Dr. Escott

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application to admit three videos and the victim's criminal record to support a self-defence claim.

The defence argued this evidence would demonstrate the victim's violent disposition and the reasonableness of the accused's apprehension of violence.

The Crown conceded the admissibility of two videos but opposed the third and the criminal record.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence highly probative of the victim's propensity for violence and the risk of harm perceived by the accused, concluding that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

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.

This case concerns the trial of David Hui and Musab Saboon for the first-degree murder and kidnapping of Lee Chiodo.

The victim's body was found shot in the head on Mission Island.

The Crown's case heavily relied on the testimony of Marshall Hardy-Fox, an accomplice whose murder charge was withdrawn after he implicated the accused.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning to Hardy-Fox's evidence, scrutinizing it carefully but ultimately finding it credible due to corroborating independent evidence, including Facebook messages, surveillance videos, and forensic findings.

The court found that the kidnapping "crystallized" with threats and a gun in the car, and that the murder was both constructive (arising from the kidnapping/unlawful confinement) and planned and deliberate.

Both accused were found guilty of kidnapping and first-degree murder.

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.