Heather Susan McIntyre

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder after stabbing his intimate partner 21 times.

The Crown sought a 16-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 13 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the offender's prior assault on the victim, and his criminal record as aggravating factors.

However, the court also weighed the offender's early guilty plea, remorse, and cooperation with police as mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years.

The Crown sought to have Brian Morgan-Baylis declared a dangerous offender following his conviction for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and counselling to commit suicide.

The court found Morgan-Baylis to be a dangerous offender under all three subsections of s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, citing a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, a failure to restrain his conduct, and the brutal nature of the predicate offences.

Despite the Crown's request for an indeterminate sentence, the court imposed a determinate sentence of 6 years 4 months (after enhanced pre-sentence custody credit) followed by a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order, concluding that this composite sentence, coupled with robust programming and strict conditions, offered a reasonable expectation of public protection.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder and serving a life sentence with 25 years parole ineligibility, applied under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period.

At the judicial screening stage under s. 745.61, the court was required to determine whether there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the period of parole ineligibility.

After reviewing extensive documentary evidence, including correctional records, psychological assessments, and statements from family members, the court concluded that the applicant continued to minimize responsibility for the offence and had not demonstrated meaningful change in character.

Although the applicant had made some institutional progress, the seriousness of the offence, lack of full accountability, and ongoing manipulative behaviour outweighed rehabilitative factors.

The court held that a reasonable jury would not be substantially likely to grant a reduction.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder, brought a constitutional challenge against the retrospective application of the amended s. 745.61 of the Criminal Code.

The amendment changed the screening standard for faint hope applications from a 'reasonable prospect of success' to a 'substantial likelihood of success'.

The applicant argued this violated his s. 11(h) Charter right against double punishment by potentially increasing his time in custody.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the amendment concerns punishment, it does not increase it.

The change was procedural in nature and did not thwart the applicant's settled expectations of liberty.

The accused was sentenced for animal cruelty resulting in death.

During a domestic dispute with his girlfriend, the accused threw his 12-week-old German Shepherd puppy out a door and down stairs, then chased and slammed it to the ground, causing fatal injuries.

The court imposed an eight-month custodial sentence (less 68 days pre-sentence custody), a ten-year animal ownership prohibition, and a two-year probation order with conditions including community service, substance abuse counselling, and restrictions on association with witnesses.