Geraldine Castle-Trudel

The accused was convicted of attempt murder, robbery with violence, forcible confinement, and weapons offences following a home invasion of a 101-year-old victim.

The accused bound the victim, placed a plastic bag over his head, and left him to suffocate.

The court found the accused's actions were part of a pattern of violent behaviour, noting his prior convictions for three similar suffocation murders.

Emphasizing the paramount need to protect the public, the court imposed a life sentence for the attempt murder and robbery charges, with a 10-year period of parole ineligibility.

During a trial for robbery, forcible confinement, and attempted murder, the Crown brought an application to cross-examine the accused on the underlying facts of his prior convictions for three suffocation murders.

The court had previously dismissed a similar fact application to admit this evidence.

However, after the accused indicated he would testify that he did not understand the deadliness of a plastic bag fastened over someone's head, the Crown sought to revisit the ruling.

The court granted the application, finding that the accused's anticipated testimony constituted a material change in circumstances and that the defence could not use the prior exclusionary ruling as a sword to mislead the jury.

The accused, charged with robbery, forcible confinement, and attempted murder of an elderly victim, brought a Corbett application to prevent the Crown from cross-examining him on his prior convictions for a triple murder.

The accused argued the evidence was highly prejudicial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused's credibility regarding his intent was the central issue in the trial, and the probative value of the prior convictions outweighed the potential prejudice, which could be addressed through a proper jury instruction.

The accused, charged with attempted murder, robbery, forcible confinement, and weapons offences, brought pre-trial motions to sit at the counsel table and to sever the firearms charges.

The court dismissed the seating application, finding the accused posed a security risk and that his presence in the prisoner's box would not cause undue prejudice.

The court also dismissed the severance application, concluding that the evidence was not complex, the counts were factually connected, and a separate trial would cause further delay and consume additional resources.

The Crown applied to introduce similar fact evidence of three murders (the "Garon murders") committed by the accused, Ian Bush, in 2007, at his trial for the attempted murder of Ernest Côté in 2014.

The Crown sought to use this evidence to prove intent, arguing striking similarities between the acts.

The defence conceded the probative value but argued overwhelming prejudice.

The court, applying the balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial effect, denied the Crown's application, finding that the highly inflammatory nature and gravity of the triple murders would overwhelmingly prejudice the jury, outweighing the probative value, and that a limiting instruction would be ineffective.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault after stabbing three people at a New Year's Eve party.

The 25-year-old offender had a lengthy criminal record including 13 prior assault convictions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the unprovoked nature of the attack and the severe impact on the victims.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of approximately 62 months, reduced to 38 months net after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Ian Bush, faced charges of three counts of first-degree murder.

This decision addresses several pre-trial applications: the Crown's application to admit hearsay statements and similar fact evidence, and the Defence's applications to exclude the accused's Tax Court of Canada (TCC) file and seized property.

The court granted the Crown's hearsay application, finding the statements necessary and reliable.

It dismissed the Crown's similar fact application, concluding that despite high similarity, the overwhelming prejudice from extensive media coverage of the similar act (attempted murder of a 101-year-old veteran) outweighed its probative value.

The court also dismissed the Defence's applications to exclude the TCC file and seized property, finding them relevant and admissible as evidence of motive and identity.

D.O. was convicted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a 12-year-old complainant.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and the unique circumstances of an Indigenous offender under *Gladue*.

Aggravating factors included the victim's age, the offender's position of trust, and the significant impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's positive pre-sentence report, strong family connections, and pro-social conduct while on release.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse, ultimately imposing a six-year penitentiary sentence, along with ancillary orders.

The Crown brought an application in a criminal harassment prosecution to admit evidence of the accused’s prior convictions as evidence of other discreditable conduct.

The prior incidents included a sexual assault conviction from 2001, a conviction for unlawfully being in a dwelling house in 2008, and convictions for break and enter, threats, and unlawful presence in a dwelling in 2011.

The court applied the governing principles for similar fact and other discreditable conduct evidence, including the requirement that probative value outweigh prejudicial effect.

The court held that the 2001 and 2011 events were relevant to the complainant’s reasonable fear and to the accused’s state of mind when sending numerous letters alleged to constitute criminal harassment.

Evidence relating to the 2008 events was excluded as insufficiently relevant.