Chikeziri Sam Igwe

Shelly-Ann James was charged with second-degree murder for the stabbing death of her mother.

The trial, heard without a jury, focused on whether Ms. James was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, specifically if her illness rendered her incapable of knowing her conduct was morally wrong.

The court heard evidence of Ms. James's long history of schizophrenia, marked by delusions, disorganized thinking, and paranoia, including a fixed belief in an entity called "Jigsaw" and fears of being harmed or surveilled.

While expert opinions diverged on her capacity for moral wrongfulness, the court found no rational or reality-based motive for the killing.

Instead, it concluded that Ms. James acted in response to a delusional belief that she and her children were in danger.

The court accepted the opinion that her extensive symptom burden at the time of the killing prevented her from assessing the moral wrongfulness of her actions against societal norms.

Consequently, Ms. James was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

This is a sentencing decision for O.S., a youth offender who pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown sought an adult sentence, arguing that O.S.'s actions, motivated by incel ideology and deemed terrorism, demonstrated a level of maturity and sophistication rebutting the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The defence argued for a youth sentence, citing O.S.'s age and mental health challenges.

The court found that O.S.'s meticulously planned and deliberate attack, his deep research into extremist ideology, and his lack of genuine insight or responsibility (blaming the incel culture) rebutted the presumption.

Furthermore, O.S.'s refusal to participate in rehabilitative programs rendered a youth sentence insufficient for accountability and public protection.

Consequently, the court imposed an adult sentence.

The Crown sought a declaration that the respondent's admitted offences of first-degree murder and attempted murder, committed in the name of involuntary celibate ("incel") ideology, constituted terrorist activity under s. 83.01 of the Criminal Code.

The court examined the statutory definition of terrorism, specifically the "ideological purpose" and "intention to intimidate" clauses.

The court found that incel culture is an ideology and that the respondent's actions were motivated by this ideology and intended to intimidate the public, particularly women.

Consequently, the court granted the Crown's application, ruling that the offences met the definition of terrorism.

A young person, P.W., was charged with multiple firearms-related offences and breaches of court orders after a 14-year-old, A.D., was shot in the head at her home.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence from two credible witnesses (A.D. and Y.W.) and physical evidence, found P.W. was the shooter, rejecting the defence's alternate suspect theory and the unreliable testimony of A.D.'s father.

P.W. was found guilty of careless use of a firearm, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and two counts of failing to comply with release orders (no weapons and house arrest).

He was acquitted of unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm due to insufficient evidence regarding the specific classification of the unrecovered firearm.

Several other charges were dismissed by the Crown.

Two young persons were charged with attempted robbery with a firearm arising from an incident on February 24, 2019, in which one defendant approached a vehicle with a sawed-off shotgun and demanded money while the other defendant was present at the scene.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage.

The defendant N.H. testified that he was present but claimed he did not participate in the robbery and was unaware the firearm was in his possession.

The court found both defendants guilty of attempted robbery with a firearm, rejecting the defendant's assertion that he was merely a bystander and finding his presence at the passenger side of the vehicle and subsequent possession of the firearm demonstrated participation in a joint enterprise.

The applicant, Andre Cunningham, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for charges including attempted murder and firearms offences.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace made two material errors in principle during the initial bail hearing: misapprehending evidence regarding the applicant's alleged gang affiliation and misinterpreting the mother's testimony about identifying her son in surveillance video.

Despite these errors warranting a new de novo bail hearing, the court conducted its own assessment of the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the Crown's case strong, the proposed surety plan inadequate given the applicant's history of non-compliance while living with sureties, and the gravity of the offences.

The court also considered the COVID-19 pandemic but found it did not override the primary considerations for detention, especially without evidence of an outbreak in the facility or the applicant's specific health vulnerabilities.

Consequently, the applicant was ordered detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit (driving over 80) and while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown relied on breath test results from an Intoxilyzer 8000C showing readings of 187 and 175 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood.

The defence brought applications seeking COBRA data (downloadable data from the breath testing instrument) in electronic format and seeking a view of the breath room at Traffic Services.

The court allowed in part the COBRA data application, ordering disclosure of all COBRA data generated by the specific instrument from the quality assurance checks through the subject tests in native raw text file format.

The court dismissed the view application, finding insufficient evidentiary foundation and no demonstrated advantage to taking a view over two years after the fact.

A young person was charged with aggravated assault arising from a violent attack at a restaurant that resulted in the complainant losing an eye.

The prosecution relied primarily on identification evidence, including surveillance video and testimony from a school resource officer who believed he recognized the accused in the footage.

The court found the officer’s identification evidence was tainted because he knew the accused was a suspect before viewing the video and the features relied upon were generic.

Other witnesses either failed to identify the accused or provided inconsistent descriptions, and the surveillance footage was of poor quality.

The court concluded that the identification evidence was unreliable and did not establish the accused’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.