Douglas Holt

During a trial for robbery with a firearm and unlawful confinement, the Crown sought to have the jury instructed that portions of the accused's post-arrest statement were fabricated and could be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

The accused had admitted during his testimony that he lied to police about material facts, including his knowledge of the victims and perpetrators, out of fear of retribution.

The court held that the accused's own admissions provided the necessary independent evidence of concoction.

The court ruled that the jury would be instructed they could consider the fabricated statement as after-the-fact conduct supporting an inference of guilt, provided they rejected the accused's explanation for the lies.

The accused was charged with exercising control over a 17-year-old for the purpose of aiding her to engage in prostitution, procuring her to become a prostitute, and living on the avails of her prostitution.

The Crown conceded there was no evidence of procuring.

The court found the accused not guilty of the remaining charges, concluding that merely driving the complainant to a 'date' did not constitute exercising control over her movements, and that there was evidence to the contrary rebutting the presumption of living on the avails, as the accused never received or asked for money from the complainant.

The young person pleaded guilty to sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, wearing a disguise with intent, assault with a weapon, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown applied to have the young person sentenced as an adult under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable given the extreme violence, gratuitous nature of the attacks on multiple strangers, and the young person's moderate risk to reoffend.

The court granted the application and imposed a global adult sentence of 6 years, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 40 months to serve.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder for the brutal stabbing of his wife of 32 years.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 18 years, while the defence argued for 10 to 12 years.

The court considered the brutality of the killing, the gratuitous violence, the victim's suffering, and the offender's lack of remorse, balancing these against his lack of a criminal record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a minimum period of parole ineligibility of 15 years, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.