Dr. Kristopher Cunningham

The applicant sought severance from her co-accused on the basis that a joint trial would result in significant prejudice and an unfair trial.

The applicant faces a charge of first degree murder while her co-accused faces second degree murder, despite the Crown alleging the same conduct of planning and deliberation against both.

The applicant argued that the differential charges would improperly lead the jury to conclude she is more culpable.

The Crown opposed severance, arguing that any prejudice would be eliminated through proper jury instructions.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding that the presumption of joint trial applies with particular force where co-accused are blaming each other, that the evidence is the same against both, and that jury instructions would adequately protect against any risk of prejudicial reasoning.

The appellants appealed their convictions for second-degree murder and manslaughter/robbery, respectively, stemming from a fatal assault.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for second-degree murder, ordering a new trial due to the improper admission and use of lay opinion evidence regarding the likelihood of death, and the trial judge's failure to conduct a voir dire or provide a limiting instruction.

The appeal for manslaughter was also allowed, and a new trial ordered, due to inadequate jury instructions on aiding and abetting.

The robbery conviction was upheld.

The court dismissed other grounds of appeal, including challenges to the pathologist's cross-examination limits and the delay argument under the Charter.

The Crown sought to admit utterances made by the accused, Najib Amin, during an undercover police operation in his first-degree murder trial.

The defence opposed admission, citing principles from R. v. Hart.

The court, applying the Hart factors as a framework, found the utterances admissible, concluding that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and that police conduct did not constitute an abuse of process.

The ruling specifically addressed four categories of utterances, finding them all admissible with one requiring a specific instruction to mitigate prejudice.

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in an unprovoked and fatal beating of a stranger.

Patrick Smith was convicted of second degree murder and assault, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 12-year parole ineligibility period.

Matthew Moreira was convicted of manslaughter and robbery, and was sentenced to a total of 13 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the offenders' backgrounds, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial for first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on motive, opportunity, and after-the-fact conduct.

The reviewing court applied the test for committal, assessing whether there was any evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.

The court found that the combined evidence of the accused's motive, presence in the building, and attempts to conceal his identity was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

Three accused were charged jointly with first degree murder in the beating death of Zaher Nourredine and robbery of Mitchell Conery.

The Crown relied on section 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code for murder and section 231(5)(e) for first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for manslaughter and robbery but opposed committal on first degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on first degree murder and robbery, applying the Sheppard test and finding that the evidence supported inferences of the requisite mens rea for murder and that the confinement of one victim (Conery) was a separate and distinct act from the murder of the other victim (Nourredine), satisfying the requirements of constructive first degree murder under the multiple victim scenario established in R. v. Russell.

A preliminary inquiry into the death of a four-year-old child.

The Crown sought committal on a charge of First Degree Murder.

The defendants, the child's parents, contested committal on this charge, conceding only to Second Degree Murder.

The court found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation based on the totality of circumstances, including evidence of chronic malnutrition, vicious beating, head trauma, aspiration of gastric contents, and post-offence conduct.

The court committed both defendants to trial on First Degree Murder and on the additional charge of Failure to Provide the Necessaries of Life.

In a pre‑trial evidentiary motion in a homicide prosecution, the accused sought to exclude several items of proposed Crown evidence on the basis that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

The court applied the common law balancing test governing admissibility and considered whether the evidence would undermine trial fairness or invite improper jury reasoning.

Several graphic autopsy photographs and circumstantial forensic evidence were permitted where they illustrated the nature of the injuries or were relevant to the location and manner of the assault.

Evidence consisting of a written message on a pacifier package was excluded from the Crown’s case due to minimal probative value and risk of prejudice, though it could be used in cross‑examination if the accused testified.

A baseball bat potentially linked to the killing and a partial fingerprint found at the scene were admitted, with concerns about evidentiary weight left for the jury.