Barry Stagg

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting an unarmed construction worker at a worksite following a motor vehicle collision and attempted theft of a work van.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The sentencing judge found no evidence of planning but noted the aggravating factors of introducing a loaded firearm into a public altercation.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 12 years.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing his roommate.

The Crown sought 17 years of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the execution-style shooting of an unarmed victim in her home to be highly aggravating.

Despite the offender's challenging background and mental health issues, the court prioritized deterrence and denunciation, imposing a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 16 years.

The three accused were arrested while exiting an apartment building and entering a taxi, and each was found in possession of a loaded handgun.

They brought a Charter motion alleging violations of their rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10, arguing they were unlawfully detained and searched.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative detention and pat search based on the totality of the circumstances, including the high-crime area, a recent shooting, and the accused's behaviour.

The Charter motions were dismissed, the firearms were admitted into evidence, and the accused were found guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, robbery, assault causing bodily harm, and aggravated assault against a sex trade worker.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding the events leading up to the physical altercation to be plausible and the complainant's evidence to be unreliable.

The court held that the accused was justified in using force to retrieve his keys from the complainant under s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code, and that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally hit the complainant with his van.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.