Ms. Chin

During a trial for second-degree murder, the defence sought to have the jury instructed to consider the post-event actions of paramedics and hospital staff when assessing the accused's intent.

The defence argued that these post-offence consequences were relevant to the common sense inference of intent, relying on R. v. Pittman and R. v. Boone.

The Superior Court of Justice rejected this request, holding that third-party post-offence conduct has no bearing on the accused's subjective intent at the time the firearm was discharged.

The court concluded that the common sense inference must be based on the natural and probable consequences of the act itself, not subsequent medical interventions.

The accused was charged with 15 offences arising from an incident on February 5, 2018, where he allegedly confronted his former spouse at her home with a loaded sawed-off shotgun, threatened to kill her and two men, and forcibly confined her.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the credible testimony of the complainant, corroborated by independent witness evidence, forensic firearms analysis, and circumstantial evidence including a shotgun shell recovered from the scene.

The accused's defence was that he possessed only a pellet gun and had no knowledge of the shotgun or ammunition.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and the accused's testimony to be illogical, internally inconsistent, and contradicted by external evidence.

The court convicted on all counts.

The plaintiffs appealed a jury award of $750 in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury by failing to instruct them that the defendant bears the onus of proving the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

The Divisional Court found that the omission was a significant error on a critical legal issue that left the jury with a misapprehension of the applicable legal principles.

Concluding that the error caused a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.