D. Moore

The accused was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder after stabbing an unarmed victim at a party.

Prior to sentencing, the defence requested an inquiry into a post-verdict comment made by a juror to the victim's family.

The court declined to hold an inquiry, finding it would violate jury secrecy and that the comment did not suggest any impropriety.

On sentencing, the Crown sought 12 years of parole ineligibility while the defence sought 10 years.

After weighing the aggravating factors of the senseless, unprovoked killing against the mitigating factors of the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, and remorse, the court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility fixed at 11 years.

Four accused were charged with first degree murder in the death of the victim, who was shot in the chest on November 30, 2013.

One accused conceded committal.

The remaining three accused contested committal.

The Crown's theory was that the accused, motivated by prior animus, planned and deliberately ambushed and murdered the victim with the assistance of an accused who possessed a firearm.

The court examined extensive surveillance video evidence, cell phone records, and witness testimony to determine whether sufficient evidence existed for committal on first degree murder charges.

The court found that the evidence, largely circumstantial, supported inferences that the three accused collectively planned and deliberately executed the murder and committed to the enterprise without resiling from it.

The offender was sentenced for multiple offences including attempting to procure a person into prostitution, breaches of a s. 810.2 recognizance, breaches of probation, and possession of stolen property.

The most serious offence involved attempting to recruit a 16‑year‑old into prostitution while subject to a recognizance intended to prevent serious personal injury offences.

The court emphasized the offender’s extensive criminal record involving violence, prostitution-related offences, and sexual offences against minors, as well as repeated breaches of court orders.

After crediting 23 months of pre-trial custody on a 1:1 basis, the court imposed an additional two years’ imprisonment followed by a three-year probation order with extensive supervisory and non-association conditions.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

At a commercial list case conference in complex multi-party litigation involving disputed financial transactions, the court addressed case management issues relating to discovery planning.

The parties agreed to a joint litigation and discovery plan aimed at identifying disputed transactions and clarifying the parties’ positions.

The court ordered that all undertakings arising from examinations for discovery be answered within 60 days and expressed reluctance to schedule refusals motions, noting they often add little value and that adverse inferences may be drawn at trial where proper questions are refused.

The matter was scheduled for a further case conference to assess the potential for mediation and estimate trial length.

The moving defendants sought an order striking portions of the plaintiffs’ responses to a demand for particulars and requiring further particulars of negligence allegations pleaded in the statement of claim.

The court held that the original pleading of negligence was bald and inadequate, but the plaintiffs’ subsequent responses to the demand for particulars provided sufficient detail to allow the defendants to plead and proceed to discovery.

While the responses used open-ended language that could potentially permit additional allegations, the court found that this risk could be managed through discovery and case management directions.

The court declined to strike the pleading or require further particulars, emphasizing the need to move the long-standing action forward.

The accused was charged with multiple historical sexual offences allegedly committed against his teenage stepson between ages 13 and 17.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony describing numerous incidents of sexual contact across several residences over multiple years.

The court identified significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts across his police statement, preliminary inquiry, and two trials, including contradictions regarding the nature of sexual acts, the circumstances of incidents, and physical characteristics of the accused.

A critical discrepancy arose where the complainant testified with certainty that the accused was circumcised, while uncontroverted evidence established that he was not.

Considering these credibility concerns and the absence of reliable corroboration, the court concluded that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In receivership proceedings brought in aid of execution against a judgment debtor, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed receiver for directions regarding enforcement steps and the disposition of certain assets.

The receiver sought approval to sell the debtor’s interest in a jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act, clarification regarding ownership of a cottage property, compliance with outstanding information requests, and approval of the receiver’s reports.

The court held that the spouse opposing sale failed to demonstrate circumstances of oppression, malice, or vexatious intent that would justify refusing the statutory right to partition or sale.

The court ordered the sale of the debtor’s interest in the matrimonial home, directed the parties to provide requested information to the receiver, scheduled a hearing regarding ownership of the cottage and related indebtedness issues, and approved the receiver’s reports.

The accused stood trial on multiple charges including human trafficking, sexual assault, and prostitution-related offences involving three young women.

The Crown alleged the accused exploited the complainants' drug addictions to force them into prostitution.

The court found the evidence of the two adult complainants unreliable due to severe crack cocaine addiction and inconsistencies, and accepted the accused's evidence that he was merely their drug dealer, resulting in acquittals on those counts.

However, the court convicted the accused of attempting to procure a 16-year-old complainant into prostitution and breaching his recognizance by being alone with her.