Indy Kandola

The defendants, jointly charged with manslaughter and assault, brought a motion seeking further disclosure from the Crown.

The applications concerned two areas: notes taken by police officers during witness preparation meetings with the Crown, and materials the Crown intended to use to cross-examine a proposed defence expert witness (a toxicologist) on the issue of bias.

The Crown opposed both applications, arguing that the notes contained no new relevant information and were subject to litigation privilege, and that the expert's prior testimony transcript was a matter of public record and not part of the "fruits of the investigation." The court ruled that the Crown was obliged to disclose both the officers' notes, finding them relevant and not privileged, and the transcript of the expert's prior evidence, as it related to the expert's impartiality and the accused's constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

The court emphasized the Crown's role as a minister of justice, prioritizing the proper administration of justice over tactical litigation advantages.

The request for "will-say" statements from officers who did not take notes was denied, as it would amount to creating evidence rather than disclosing existing material.

The Crown sought to exclude cell phone copies of surveillance video in a manslaughter trial, arguing they were unreliable due to unexplained differences from the original and violated the best evidence rule.

The defence contended the cell phone copies offered superior clarity and had been used without objection in a prior mistrial.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding the cell phone copies met the threshold for reliability, provided the clearest images, and thus satisfied a common sense application of the best evidence rule, emphasizing that "original" does not always mean "better" in terms of evidence quality.

The Crown brought an application to relitigate two prior evidentiary rulings made during an initial trial that ended in a mistrial.

The rulings concerned the admissibility of a witness's statement and the scope of cross-examination regarding an alleged attempt to influence testimony.

Applying s. 653.1 of the Criminal Code and the "interests of justice" factors from R. v. Victoria, the court found that the prior rulings were not clearly wrong and that no new evidence or arguments were presented to justify relitigation.

The application was dismissed, affirming the binding nature of the previous evidentiary decisions for the re-trial.

Jayme Syring pleaded guilty to four counts of impaired care or control causing bodily harm and one count of failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

The offences stemmed from a single-vehicle rollover where Syring, impaired by alcohol, injured his common-law spouse and her three young children, who were not properly secured, and then fled the scene.

The court considered aggravating factors including the serious nature of the offences, the abandonment of injured victims, Syring's lengthy criminal record, and his substance abuse issues.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, and initial steps towards addressing his addiction.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for drinking and driving offences causing bodily harm.

A penitentiary sentence of two years and two months was imposed after credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a three-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown applied for a Dangerous Offender designation against the accused following his guilty pleas to 35 counts involving sexual offences against 14 victims ranging from infants to adults, as well as bestiality and child pornography offences.

The accused had engaged in systematic sexual predation over approximately nine years, from age 14 to 22, including plans to drug and rape children.

The defence argued for a Long Term Offender designation instead, emphasizing the accused's potential for treatment and rehabilitation.

The court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused met the statutory criteria for Dangerous Offender designation under section 753(1) of the Criminal Code, considering the pattern of repetitive and aggressive behaviour, the complete inability to control sexual impulses, and the escalating nature of the offences.

The court designated the accused as a Dangerous Offender.

A dangerous offender application hearing where the Crown sought to prove contested facts regarding sexual offences against multiple adolescent girls and children.

The accused had pleaded guilty to 34 charges involving numerous sexual offences.

The Crown sought to establish additional discreditable conduct that predated the existing charges, which had originally been charged under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court heard evidence from four complainant witnesses and assessed credibility and reliability of their testimony against the beyond reasonable doubt standard applicable to contested facts in dangerous offender proceedings.

The Lewis cousins were found guilty of aggravated assault following a jury trial, resulting from an attack that left Ryan Turcotte with a severe brain injury.

This decision outlines their sentences.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the unprovoked group attack, Turcotte's defenselessness, the high likelihood of serious injury, the extent of the injury, and the offenders fleeing the scene.

Mitigating factors included their youth, lack of prior criminal record, solid academic and work histories, strong family and community support, and the out-of-character nature of the offence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives, imposing a sentence of two years less a day incarceration followed by three years probation for each offender, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year firearm prohibition, DNA sample provision, and no-contact orders.