Brian Darcy Davorin Kolman

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation after stabbing a victim multiple times in a mall.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, psychiatric profile, and expert evidence regarding treatability and risk management.

The court declined to designate the offender as a dangerous offender, finding that the risk to the public could be managed in the community with strict conditions.

The offender was designated a long-term offender and sentenced to a 14-year determinate term (less 7 years pre-trial custody credit) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The applicant, charged with numerous firearms and drug trafficking offences following an undercover operation, sought a bail review and a s. 525 hearing.

He argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and delay constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found no material change, noting COVID-19 was considered at the original hearing and the delay was not unreasonable.

The court upheld the detention on the tertiary ground, concluding that releasing the applicant, given the formidable case and serious firearms charges, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid to review a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge a young person on charges of robbery and pointing a firearm related to a carjacking.

The reviewing judge found that while the preliminary inquiry judge erred in concluding there was insufficient circumstantial evidence to commit the accused to trial, this error was not jurisdictional in nature.

Because the preliminary inquiry judge considered the whole of the evidence and did not act arbitrarily, the erroneous weighing of inferences did not deprive him of jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after shooting a victim five times at a house party.

The Crown sought 10-12 years and delayed parole, while the defence sought 6-8 years.

The court sentenced the offender to 10 years, finding the use of a firearm and the offender's drug dealing to be significant aggravating factors.

The court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to partial lockdowns caused by staff shortages, reducing the sentence by six months beyond the standard 1.5:1 credit.

The court declined to order delayed parole eligibility.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought a pre-trial motion alleging that the police violated their s. 8 Charter rights during the execution of a search warrant at their residence.

The police had a valid warrant for a single-family dwelling targeting another individual, but upon entry, discovered two separate residential units (main floor and basement).

The applicants resided in the basement unit.

The police proceeded to search the entire house, including the basement, where they found firearms and ammunition.

The court held that the search of the basement unit was reasonable and did not violate s. 8, given the target's access to common areas, his absence during the search, and the discovery of a handgun magazine in plain view in the basement.

The motion was dismissed.

Aruran Suthakaran was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission (gun violence in a public place with transferred intent), the offender's character (no prior record, strong family support), and jury recommendations (10 years parole ineligibility).

Despite the jury's recommendation, the court imposed a 12-year period of parole ineligibility, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence for gun-related crimes, while acknowledging the offender's strong rehabilitation prospects.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and mandatory DNA order were also imposed.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Suthakaran, during a videotaped in-custody interview, intending to use them for cross-examination if he testified.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to oppressive circumstances during the interview.

The court found that despite the police's persistence and the accused's emotional state and repeated requests to end the interview, the circumstances did not amount to oppression.

The statements were deemed voluntary and admissible.

The accused, Courtney Foster, was found guilty of attempted murder and assault against his former wife, Barbara Foster.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the violent and sustained nature of the attack, the significant physical, emotional, and financial impact on the victim, and the accused's prior record of violence.

Mitigating factors included the accused's willingness to plead guilty to aggravated assault, his employment history, expressed remorse, the consequence of deportation post-sentence, and participation in rehabilitation programs while in custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, reduced to 6 years after accounting for pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Courtney Foster was charged with attempted murder after stabbing Barbara Foster multiple times.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court reviewed evidence of prior domestic abuse, the events of the attack (car collisions, use of a kitchen knife, multiple stab wounds, and the accused's statement "I'm going to fucking kill you"), and the victim's injuries.

The defence argued lack of intent to kill, suggesting a desire to talk or merely injure.

The court found the victim's testimony credible and reliable, and concluded that the accused's actions and words demonstrated a specific intent to kill, despite the victim's successful struggle to prevent a deeper throat wound.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder.

The offender was convicted by a jury of assault causing bodily harm and pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, crystal meth, and cocaine.

The offender and two others engaged in a prolonged, unprovoked assault on a vulnerable young woman.

The court accepted a joint submission, imposing a global sentence of two years plus one day for the assault and a consecutive four-month sentence for the drug offences.

With enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the sentence was deemed served, followed by two years of probation.

The Crown sought to admit several post-arrest utterances made by the accused, Derrick Goulding, in a sexual assault trial.

Goulding argued the statements were involuntary and that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value, particularly those implicating co-accused Shawn Clyke.

The court found Goulding's statements were voluntary, as he was aware of his rights and the implications of speaking.

However, the court ruled that utterances directly implicating Clyke had no probative value against Goulding and their prejudicial effect outweighed any utility, even with a jury instruction.

Consequently, those specific portions of Goulding's statements were ordered to be excised before being adduced as evidence.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice after removing her friend's pool cues from a bar following a fatal stabbing.

The Crown argued the cues could have been used for identification, while the defence argued the accused merely retrieved her friend's property without intent to impede the investigation.

The court found that the perpetrator was well-known to patrons and staff, making the cues unnecessary for identification.

The court concluded that a specific intent to obstruct justice could not be inferred from the circumstantial evidence, and the accused was found not guilty.

The defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking cocaine to an undercover police officer.

He subsequently brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the officer entrapped him during their initial telephone conversation by providing an opportunity to commit an offence before forming a reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer's use of coded street vernacular elicited responses from the defendant that established reasonable suspicion before any offer to purchase drugs was made.

Furthermore, the court held that the targeted investigation of a tip was bona fide and did not involve unfair tactics.

The defendant, Kyle Hazelton, was charged with criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, all stemming from an incident on July 18, 2013, that resulted in the death of Scott Shannon.

The Crown alleged that Hazelton intentionally or negligently accelerated his truck while Shannon was holding onto the driver's side, causing his death, and then failed to stop.

The defence argued that the Crown's inferences were speculative and that the key witness's evidence was unreliable.

The court found the Crown's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of witness observations, the nature of the acceleration, and Hazelton's knowledge of the accident.

Accused persons charged with murder brought applications to exclude historical text messages obtained by police through a production order directed to a telecommunications provider.

They argued that s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code did not authorize the production of private communications, or alternatively that the provision violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court held that stored historical text messages constitute “data” within the meaning of the provision and that obtaining them by production order does not amount to interception of private communications under Part VI.

The statutory prerequisites for a production order satisfied constitutional standards for reasonable search and seizure.

The applications to exclude the evidence were dismissed.

The young person was found guilty of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearms offences arising from a drug transaction where the complainant was accidentally shot in the neck.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court granted the application, finding that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the accused accountable.

The court imposed an adult sentence with a starting point of five years imprisonment, but granted enhanced credit of 1.5 to 1 for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.