David Dubinsky

The defendant, Connie Rose Gordon, was charged with intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to the Voyageur Inn Motel, resulting in bodily harm to Dallas Jason Bluebird, contrary to section 433(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on eyewitness identifications, threats made by the defendant, her movements before and after the fire, and the purchase of a gas can.

The defendant denied involvement, challenging the identifications and witness testimonies.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible and, based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, concluded that the defendant's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The defendant was found guilty.

The Crown charged the defendant with knowingly giving a false statement to a conservation officer contrary to section 96(a) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

The defendant was alleged to have falsely stated that no second bull moose was shot by members of the hunting party during opening weekend, when in fact Kevin Cain had shot a second bull moose unlawfully.

The trial turned on the credibility of the officer's account of the interview conducted at the defendant's home versus the defendant's account.

The court found reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was asked about Kevin Cain or Rick Cain, and whether the defendant's responses were as alleged by the Crown.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with armed robbery and wearing a disguise with intent following the robbery of a gas station by two masked men.

The Crown's case relied on recognition evidence from the store attendant, who previously worked with the accused, and circumstantial evidence including DNA found on discarded clothing and shoes near the scene.

The court found the attendant's recognition evidence reliable and concluded that the only rational inference from the DNA and circumstantial evidence was that the accused was one of the perpetrators.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

On a voir dire in a drug prosecution, the accused sought to exclude evidence obtained from a BlackBerry device seized by police, alleging a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

The Crown argued the accused lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy and alternatively had abandoned the device when he removed the battery and threw it to the ground during a police approach.

The court held that while possession alone is insufficient, the accused established a reasonable expectation of privacy through possession, knowledge of the password, and prior use of the device.

The court further held that the act of removing the battery and throwing the device did not amount to abandonment but was more consistent with an attempt to preserve privacy.

The accused therefore retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the device and its contents.

The Aboriginal offender pleaded guilty to break and enter and commit robbery following a home invasion where a co-accused stabbed and killed an individual.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 5 to 7 years, while the defence sought a reformatory sentence with 1.5:1 enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court analyzed the Truth in Sentencing Act amendments to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, concluding that enhanced credit requires exceptional circumstances beyond standard remand conditions.

The court denied the enhanced credit, applying a 1:1 ratio for 525 days of pre-sentence custody.

Applying Gladue principles and noting the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.