Daniel Brandes

The offender, Jean Guy Thibeault, was sentenced for manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The court found the manslaughter to be an aggravated instance due to the victim's vulnerability, the unprovoked and brutal nature of the attack involving multiple stomping blows, the high moral culpability, and the offender's indifference to the victim's fate.

No mitigating circumstances were identified, and the offender expressed no remorse.

The court imposed a sentence of twelve years imprisonment for manslaughter, reduced to seven years after credit for pre-sentence custody, and a concurrent sentence of two years imprisonment for aggravated assault.

Mandatory lifetime firearm prohibition and DNA orders were also issued.

During a trial for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, a voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of utterances made by the defendant to a detective.

The Crown sought to admit the statements, arguing they were voluntary and that any Charter breach should not lead to exclusion.

The defence contended the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of the defendant's rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, and thus should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court found the utterances voluntary and no infringement of s. 10(a).

However, it found a serious breach of s. 10(b) due to the police's failure to facilitate access to counsel for 4.5 hours after the defendant asserted his right.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore ruled the utterances inadmissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery committed against a taxi driver.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 months imprisonment followed by two years probation, taking into account the offender's Indigenous background, systemic factors, mental health challenges, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, while balancing the serious nature of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused sought a review of two detention orders related to charges including attempt murder, aggravated assault, and later, obstructing a peace officer.

The initial detention was based on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court reviewed alleged errors of law regarding the admissibility of bad character evidence and the assessment of the connection between the accused and his sureties.

It also considered changes in circumstances, including additional sureties and arguments about the strength of the Crown's case.

The application for review was dismissed, affirming the detention orders.

The accused, an anti-abortion activist, was charged with disobeying a court order pursuant to section 127(1) of the Criminal Code.

The charge arose from her conduct on September 2, 2015, when she protested outside the Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto carrying a sign and speaking to patients entering the clinic, attempting to persuade them not to have abortions.

The court found that her conduct breached paragraphs (c) and (h) of a 1999 injunction by disturbing and interrupting the functioning of the clinic and causing a nuisance within 500 feet of the premises.

The court distinguished the present case from a prior 2014 appeal decision where similar conduct had resulted in acquittal, finding that the evidence of disruption to clinic operations and impact on patients and staff was substantially different and more compelling.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from a photography session with an 18‑year‑old aspiring model whom he had met on a social networking application.

The complainant alleged that after the photo session the accused initiated unwanted sexual contact and forcibly had intercourse despite her resistance and repeated requests to stop.

The accused denied that any sexual activity occurred and claimed the complainant attempted to kiss him and became angry when he rejected her.

Applying the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence as implausible and accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible and reliable, noting her contemporaneous email to police reporting the assault.

The court concluded that the complainant did not consent and that the Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons offences following an unprovoked stabbing on a TTC subway train.

The identity of the assailant was established through circumstantial evidence, including videotape footage, clothing descriptions, and recognition by police officers who had investigated the accused earlier that day.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and the weapons offences, but acquitted him of attempted murder, finding the Crown failed to prove a specific intent to kill.