G. Leslie

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, interfering with a dead body, and possession of child pornography.

The manslaughter and interference charges stemmed from a 1978 cold case where the accused shot an intruder in his home and, with his father's help, disposed of the body.

The accused confessed to the police in 2012.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm and the 34-year concealment, against mitigating factors such as the accused's confession and guilty plea.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8.5 years, reduced to 27 months after crediting pre-sentence custody.

Four members of the Five Point Generals street gang were convicted of various offences including trafficking in cocaine and marihuana for the benefit of a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic, and firearms offences.

The court considered the application of the Kienapple rule and found it did not preclude multiple convictions for the conspiracy and substantive trafficking offences.

The court sentenced the offenders to total terms ranging from 5.5 to 9 years imprisonment, after accounting for pre-sentence custody and the principle of totality.

During a jury trial involving alleged drug trafficking and criminal organization offences, the defence sought to call two expert witnesses to challenge the Crown’s interpretation of coded language in intercepted communications.

One proposed expert, a journalist, intended to testify about hip hop culture and marijuana terminology, while the other, a former police officer, had previously testified as an expert on drug-related street language but had not maintained his expertise.

Applying the admissibility framework from R. v. Mohan as refined by R. v. Abbey, the court found the proposed evidence either irrelevant, unnecessary, or offered by witnesses who were not properly qualified experts.

The court further held that admitting the evidence would provide minimal probative value while risking significant delay and prejudice to the trial process.

Both proposed experts were therefore excluded.

During a jury trial for second degree murder, the defence brought a Corbett application seeking to restrict cross‑examination of the accused on prior convictions should he testify.

The accused had an extensive criminal record containing numerous recent offences, including robbery, break and enter, and breaches of court orders.

The court balanced probative value against the risk of prejudice and propensity reasoning.

Convictions for assault and assault with a weapon were excluded due to their similarity to the charged offence and the risk that the jury might improperly infer a violent disposition.

Other convictions, including robbery, were permitted because of their relevance to credibility and because exclusion would create a misleading picture of the accused’s criminal history.