Anna Stanford

The accused was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial on a charge of first-degree murder in connection with the death of Marvin Matthew on May 26, 2023.

The accused stabbed the deceased multiple times with a hunting knife after discovering him in a sexual encounter with the accused's girlfriend.

The jury rejected the accused's self-defence claim and found him guilty of the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

At sentencing, the court imposed an effective 11-year penitentiary sentence, accounting for pre-sentence custody credit of approximately 3 years and 8 months, resulting in a sentence of 7 years and 4 months to be served.

The court emphasized the gravity of the offence, the breach of bail conditions, and the absence of genuine remorse.

The court considered whether Jason Buick, who pleaded guilty to armed robbery and dangerous driving, should be declared a dangerous offender and receive an indeterminate sentence.

Both parties agreed that Buick met the statutory criteria for a dangerous offender under s.753(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The main issue was whether a determinate sentence, possibly followed by a long-term supervision order (LTSO), would adequately protect the public.

After reviewing expert psychiatric evidence, Buick’s history, and the available supervision and treatment options, the court found there was no reasonable expectation that anything less than an indeterminate sentence would manage the risk of violent re-offending.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence and made ancillary orders.

The accused, a high school teacher, organized and led a wilderness canoe trip for students.

During the trip, a 15-year-old student drowned while swimming without a lifejacket.

The Crown alleged that the accused's failure to follow safety guidelines, including allowing non-swimmers on the trip and permitting the student to swim without a lifejacket, constituted criminal negligence causing death.

The court found that while the accused's conduct in failing to reassess the risk at the swim site fell below the standard of care of a reasonably prudent parent, it was not a marked and substantial departure from that standard.

The accused was acquitted.

Domenico Scopelliti was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting his father-in-law, Rocco Zito.

The jury found provocation, reducing the charge from first-degree murder.

The Crown sought an 11-year sentence, while the defence requested 7 years, with the accepted range being 8 to 12 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the use of a firearm and the defendant's involvement in organized crime activities, despite mitigating factors like no prior criminal record and expressed remorse.

The court imposed a 10-year sentence, reduced by pre-trial custody.

The offender was convicted of participating in an armed home invasion where victims were unlawfully confined, beaten, and robbed.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors of the planned, violent intrusion against the offender's positive family support and recent employment history.

The offender was sentenced to 6.5 years in custody, less 7 months of pre-sentence credit.

The accused was charged in relation to a violent home invasion involving robbery and unlawful confinement.

None of the victims could identify the intruders, and the Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including taxi driver identification, a fingerprint recovered from a taxi window, security camera footage showing multiple intruders approaching the residence, and cell phone tower data tracking the accused’s movements consistent with the route taken to and from the crime scene.

A witness initially stated there were six intruders but later testified there were four; the court admitted the earlier videotaped police statement as a prior inconsistent statement under R v B (K.G.) and accepted it as more reliable.

Considering the totality of the circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of party liability under s. 21 of the Criminal Code, the court concluded the accused was one of the participants in the joint enterprise.

The accused was convicted of robbery and unlawful confinement.

During a trial for an armed home invasion, the Crown brought a KGB application to admit portions of a witness's police interview for the truth of their contents.

The defense conceded the statements met the requirements of reliability and necessity.

However, the defense sought to also admit the witness's preliminary inquiry testimony as a prior consistent statement to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication.

The court admitted the police interview but excluded the preliminary inquiry testimony, finding no evidence that the preliminary inquiry statements were made before the alleged motivation to fabricate arose.

The accused was convicted of manslaughter for the unprovoked stabbing death of his stepfather.

The accused suffers from severe schizophrenia and was likely in an acute psychotic state at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought a sentence equivalent to 4 years and 3 months followed by probation.

The court weighed the gravity of the unprovoked attack against the mitigating factor of the accused's major mental illness.

The court sentenced the accused to 6 years' imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a further 33 months to serve, and recommended placement in a specific facility to ensure ongoing psychiatric treatment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing child pornography, making child pornography in Cuba, and multiple counts of sexual interference with children under 16 years of age in Cuba.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and one day plus a 10-year long-term offender designation.

The court found that the defendant posed a substantial risk of sexual re-offence and that there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk in the community through the long-term offender regime.

The court rejected the defence submission for time served and a recognizance order, finding that such measures were inadequate given the severity of the offences and the defendant's demonstrated pattern of escalating sexual abuse of children over many years.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of a handgun seized during execution of a search warrant at his residence, arguing violations of s. 8 of the Charter relating to the sufficiency of the information to obtain the warrant, use of the telewarrant procedure, and the manner of the dynamic nighttime entry.

The court held that the issuing justice could reasonably have granted the warrant based on credible information from a confidential informant corroborated in part by police investigation.

The court further found that resort to the telewarrant procedure was justified because it was impracticable to appear before a justice in person late on a Sunday evening.

The dynamic nighttime entry using a tactical police team was also reasonable given the risk posed by firearms and the potential destruction or relocation of evidence.

In the alternative, even if a Charter breach had occurred, the firearm would have been admitted under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and central to the prosecution.

Two accused were charged with offences arising from a robbery and shooting during a drug-related home invasion.

The Crown alleged the accused were two of three perpetrators who entered the victim’s apartment building and participated in the robbery.

The case turned on identification evidence, including a recognition-based dock identification, photo lineup results, surveillance video, and police recognition testimony.

The court found the dock identification unreliable and the witness’s photo lineup performance significantly undermined the Crown’s identification case.

The surveillance video and police recognition evidence were also insufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals.

The accused was charged with robbery after allegedly stealing a rental vehicle, electronics, and a wallet from the complainant during a pre-arranged meeting.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including a fingerprint found on the stolen vehicle and cell phone records linked to a residence where the accused's identification was found.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and concluded that the combined circumstantial evidence, particularly the fingerprint on the passenger window, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was one of the robbers.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving three grandchildren.

The court considered allegations that the complainants fabricated the allegations under parental influence and examined issues of similar fact evidence, prior inconsistent statements under the K.G.B. framework, and potential collusion or unconscious tainting between complainants.

After extensive credibility findings, the court accepted the complainants’ testimony as reliable and rejected the defence theory of fabrication.

The evidence established repeated unwanted sexual touching and sexually motivated conduct by the accused toward the complainants while they were minors.

The accused was acquitted on one count due to insufficient temporal precision regarding the complainant’s age but convicted on the remaining counts.

The offenders were convicted of robbery and unlawful confinement following a home invasion where imitation firearms were used and young children were present.

The Crown sought sentences of 6 years for Brown and 8 years for Hersi.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed the offenders' youth and prospects for rehabilitation.

Brown, a first-time offender who constructively pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 2.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

Hersi, who played a more significant role, had a prior record, and was convicted of uttering threats, was sentenced to a total of 4.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

Two accused were tried for robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and related offences arising from a home invasion robbery.

The complainant testified that four men forced entry into her residence, displayed firearms, searched the premises, and confined the occupants.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused participated in the robbery and confinement but found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearms were real rather than imitation.

Both accused were therefore convicted of the included offence of robbery and unlawful confinement.

One accused was also convicted of uttering threats after evidence established he used a phone linked to threatening calls made to the complainant.