David E. Harris

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing his female friend to death.

The Crown sought a 14-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including intimate partner violence, breach of trust, the savage nature of the killing, and the offender's prior record for domestic violence.

However, the offender's severe mental illness at the time of the offence significantly reduced his moral blameworthiness.

Balancing these factors, the court set the period of parole ineligibility at 12 years.

The applicant applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after his previous bails were revoked and he was detained on the secondary ground.

The applicant proposed a novel release plan involving a senior probation officer volunteering to manage his drug treatment and supervise his bail.

The court found that the new treatment plan, combined with the applicant's significant accumulated pre-trial custody, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered the applicant's release on strict house arrest with conditions tied directly to his drug treatment.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to trial on a charge of defamatory libel.

The charge arose from a poster the applicant displayed publicly, which alleged that the managers of a teen band had engaged in 'abuse' and 'inappropriate behaviour' towards his son, and had misappropriated charity funds.

The reviewing judge found that the statements in the poster were expressions of opinion and value judgments based on a private dispute, rather than false statements of fact.

As there was no evidence of a 'calculated falsehood' or knowledge of falsity, the preliminary hearing judge exceeded her jurisdiction.

The application was allowed and the committal was quashed.

The three accused were charged with importing cocaine after returning from a vacation in Jamaica.

Border Services Officers found approximately half a kilo of cocaine hidden inside cocoa powder cans in each of their checked suitcases.

The accused immediately disavowed knowledge of the drugs, claiming they were planted by unknown persons.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that 'Occam's Razor' proved guilt and found that the accused's immediate disavowals and testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding their knowledge of the drugs.

All three accused were found not guilty.

The applicant husband brought an originating application to terminate his spousal support obligations following his voluntary early retirement at age 63.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement providing for $6,000 per month in spousal support, which was silent on the issue of retirement.

The court held that the husband's voluntary retirement did not constitute a material change in circumstances that would justify deviating from the separation agreement.

The court also rejected the husband's argument that continuing support would constitute impermissible double-dipping.

Spousal support was ordered to continue indefinitely at a reduced quantum of $1,200 per month, retroactive to the date the husband unilaterally ceased payments.

The accused, a rideshare driver, was charged with sexually assaulting two highly intoxicated female passengers in separate incidents and with assault causing bodily harm against one of them.

The Crown successfully applied to use the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence on the other count, relying heavily on the presence of the accused's DNA on both women's breasts.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding the similar fact evidence and corroborating video surveillance overwhelmingly proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown applied to admit discreditable conduct evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The evidence consisted of video surveillance showing the accused in possession of a long-barrelled firearm at a motel the day before the homicide.

The court found that the evidence was highly probative of the accused's possession, concealment, and familiarity with the weapon, which was relevant to the issues of intention, planning, and deliberation.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, and ruled the video admissible.

The offender was found guilty of possessing and accessing a large volume of child pornography.

The Crown sought an 18-month jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court struck down the mandatory minimum for accessing child pornography as unconstitutional.

The court found that the offender's severe schizophrenia and profound social isolation significantly reduced his moral blameworthiness and that a jail sentence would have a disproportionately crushing effect on him.

A 15-month conditional sentence was imposed.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, and other relief in an uncontested family law trial.

The respondent, who struggled with substance abuse and had a criminal record, did not meaningfully participate.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and primary residence of the two children.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $60,000 for child support purposes, and he was ordered to repay a $30,000 down payment.

The court declined to terminate the respondent's access entirely, instead ordering supervised access.

The applicant mother brought a motion for child support, daycare expenses, and costs for the child's permanent residence application.

The core issue was whether to impute income to the respondent father, who claimed a significant drop in income following a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the respondent to be highly evasive, lacking credibility, and actively concealing his true income, noting large unexplained bank deposits and a surreptitious recording of a questioning session.

The court imputed an income of $54,304 to the respondent based on his pre-separation earnings and ordered him to pay retroactive child support and a proportionate share of daycare and immigration expenses.

The plaintiff, acting as estate trustee for her deceased mother, sued her sister for repayment of a $75,000 loan made by their parents.

The defendant sister moved for summary judgment, arguing the loan was forgiven in the parents' wills.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing because the mother's interest in the loan passed to the father upon her death.

Furthermore, interpreting the wills, the court concluded the testators intended to forgive the loan upon their deaths.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with conspiracy to import cocaine, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being refused Legal Aid.

The Crown conceded the complexity of the trial and the Legal Aid refusal, but challenged the financial requirement.

The court found that despite earning approximately $70,000 per year, the applicant could not afford the estimated $140,000 private retainer for the complex 10-week trial.

The court granted the application, imposing a conditional stay subject to the Attorney General funding counsel, with the applicant agreeing to contribute $12,000 towards his legal fees.

The appellant moved for an extension of time to perfect an appeal from a small claims court decision.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the appeal lacked merit.

The court granted the extension, applying the principle that the merits threshold on an extension motion is exceedingly low.

The court found the proposed appeal was not so completely devoid of merit that the appellant should be denied the right of appeal.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of driving 'over 80'.

The trial judge had excluded breathalyzer readings under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding s. 8 and s. 9 breaches because the Approved Screening Device (ASD) used by the police officer was two days past its calibration date.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court upheld the finding of the Charter breaches but found the trial judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis, particularly regarding the impact of the breach.

The appeal court admitted the evidence, set aside the acquittal, and entered a conviction.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed his convictions for weapons dangerous and possession of a concealed weapon, as well as his five-month concurrent sentences.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider alternative rational explanations for his possession of a knife hidden in his cell door frame.

He also argued his sentence should be reduced to a discharge to prevent his prior youth record for murder from converting to an adult record under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no other rational explanation for possessing the knife.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as a discharge would be markedly disproportionate to the gravity of possessing a weapon in a correctional facility and during transport.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after stabbing the victim 34 times in his basement.

The defence conceded the accused killed the victim but argued he was not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code due to severe paranoid delusions and schizophrenia.

The court found the accused suffered from a disease of the mind but rejected the NCR defence, concluding the defence failed to prove the delusions caused the killing or rendered the accused incapable of knowing the act was morally wrong.

The court also excluded similar fact evidence of the accused's prior violence against women.

Finding a reasonable doubt on the element of forcible confinement required for first-degree murder, the court convicted the accused of second-degree murder.

The appellant appealed his driving 'over 80' conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting breathalyzer readings despite Charter breaches.

The appellant was detained for an outstanding warrant and subsequently investigated for impaired driving.

A 31-minute delay in administering the roadside screening device (ASD) occurred, during which the appellant was not advised of his right to counsel.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found multiple Charter breaches under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), concluding that the police failed to provide the right to counsel when the ASD delay became apparent and failed to provide it for the initial warrant detention.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breathalyzer evidence and entered an acquittal.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired care and control and 'over 80'.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding reasonable grounds for the breath demand, in failing to find a section 9 Charter breach for his detention in the back of a police cruiser during the roadside screening test, and in providing insufficient reasons.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the Charter and reasonable grounds arguments, finding the officer had sufficient grounds and the cruiser detention was reasonably necessary due to heavy pedestrian traffic.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct the disposition, entering an acquittal on the impaired count and a conviction on the 'over 80' count.

The accused, Richard Pereira, charged with first-degree murder, brought a directed verdict application to reduce the charge to second-degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence for first-degree murder based on forcible confinement under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code, but insufficient evidence for planned and deliberate murder under s. 231(2).

The application was dismissed, and the charge of first-degree murder based on forcible confinement proceeded.

The accused, M.K., was charged with sexual assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, death threats, and simple assault against his wife, A.H., following their arranged marriage and her arrival in Canada.

The case was a pure credibility contest with no significant corroboration.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding forcible confinement to be substantially exaggerated and unreliable, particularly as the accused was absent for most of the alleged confinement period.

The Crown's cross-examination of the accused and defence witnesses was criticized for its demeaning tone, incivility, and unfairness, including misrepresenting a police statement.

Ultimately, the court found the complainant's allegations of criminal conduct unreliable and unsafe for a finding of guilt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.