Ian McGregor Laing

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from an intimate partner's fatal fall down a staircase, the sentencing judge determined the respondent was the aggressor, deliberately pushed the deceased during a prolonged altercation, and was not acting in self-defence, but the Crown did not prove an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm.

The court treated the offence as serious but closer to an accident than to murder, while identifying substantial aggravating features including the intimate relationship, a pattern of abusive conduct, the deceased's vulnerability from intoxication and illness, and the impact on family and friends.

Mitigating weight was given to the respondent's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, strong rehabilitative prospects, and more than two years on highly restrictive bail.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a custodial sentence of three and a half years, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

During a trial for second degree murder, the Crown brought a motion to question its own witness in chief about an affidavit she filed in an unrelated criminal matter, in which she recanted allegations against her son-in-law.

The Crown sought to preemptively address an anticipated attack on the witness's credibility.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the collateral fact rule did not prohibit the questioning, the evidence was more prejudicial than probative as it was unrelated to the facts in dispute and would unduly distract the jury.

The court sentenced Corbin Hucker to three years’ imprisonment on each of three counts of sexual assault, to be served concurrently, following a jury trial.

The offences involved non-consensual sexual activity with his intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the intimate partner context, the impact on the complainant, Hucker’s lack of criminal record, his youth at the time of the offences, and the significant emotional and social consequences he experienced.

The court imposed ancillary orders, including a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The accused, Mauricio Carrillo, was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg/100 mL following a motor vehicle collision where he sustained a broken femur.

He filed a Charter application alleging violations of his s. 7, s. 8, and s. 9 rights.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest and breath demand, and that the breath sample procedure, though painful for the accused, did not violate his s. 7 right to security of the person given medical clearance and the accused's cooperation.

While the Crown proved the "Over 80" charge, the court found that impairment beyond a reasonable doubt was not established, leading to an acquittal on the impaired driving charge.

The accused, B.H., a single mother, was charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to her two-year-old daughter, X., after the child was found unsupervised outside their apartment on two occasions on the same morning.

The court considered the elements of the offence, particularly the mens rea requiring a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent parent.

The judge found that while the child was in necessitous circumstances, the mother's actions, including taking immediate precautions after the first incident and accidentally dozing off, did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care, especially given her recent trauma from the death of another daughter.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual interference against a young relative.

The allegations involved incidents occurring during overnight visits when the complainant was between four and eight years old.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence against the accused's denial and the limited opportunity to commit the offences.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court found the accused's evidence, supported by his wife's testimony regarding the physical layout of the home and timeline of events, raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

At trial, he brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds to make the roadside screening demand, dismissing the ss. 8 and 9 claims.

However, the court found a breach of s. 10(b) because the officer delayed informing the accused of his right to counsel for approximately 6 to 8 minutes after arrest, and provided confusing information about duty counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) due to the officer's lack of understanding of the immediacy requirement and the impact on the accused.

The accused was acquitted.