David Stoesser

The applicants, charged with manslaughter and second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application to determine whether the amendments in Bill C-75 eliminating peremptory challenges (repeal of s. 634 of the Criminal Code) have retrospective effect.

The court held that the availability of peremptory challenges is a procedural matter, not a substantive right.

Therefore, the repeal applies retrospectively to all matters before the court as of the coming into force date, September 19, 2019.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit evidence of the accused's post-offence internet searches.

The accused was charged with arson and mischief after his former girlfriend's parents' shed burned down.

Hours after receiving a text accusing him of the fire, the accused searched for information about arson, evidence required, and drone controllers (which were destroyed in the fire).

The accused argued the searches were consistent with an innocent person falsely accused and that he had an alibi.

The court held that the internet searches were relevant circumstantial evidence of identity and narrative.

The court found the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, leaving the ultimate weight and inferences to be determined by the jury.

The evidence was ruled admissible.

M.G. was convicted of invitation to sexual touching of his two-year-old daughter.

The court considered mitigating factors (age, no prior record, employment, learning disabilities) and aggravating factors (victim's age and vulnerability, abuse of trust, minimization of actions, aggressive post-disclosure conduct).

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

The court rejected the defence's request for an intermittent sentence and imposed a 22-month custodial sentence, followed by 12 months of probation with specific conditions, a 20-year SOIRA order, a DNA order, a communication prohibition during custody, and a 10-year s. 161 order prohibiting employment/volunteering with minors and internet communication with minors.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment while the defence argued for a two-year penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a 30-month sentence, classifying the offence as low-level trafficking based on the quantity of 69 grams seized.

The court considered mitigating factors including guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts against aggravating factors including prior criminal record and the commercial nature of the offence.

A lifetime firearms prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code was imposed, along with a DNA order and forfeiture of seized items.

Following a conviction for first degree murder committed when the offender was 15 years old, the Crown applied under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for the imposition of an adult sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s age and background, the lengthy delay between the offence and arrest, and whether a youth sentence would adequately hold the offender accountable.

The murder involved a violent aggravated sexual assault of a vulnerable elderly victim and had a significant impact on the community.

Although the offender had lived an otherwise law‑abiding life in the intervening years and was assessed as a low risk to reoffend, the court concluded that the gravity and circumstances of the offence required an adult sentence to achieve meaningful accountability.

A life sentence with a seven‑year parole ineligibility period was imposed, and the conviction for aggravated sexual assault was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application under s. 591(3)(a) of the Criminal Code seeking severance of multiple counts on a fifteen‑count indictment involving several complainants and allegations including sexual assault, aggravated assault, strangulation, administering a stupefying drug, and unlawful confinement.

The court considered the factors governing severance, including prejudice to the accused, factual and legal nexus between the counts, complexity of the evidence, potential for inconsistent verdicts, and the likelihood of similar fact evidence.

The court found significant similarities among many of the allegations, including the manner of contact with complainants, the location of the offences, and distinctive forms of alleged conduct.

Although acknowledging the risk of prejudice in a jury trial involving multiple complainants and unusual sexual allegations, the court concluded the nexus between the offences was sufficiently strong to justify a joint trial.

The accused failed to demonstrate that severance was warranted on a balance of probabilities.

The accused, charged with first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault, brought a pre‑trial application seeking to adduce evidence suggesting two alternative suspects.

The proposed evidence relied largely on hearsay statements, speculative inferences, and circumstantial allegations regarding the individuals’ past conduct.

Applying the governing threshold from Supreme Court jurisprudence requiring a sufficient connection between the third party and the crime to establish probative value and an air of reality, the court held that neither proposed suspect had any evidentiary nexus to the offence.

The material advanced was found to be unreliable, speculative, and lacking any direct or circumstantial link to the crime scene.

The application to present third‑party suspect evidence was therefore denied.