Bev Richards

Following the accused's conviction for manslaughter, the Crown applied for a section 752.1 assessment to determine whether the accused might be declared a Dangerous Offender or Long-term Offender.

The court granted the application, finding reasonable grounds to believe the accused could be found to be a Dangerous Offender based on the brutality of the killing.

The court rejected the defence argument that the accused's ability to control his mental illness while in custody and his response to provocation negated the assessment order.

This decision addresses multiple mid-trial applications in a first-degree murder trial.

The court dismissed the defence's application for a mistrial, finding that while the Crown's officer erred in interviewing a witness under cross-examination, the accused's right to a fair trial was not impaired.

The court also denied the defence's request to exclude a key witness's evidence, despite witness misconduct, deeming it a misunderstanding rather than an intent to obstruct justice.

Furthermore, the court allowed the Crown to introduce detailed pathology evidence and evidence of the accused's failure to disclose litigation in bankruptcy, finding their probative value outweighed potential prejudice.

The defence's application to compel the Crown to call a witness whose testimony might exculpate the accused was denied due to reliability concerns.

Finally, the court found the defence breached the rule in Browne and Dunn by not confronting Crown witnesses with anticipated defence evidence and allowed the Crown to call significant reply evidence to counter the accused's claims of English comprehension issues regarding her motive.

The accused, Rico Harvey, was charged with second-degree murder.

The Crown sought to admit two statements made by the accused to the police.

Defence counsel argued that the statements were not voluntary and that the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated.

The court found that the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights by continuing the first interview despite his expressed dissatisfaction with legal advice and his vulnerable mental state.

The second statement was found to be tainted by the first due to temporal, contextual, and causal connections, including lack of food and sleep.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded both statements under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the impact on the accused's rights serious and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoring exclusion given the reliability of other evidence.

The court also found a reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness of both statements due to oppressive circumstances.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on a charge of First Degree Murder.

The defendant was charged with the murder of Brent Gartner on January 10, 2015.

The sole issue was whether there was evidence of planning and deliberation to support committal on First Degree Murder, or whether committal should be on Second Degree Murder only.

The court found circumstantial evidence capable of supporting an inference of planning and deliberation, including the defendant's stated intention to "deal with something," his request for money from the deceased, multiple phone calls between the parties on the day of the incident, and the defendant's possession of a knife with the victim's blood on it.

The defendant was committed for trial on First Degree Murder.