Judy Chin

The accused was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Antoine Bouchard on January 23, 2022, in Thunder Bay.

The accused admitted to shooting the victim but claimed self-defence, asserting that the victim and two others were attempting to rob him while armed.

The Crown presented forensic evidence, including post-mortem examination findings and ballistics analysis.

Key witnesses included the alleged robbers and the accused.

The court found that the accused reasonably believed force was imminent, acted for the purpose of self-defence, and that his response was proportional to the threat faced.

The accused was acquitted of second-degree murder.

The court considered whether Constable Sean O’Rourke’s use of his firearm, which resulted in the death of Nicholas Grieves during an attempted arrest, constituted the unlawful act of careless use of a firearm and thus supported a conviction for manslaughter.

After a detailed review of the evidence, including expert testimony and the circumstances of the incident, the court found that O’Rourke’s actions were reasonable and consistent with police training and policy.

The discharge of the firearm was found to be a tragic accident, not a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The charge of manslaughter was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment after shooting an intruder outside his home.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in leaving manslaughter with the jury, and challenged the jury instructions on self-defence and out-of-court statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding an air of reality to manslaughter based on the appellant's testimony and upholding the jury instructions.

On the sentence appeal, fresh evidence revealed the trial judge misspoke and intended to impose a six-year sentence.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in failing to correct his mistake immediately, and sentenced the appellant afresh to six years' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after a .22 calibre rifle was discharged four times in a hospital parking lot, striking the tires of three parked vehicles.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance tracking the accused's vehicle and expert forensic evidence matching the spent casings to a rifle found in the accused's possession upon arrest.

The court found the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

The accused was found guilty of careless use of a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, while the charge of discharging a firearm with recklessness was adjourned to address an error in the indictment.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter after fatally shooting a trespasser who was breaking into his truck in the middle of the night.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 4 years.

The court assessed the offender's moral blameworthiness, noting the use of a loaded firearm with an after-market turkey choke, but also considering the offender's lack of criminal record, strong community support, and genuine remorse.

The court rejected the defence's characterization of the incident as 'near self-defence' but acknowledged the offender's perceived lack of alternatives.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences and aggravated assault following a drive-by shooting that injured a victim.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including wiretap intercepts, video surveillance, and testimony from individuals involved in the local drug trade.

The court found the civilian witnesses credible despite their criminal backgrounds and drug use, and concluded that the accused had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit the offences.

The accused was found guilty on all six counts.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to wound following an armed robbery of a cellular wireless store where the owner was shot in the neck.

The accused pleaded guilty to several related charges but contested the intent required for the remaining two charges, claiming the handgun discharged accidentally.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible but found reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill, resulting in an acquittal for attempted murder.

However, the court found the accused guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to wound, concluding that intentionally firing a loaded handgun at the victim's upper body from close range proved the requisite intent.

A preliminary inquiry into charges of second degree murder and careless use of a firearm arising from the death of Eric Osawe during a dynamic police entry.

The Crown alleged that the accused officer deliberately fired his MP5 submachine gun during a struggle with the deceased.

The court found no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer intentional discharge, and further found that the officer's conduct was consistent with professional standards.

The accused was discharged on all counts.

In a joint first‑degree murder trial arising from a gang‑related shooting, the court considered whether the accused had put his character in issue through testimony denying gang affiliation and explaining incriminating letters written while in custody.

The court held that the accused’s narrative about his upbringing and alleged reluctance to join a gang implicitly asserted good character and therefore opened the door to cross‑examination on prior criminal conduct and gang‑related activity.

The court also ruled that certain previously redacted portions of letters written by the accused from custody could be admitted after reconsideration of a pre‑trial ruling, because the accused’s testimony materially altered the probative value of the evidence and risked misleading the jury.

The court concluded that the probative value of the additional passages outweighed their prejudicial effect and that severance of the co‑accused was not required.