Brian Manarin

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following convictions for aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and extortion.

The offences involved the offender confining and repeatedly cutting a victim over a drug debt.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal history, which included numerous violent offences and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

The court found the criteria for a dangerous offender designation were met under s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court concluded that the risk could be managed in the community after a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 12.5 years, leaving 4 years and 164 days to serve after pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The applicant, Dylan Travis, sought to exclude evidence (a loaded firearm and other items) under ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unlawful detention, arrest, and unreasonable search.

Police officers, investigating a domestic assault, mistook Travis for another individual (Daymien Kennedy) who was subject to an arrest warrant.

Travis fled upon seeing the police, was apprehended, and a loaded revolver was discovered.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Travis based on his resemblance to the suspect, his presence in the suspect's drop-off vicinity, and his immediate flight.

Consequently, the detention and subsequent search incident to arrest were deemed lawful.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was ruled admissible at trial.

Following a multi-count criminal trial arising from intimate partner violence over a single weekend, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, mischief under $5,000, assault, and assault causing bodily harm.

The central issue was whether the complainant’s active participation in oral and vaginal sex in a parked car constituted voluntary consent after recent assaults, yelling, and coercive control within the relationship.

Applying the governing consent principles, the court held that submission, resignation, and an attempt to 'make the best of it' did not amount to free and voluntary agreement, and that the accused knew the complainant was not consenting.

The court also rejected any air of reality to an honest but mistaken belief in consent and found the accused responsible for related property damage and the earlier assaults.

At the commencement of their trial for a home invasion and assault, the accused brought an application to admit evidence of unknown third-party suspects.

The defence sought to cross-examine the complainant on three prior break-and-enter incidents and introduce Facebook photos of the complainant with firearms, arguing the attack was perpetrated by individuals in the drug subculture rather than the accused.

The court dismissed the application, finding an insufficient connection between the prior incidents and the current crime to meet the relevancy threshold required for third-party suspect evidence.

The applicants were charged with drug and firearms offences in June 2010.

After a first trial resulted in acquittals that were later overturned on appeal, a second trial was ordered.

The applicants brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

Applying the new framework from R. v. Jordan, the court calculated a total delay of 79 months.

After deducting defence delay and appellate delay, the net remaining delay was 38 months, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found the transitional exceptional circumstance did not apply and stayed the proceedings.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his conviction for armed robbery with a knife, assault with a knife, and breach of probation.

The accused had an extensive criminal history spanning nearly three decades, including multiple violent offences, sexual assaults with weapons, robberies, and breaches of court orders.

The court found the accused met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753 of the Criminal Code, establishing a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour showing failure to restrain conduct and likelihood of causing death or injury.

The court rejected the defence argument that cognitive behavioural therapy could adequately manage the accused's risk in the community and imposed an indeterminate sentence of detention in a penitentiary.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his wife: assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, arising from an incident on August 5, 2013, where he threw a ceramic coffee mug that struck her arm, causing a fracture.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally threw the cup at his wife as she exited the kitchen.

The trial judge found that the accused could not see his wife when he threw the cup, did not know she would be exiting the kitchen at that moment, and threw the cup as an act of frustration to get her attention during an argument about her whereabouts over the weekend.

The court found no intentional application of force under section 265(1)(a) and no threat to apply force with present ability under section 265(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused, a United States citizen, sought leave to plead guilty and be sentenced through designated counsel pursuant to section 650.01(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, without physically returning to Canada.

The accused was charged with multiple offences related to a loaded firearm found in his vehicle at the Ambassador Bridge.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while section 650.01 provides discretion to allow designated counsel to appear for guilty pleas and sentencing, the serious nature of the offences, the possibility of a penitentiary sentence, and the necessity of an in-person plea inquiry to prevent miscarriage of justice outweighed the accused's claimed hardships of health issues, financial difficulty, and travel distance.

Following the accused's conviction for armed robbery, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation, the Crown obtained a production order under s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code to obtain records from the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society for use in a sentencing hearing and dangerous offender application.

The accused challenged the production order on grounds that it was invalid and violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court ruled that the production order was valid and that the sealed records were relevant to sentencing and the dangerous offender proceeding.

The court ordered the records unsealed and made available to the Crown, subject to later rulings on admissibility as documentary evidence.

A voir dire was held to determine whether Edward Liu, a conditionally accredited Mandarin interpreter, was qualified to interpret for two Mandarin-speaking complainant witnesses at a preliminary hearing.

The Crown sought to have Liu qualified despite his conditional accreditation status from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The defence opposed qualification, arguing that conditionally accredited interpreters should only be used for less complex proceedings.

The court found Liu competent and capable of interpreting and qualified him to serve as interpreter at the preliminary hearing.

The appellant's conviction for first degree murder was previously overturned by the Court of Appeal and a verdict of second degree murder was substituted.

The Court of Appeal then determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought 12 to 15 years, while the appellant sought the minimum 10 years.

Considering the appellant's significant rehabilitation in custody, his lack of prior violent offences, and the circumstances of the offence, the Court applied the general rule from Shropshire and set the parole ineligibility period at 10 years.