Elliott Willschick

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen motor vehicle, flight from police, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

After fleeing a traffic stop in a stolen vehicle and crashing, the offender fled on foot and a loaded handgun was found nearby.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence less pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought a sentence of time served (749 days credited as 1124 days).

The court accepted the defence position, imposing a sentence of time served plus one day, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture order.

The offender was found guilty of arson, assault with a weapon, and making an explosive device after deliberately burning down his landlord's home and setting a secondary fire at a neighbouring property.

The fires caused catastrophic damage, completely destroying the landlord's home and causing over $200,000 in damage to the neighbour's property.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of time served (629 days credit) plus one day, three years of probation, and over $330,000 in restitution, noting the offender's mental health issues, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and the significant restitution order as mitigating factors.

The court sentenced Travendous Beals after guilty pleas to possession of fentanyl, unlawful possession of a firearm while prohibited, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, Beals’ personal background, and the application of sentencing principles, including the impact of systemic anti-Black racism (Morris factors) and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan factors).

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, reduced by pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders.

The court considered the Crown's application to admit evidence of the accused's other discreditable conduct in a double murder trial.

The Crown sought to introduce statements made by the accused in recorded intercepts and threatening text messages sent weeks after the murders.

The court reviewed the legal principles governing the admissibility of similar fact and propensity evidence, ultimately finding that the probative value of the proposed evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The application to admit the evidence was dismissed.

The court considered a mid-trial application by the Crown under section 652 of the Criminal Code for a jury view of the scene of a double homicide.

The application was dismissed.

The court found that the Crown had not established a "very real and demonstrable advantage" to the jury’s understanding of the evidence that would result from a view, and that the risk of confusion and logistical hurdles outweighed any potential benefit.

The court relied on leading authorities, including R. v. Johnson and R. v. Golov, and noted that photographs and video evidence already provided the jury with sufficient information.

The Crown brought a second application under section 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine its own witness, Justina Murray, during re-examination, following material inconsistencies between her trial evidence and prior recorded statements.

The defence opposed, arguing the Crown was improperly expanding its application and that the issues should have been anticipated in chief.

The court held that the inconsistencies arose only during cross-examination and permitted the Crown to cross-examine on these points in re-examination, finding it was within the scope of proper re-examination and in the interests of justice.

This decision concerns the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements by a key Crown witness, Justina Murray, in the trial of Gregory Anthony Beasley for two counts of first-degree murder.

The Crown sought to admit Ms. Murray’s video-recorded out-of-court statements for their truth, as her trial evidence was inconsistent and she did not adopt material aspects of her prior statements.

The court analyzes the necessity and reliability requirements for admitting such hearsay under the principled exception, referencing leading authorities including R. v. K.G.B. and R. v. Khelawon.

The court finds the statements admissible, concluding that the procedural safeguards (including video recording, opportunity for cross-examination, and, in one case, an oath) were sufficient to ensure reliability, and that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

This decision concerns a Crown application under section 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine its own witness, Justina Murray, in a double murder trial.

The court found that Ms. Murray’s trial evidence was inconsistent with her prior recorded statements and permitted the Crown to cross-examine her.

The ruling addresses the legal principles governing such applications, the existence of inconsistencies, the Crown’s purpose in calling the witness, and the probative value of the prior statements.

The decision concerns a defence motion to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased, Carl Delphin and Nico Soubliere, to James Brooks, suggesting an intention to rob another drug dealer for Percocets.

The court found the statements admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, holding that the statements were substantively reliable and relevant to the issue of the identity of the shooter.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, and that the circumstances in which the statements were made supported their reliability.

The court considered the Crown's application to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased, Carl Delphin, to his girlfriend, Ruth Anne Villeneuve, in a double homicide prosecution.

The Crown sought to admit these statements as evidence of Delphin’s intention to act as “backup” for Nico Soubliere, who was meeting with the accused.

The court reviewed the state of mind exception and the principled exception to the hearsay rule, ultimately finding that the statements were not sufficiently reliable and were made under circumstances of suspicion.

The application to admit the statements was denied.

The accused, Gregory Beasley, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder.

The defence brought a motion seeking direction to cross-examine the officer-in-charge regarding investigative hearsay about other individuals and organized crime figures who may have had motives to harm the victims.

The defence conceded that this evidence did not meet the strict test for third-party suspect admissibility due to a lack of evidence regarding opportunity.

Justice Lacelle dismissed the motion, holding that the proposed evidence was irrelevant and that its potential prejudice, including distracting the jury and opening the door to the accused's own organized crime links, far outweighed its probative value.

This decision addresses the voluntariness of a police statement by the accused, Gregory Beasley, in a double homicide prosecution.

The court considered whether the police's provision of alcohol to the accused during a custodial interview rendered the statement involuntary or created oppressive circumstances.

After reviewing the evidence and legal principles, the court found that the statement was voluntary and admissible, as the accused had an operating mind, was not subject to threats or inducements, and the provision of alcohol did not amount to oppression or police trickery under the law.

The court sentenced Dwaine Trapper Graham to nine years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, following a joint submission by Crown and defence.

Graham fatally stabbed Noran Leslie-Durrant with a broken golf club during an altercation.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, Graham’s background, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The sentence was reduced by credit for pre-trial custody and ordered to run concurrently with another sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it within the appropriate range for such offences.

The three accused, Anand Nath, Suliman Raza, and Naqash Abbasi, were found guilty of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a firearm following a shooting at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the offense constituted a terrorism offense, finding that while the motive clause (political, religious, or ideological purpose) was met, the intention clause (to intimidate the public) was not.

The court emphasized the aggravating factors, including the planned and deliberate nature of the crimes, the group plan, the gratuitous violence against bystanders, and the profound impact on victims.

The judge imposed concurrent life sentences for all counts for each offender, along with ancillary orders.

Kristopher Matthews pleaded guilty to kidnapping and administering a stupefying drug.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 23-28 years and a s. 743.6 order for delayed parole eligibility.

Defence sought 10-13 years global and opposed the s. 743.6 order.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years (13 years for kidnapping, 2 years consecutive for administering the drug), giving credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied the s. 743.6 order, finding that the danger presented by the offender did not warrant such an exceptional measure.

The accused, Jean Edy Donacien, was charged with multiple offences including human trafficking, recruiting/harbouring a person providing sexual services, receiving material benefit from sexual services, two counts of assault causing bodily harm, assault, and unlawful confinement.

The Crown alleged that the accused controlled the complainant, C.C., a sex trade worker, received all her earnings, and engaged in assaultive behaviour.

The defence challenged C.C.'s credibility and argued the financial arrangement was a legitimate living arrangement.

The court found C.C.'s testimony largely credible, corroborated by other evidence.

The accused was found guilty on most counts, with one count of assault causing bodily harm reduced to the lesser included offence of assault.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving historical allegations of sexual assault and incest against a child family member, the prosecution relied solely on the complainant's testimony.

The court reviewed the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the approach to credibility where an adult testifies about childhood events, and the principle that corroboration is not legally required.

The court found the complainant's evidence generic, lacking in detail and temporal specificity, and further found significant reliability and credibility concerns arising from her memory gaps, evasiveness, and contradiction regarding alleged phone evidence.

Those concerns left the court unable to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendants brought applications for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay of up to 44 months from arrest to the anticipated completion of their five-week trial.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the delay, while exceeding the presumptive 30-month Jordan ceiling, was justified by exceptional circumstances.

These circumstances included the particular complexity of the multi-accused kidnapping case, which involved extensive investigation, disclosure, and coordination of multiple counsel, and the systemic disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which profoundly impacted court operations and created significant backlogs.

The court concluded that the Crown and the justice system took all reasonable steps to mitigate delay, and the time taken would not violate the applicants' constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The accused, Beum Kim, was convicted after a judge-alone trial of aggravated assault, sexual assault with a weapon, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, threatening death, extortion, and fraud under $5,000.

The offences involved the torture and sexual assault of the complainant over 33 hours.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the Defence proposed a 4-year global sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the brutality of the acts and reoffending while on bail, and mitigating factors, such as pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, less 6 months for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit, resulting in 8.5 years further custody.

Ancillary orders included a communication prohibition, SOIRA registration for 20 years, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defendant, R.P., was found guilty of four offences against a six-year-old child in her care: assault causing bodily harm (pelvic/scrotum injuries from heated implement), assault with a weapon (stick) and assault (hand) (buttocks injuries), and assault with a weapon (belt) (back injuries).

The Crown sought a four-year jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of less than two years.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the severity and nature of the abuse, which involved multiple incidents, weapons, and a significant breach of trust, exacerbated by the victim's isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' imprisonment, composed of consecutive and concurrent terms for the various offences, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.