Cynthia Marci Fromstein

Richard Dowdell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

The court determined the parole ineligibility period, considering aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the home invasion, and the brutal nature of the attack, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's immediate admissions, guilty plea, remorse, and long-standing mental illness (Bipolar disorder with psychosis).

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and the offender's mental state, ultimately imposing a life sentence with parole ineligibility for 12 years, rejecting the Crown's request for 14 years.

The accused was charged with first degree murder in the death of an elderly woman.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish that the killing was planned and deliberate, while the defence argued the evidence supported only second degree murder.

The Crown's case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's statements to a neighbour approximately two hours before the killing that God had commanded him to kill a female customer in the retirement community.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial on the first degree murder charge, distinguishing the case from precedents where planning and deliberation could not be reasonably inferred from the evidence.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher and scoutmaster, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of indecent assault against seven young male scouts committed between 1966 and 1979.

The offences involved sexual touching, masturbation, and in one case oral sex, perpetrated during cottage trips and scout activities.

The accused had previously been convicted of similar offences in 1980 and sentenced to three months concurrent custody.

The sentencing hearing addressed systemic delays in the prosecution, the profound and lasting impacts on the victims, the offender's rehabilitation over 35 years without reoffending, and the appropriate balance between denunciation and restraint in sentencing.

Two accused were charged with sexual assault and gang sexual assault following allegations that the complainant was sexually assaulted by multiple men in an apartment over approximately thirty-one hours.

The trial judge found the complainant’s evidence unreliable regarding how she arrived at the apartment but accepted core aspects of her testimony concerning non-consensual sexual activity, supported by DNA evidence and contemporaneous reporting.

The court concluded that one accused engaged in multiple acts of non-consensual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity with the complainant and rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The second accused was found to have touched the complainant’s breast in a sexual manner without consent based on DNA evidence and credibility findings.

However, the Crown failed to prove that the accused were parties to each other’s assaults for the purpose of the gang sexual assault charges.

In a pre‑trial application, the Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence against one accused in a prosecution for aggravated sexual assault involving alleged non‑disclosure of HIV‑positive status during sexual encounters.

The proposed evidence included testimony from other individuals alleging similar encounters, statements from a roommate suggesting non‑disclosure practices, and chat log communications from the accused’s computer.

Applying the governing framework for similar fact evidence articulated in R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court found the proposed evidence inconsistent, partially related to outstanding charges in another jurisdiction, and largely directed to propensity reasoning.

Concluding that its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value, the court ruled the evidence inadmissible, while noting the ruling could be revisited depending on the evidence at trial.