E. Willschick

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.

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 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.

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.

The Crown sought to admit four statements from a deceased witness (J.T.) at a preliminary hearing under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the "prima facie air of reliability" test to determine admissibility.

It found the portions of J.T.'s statements related to the kidnapping credible and trustworthy due to corroborating evidence, despite procedural deficiencies in statement-taking.

However, the portions related to drug possession and the identification of "Z" were deemed unreliable and were excised, as J.T.'s account was inconsistent and self-serving regarding her involvement with drugs.

The court affirmed its power to excise unreliable portions of a statement.

The defendant was found guilty after trial of possessing an unloaded restricted firearm in a motor vehicle and careless storage of the firearm and ammunition.

The prosecution sought a total of nine months jail (six months for possession counts concurrent, three months for careless storage consecutive), plus probation.

The defendant sought a six-month concurrent conditional sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of nine months imprisonment (six months concurrent for possession offences, three months consecutive for careless storage of ammunition) and two years probation, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition for restricted/prohibited firearms and a 10-year prohibition for all other firearms.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the dangerous nature and unlawful provenance of the firearm, rejecting a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors and the global pandemic.

Richard Aguilar was found guilty after trial for three child-luring related offences.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The Crown sought a global custodial sentence of 2 years less a day, while the Defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months of custody, along with probation and ancillary orders, balancing sentencing objectives, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial sentences.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine into Canada on May 22, 2017, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown alleged that the accused knowingly imported 3,522 grams of liquid cocaine (85% purity) valued between $134,716 and $329,307 in a suitcase upon returning from Brazil.

The accused testified that she was unaware of the cocaine and that her boyfriend may have secretly placed it in her suitcase without her knowledge.

The court rejected the accused's credibility and found that the circumstantial evidence, including the value of the drug, the weight and condition of the suitcase, the accused's handling of the luggage, and the implausibility of the "unwilling dupe" narrative, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the cocaine.

The court convicted the accused.

The defendant was charged with seven firearm-related offences.

The Crown withdrew one count to proceed summarily on six remaining charges under the Criminal Code.

The defendant admitted to handling a firearm and ammunition found in his former girlfriend's vehicle but claimed he discovered them inadvertently in the glove compartment while searching for his lighter.

The Crown alleged the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm and stored it carelessly in the vehicle.

The court found the defendant's explanation incredible and rejected his testimony as contrived.

The court concluded the defendant had knowingly possessed the firearm and stored it in the vehicle while he was inside a bar.

The defendant was convicted of careless storage of a firearm, careless storage of ammunition, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, and possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm in a motor vehicle.

The defendant was acquitted of possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and possession of a firearm with readily accessible ammunition.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 care or control following a 911 call reporting an erratically driven black BMW on Highway 401.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(a).

The court found no detention occurred during the initial police encounter, no Charter breaches, and that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unreliable and incredible, finding he was the driver of the vehicle based on witness observations, admissions, and circumstantial evidence.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The offenders, Romario Brissett and Devar Francis, were convicted by a jury of living off the avails of juvenile prostitution and exercising control over a minor for prostitution.

The Crown sought sentences of 2.5 years concurrent with 5 years for both.

The offenders sought 5 months consecutive or time served.

The court rejected the application of new mandatory minimums not in effect at the time of the offence and declined to apply the reasoning from R. v. Jackson regarding systemic racism for African-Canadian offenders due to lack of direct connection to the offenders' circumstances.

The court also rejected the argument for reduced sentences based on immigration consequences, finding the proposed sentences disproportionate.

Romario Brissett was sentenced to four years' incarceration, and Devar Francis was sentenced to three years' incarceration, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

This is a judicial interim release hearing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for an 18-year-old accused charged with 14 counts including unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, careless storage of firearms and ammunition, possession contrary to a prohibition order, and unlawful possession of explosives.

The accused had recently pleaded guilty to robbery and weapons offences and was placed on probation and a weapons prohibition order, but was arrested two weeks later with a homemade firearm, ammunition, and related materials in his bedroom.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court granted bail with strict conditions, finding that the accused met his onus on both grounds, emphasizing the untested nature of the firearm, the accused's demonstrated rehabilitation efforts while in custody, and the strict supervision plan proposed by his sureties.