Dennis Chronopoulos

The applicant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder for killing his father.

Prior to sentencing, the applicant brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years violates sections 12 and 15 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that his long-standing mental disorders and substance-induced psychosis at the time of the offence reduced his moral blameworthiness, making the mandatory sentence grossly disproportionate and discriminatory.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.

The court held that it was bound by the jury's verdict, which necessarily found that the applicant had the requisite specific intent for first degree murder, representing the highest level of moral culpability.

The court found no violation of section 12, as the sentence is not grossly disproportionate for an offender with such high moral blameworthiness.

The court also found no violation of section 15, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the mandatory minimum sentence disproportionately impacts persons with mental illness, noting that those who lack criminal responsibility or the requisite intent due to mental illness are not subject to the mandatory sentence.

The defendant, Dean Richer-Lebreton, was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to six years imprisonment, less 654 days pre-sentence custody (rounded to 22 months), resulting in a net sentence of 4 years and 2 months.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal record, and the severe impact on the victim.

The court declined to grant enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, finding the offender to be a dangerous, incorrigible recidivist unlikely to be granted early release.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA sample, and no contact with the victim during the custodial portion of the sentence.

The Crown brought an application for a section 487 Criminal Code search warrant and a section 487.02 assistance order to compel the accused to provide passcodes or PIN codes to unlock his cell phone.

The accused opposed the assistance order.

The court found that while section 487.02 may apply to accused persons, the proposed assistance order violated the accused's section 7 Charter rights, specifically the principle against self-incrimination and the right to silence.

The court declined to issue the assistance order, finding that use immunity did not adequately address the compelled active participation of the accused in his own prosecution.

The defendant, Festus Samuel, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the sexual activity occurred with the complainant's consent, focusing on the reliability of her evidence.

The complainant, an 18-year-old with limited alcohol experience, consumed alcohol and experienced blurred vision and motor impairment.

Her testimony regarding non-consent was challenged due to inconsistencies, particularly concerning a prior sexual encounter with a co-accused and details of the events.

While her distress upon returning home was compelling, the court found her evidence of non-consent not sufficiently reliable to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess blood alcohol following an incident on December 23, 2011.

The Crown relied on observations of weaving and running a red light, along with physical indicators such as bloodshot eyes and alcohol odour, to establish impairment.

The defendant was acquitted of the impaired charge due to strong countervailing evidence of non-impairment, including coordination, clear speech, and controlled movements.

However, the defendant was convicted of the over 80 offence based on breath technician evidence of readings of 184 and 170 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, with the court finding the Intoxilyzer 8000C was properly functioning and the external printer accurately recorded the results.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and care or control with excess blood alcohol following a minor motor vehicle accident on March 23, 2012.

The Crown relied on expert toxicological evidence regarding blood alcohol concentrations and observations of impairment indicators by police officers.

The court found the expert opinion regarding impairment in the general population did not necessarily apply to the individual accused and that the Crown's evidence of impairment was insufficient.

The impaired charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" within the meaning of the Criminal Code, allowing reliance on the presumption of identity.

The accused was found guilty of the over 80 mg charge based on the lower breath sample reading of 103 mg.