Chantal Lefebvre

During a criminal trial for second-degree murder and accessory after the fact, the court ruled on whether the partial defence of provocation should be put to the jury and whether directed verdicts of acquittal should be entered for the accessory charges.

The court found an air of reality to the provocation defence, noting evidence that the deceased may have fired first.

The court dismissed the application for a directed verdict on accessory after the fact to a firearms offence, but granted a directed verdict of acquittal for accessory after the fact to murder, as the victim was not yet dead when the assistance was provided.

The accused was charged with 15 counts of violent offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and uttering threats, against his former intimate partner.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, who provided contradictory accounts.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it inconsistent and contradicted by text messages and photographic evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence, finding that the accused exerted financial control and committed numerous acts of violence, including grinding the complainant's legs into broken glass.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement against his spouse.

The offences involved luring the complainant, binding her, whipping her with a belt, and forcing sexual intercourse.

Despite the complainant's plea for a non-custodial sentence to preserve their business and co-parenting arrangement, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for serious domestic violence.

The accused was sentenced to two years in penitentiary for sexual assault with a weapon and a concurrent 12-month term for unlawful confinement.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and assault with weapons arising from an incident involving a former spouse following the breakdown of their marriage.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured the complainant upstairs under the pretext of reviewing financial information, restrained her with rope, whipped her with a belt, shaved her pubic hair, and engaged in non-consensual intercourse.

The accused argued that the encounter formed part of consensual sexual role‑playing and that he honestly believed the complainant consented.

The court rejected the defence, finding no evidence that the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain consent as required under s. 273.2 of the Criminal Code and concluding that the complainant did not consent to any aspect of the encounter.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and assault with weapons.

À la suite de condamnations pour introduction par effraction, agression sexuelle causant des lésions corporelles, voies de fait et menaces de mort, la Couronne a demandé que le délinquant soit déclaré délinquant dangereux en vertu de l’art. 753 du Code criminel.

La preuve démontrait un long historique criminel comprenant plusieurs agressions sexuelles, violences conjugales et manquements à des ordonnances judiciaires, ainsi qu’un refus constant d’assumer la responsabilité de ses actes ou de participer à des traitements.

La Cour a conclu que les critères des al. 753(1)(a) et (b) étaient satisfaits, notamment la répétition d’actes violents et l’incapacité de contrôler ses impulsions sexuelles.

Elle a également déterminé qu’il n’existait aucune possibilité réelle de contrôler le risque dans la communauté au moyen d’une ordonnance de surveillance de longue durée.

Une peine indéterminée a donc été imposée afin d’assurer la protection du public.

The Crown sought admission at trial of the complainant’s testimony from the preliminary inquiry after the complainant died before trial.

The accused argued that admission of the prior testimony would be unfair because cross‑examination at the preliminary inquiry had a different purpose and was not as extensive as it would have been at trial, raising concerns about reliability and prejudice.

The court considered s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code and the principled hearsay framework, including necessity and threshold reliability.

Finding that the complainant testified under oath at the preliminary inquiry in the presence of the accused and was subject to cross‑examination without restriction, the court concluded that the statutory requirements and reliability threshold were met.

The prior testimony was therefore admissible, with ultimate weight to be determined at trial.