Daniel Molloy

Zachary Gibson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the brutal killing of Michael Grawberger.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, which is set at 17 years, considering aggravating factors such as the brutal, planned nature of the attack, its domestic context, and the broad impact on victims, balanced against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The accused was convicted of possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, along with other offences.

The sentencing judge considered the principles of sentencing, aggravating factors (nature of fentanyl, criminal record), and limited mitigating factors.

The Crown sought a 7-year global sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day or a custodial sentence of no more than an additional 2 years.

The court declined a conditional sentence due to the offender's criminal record and history of non-compliance with court orders.

A global sentence of 6 years incarceration was imposed, reduced by 1 year for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 5 years in custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The accused, Jonathan Samuel, faced charges including possession of fentanyl and cocaine for trafficking, obstructing a peace officer, and unlawful entry into a dwelling-house, along with breaches of release and probation orders.

The trial involved a mistrial application based on alleged judicial bias and a Charter application to exclude evidence due to an alleged s. 8 breach (unreasonable search and seizure).

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

It also dismissed the Charter application, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless police entry into the hotel room, and even if there was a breach, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all substantive charges, including drug trafficking, obstruction, unlawful entry, and the breach counts.

The Crown sought to admit four statements from a deceased witness (J.T.) at a preliminary hearing under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the "prima facie air of reliability" test to determine admissibility.

It found the portions of J.T.'s statements related to the kidnapping credible and trustworthy due to corroborating evidence, despite procedural deficiencies in statement-taking.

However, the portions related to drug possession and the identification of "Z" were deemed unreliable and were excised, as J.T.'s account was inconsistent and self-serving regarding her involvement with drugs.

The court affirmed its power to excise unreliable portions of a statement.

The Crown applied for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash a preliminary hearing judge's decision discharging the accused on firearms offences.

The accused was the driver of a vehicle in which a loaded handgun was found under the passenger seat.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary hearing judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's evasiveness and evidence of drug dealing, which could reasonably support an inference of constructive possession.

The discharge was quashed and the matter remitted with a direction to commit the accused to trial.

This decision concerns a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code for an accused facing multiple firearms-related charges, including unauthorized possession, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession with serial number removed, possessing in contravention of a prohibition order, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The accused had been in pre-trial custody for 18 months.

The court conducted a de novo bail hearing, with the onus on the accused to show cause why detention was not justified.

The court assessed the secondary ground (public safety) and tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice), considering the accused's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, the strength of the Crown's circumstantial case, and the proposed surety's release plan.

The court found the accused failed to demonstrate that detention was unjustified on either ground, concluding that the release plan was inadequate and that release would undermine public confidence, despite the pre-trial custody duration not yet exceeding a likely sentence.

The applicant, J.B., sought a bail review to be released on a surety bail with house arrest and electronic monitoring, having previously consented to detention.

The Crown opposed her release, citing her extensive criminal record, history of violence including stabbings, and breaches of court orders.

The court found jurisdiction for the review based on a material change in circumstances (the proposed release plan).

However, the court was not satisfied that the proposed plan, involving supervision by her mother recovering from surgery and electronic monitoring, was sufficient to attenuate the substantial likelihood of re-offence (secondary ground) or to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice (tertiary ground).

The application for release was denied, and J.B.'s detention was continued pending trial.