Jean-Paul Palmentier

The accused was charged with the first-degree murder of his intimate partner, whom he shot three times.

The defence argued that the accused was in a drug-induced psychosis at the time of the shooting and lacked the specific intent for murder, seeking a verdict of manslaughter.

The Crown argued the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court admitted various hearsay statements and preposterous utterances to assess the accused's state of mind.

The court rejected the defence's expert psychiatric evidence, finding the accused had the intent to kill.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The accused, charged with impaired driving by drug, brought a pre-trial application seeking disclosure of the evaluating officer's 'rolling logs'.

The defence relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Stipo, which held that rolling logs were obviously relevant for disclosure.

The Crown argued that recent amendments to the Criminal Code prohibited such disclosure and that expert evidence demonstrated the logs were irrelevant.

The court heard expert testimony explaining that nonalignment between an officer's opinion and toxicology results does not indicate an unreliable evaluation due to various scientific factors.

The court concluded the rolling logs were not relevant to assessing the officer's evidence and that section 320.36 of the Criminal Code prohibits the disclosure of testing results related to other individuals.

The application for disclosure was dismissed.

The accused struck a person riding a push scooter with his motor vehicle, causing bodily harm.

He was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and driving 'over 80' causing bodily harm.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) due to alleged delays in taking breath samples and a failure to advise him of the potential for more serious charges.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding no breaches and concluding that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) regardless.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, as the Crown proved impairment, blood alcohol concentration over 80, and causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a house party.

The complainant consumed a significant amount of alcohol and marijuana, becoming highly intoxicated, and fell asleep in the master bedroom.

The accused allegedly had non-consensual intercourse with her while she was asleep or unconscious.

The accused claimed the intercourse was consensual and occurred later in his van.

The court found the complainant was incapable of consenting due to severe intoxication and that the accused sexually assaulted her in the bedroom.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a party.

The Crown alleged the accused engaged in non-consensual intercourse with the complainant while she was highly intoxicated and incapable of consenting.

The defence argued the sexual activity was consensual and occurred later in the accused's van.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and supported by toxicology and forensic evidence, while rejecting the accused's version of events due to significant inconsistencies.

The court concluded the complainant was incapable of consent due to intoxication and found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device.

He argued that the police officer provided faulty instructions on how to blow into the device and that he lacked the requisite mens rea to refuse.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably concluded the officer's instructions were clear and that the appellant intentionally failed to provide a suitable sample after six attempts, followed by an outright refusal on the seventh demand.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, and driving over 80 causing death and bodily harm, following a fatal intersection collision.

The court found that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol and that his blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit, rejecting defence arguments regarding the maintenance and operation of the breathalyzer instrument.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the charges relating to causing death and bodily harm, finding that the collision was caused by the other driver proceeding into the intersection when it was unsafe to do so.

The accused was convicted of the lesser included offence of impaired driving, with the over 80 charge stayed.