Eginhart Ehlers

The Crown applied for an order permitting a witness (the former intimate partner of the accused) to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom and in the company of a support person in a trial for breach of a recognizance.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that the witness should testify in-person behind a privacy screen.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the witness would experience psychological and physiological distress if required to testify in the presence of the accused, and that CCTV and a support person would facilitate her ability to provide full and candid testimony.

In a jury trial on an allegation of sexual assault against a child, the Crown sought to use text messages disclosed only during the accused’s evidence to impeach the accused and support the complainant’s mother on opportunity.

The court found the timing of disclosure prejudiced the accused because the defence had already cross-examined key witnesses, committed to a factual position undermined by the messages, and the accused had testified without a meaningful opportunity to review or authenticate the material.

The court held that limiting instructions or adjournment could not adequately cure the unfairness in the existing trial.

In combination with severe weather disruptions, unexpectedly lengthy evidence, the accused’s mid-trial arrest, and a necessary five-week adjournment, the resulting risk of miscarriage of justice required a mistrial.

On a Crown pre-trial application in a first-degree murder prosecution arising from an alleged intimate-partner homicide, the court considered the admissibility of numerous ante mortem hearsay statements and prior discreditable conduct evidence.

Applying the state of mind and principled hearsay exceptions, together with the probative-prejudice balancing governing prior misconduct evidence, the court admitted specific incidents and background relationship evidence that were sufficiently reliable and materially probative of the nature of the relationship, animus, identity, and the deceased's circumstances shortly before death.

The court excluded generalized, vague, or duplicative allegations of prior violence lacking sufficient context or posing undue moral and reasoning prejudice.

It also held that issue estoppel did not bar evidence of an earlier police-attended incident that ended in a withdrawn charge and peace bond.

The 9-1-1 call concerning the peanut butter jar incident was admitted.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm to his former partner following an acrimonious breakup and child custody dispute.

The court applied the objective reasonable person test for the actus reus and found the words uttered clearly constituted a threat.

The court also found the subjective mens rea was met, as the accused intended his words to intimidate the complainant and be taken seriously.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess alcohol after police discovered his vehicle stuck in the snow-filled side yard of his residential property.

The Crown relied on observations of impairment indicators and breath samples showing 210 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the police entry onto private property and the sufficiency of grounds for the breath demand.

The court found no Charter violations, dismissed the impaired charge due to insufficient evidence of impairment, but convicted on the over 80 charge based on the admissible breath readings.

The Crown applied for a Dangerous Offender designation against the accused following his guilty pleas to 35 counts involving sexual offences against 14 victims ranging from infants to adults, as well as bestiality and child pornography offences.

The accused had engaged in systematic sexual predation over approximately nine years, from age 14 to 22, including plans to drug and rape children.

The defence argued for a Long Term Offender designation instead, emphasizing the accused's potential for treatment and rehabilitation.

The court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused met the statutory criteria for Dangerous Offender designation under section 753(1) of the Criminal Code, considering the pattern of repetitive and aggressive behaviour, the complete inability to control sexual impulses, and the escalating nature of the offences.

The court designated the accused as a Dangerous Offender.

A dangerous offender application hearing where the Crown sought to prove contested facts regarding sexual offences against multiple adolescent girls and children.

The accused had pleaded guilty to 34 charges involving numerous sexual offences.

The Crown sought to establish additional discreditable conduct that predated the existing charges, which had originally been charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court heard evidence from four complainant witnesses and assessed credibility and reliability of their testimony against the beyond reasonable doubt standard applicable to contested facts in dangerous offender proceedings.

This decision outlines the sentencing of Erik Johnson for a serious violent offence that resulted in life-threatening injuries to the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the offender's extensive criminal record with prior violence and issues with self-control.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, expressed remorse, and efforts to address substance abuse.

A high-end reformatory sentence of 19 months in jail was imposed, with credit for 12 months of pre-sentencing custody, followed by 18 months of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition order.

The accused, Erik Johnson, was sentenced for a serious offence that caused life-threatening injuries to the victim.

The court considered the accused's long criminal record, including previous acts of violence, as an aggravating factor, noting issues with self-control and anger.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, expression of remorse, and efforts to address a substance abuse problem.

The court imposed a high-end reformatory sentence of 19 months in jail, with credit for 12 months of pre-sentencing custody, followed by 18 months of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition order.

The accused, a lawful gun owner and security company operator, was charged with two counts: careless transportation of a firearm on June 21, 2012 (Count 2) and careless storage of a firearm on June 27, 2012 (Count 3).

On Count 2, police observed a shotgun mounted visibly in the accused's unattended vehicle for over an hour, contrary to transportation regulations.

On Count 3, police found a shotgun stored in an unlocked bedroom with ammunition readily accessible in a side saddle attached to the gun and additional ammunition on a dresser.

The trial court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defence arguments regarding admissibility of photographs, reliability of officer testimony, proof that the item was a firearm, and proof that the vehicle was unattended.

The court also rejected the defence submission that a trigger lock alone satisfied storage requirements when ammunition remained readily accessible.

Sentencing following jury convictions for failing to provide the necessaries of life to an elderly family member suffering from severe dementia and multiple physical infirmities.

The court held that the offenders' prolonged neglect, breach of trust, concealment from health-care oversight, and the victim's extreme vulnerability made denunciation and deterrence paramount.

Applying the conditional sentence framework, the court found a community-based sentence would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offences or the offenders' responsibility.

Each offender received 12 months' imprisonment on each count concurrent, followed by two years' probation, plus DNA and non-communication orders.