Gary Barnes

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter after luring the victim to an apartment over a drug debt.

The offender and two young persons assaulted and forcibly confined the victim, who subsequently fell to his death from a balcony while attempting to escape.

The court weighed the offender's high moral blameworthiness, his instigation of the assault, and his lack of genuine remorse against his family support and rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Liban Gure and Daniel Jean-Charles, were charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault following the death of an 18-year-old who fell from a 16th-floor balcony.

The Crown alleged the victim was beaten over a drug debt and fled to the balcony in fear for his life.

The court found that Gure initiated the assault and participated in the confinement and beating that caused the victim's fatal flight, rendering him guilty of manslaughter as a co-principal.

However, due to the unreliability of the Crown's key witnesses, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding Jean-Charles's participation and acquitted him.

T.F.D., a young person, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under s. 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), arguing that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted and a youth sentence would be insufficient for accountability.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that T.F.D.'s actions, though horrendous, were those of an impulsive, immature, and troubled adolescent whose judgment was further impaired by substance use, thus the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted.

The court determined that the maximum youth sentence of 7 years, including 4 years of intensive rehabilitative custody and 3 years of conditional supervision under an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) Order, was appropriate and sufficient for accountability and public protection through rehabilitation, especially given T.F.D.'s acceptance into the IRCS Program.

The applicants, charged with manslaughter, brought an O'Connor application seeking the production of mental health and medical records of a key Crown eyewitness.

The witness suffered from cognitive deficiencies and mental illnesses, which the applicants argued affected her reliability and credibility.

The court found that the applicants met the 'likely relevance' threshold at the first stage of the O'Connor regime, relying on evidence from the preliminary inquiry regarding the witness's mental health challenges.

The court ordered the production of specific medical and psychiatric records to the court for review.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence in a pre-trial motion that the accused failed to report an altercation to the police, arguing it was relevant to rebut their anticipated claim of self-defence.

The accused argued that admitting such evidence would violate their common law and constitutional right to silence, which arises the moment events occur that could give rise to a criminal charge.

The court agreed with the accused, holding that the right to silence precedes any interaction with police and that the accused, being both suspects and victims, were entitled to remain silent.

The Crown's motion to lead the evidence was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of driving over 80 mg of alcohol.

The trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the common sense inference against bolus drinking and the practical evidentiary burden on the respondent when breath samples were taken more than two hours after the alleged offence, despite finding no evidence of bolus drinking.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial.

The accused, a Royal Canadian Mint employee of seven years, was convicted after trial of stealing gold from the Mint, conveying gold out of the Mint, possessing property obtained by crime, money laundering, and breach of public trust.

Over approximately five months, the accused stole 22 gold pucks by exploiting security gaps, including camera blind spots and weaknesses in metal detection systems.

He sold 18 pucks to a gold buyer for $130,206.19 and retained four pucks in a safety deposit box.

The stolen gold had a market value between $206,813.93 and $236,358.77.

The accused transferred proceeds to purchase property in Jamaica and a boat in the United States, and made cash withdrawals.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay convictions for theft and possession of property obtained by crime as they shared the same factual and legal nexus with the conveying gold conviction.

The court sentenced the accused to 30 months imprisonment concurrent on three counts, imposed a restitution order of $191,040.96, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $190,000 with a 30-month consecutive imprisonment term if unpaid, ordered DNA analysis and registration, and imposed a victim fine surcharge of $600.

The defendant, an Operator-Refinery at the Royal Canadian Mint, was charged with theft of gold, conveying gold out of the Mint, possession of property obtained by crime, laundering proceeds of crime, and breach of trust by a public official.

The Crown's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The defendant stole gold pucks from the Mint by secreting them on his person and removing them through security checkpoints.

He sold 18 of the stolen pucks to Ottawa Gold Buyers for approximately $138,000 and used the proceeds to fund the purchase of a house in Jamaica and a boat in Florida.

The court found the defendant guilty on all five counts.

The three accused, Ashton Larmond, Carlos Larmond, and Suliman Mohamed, pleaded guilty to various terrorism-related offences and other charges.

Ashton Larmond pleaded guilty to knowingly instructing persons to enhance terrorist activity, Carlos Larmond to attempting to leave Canada for terrorist activity, and Suliman Mohamed to conspiring to enhance a terrorist group's ability.

The Larmond brothers also pleaded guilty to offences committed in custody, including threats to correctional officers and inmates, and unlawful communication.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions, emphasizing the gravity of "home grown" terrorism and the importance of denunciation and deterrence.

The court issued a decision on the admissibility of electronic documents during a criminal trial.

The Crown sought to admit three distinct packages of electronic documents: Google Hangout conversations, Gmail exchanges, and additional Google Hangout chats.

The defence did not pursue arguments against admissibility.

The court admitted all three packages of documents as exhibits after conducting a blended admissibility voir dire.

The decision addresses the requirements for authenticating electronic documents under the Canada Evidence Act and establishes the evidentiary standards for proving authenticity and compliance with the best evidence rule for electronic documents.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change a child support order.

The respondent father sought to reduce his monthly child support obligation based on a decrease in income.

The parties settled the motion on March 31, 2015, with the father agreeing to maintain the original support amount until the child completed secondary school, while the mother abandoned her claim for past special expenses.

The court determined that the mother achieved greater success and awarded her partial costs of $3,000, finding divided success but favoring the applicant's position.