Hilary Dudding

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit three accused for trial on charges arising from the death of Dionecio Nelson on July 2, 2015.

Nathaniel Findley and Andrew Mitchell were charged with second degree murder in Nelson's death; Mitchell also faced two assault with a weapon charges.

Rayanne Mehdi was charged with accessory after the fact.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence establishing that Findley and Mitchell were the occupants of a vehicle that stopped after nearly hitting Nelson, leading to a violent altercation in which Nelson was fatally stabbed multiple times.

The preliminary inquiry judge found reasonable inferences available to a jury that Findley and Mitchell acted as co-perpetrators in a joint enterprise to assault Nelson, knowing that death was a probable consequence.

Findley was committed to stand trial on second degree murder; Mitchell and Mehdi conceded committal on their respective charges.

The applicant, Keon Chisholm, sought a bail review under Section 520 of the Criminal Code to vary his house arrest conditions.

He requested permission to have contact with his co-accused brother and to attend school or pursue employment opportunities.

The court found no material and relevant change in circumstances since the initial bail hearing to warrant a variation of the order, dismissing the application.

The accused was convicted of two counts of assault and one count of uttering threats to cause death against his common-law partner.

The Crown sought 14 months incarceration with consecutive sentences.

The defence sought 6 months, already served in pre-trial custody.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 3 years probation, taking into account the accused's prior domestic violence convictions, mitigating factors including consistent employment and compliance with previous probation, and the principle of totality.

The court emphasized that domestic violence requires denunciation and deterrence while considering rehabilitation for a youthful offender.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and uttering threats to cause death against his intimate partner.

The complainant initially provided a detailed sworn video-taped statement to police describing multiple incidents of assault and threats.

At trial, the complainant recanted her entire statement, claiming she had fabricated the allegations because she was angry at the accused for being late with food delivery.

The court rejected the complainant's recantation as incredible and unreliable, finding her explanations for why she would make false allegations to be nonsensical and preposterous.

The court admitted the complainant's prior police statement as hearsay evidence meeting the criteria of necessity and threshold reliability.

Based on corroborating evidence including photographs of injuries, the 911 call made shortly after the incident, and the complainant's demeanor and consistency in her police statement, the court found the Crown had proven all charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing his s. 8 rights were violated when police searched his residence and seized a firearm pursuant to a warrant.

The warrant was based on information from a confidential informant, and the Information to Obtain (ITO) was heavily redacted to protect the informant's identity.

The court applied the Debot criteria and the Garofoli Step 6 procedure, providing a judicial summary of the redacted information.

The court found that, despite weaknesses in the informant's credibility, the information was sufficiently compelling and corroborated by police investigation to provide reasonable grounds for the issuing justice to grant the warrant.

The motion was dismissed and the firearm was ruled admissible.

The offender was sentenced after a jury conviction for procuring a person to become a prostitute and controlling the complainant’s movements for the purpose of prostitution, contrary to s. 212 of the Criminal Code.

The evidence established that the offender began a relationship with a vulnerable young woman, later directing her into prostitution, imposing earning quotas, and exercising substantial control over her activities for approximately 18 months while living off her earnings.

The offender also pleaded guilty to uttering threats against another complainant.

The court rejected the defence request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the prolonged exploitation and control involved.

A penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed for the prostitution offences, with a concurrent six‑month sentence for uttering threats, along with a firearms prohibition and DNA order.