D. Midanik

Following a jury verdict finding the applicant guilty of manslaughter, the applicant brought a motion seeking the trial judge's recusal from the sentencing hearing, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant cited several incidents, including the judge's post-verdict comments to the deceased's family, accepting doughnuts brought by the family, and various procedural rulings and expressions of frustration.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a fully informed reasonable person would not apprehend bias from any of the isolated incidents or their cumulative effect, noting that the presumption of judicial impartiality had not been displaced.

Sentencing decision following convictions for multiple firearms offences involving possession of two loaded handguns, possession of firearms without a licence, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, concealing a weapon, possession of an overcapacity magazine, and firearm transfer offences under the Criminal Code.

The accused argued he possessed the firearms under duress while temporarily holding them for another individual, but the defence had been rejected at trial.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in firearms offences and considered aggravating factors including possession of two loaded firearms in a public parking lot and failure to comply with police commands.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record and strong employment history.

Applying the Kienapple principle and the totality principle, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of 4.5 years with credit for pre-sentence restrictions.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences including possession of prohibited and restricted firearms, possession of an overcapacity magazine, and possession for the purpose of transferring firearms.

The accused admitted possessing the firearms but asserted the common law defence of duress, claiming he held the guns under threats from an associate with a reputation for violence.

The court held that the accused had voluntarily associated with the individual and had reasonable avenues of escape during the week he possessed the firearms.

The court further found that handing the firearms to another individual constituted a transfer within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The defence of duress lacked an air of reality and, in any event, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defence failed.

The accused applied for disclosure of unvetted information used to obtain a search warrant, arguing that confidential informant communications could raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and support a defence of duress.

The Crown opposed disclosure on the basis of confidential informant privilege and argued the innocence-at-stake exception was not met.

Applying the two-stage test from Supreme Court authority, the court held the accused failed to establish that the information sought was unavailable from other sources or that it could likely raise a reasonable doubt.

Potential witnesses connected to the alleged duress, including individuals involved in the transfer of the firearms, were available to testify.

The application to disclose confidential informant information was therefore denied.

The accused, charged with multiple firearms offences, brought a motion seeking disclosure of police records relating to a third party whom he alleged had coerced him to possess the firearms.

The defence argued the records were relevant to a defence of duress because they would demonstrate the third party’s reputation for violence, firearms, and drug activity.

Applying the two‑stage test for third‑party record disclosure from R. v. McNeil and R. v. O’Connor, the court first found the requested materials were likely relevant.

After reviewing the records, the court held that police occurrence reports involving allegations of violence, firearms, drugs, and confirmation of the third party’s nickname were necessary to permit full answer and defence.

Disclosure of those records was ordered, with identifying information of complainants redacted to protect privacy.