Holly Chiavetti

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences spanning 1995 to 2001, including manslaughter, bank robbery, car bombing, and two counts of first-degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on confessions the accused made to an undercover officer and a police agent during a 'Mr. Big' operation in 2018-2019.

The court carefully assessed the reliability of these confessions, finding them compelling, detailed, and corroborated by independent evidence.

The accused was found guilty of the robbery of Henrietta Knight (but acquitted of her manslaughter due to a gap in medical evidence regarding causation), the TD Bank robbery, the car bombing of David Allan's vehicle, and the first-degree murders of Richard Kimball and Stephen St. Denis.

During a trial for robbery, the defence sought to cross-examine a police officer about other suspects identified early in the investigation to raise a reasonable doubt about identity.

The Crown objected, arguing the defence needed to establish relevance and admissibility first.

The trial judge ruled the questioning impermissible, finding the proposed evidence lacked logical relevance and invited mere speculation.

Applying the framework from R. v. Grant, the court held that the defence must establish a sufficient connection between the crime charged and the third-party suspect before pursuing such cross-examination.

The Crown applied to admit hearsay statements from the deceased victim and the post-mortem report of an unavailable pathologist in a manslaughter trial.

The court admitted the victim's statements, finding they met the criteria for spontaneous utterances and the principled exception to the hearsay rule, with sufficient markers of threshold reliability.

However, the court excluded the pathologist's report, concluding that the inability to cross-examine the expert on his baldly stated opinion regarding the cause of death would cause significant prejudice to the accused, outweighing its probative value.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit statements made by the accused during a nine-month undercover police investigation involving a police agent and an undercover officer.

The accused was charged with three homicides, a bank robbery, and a car bombing.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Hart and found that the statements met the threshold for reliability, their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect, and the police conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The applicant, facing fourteen charges including domestic assault and multiple breaches of release conditions, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary grounds.

He argued that the passage of time, a revised release plan involving his mother and stepfather as sureties, and his completion of programs in custody constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the upcoming trial date mitigated the passage of time, the proposed sureties could not exert meaningful control given the applicant's history of breaches, and the program completions were not shown to reduce his risk of reoffending.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his intimate partner.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found the accused guilty of all three assault charges, rejecting his claims that the physical contact was accidental or unintentional.

On the sexual assault charge, the court found that the accused engaged in sexual activity with the complainant while she was asleep.

Applying the principle that advance consent to unconscious sex is invalid under the Criminal Code, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The accused, an animal rights activist, was charged with breaking and entering a mink farm with intent to commit mischief.

He admitted to trespassing and surreptitiously videotaping the animals to publicize their living conditions, but denied intending to commit mischief.

The Crown argued that the videotaping and subsequent publication of the farmer's personal information constituted mischief.

The court found that the surreptitious videotaping of a commercial property did not interfere with the lawful use of the property and caused no harm to the animals.

The accused was acquitted as the Crown failed to prove the intent to commit mischief.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a 911 call into evidence and in finding his driving amounted to dangerous driving.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the 911 call was admissible as part of the res gestae and did not constitute oath helping.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's erratic operation of a transport truck on a highway was objectively dangerous and a marked departure from the standard expected of a reasonably prudent person.