Heather Harty

The court considered whether Seedjan Sulaiman Khail, who stabbed his father to death, was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

The only issue in dispute was whether the accused’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong.

After reviewing the psychiatric evidence and the accused’s history, the court found that while Mr. Sulaiman Khail suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the offence, he did not lack the capacity to know that his actions were wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of society.

The court found him guilty of second-degree murder.

The applicants, charged with two counts of second-degree murder following a nightclub shooting, brought Charter applications to exclude evidence.

The police had obtained the applicants' names and contact information from their banks without a warrant, claiming exigent circumstances due to the fleeing armed suspects.

The court found a breach of section 8 of the Charter, noting the applicants had a diminished expectation of privacy in the 'tombstone' banking information.

However, applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the police acted in good faith with an honest belief in exigent circumstances and that exclusion would significantly harm the administration of justice.

The accused, Andrew Tucker, facing charges including assault, sexual assault, and criminal harassment, brought a Charter application to exclude an in-custody statement.

The application was based on a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel, as he was not re-advised of his rights when his jeopardy significantly changed with additional charges.

The Crown conceded the s. 10(b) breach was egregious.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court found the breach serious and its impact on the accused's rights significant.

Given that the statement was not essential to the Crown's case, the court concluded that its exclusion would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the accused's in-custody statement was excluded from evidence.