Gilbert L. Labine

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after stabbing the victim during a street confrontation.

The victim had previously broken into the accused's home and stolen electronics.

Both men were armed with knives and under the influence of fentanyl during the altercation.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence sought 2 years less a day.

The court determined the fit sentence to be 7 years.

After applying a Summers credit of 5.1 years for pre-sentence custody and a Duncan credit of 0.9 years for harsh pre-trial custody conditions including lockdowns and triple bunking, the net sentence imposed was 365 days in custody followed by 3 years of probation.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences including arson and assault with a weapon.

The accused had been detained at a secure forensic unit and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, alcohol use disorder, and social anxiety disorder.

The hospital team reported that the accused had a positive year with no aggressive behaviours, full compliance with medication, and negative drug screens.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded that a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, adopting the joint recommendation of the parties.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for abduction, had been subject to a conditional discharge.

The hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing she no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Crown opposed.

A majority of the Board found that the accused remained a significant threat due to her history of violence, antisocial personality disorder, and ongoing use of synthetic cannabinoids.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with reduced reporting requirements.

Two members dissented, finding the accused was entitled to an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to make an initial disposition for an accused found unfit to stand trial on multiple sexual offences.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and a moderate intellectual disability.

Based on expert evidence and a joint submission, the Board concluded the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot understand the nature or consequences of the proceedings or meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The Board ordered the accused detained at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Hospital.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences committed against his partner while experiencing active symptoms of schizophrenia.

At his annual Review Board hearing, the hospital and the Crown submitted that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but recommended amending his detention order to allow community living anywhere in Northwestern Ontario.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that, despite his recent progress and medication compliance, the accused remains a significant threat due to his history of relapses and non-compliance.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the requested amendment to his community living privileges.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, who has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had made some progress but continued to experience psychotic symptoms and engage in substance use.

All parties jointly recommended the continuation of the detention order.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order at the hospital is necessary and appropriate.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for mischief, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of her disposition.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of her Detention Order, arguing she remained a significant threat to public safety due to her severe, treatment-refractory psychotic disorder, substance use, and history of unauthorized leaves.

The accused agreed with the finding and disposition, seeking only an amendment to the community living clause.

Applying the Winko test, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the requested amendment, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The court considered sentencing for G.M. following guilty pleas to two counts of sexual assault against his stepchildren.

The court rejected a joint submission for a four-year sentence, finding it inadequate given the gravity, duration, and breach of trust involved in the offences.

The decision reviews relevant case law and sentencing principles for sexual offences against children, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court provided G.M. the opportunity to apply to withdraw his guilty plea.

The accused, Daniel Blais, was charged with second degree murder in the death of Cody Bulmer but pled guilty to manslaughter.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentencing range of five to eight years.

The court found the offence to be an "aggravated" manslaughter, accepting the Crown's position and imposing an eight-year sentence, less credit for pre-sentence custody and institutional lockdown (Duncan credit).

The decision reviews the facts, the impact on the victim's family, the offender's background, and relevant case law, and discusses aggravating and mitigating factors.

This case involved Derek Kenney, who was charged with four counts of sexual assault against four adult complainants.

The accused denied the allegations, asserting consensual sexual activity with one complainant and no sexual activity with the others.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), found the complainants' evidence to be compelling and credible, rejecting the defence's arguments of collusion or influence from social media.

The court found the accused guilty on all four counts, concluding that the abrupt termination of relationships and the detailed, consistent accounts of the complainants, including allegations of drugging and coercive behaviour, were more believable than the accused's denials.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Z.M.L. for manslaughter under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The court found Z.M.L. guilty as a joint principal in a violent group assault that caused the death of William Wapoose.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year custody and supervision order, with a significant custodial component in an adult facility.

The defence argued for a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order (DCSO), asserting Z.M.L.'s involvement did not constitute serious bodily harm and that time on bail was sufficient.

The court rejected the DCSO, finding Z.M.L.'s actions caused serious bodily harm, and imposed a three-year custody and supervision order, consisting of eighteen months in an adult facility (with credit for time served) followed by eighteen months of conditional supervision.

The court emphasized accountability, rehabilitation, and denunciation, while acknowledging the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness for youth.

Johnathon McKay pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the prolonged and brutal beating death of Nazareth Kwandibens.

The court accepted a joint submission for an 8-year incarceration sentence, with credit for time served.

The decision considered the accused's Indigenous background and the principles of Gladue and Ipeelee, acknowledging systemic and background factors affecting his responsibility, alongside aggravating factors like the violence and victim impact, and mitigating factors like remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The accused was tried for second-degree murder after stabbing her son while under the influence of crack cocaine.

The defence sought to have the defence of non-mental disorder automatism left with the jury, arguing the accused was in a state of drug-induced psychosis.

The trial judge ruled there was no air of reality to the defence, as the defence's own psychiatric expert testified the accused likely had control over her actions and understood their lethality.

The defence was not put to the jury, and the accused was convicted.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application seeking a declaration that the provisions of Bill C-75 eliminating peremptory challenges during jury selection apply prospectively only.

The Crown opposed, arguing for retrospective application.

The court reviewed recent coordinate decisions from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which consistently held that the elimination of peremptory challenges is a procedural matter and operates retrospectively.

Finding no reason to depart from these decisions, the court dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant died prior to trial, and her evidence from the preliminary inquiry was admitted under s. 715 of the Criminal Code.

The core issue was whether the accused stopped sexual intercourse when the complainant withdrew her consent.

Applying the W.(D.) test for credibility, the court rejected the accused's evidence and accepted the complainant's version of events.

The accused was found guilty.

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.