Frank Otto Michael Schwalm

Thomas Chan was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault after fatally stabbing his father and gravely injuring his father's partner during a drug-induced psychotic episode from magic mushrooms.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, balancing the high gravity of the offences with the offender's diminished moral blameworthiness due to unforeseeable psychosis and his exemplary character.

The judge imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, reduced by 1.5 years for pre-trial custody (including enhanced credit for solitary confinement and restrictive bail conditions), resulting in a net sentence of 3.5 years.

The defendant, convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault after a drug-induced psychotic episode, applied post-conviction but pre-sentencing to re-open his constitutional challenge to s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that a recent decision by a coordinate judge (R. v. McCaw), which held that a prior declaration of unconstitutionality was binding, constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Lessard test requires exceptional circumstances to re-open a case.

The court disagreed with the reasoning in McCaw, affirming that the horizontal convention of precedent applies to constitutional declarations and that the court was not bound by the prior decision striking down s. 33.1.

Thomas Chan, while in a drug-induced psychotic state after consuming magic mushrooms, fatally stabbed his father and gravely wounded his father's partner.

He was charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault, with the Crown seeking convictions for manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The defence argued for a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, asserting that a pre-existing mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) contributed to the psychosis, making him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The court applied a holistic approach, considering internal cause, continuing danger, and policy factors, and concluded that the psychosis was primarily caused by self-induced intoxication, not the MTBI as a "disease of the mind" for the purposes of s. 16.

Consequently, Chan was found guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The accused, Stephen Douglas Shier, pleaded guilty to counselling the commission of murder not committed after attempting to hire a police officer, posing as a hit man, to kill his ex-partner.

The offence was motivated by financial distress and anger over monthly support payments following an acrimonious domestic relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the calculated nature of the crime, the domestic context, and the opportunity for sober second thought, alongside mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, lack of criminal record, strong community support, and low risk of future violence.

The court imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of five years, five months, and eighteen days, along with ancillary orders.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of three charges against the respondent, Kenneth Jones, including failing to comply with a s. 161 order and two counts of failing to comply with probation.

The s. 161 order prohibited Jones from attending a "community centre." Jones attended the Evinrude Centre, which he knew was a community centre, to hear the Prime Minister speak.

The trial judge dismissed the charges, finding that Jones might not have reasonably known he could not attend in those circumstances, relying on R. v. Perron.

The Superior Court found the trial judge erred in law by misinterpreting Perron and importing an additional mens rea element not warranted for a s. 161 breach where the location's nature was not in dispute.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered, partly due to an unaddressed defence regarding an exception in the s. 161 order and public interest considerations.

The accused, charged with murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault after stabbing his father and his father's partner while hallucinating on magic mushrooms, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code.

Section 33.1 precludes the defence of self-induced intoxication for general intent offences involving violence.

The court found that while s. 33.1 violates the accused's rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter by substituting the intent to become intoxicated for the fault and voluntariness elements of the offences, the provision is saved under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court held that protecting victims, particularly women and children, from intoxicated violence and ensuring offender accountability are pressing and substantial objectives that justify the Charter infringements.

The Crown brought an application under s. 117.05 of the Criminal Code seeking forfeiture of a firearm seized from the respondent and a five-year weapons prohibition order.

The respondent had been arrested following an incident in which a vehicle was shot at a remote campsite.

The respondent's statement to police was excluded at his criminal trial, resulting in dismissal of weapons charges.

The court found that reasonable grounds existed to believe the respondent lacked the responsibility and discipline required of gun owners, and ordered forfeiture of the firearm.

However, the court declined to impose a weapons prohibition order, citing the Crown's delay in bringing the application, the respondent's effective prohibition since the seizure, and the absence of evidence of a pattern of troubling behaviour.

The accused was tried on multiple criminal charges arising from a domestic relationship breakdown, including mischief (cell phone destruction), assault, threatening to kill, unlawful confinement, and forcible entry.

The trial turned primarily on credibility assessments of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused guilty of unlawful confinement on September 18, 2014, but acquitted him on all other counts due to credibility concerns regarding the complainant's testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence, despite finding some incidents likely occurred.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury to the victim, resulting in bilateral jaw fractures requiring surgical intervention.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years probation with conditions including restitution, no-contact orders, and a weapons prohibition.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles, noting the serious nature of the assault, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused's significant criminal history despite no prior convictions for violence.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery contrary to s. 343(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether a conditional sentence was available given that the offence involved the use of violence.

The Crown argued the offence constituted a serious personal injury offence, precluding a conditional sentence.

The court found that the accused's intentional application of force during the robbery—grabbing the deposit bag and causing both men to fall to the ground—met the definition of a serious personal injury offence under s. 752.

Accordingly, a conditional sentence was not available.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of nine months followed by two years probation, with credit for 36 days of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further sentence of seven months and 24 days.