G. Labine

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.