David Slessor

The accused was charged with robbery with a knife, possession of a knife for a dangerous purpose, and unlawfully being in a dwelling house arising from a home invasion robbery.

The Crown's case relied primarily on identification evidence from the victim and a witness who called 911.

The victim could not identify the assailants.

The witness provided identification through a 911 call but later testified he only "vaguely" identified the accused based on information from a third party rather than direct observation.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to multiple factors including the witness's drug use at the time, significant discrepancies in physical descriptions (particularly height), inconsistencies between the 911 call and trial testimony, and the fleeting nature of the observation.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with assaulting the complainant with a garden clipper, mischief under $5000, threatening the complainant's dog, and theft under $5000.

The defendant pleaded guilty to mischief and threatening the dog.

At trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault—one on June 5, 2015 (kicking the complainant in the chest) and one on June 7, 2015 (throwing garden shears at the complainant's face).

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as implausible and internally inconsistent, finding it contradicted by photographic evidence of bruising and the defendant's own voice messages.

The theft charge was dismissed by the Crown.

The defendant sought a stay of prosecution for charges of possession of child pornography, accessing child pornography, and possession of a firearm, alleging a failure by the Crown and police to disclose relevant evidence.

During pre-trial motions, it was revealed that significant information had not been disclosed to the defence, constituting a breach of the defendant's section 7 Charter rights.

The court found no bad faith but acknowledged negligent oversights.

While the Crown conceded a Charter infringement, it argued against a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, opting instead to exclude the non-disclosed evidence, allowing the trial to proceed with the remaining evidence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

At a house party, after the victim attacked him, the defendant repeatedly punched the victim in the head, causing a broken orbital bone requiring plastic surgery and resulting in hospitalization by air ambulance.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected both positions and imposed a four-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first two months, followed by a curfew for two months, and one year of probation.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate to balance denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, particularly given the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, and positive personal circumstances.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempted theft while armed with bear spray and wearing a mask with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The offences arose from a planned armed robbery attempt on Garda Security guards making a cash delivery of approximately $200,000 to a TD Bank.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of four to five years, while the defence sought a reformatory sentence of 18 months to two years less one day.

The court imposed a sentence of four years less pre-trial custody, with enhanced credit for 11 months of pre-trial custody at a rate of 1.5 months per month, resulting in a net sentence of 31.5 months.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition, forfeiture order, no-contact order with victims, and DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery committed at night against vulnerable victims using bear spray.

The accused had a prior conviction for robbery resulting in a significant penitentiary sentence.

Accepting a joint submission, the court sentenced the accused to 5 years in the penitentiary, less 430 days of pre-sentence custody credit, leaving 3 years and 300 days to serve concurrently on both counts.

The offender was found guilty of second degree murder after beating the victim to death with a baseball bat.

The Crown sought a 14-year parole ineligibility period, arguing the offence was akin to a domestic homicide because the victim was dating the offender's former partner.

The court rejected the domestic homicide categorization.

After considering the offender's Aboriginal heritage, Gladue factors, health issues, and the jury's recommendations, the court imposed a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 10 years.

On a Crown application in a murder prosecution, the court considered whether statements made during a late-night custodial interview were voluntary.

Applying the voluntariness framework and the jurisprudence on persistent police questioning, the court held that the cumulative circumstances — including an improper strip search, repeated complaints of cold, minimal food, serious medical condition, fatigue, and continued questioning after the accused said he did not want to speak — created oppression.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary or the product of a free operating mind.

The application to tender the statement for use if the accused testified was dismissed.

A young person challenged a guilty plea entered for robbery with a handgun, alleging that late disclosure of investigating officer's notes constituted a breach of Charter rights under section 7.

The Crown conceded that the notes should have been disclosed with initial disclosure despite an ongoing Special Investigations Unit investigation.

The court found a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards and awarded costs of $13,000 plus HST against the Crown as a remedy for the constitutional breach.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of luring a child by computer contrary to s.172.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused communicated with an undercover police officer he believed to be a 14-year-old girl over a two-week period, made sexual solicitations, exposed himself, and arranged to meet her.

He also possessed five images of child pornography.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment followed by two years probation, reflecting both the serious nature of the offence and significant mitigating factors including the accused's stable background, early guilty plea, intensive counseling participation, and very low risk of reoffending as assessed by a forensic psychiatrist.

The court also imposed a 20-year s.161 order and 20-year SOIRA obligation.

The accused pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit forcible confinement.

Over an 18-month period, the accused made multiple entries to an abandoned home where he constructed a prison cell in the basement, complete with reinforced doors, sealed windows, and restraint apparatus.

The accused's plan was to kidnap and confine a specific individual, Gwen Armstrong, and demand ransom from her husband.

The court sentenced the accused to two years less a day, followed by three years probation with strict conditions including counselling and no contact orders.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the paramount sentencing principles.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder, aggravated assault, and committing aggravated assault with a weapon following a home invasion where the victim was killed with a shotgun.

The court considered the jury's recommendations for parole ineligibility, the aggravating factor of a prior first degree murder conviction two weeks prior, and the violent nature of the execution-style killing.

The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years for second degree murder, with concurrent sentences for the assault charges.