B. Willson

The offender pleaded guilty to ten Criminal Code offences, three Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences, and one Highway Traffic Act offence.

The offences consisted primarily of property crimes committed during a 24-hour spree, including theft of a motor vehicle, break and enter, possession of stolen property, and possession of drugs.

The Crown sought 15 months incarceration less pre-sentence custody credit, while the defence sought time served plus probation.

The court imposed a sentence of time served (approximately 218 days including enhanced credit) followed by a three-year probation period, considering the offender's lack of violent history, guilty pleas, remorse, and the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sentencing decision for an Indigenous offender convicted of escape from lawful custody, breach of recognizance under section 810.2 of the Criminal Code, and failure to attend court.

The offender had an extensive criminal history including violent offences and numerous breaches of court orders.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence with credit for pre-sentence custody at a 1.5:1 ratio, followed by a two-year probation order with conditions for monitoring and protection of the public.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a three-year probation term, finding that two years was sufficient given the proportionality principle and the offender's circumstances.

The accused applied for a change of venue under s. 599(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in relation to charges of first-degree murder and offering an indignity to human remains.

They argued that extensive pre‑trial publicity, community hostility, and alleged inadequacies in the Sault Ste.

Marie courthouse facilities created a reasonable likelihood of juror prejudice and an unfair trial.

The court reviewed the governing jurisprudence on venue changes and the safeguards inherent in the jury selection and trial process.

It concluded that the applicants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that community bias or prejudice could not be mitigated through those safeguards.

The court also found that the courthouse facilities were capable of accommodating the trial and that logistical concerns did not justify relocation.

The accused was charged with multiple counts arising from three break and enters at Subway restaurant locations over several days.

Surveillance footage, physical evidence, and DNA recovered from a balaclava linked the accused to the offences, while the accused testified denying involvement and suggesting innocent explanations for the evidence.

The court applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.) and rejected the accused’s account.

After finding the accused responsible for one break and enter, the court admitted similar fact evidence due to striking similarities in timing, method, clothing, and tools used across the incidents.

The similarities and physical evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the same perpetrator committed all three break and enters.

During a trial for aggravated assault and assault arising from an altercation at a stag and doe party, the accused brought a Charter s. 7 application seeking a stay of proceedings.

They argued that the Crown's continued prosecution amounted to an abuse of process because the Crown's main witness was contradicted by other Crown witnesses.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Crown's decision to proceed did not amount to flagrant impropriety and that it is the role of the trier of fact to assess conflicting evidence.

The accused was charged with break and enter and theft from a retail store.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence consisting of blood found on the exterior door beneath a broken window used to gain entry.

DNA testing matched the blood to the accused with an extremely high statistical probability, and the accused’s twin brother was excluded as a potential source based on alibi evidence and physical differences from the individual depicted in security video.

Applying the modern approach to circumstantial evidence following R. v. Cooper, the court found that the blood evidence was logically connected to the break‑in and that no reasonable alternative inference was supported by the evidence.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

A case conference addressed two related proceedings: a family law claim for spousal support and an estates dispute regarding the validity of wills and powers of attorney for an incapable individual.

The court ordered extensive financial disclosure from multiple parties who had managed or received funds belonging to the incapable individual, including bank statements, property disposition records, and expense breakdowns.

The court rejected the spouse’s position that she could retain and manage the incapable individual’s assets without disclosure, finding that her claim for spousal support created an adverse interest requiring transparency.

The court also ordered hospital records to be produced and directed that no interlocutory steps occur in the estates proceeding until a pre‑trial conference.