Dr. Escott

The accused, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing the victim once in the chest during an argument while heavily intoxicated.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, arguing the offence was near-murder, while the defence proposed four to seven years.

Applying Gladue principles and weighing the accused's remorse, guilty plea, and history of trauma against the aggravating factors of intoxication and use of a weapon, the court imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant sought certiorari quashing his committal for trial on second degree murder following a preliminary inquiry, arguing there was no evidence of the requisite mens rea beyond manslaughter.

Applying the narrow jurisdictional scope of certiorari review, the court held that committal may only be disturbed where there is no evidence on an essential element of the offence.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the applicant's return with a knife, the force of the stabbing, the resulting fatal wound, and his conduct afterward, could reasonably support an inference of the mental element for murder.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of manslaughter by omission in relation to the death of his foster child: one by criminal negligence and one by failing to provide the necessaries of life.

The jury convicted him of criminal negligence but acquitted him of failing to provide the necessaries of life.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the verdicts inconsistent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal and allowed the accused's cross-appeal, entering an acquittal on the criminal negligence count.

The Court held that the verdicts were inconsistent because both counts relied on the exact same failure to perform the exact same duty, and criminal negligence requires a higher degree of fault.