Cynthia Waite

The accused was convicted of attempted murder after stabbing his co-worker multiple times in the head and neck on January 6, 2016, leaving the victim permanently and severely disabled.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused suffered from a mental disorder rendering him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The court found the accused probably suffered from mental illness and depression but retained the ability to know right from wrong.

The accused was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody reducing the remaining sentence to 12 years and 9 months.

The court balanced the brutal nature of the offence and devastating injuries to the victim against the accused's mental illness as a mitigating factor.

The accused was charged with attempted murder for stabbing his co-worker repeatedly in the back and neck at their workplace.

The Crown alleged the accused knew his actions were wrong.

The accused raised a defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code, arguing he was suffering from a mental illness that rendered him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The court found the accused probably suffered from a delusional disorder involving beliefs of persistent harassment and depression, but was not convinced the mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing the act was morally wrong or making rational choices about it.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The applicant, Beverley Hathway, sought spousal support, medical/dental coverage, life insurance designation, and costs from the respondent, Richard Hathway.

The trial proceeded undefended due to the respondent's failure to deliver an Answer or file a Financial Statement.

The court found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, having suffered economic disadvantage by resigning from her employment to reside with the respondent in Florida and experiencing financial hardship upon separation.

A lump sum spousal support of $60,019.00 was awarded, along with orders for the respondent to maintain medical and dental coverage, irrevocably designate the applicant as a life insurance beneficiary to the extent of the support obligation, and establish a first charge on his RCMP pension survivor benefits.

The applicant was also awarded costs on a full recovery basis due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and lack of participation.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and exceeding 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, with an offence date of September 27, 2015.

The Crown's case was overwhelming.

The primary issue was whether in-court identification of the defendant by Crown witnesses was necessary to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while no Crown witness explicitly pointed out the defendant in court, identification could be established through three alternative routes: video evidence of the defendant during breath testing procedures, the "circle" of continuity from arrest through release to court appearance, and evidence of name and address identifiers.

The court found the defendant guilty of both offences and conditionally stayed the exceed 80 charge.

Sentencing was adjourned to November 18, 2016, with the court indicating that all sentencing options, including jail, would be considered given the aggravating circumstances.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit.

He alleged violations of his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), seeking exclusion of breath test results and a stay of proceedings.

The court found no breaches of sections 8 or 10(b).

However, the court found a violation of section 9 Charter rights due to arbitrary detention after the breath samples were taken.

The court rejected a stay of proceedings and found insufficient nexus between the breach and the evidence to engage section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was found guilty, but entitled to a sentence reduction as a remedy for the section 9 breach.

Following a police investigation into a single-vehicle car accident where two firearms were discovered, three accused were charged with multiple firearms-related offences and breaches of court orders.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown presented evidence of a dark gray Mazda 3 that crashed while traveling at excessive speed.

Three males exited the vehicle and fled the scene.

Two of the males were apprehended shortly thereafter near a ravine.

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial on the basis of identity and possession of the firearms.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit Williamson and Malcolm-Evans to trial on multiple counts, but discharged Lyttle due to insufficient evidence of his presence in the vehicle.

The respondent brought a motion to vary prior support orders seeking termination of spousal support, reduction of child support, and elimination of certain section 7 expenses based on an alleged reduction in income.

The applicant conceded termination of spousal support but sought a later termination date, an increase in child support, and additional section 7 expenses including private school tuition and tutoring.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish a material change in the respondent’s income and maintained the previously determined income for child support purposes.

The court terminated spousal support effective April 30, 2012, removed the respondent’s obligation to contribute to nanny expenses, and declined to order contributions for private school tuition or tutoring as necessary section 7 expenses.

The court also reduced the life insurance security amount following termination of spousal support.