Byrne

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 Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the offender's convictions for robbery with a firearm and related offences.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record and history of institutional violence, alongside diagnoses of complex PTSD and antisocial personality traits.

The court found that while the offender demonstrated a pattern of reactive violence and posed a high risk of violent recidivism, his conduct was not intractable given the possibility of change through long-term, intensive federal programming.

The court dismissed the dangerous offender application, designated the offender a long-term offender, and imposed a 4-year penitentiary sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The applicant, charged with sexual offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that the 40-month and 19-day delay in bringing him to trial was unreasonable.

The Crown argued that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 global pandemic and the time it took the applicant to secure funding for counsel.

The court agreed, deducting 10 months and 12 days for the pandemic and 3 months for the funding delay, bringing the net delay to 28 months and 8 days, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The offender, a 31-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty of sexual assault after forcing the complainant to have vaginal intercourse twice.

The Crown sought 28 months' custody, while the defence sought 14 to 18 months followed by probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the highly aggravating circumstances of the major sexual assault and the offender's lack of remorse, while acknowledging his lack of prior record.

The offender was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary along with ancillary orders.

The accused was found guilty of multiple offences, including discharging a firearm, aggravated assault, and dangerous operation of a vehicle, after firing 13 shots into a residential townhouse and subsequently engaging in a high-speed police pursuit.

A 10-year-old child sleeping inside the home was struck by a bullet.

The court dismissed a Kienapple application regarding the discharge firearm and aggravated assault counts, finding insufficient legal nexus.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun violence, the court imposed a global sentence of 12.5 years imprisonment, less 4 years of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 8.5 years left to serve.

The applicant was charged with possession of MDMA for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime following a traffic stop.

The police stopped the taxi the applicant was in while responding to a 911 gun call.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention under s. 9 and unreasonable search under s. 8.

The court found the investigative detention and initial pat-down search were lawful.

However, the subsequent search of the applicant's knapsack in the vehicle violated s. 8, as immediate safety concerns had been alleviated.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court admitted the drug evidence, finding the police acted in good faith and society's interest favoured admission.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge and three years' probation imposed on the respondent following guilty pleas to domestic assault and breach of recognizance.

The respondent had served 276 days in pre-trial custody.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge erred in granting the discharge and in refusing to make a DNA order.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court admitted fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge made no errors in principle and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the unique circumstances, including the minor nature of the assaults and the respondent's lack of a prior record.

The appellant appealed her conviction for assault simpliciter, arguing the trial judge reached irreconcilable verdicts, provided insufficient reasons, misapprehended evidence, and drew impermissible inferences.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant of assault with a weapon but found she assaulted the complainant by forcibly removing him from her apartment.

The Superior Court of Justice found no material misapprehension of evidence or unreasonable inferences, concluding the evidence supported the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for two counts of domestic assault.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting evidence of prior discreditable conduct without a voir dire, engaged in impermissible propensity reasoning, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the extrinsic evidence was properly admitted as narrative context, the trial judge did not engage in propensity reasoning, and the credibility findings were grounded in the evidence.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of sexual assault and voyeurism, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, relied on inadmissible video evidence, and misinterpreted the voyeurism provisions of the Criminal Code.

The summary conviction appeal court found no reversible errors, noting the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and the video exhibit was admitted without limiting instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault after an intoxicated female passenger woke up half-naked in his bed.

The complainant had no memory of how she got into the bed or what happened.

A sexual assault kit revealed the accused's DNA on the complainant's left breast.

The Crown's expert testified about DNA transfer but could not rule out secondary transfer from the accused's bedding.

The court found the expert's evidence on DNA transference was outside her area of expertise and could not discount the possibility of secondary transfer without direct contact.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.