Heather McArthur

The accused was charged with second-degree murder after stabbing and killing his husband.

He proceeded to trial before a judge alone.

The defence argued the accused should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, relying on two forensic psychiatrists who opined he was experiencing psychosis at the time of the killing.

The court found the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time but held that the defence had not established on a balance of probabilities that he was incapable of appreciating the moral wrongfulness of his actions, as the expert opinions relied heavily on inadmissible hearsay.

The court further found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent for murder, finding him guilty of second-degree murder.

The court sentenced K. M. Thauhidul Islam for the attempted murder of his wife, as well as for prior assaults and breaches of court orders.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed a global sentence of 17 years, less pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and non-communication order.

Aleth Duell, a 72-year-old first offender, was found guilty by a jury of two counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of money laundering, related to romance fraud schemes.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years probation, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence due to the large-scale nature and devastating impact of the frauds.

The court declined to issue a restitution order due to the offender's limited means and lack of quantifiable profit, but imposed a lifetime prohibition order under s. 380.2 of the Criminal Code against managing others' property, money, or valuable security, and waived the victim surcharge.

The accused, Jovane Watson, was charged with accessory after the fact to murder.

The key issue was whether the Crown could disprove the defence of duress beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court analyzed the six elements of duress, including implicit threat, reasonable belief, absence of safe escape, temporal connection, proportionality, and lack of conspiracy.

The court found that the Crown failed to disprove any of the elements, particularly that the accused acted under a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the principal offender, who had just committed a murder.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty.

Mohamed Hassan was sentenced for firearms and counterfeiting offences.

Police found a loaded handgun, counterfeit money, and counterfeiting tools at his home.

He was found guilty of multiple firearms offences after trial and admitted guilt to counterfeiting offences.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record, the sophistication of the counterfeiting operation, and possession of a loaded defaced firearm while on bail.

Mitigating factors included his youth at the time of the offence, strong family support, religious faith, mentorship of younger cousins, and efforts towards rehabilitation, as detailed in an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA).

The court imposed a global sentence of two years and ten months, after credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging rehabilitative potential and the systemic challenges highlighted by the IRCA.

Edwin Capehart was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault and choking to facilitate a sexual assault.

The court, considering aggravating factors such as premeditation, the significant size difference between the offender and victim, the use of choking, and the profound psychological harm to the victim, balanced these against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first offender status at the time of the offence, strong family support, difficult early life in a refugee camp, educational challenges, productive use of time in custody, and genuine remorse.

The court imposed an effective sentence of four years of imprisonment (inclusive of pre-sentence custody credit), followed by two years of probation, a restitution order of $3,000, a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The victim surcharge was waived due to undue hardship.

K.M. Thauhidul Islam faced charges of assault, uttering threats to cause death, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and attempted murder against his wife, Farzana Iqbal.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, accepting the complainant's testimony over the defendant's inconsistent account.

The judge determined that the defendant had the specific intent to kill for the attempted murder charge, based on the weapon used, the location and severity of the blows, and the direct threats uttered during the attack.

Police executed a search warrant using a "hard entry" at the defendant's home, seizing cocaine, phenacetin, and cash.

The defendant applied to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure due to hard entry) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found a serious s. 8 breach due to the officer's lack of understanding of the knock-and-announce rule and arbitrary decision-making.

The s. 10(b) breach was not found.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court excluded the evidence, leading to the defendant's acquittal on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The defendant, Sean Ledoux, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to sexual assault after having unprotected vaginal sex with a friend who was unconscious due to alcohol and drug intoxication.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus probation, emphasizing Gladue principles and mitigating factors.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, victim vulnerability, duration of the assault, lack of condom use, and profound psychological and financial harm to the victim, who is a Queer Black woman.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's guilty plea, genuine remorse, compliance with bail, pro-social behaviour, care for his nephew, his mother's illness, and his Indigenous background marked by intergenerational trauma and alcohol abuse.

Applying the principles from R. v. R.S., the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for the seriousness of the offence, requiring an institutional sentence for denunciation and deterrence.

However, due to the compelling Gladue principles and other mitigating factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years probation, which is below the typical range for such offences.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, weapons prohibitions, and SOIRA registration.

The defendant, facing a sexual assault charge, brought an application to exclude evidence of the complainant's prior sexual disinterest in him.

The complainant had no memory of the sexual activity due to intoxication, and the Crown intended to adduce evidence that she was not sexually interested in the defendant in the hours leading up to her memory blackout as circumstantial evidence of non-consent.

The defence argued this evidence lacked probative value.

The court dismissed the application, ruling that evidence of sexual disinterest closely connected by time and circumstance to the alleged assault has probative value and is admissible to determine subjective consent, distinguishing it from more remote expressions of disinterest.

Mohammad Golizadeh pleaded guilty to possessing 28 kilograms of opium for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 7.5-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of opium and the sophisticated, ongoing nature of the scheme, and mitigating factors such as his first offender status, guilty plea, remorse, addiction as a contributing factor, and strong family support.

The judge imposed a 4-year custodial sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging rehabilitation and restraint principles.

The defendant, Ikenna Nwene, was charged with importing 461 grams of heroin.

The package was intercepted by authorities, duties were paid, and it cleared customs before a controlled delivery was attempted.

Nwene attended to pick up the package with a fake driver's license in the consignee's name but refused to take it when he suspected the officer was undercover.

The court found that the physical element of importing was completed when the package cleared customs.

Based on circumstantial evidence, including the fake ID, his actions at the DHL store, and his attempt to discard evidence, the court concluded that Nwene was involved in the scheme and knew the package contained a controlled substance.

He was found guilty of importing.

This criminal trial concerned one count of sexual assault.

The prosecution alleged the defendant sexually assaulted the complainant in a washroom stall at a wedding reception.

Both the complainant and defendant provided conflicting accounts of the events.

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity, leading to an acquittal.

The decision emphasizes that a finding of reasonable doubt about consent is not a positive finding of consent, and the burden of proof remains with the prosecution.

During a dangerous offender hearing, the Crown sought to abandon reliance on a court-ordered psychiatrist whose evidence was challenged in cross-examination, and instead tender the evidence of a new psychiatrist.

The defence brought an abuse of process motion under s. 7 of the Charter, arguing the Crown was seeking an improper litigation advantage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Crown was attempting to provide the court with as much information as possible to assess the offender's risk, rather than acting for an oblique motive.

The defendant, Quinnton Drake, pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including robbery with a firearm and dangerous driving.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application.

The court found the defendant to be a dangerous offender based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour and persistent aggressive behaviour, demonstrating a failure to restrain behaviour and a substantial indifference to foreseeable consequences.

Despite the defence arguing for a fixed-term sentence followed by a long-term supervision order, the court determined that an indeterminate sentence was required, as there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public from the risk of future serious personal injury offences.

Ancillary orders included a mandatory DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The applicant, S.B., sought a s. 525 bail review for serious charges including attempt murder and firearm offences, having been in custody for over 90 days without a bail hearing.

The defence proposed a release plan involving residential and back-up sureties, and electronic monitoring, citing COVID-19 risks and potential trial delays.

The Crown opposed, citing S.B.'s extensive criminal record, including 14 breach-type offences and a manslaughter conviction, and the overwhelming evidence against him.

The court found the proposed supervision plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of S.B. reoffending and determined that his continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the acknowledged risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities and the possibility of trial delays.

The offender, a police officer, pleaded guilty to careless use of a firearm after firing his weapon at a fleeing vehicle in a busy shopping area without legal justification.

The defence sought an absolute discharge, while the Crown sought a conviction and a fine.

The court held that an absolute discharge would be contrary to the public interest, as it would fail to adequately address the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence given the offender's breach of public trust.

A conviction was entered and a $5,000 fine was imposed.

This decision addresses a voir dire to determine the admissibility of police statements made by Marcia Gittens and Horace McCalla, who are charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to their son.

The Crown sought to admit the statements, arguing voluntariness and constitutional compliance.

The defence contended that the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found Ms. Gittens' statement inadmissible due to involuntariness, influenced by inducements, her emotional state, and police misrepresentations regarding the video recording and the duty to caution.

Additionally, her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached when psychological detention crystallized during the interview, leading to exclusion under s. 24(2).

Conversely, Mr. McCalla's statement was deemed voluntary and admissible, as the police adequately informed him of his rights and potential legal jeopardy, and he was not found to be detained.

The defendant, Marco Maric, was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The sentencing hearing addressed the appropriate sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the significant quantity of cocaine (10.5 kg destined for him, 4 kg found in his unit), his leadership role in a sophisticated operation, and motivation by greed.

Mitigating factors included his difficult childhood as a war refugee, strong family support, long work history, remorse, and significant time spent on restrictive house arrest bail (927 days).

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount objectives for cocaine trafficking, while also acknowledging the defendant's rehabilitative potential.

The Crown sought 10-12 years, and the defence sought 7-8 years.

The court imposed a sentence of nine years, reduced to seven years and eight months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and house arrest credit.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition for certain items, a 10-year prohibition for others, and forfeiture of offence-related property and proceeds of crime.