Ashley Warne

Ager Hasan was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.

This decision addresses the period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought 18 years, while the defence proposed 14-15 years.

The court considered aggravating factors including the brutal nature of the domestic attack (47 stab wounds), the offender's flight from the scene and country, attempts to fabricate evidence, and malicious post-offence communications to the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of prior criminal record, family support, and completion of programs in custody.

The court also addressed the contentious issue of considering pre-sentence custody conditions as a mitigating factor, ultimately deciding to follow the approach in R. v. Morales.

Despite some mitigation, the significant aggravating factors led the court to impose a parole ineligibility period of 16 years, commencing from the date of arrest.

The Crown brought an application under s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code to have the accused's trial continued before a different judge after the original pretrial judge became unavailable due to an extended medical leave.

The accused opposed the application, arguing the original judge was only temporarily unavailable and offering to waive his s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The court granted the application, finding that the original judge was unable to continue and that society's interest in a timely trial for sexual offences involving a minor outweighed the accused's preference to wait for the original judge's uncertain return.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The accused raised four issues: three Charter violations by the arresting officer (failure to form requisite suspicion, failure to make ASD demand forthwith, and failure to inform of right to counsel immediately upon arrest) and one issue regarding identity (whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver).

The court rejected all Charter challenges and found the accused was the driver based on compelling eyewitness identification evidence.

The court convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

She brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath samples obtained at a police station, alleging a violation of section 10(b) of the Charter regarding her right to counsel.

The accused argued that although she was read her rights from a pre-printed card at the roadside, the information was delivered too quickly while she was emotionally distressed and overwhelmed with other information, and that she was not effectively informed of her right to contact a lawyer of her choice.

The court found that the police adequately informed the accused of her section 10(b) rights and that she failed to take any positive action to invoke or exercise her right to counsel.

The application was dismissed and the accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with robbery, break and enter with intent to commit robbery, and breach of probation following a home invasion robbery.

The Crown's case depended heavily on evidence obtained from the accused's Blackberry Playbook tablet.

The defence brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the search and seizure of the tablet and the admissibility of evidence derived therefrom.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: an unlawful warrantless search of the tablet incident to arrest, a violation of the right to counsel when the accused was questioned about the robbery without being re-advised of his rights, and deliberate omissions and misleading statements in the Information to Obtain a search warrant.

The court excluded the evidence obtained from the tablet searches, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.