involving several complainants and allegations including sexual assault, aggravated assault, strangulation, administering a stupefying drug, and unlawful confinement.

The court considered the factors governing severance, including prejudice to the accused, factual and legal nexus between the counts, complexity of the evidence, potential for inconsistent verdicts, and the likelihood of similar fact evidence.

The court found significant similarities among many of the allegations, including the manner of contact with complainants, the location of the offences, and distinctive forms of alleged conduct.

Although acknowledging the risk of prejudice in a jury trial involving multiple complainants and unusual sexual allegations, the court concluded the nexus between the offences was sufficiently strong to justify a joint trial.

The accused failed to demonstrate that severance was warranted on a balance of probabilities.