David Nugent

The accused, J.D., was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of M.E.H. The victim was lured to a park by A.H. at J.D.'s behest, as revenge for a social media insult against J.D.'s deceased friend.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.

The court found the shooting to be an execution-style murder, thus planned and deliberate.

While one Crown witness's testimony (Z.L.) was largely rejected, the combined effect of another witness's testimony (A.H.), J.D.'s statement to police, cell phone data, video evidence, and intercepted communications led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that J.D. was responsible.

J.D. was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The offender was convicted by a jury of assault and assault causing bodily harm against his former intimate partner.

The assaults occurred years apart, with one resulting in fractured ribs.

The Crown sought six to eight months of incarceration, while the offender sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, the court sentenced the offender to 122 days in custody followed by two years of probation.

Kivi Bar Wari pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his cellmate.

Crown and Defence jointly recommended an eight-year sentence, which the court accepted.

The primary outstanding issue was the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit.

The Crown argued for standard 1.5:1 Summers credit, while the Defence sought additional enhanced Duncan credit due to unduly harsh detention conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, following R. v. Marshall, held that Duncan credit is a mitigating factor to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence, not an additional deduction after the sentence is set.

Since the joint sentencing submission had already factored in the harsh conditions, granting further enhanced credit would constitute "double accounting." The court applied the 1.5:1 Summers credit to the remaining pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code following an incident on April 3, 2017.

The accused and the complainant were in a former intimate relationship and were engaged in a custody dispute over their seven-year-old son.

During an access visit, a heated argument arose regarding the child's school behaviour.

When the complainant's daughter intervened, the accused applied force to the complainant's chest with his fingertips, causing her to step back.

The accused claimed he made only a waving gesture to move past the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty of assault, characterizing it as technical and of an exceedingly minor nature, but nonetheless constituting the intentional application of force without consent.