Catherine D. Aitken

Kivi Bar Wari pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his cellmate.

Crown and Defence jointly recommended an eight-year sentence, which the court accepted.

The primary outstanding issue was the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit.

The Crown argued for standard 1.5:1 Summers credit, while the Defence sought additional enhanced Duncan credit due to unduly harsh detention conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, following R. v. Marshall, held that Duncan credit is a mitigating factor to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence, not an additional deduction after the sentence is set.

Since the joint sentencing submission had already factored in the harsh conditions, granting further enhanced credit would constitute "double accounting." The court applied the 1.5:1 Summers credit to the remaining pre-sentence custody.

The accused, J.W., pleaded guilty to sexual assault, threatening death, and unlawful confinement of K.G. The court was tasked with sentencing, considering the Crown's request for 8-10 years and the Defence's request for 7.5 years.

The decision weighed aggravating factors, including the violent nature of the offences, the victim's vulnerability as an Aboriginal female, and the significant impact on her life and career.

Mitigating factors included the offender's Aboriginal status, mental health issues, and cognitive deficits, stemming from intergenerational trauma.

The court sentenced the offender to nine years imprisonment, granting 1.5:1 credit for time in detention centres and 1:1 credit for time spent in a more comfortable hospital environment, resulting in a balance of four years to be served in a federal institution.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

The Crown sought to have Matthew Villeneuve declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention following his guilty plea to attempted murder, break and enter, and obstruction of justice.

The court reviewed Villeneuve's extensive history of violent and aggressive behavior, including numerous assaults, dangerous driving, thefts, and breaches of court orders, dating back to his youth.

Psychiatric and psychological assessments, including high scores on the VRAG-R and PCL-R, indicated a very high risk of future violent reoffending and intractability of his behavior.

Despite past interventions and treatment attempts, Villeneuve consistently failed to benefit from programs or adhere to supervision conditions.

The court found that a pattern of persistent aggressive behavior with indifference to consequences was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

Consequently, the court designated Villeneuve a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The accused sought a review of a prior bail denial under section 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances.

The court considered a "beefed-up" release plan including GPS monitoring and culturally appropriate counselling.

Despite reservations about the accused's credibility and lack of full disclosure to the proposed counsellor, the court found that the new plan, combined with the surety's commitment and the accused's time in custody, barely satisfied the secondary grounds for release.

The application for bail review was granted.

The applicants sought a declaration under s. 31 of the Marriage Act that they were legally married following a religious ceremony in South Korea.

The applicants knew at the time that the religious ceremony did not constitute a legal marriage in South Korea and that civil registration was required, but they were unable to complete the registration before returning to Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 31 could not validate the marriage because the applicants knew the ceremony was legally inadequate, distinguishing the case from precedent where parties believed their religious ceremony created a legally binding marriage.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving.

He brought a preliminary motion for the appeal judge to recuse herself based on a reasonable apprehension of bias, which was dismissed as unfounded.

On the substantive appeal, the appellant argued that fresh evidence should be admitted, that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds, that evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and that the verdict was unreasonable based on circumstantial evidence.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors by the trial judge and concluding that the verdict was supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and driving over the legal limit, alleging ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence to support this claim, while the Crown applied to summarily dismiss this ground of appeal.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal on the ground of ineffective counsel, finding that the appellant failed to establish the underlying facts of his allegations and that trial counsel had provided highly competent, effective, and reasonable representation.

The Crown applied for a review of a release order under section 521 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was facing multiple sets of charges, including sexual assault and breach of recognizance.

The reviewing judge found that the initial justice made errors of law by failing to apply the reverse onus under section 524(4) and by issuing inconsistent release and detention orders for the same accused.

The reviewing judge vacated the release order and ordered the accused detained on the secondary grounds, finding a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit further offences if released.

The accused pled guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing his intimate partner multiple times in the neck and face.

Both the accused and the victim were survivors of the Rwandan genocide.

A psychiatric assessment concluded the accused suffered from severe PTSD and was likely in a dissociative state during the attack, triggered by discussions regarding HIV status.

The court found a causal link between the accused's mental illness and the offence, significantly reducing his moral culpability.

The accused was sentenced to one year of incarceration, with a recommendation for a treatment centre, followed by two years of probation.

The applicant, who was self-represented, applied for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal regarding his convictions for uttering threats and disobeying a court order.

The court applied the three-factor test for extending time to appeal.

The court found that the applicant did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period and that the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Defence counsel brought an application to be removed as solicitor of record for the accused after accepting a full-time contract position.

The accused and the Crown opposed the application.

The trial was scheduled to commence in less than two months, and the accused was unable to retain alternate counsel for the scheduled dates.

The court applied the Cunningham factors and found that adjourning the trial would likely result in a delay of over a year, potentially triggering a successful Jordan application and negatively impacting the accused's rehabilitation.

The application was dismissed as withdrawal would cause serious harm to the administration of justice.

The Crown brought forfeiture proceedings against the accused for failing to attend court while on bail.

The accused challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing the certificate of default was defective.

The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, finding that a lack of particularity does not deny jurisdiction.

Considering the accused's financial circumstances and late disclosure by the Crown, the court ordered a reduced forfeiture of $500 instead of the pledged $2,500.

The Crown brought an application for the forfeiture of a $60,000 cash bail deposit and various sums pledged by sureties after the accused breached his recognizance by continuing to traffic drugs and commit firearms offences.

Prior to the hearing, resolutions were reached regarding the sureties, resulting in $65,000 in forfeitures.

The accused subsequently died in prison.

The estate of the accused sought relief from forfeiture of the cash deposit, requesting that $30,000 be returned to support the accused's children.

The court found that the accused had shown total disregard for his bail conditions and that the estate failed to provide adequate evidence of financial need.

The court ordered the full $60,000 cash deposit forfeited.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of driving 'over 80'.

The trial judge had excluded breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding breaches of the respondent's s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) rights.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld the findings of a s. 10(a) breach and an informational s. 10(b) breach, but found the trial judge erred in finding an implementational s. 10(b) breach.

Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the appeal court concluded the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, allowed the appeal, and entered a conviction.

The applicant, charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided.

Legal Aid Ontario had denied his application due to missing financial documentation.

The court found that the applicant lacked the financial means to retain counsel and that his limited education and reading difficulties made counsel essential for a fair trial.

The application was granted, and the proceedings were stayed until the Attorney General provides funding for counsel.

The accused pled guilty to perjury for lying under oath during the preliminary inquiry of her boyfriend, who was charged with murder.

The Crown and defence agreed on a sentence range of 18 to 24 months but disagreed on whether it should be served in custody or the community.

The court considered the serious nature of perjury in homicide cases, the accused's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial sentences.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding it would adequately address denunciation and deterrence while facilitating rehabilitation.

The accused pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner and breach of recognizance.

The court considered the severe nature of the assault, the accused's lack of prior record, his low risk of reoffending, and the impact of stringent pre-sentence bail conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 90 days of intermittent jail for the assault, followed by a 12-month conditional sentence for the breach, and probation.

Scott Bullen, a surety, brought a preliminary motion challenging the court's jurisdiction to hold a forfeiture hearing under s. 771(2) of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the certificate of default (Form 33) was endorsed prematurely and lacked sufficient information, and that the forfeiture proceedings should be stayed due to the principal's (David Bullen's) death and the Crown's staying of charges against him.

The court rejected all arguments, finding the certificate validly endorsed and that neither the stay of charges nor the principal's death precluded forfeiture proceedings against the sureties.

This ruling addresses the voluntariness of a videotaped statement made by Matthew Villeneuve to police, which the Crown sought to admit as evidence in his trial for attempted murder and other charges.

The defence challenged the statement's admissibility, arguing that Villeneuve lacked an operating mind due to his mental health issues and drug use.

The court, applying the common law confessions rule, found that Villeneuve had an operating mind, understood his rights, and made the statement voluntarily, despite his aggressive behaviour prior to the interview and his stated psychological problems.

The court emphasized that Villeneuve initiated and controlled the interview, and his statements were coherent and rational, demonstrating free will.

The applicant sought a detention review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances after pleading guilty to several charges and receiving a sentence of time served, leaving only two sets of charges outstanding.

The court found that the new circumstances, including the anticipated pre-sentence custody credit and the withdrawal of his sister as a surety, would not have affected the original bail judge's decision to detain him on the secondary ground due to his extensive criminal record, escalating violent behaviour, and near certainty of reoffending.

The application for a detention review was dismissed.