Anna Yvonne Louisette Spieser

The court found Ryan Richard Cunneen not criminally responsible (NCR) for the offences of unlawful act manslaughter and mischief, following a psychiatric assessment and hearing.

The decision reviews the legal and medical standards for NCR under section 16 of the Criminal Code, the evidence of Mr. Cunneen’s longstanding schizoaffective disorder, and the expert opinion that his psychosis rendered him incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court accepted the parties’ consent to the NCR verdict after confirming Mr. Cunneen’s informed and voluntary agreement.

The accused, Donald Wayne Riggs, pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism under s. 162(1)(a) and (c) of the Criminal Code, involving surreptitious visual recordings of his neighbour, C.A., over several years, including intimate and sexual acts.

The recordings, some made after his initial arrest, caused significant emotional, financial, and practical distress to the victim and her family, forcing them to move.

The Crown sought 18 months incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the duration and intrusive nature of the invasion of privacy, the filming of sexual activity, and the accused's continued behaviour after being caught.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea (though limited by timing) and mental health issues.

The court rejected the accused's claims of non-sexual purpose and insincere remorse, noting his victim-blaming.

Applying sentencing principles, particularly denunciation and general deterrence, the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the high moral blameworthiness and lack of insight.

The offender, Stavros Tsoraklidis, was sentenced after being found guilty of assault with a weapon and administering a noxious substance, and pleading guilty to failing to attend court.

The charges arose from an incident where he pepper-sprayed a grocery store employee after uttering a homophobic slur.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a weapon, the homophobic slur, and a prior weapons conviction, alongside mitigating factors such as a gap in his criminal record and prospects for rehabilitation.

The defence sought a time-served sentence, requesting "Downes credit" for restrictive bail conditions.

The court granted one month's credit for house arrest and imposed a total sentence of seven months' jail, followed by a two-year probation order with conditions.

The applicant, Donald Riggs, brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained via search warrants, arguing a violation of his Section 8 Charter rights due to an initial warrantless search of his mobile phone.

The Crown contended that the warrants were valid even if information gleaned from the initial search was excised.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the information provided by the reporting party alone was sufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant, and that the 'three Cs' test from R. v. Debot was not applicable to this type of information.

The court also noted the conflicting jurisprudence regarding police actions when private citizens report criminal activity on electronic devices but did not need to resolve it for this decision.

The defendant, Stavros Tsoraklidis, was charged with assault with a weapon and administering a noxious substance after spraying the complainant with pepper spray.

The central issue at trial was whether the defendant acted in self-defence.

The court found the defendant's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, particularly regarding his claim that the complainant threatened him with a boxcutter.

The court concluded that the defendant's actions were offensive and motivated by anger, not self-defence, and that the force used was disproportionate and unreasonable.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the conditions for lawful self-defence were not met.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a police interview conducted with the accused, Donald Riggs, who was charged with voyeurism and other offences.

The accused opposed admission, arguing he lacked an operating mind due to his mental state.

The court, after a voir dire, found the statement to be made voluntarily, noting the absence of police impropriety, the accused's awareness of his rights, and his ability to selectively answer questions, despite his emotional distress.

The statement was deemed admissible.

The accused, V.Z., facing sexual assault charges, brought a Stage 1 application under Criminal Code sections 276, 278.92, and 278.93 to admit evidence of prior sexual activity and text messages with the complainant.

The defence argued this evidence was relevant to the issues of consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent, particularly regarding a pattern of consensual role-playing and rough sexual behaviour.

The Crown opposed, arguing insufficient detail and that past consent does not imply future consent.

The court dismissed the application regarding actual consent but granted a Stage 2 hearing (voir dire) for the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding the proposed evidence capable of being admissible for that purpose, provided a proper affidavit from the accused is filed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The appeal court found that the trial judge made several errors, including mischaracterizing the primary issue as a credibility contest, improperly relying on a prior consistent statement to bolster the complainant's credibility, applying an incorrect standard of consent (requiring "informed consent" in criminal law), and misapprehending expert evidence regarding the medical indication for the breast examination.

These errors led to a negative assessment of the appellant's credibility and potentially shifted the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.