Gilbert Labine

The accused applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code while charged with second-degree murder.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds, arguing detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The court considered Gladue factors relating to the accused’s Indigenous background, including residential school impacts, foster care history, and substance abuse issues, and reviewed a proposed surety plan involving the accused residing with his grandmother in a remote First Nation community.

Despite acknowledging the suitability of the proposed surety and the presence of Gladue factors, the court found that the accused’s extensive history of violent offences and repeated breaches of court orders created a substantial likelihood of further offending if released.

Detention was therefore ordered on the secondary ground.

The accused was charged with indecent assault on a female between 1979 and 1981.

After the accused testified, he brought a motion to adduce evidence of an alternate suspect.

The defence sought to introduce evidence that another individual, K.N., who resided in the same neighbourhood and had demonstrated a propensity for sexually assaulting young girls in similar circumstances, could have committed the offence.

The court granted the application, finding that there was a sufficient connection between the alternate suspect and the offence based on opportunity and propensity to give the defence an air of reality.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The accused drove to a hospital following an ambulance after his wife suffered a serious leg injury at their rural residence.

The accused raised the common-law defence of necessity.

The court found that the defence failed on all three elements: there was no imminent peril once paramedics took charge of the wife's care, reasonable alternatives were available to the accused, and the harm of impaired driving outweighed the potential benefit of the accused's presence at the hospital.

The court found the accused guilty.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code for a review of a detention order pending trial on multiple charges including armed robbery with a firearm, breach of recognizance, and sexual assault.

The applicant argued that material changes in circumstances justified release, including the commencement of trials, proposed new sureties, alleged harsh detention conditions, and asserted defences to the charges.

The court held that a bail review is not a de novo hearing and requires either an error in principle in the original decision or a material change in circumstances.

The proposed sureties were found unsuitable and did not constitute a material change, particularly given prior breaches and concerns about supervision and firearms at the proposed residence.

The court concluded that no material change in circumstances had been established and upheld the detention order.