6 total
Summary judgment granted in child protection case involving unexplained infant injuries.
In a child protection summary judgment motion arising from severe unexplained injuries and the death of one infant sibling while in parental care, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
Applying the cautious child-protection summary judgment approach under Rule 16 and the Hryniak framework, the court found the medical evidence overwhelming, the alternative explanations speculative, and the risk to the surviving children incapable of mitigation.
The court concluded one child continued to be in need of protection on status review and the other was in need of protection on the protection application.
Final orders placed one child in kin custody, the other in extended society care with an adoption plan, and provided supervised parental and sibling access.
The Court of Appeal upheld a first-degree murder conviction, finding no air of reality to the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Jitesh Bhogal’s appeal from his conviction for first degree murder.
The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism in relation to the alleged sexual assault, and by mischaracterizing expert evidence on the cause of death.
The Court found that there was no air of reality to the extreme intoxication defence on the evidence, and that any misstatements of the expert evidence did not cause substantial prejudice.
The conviction was upheld.
A commercial truck driver was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm after failing to stop at a rural intersection.
The defendant, a commercial truck driver, was found guilty of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and bodily harm after failing to stop at a controlled intersection, resulting in the death of a 4-year-old child and serious injury to her mother.
The court found that the defendant's decision to maintain a high speed despite darkness, fog, fatigue, and distraction, and his failure to brake, constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent commercial driver.
Custody Accused acquitted
Dia Eddin Hanan was sentenced for manslaughter, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and discharge of a firearm with intent to wound, following a jury trial where he was acquitted of second-degree murder and attempted murder.
The court made specific factual findings for sentencing, including that Hanan brought the gun, initiated the shooting, and shot one victim in the back as he fled, causing permanent paralysis.
The global sentence imposed was 15 years imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 7 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.
The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the gravity of the offences, which resulted in one death and one lifetime paralysis.
The court imposed a suspended sentence for the disposal of a newborn's dead body.
The defendant pleaded guilty to disposing of a child's dead body with intent to conceal the birth, contrary to s. 243 of the Criminal Code.
The Crown and defence agreed that a custodial sentence was not appropriate.
The defence sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was in the defendant's best interests due to mental health issues and profound remorse.
The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation.
The court found that while a conditional discharge was in the defendant's best interests, it would be contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.
The court imposed a suspended sentence with a two-year probation order, including conditions for counselling and a victim surcharge.
The accused was committed to stand trial for second-degree murder based on circumstantial evidence of a deliberate stab wound to the victim's chest.
At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with second-degree murder of Dakoda Martin and aggravated assault of Andre Williams.
The defence conceded sufficient evidence for aggravated assault and manslaughter but argued there was no evidence of subjective foresight of death required for second-degree murder.
The court found that circumstantial evidence, including the location and nature of the fatal chest wound, the depth of penetration, and evidence of a deliberate stabbing to a vulnerable area while the victim lay on the ground, could reasonably support an inference that the accused knew the bodily harm would likely cause death.
The accused was committed to stand trial on second-degree murder and aggravated assault.