J. Addelman

The accused, charged with second-degree murder in the death of his common-law partner, applied to vacate his pre-trial detention order.

The victim had a history of severe injuries and reported prior domestic abuse by the accused, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The court found the proposed release plan inadequate to address the secondary ground of protecting the public, noting the lack of a detailed treatment plan for the accused's mental illness.

The court also found detention necessary under the tertiary ground to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the strong Crown case, the gravity of the offence, and the vulnerability of the victim.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking and a loaded handgun was found in his vehicle pursuant to a search warrant.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application to exclude the handgun, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights.

The court found no breaches of ss. 8 or 9, as there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the strip search was necessary.

However, the court found a breach of s. 10(b) because the police unreasonably delayed the accused's right to counsel for their own convenience prior to executing a search warrant.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breach was not causally connected to the discovery of the firearm and society has a heightened interest in adjudicating serious firearms offences on the merits.

The applicant, a 73-year-old man charged with second-degree murder of his son, sought release on bail under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He had previously been granted bail but voluntarily returned to custody, causing his surety to revoke.

The Crown opposed bail on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found no material change in the sureties' ability to supervise the applicant and noted his compliance with previous bail conditions.

Applying the principles from St. Cloud and Antic, the court granted bail on the original terms with additional conditions regarding alcohol prohibition and surety visits.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge imposed on the respondent for an unprovoked attack on a pregnant public transit operator.

The Crown argued the sentence failed to reflect denunciation and deterrence and was contrary to the public interest.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly balanced the sentencing principles, including the respondent's mental health issues and status as a first-time offender, and correctly applied the principles for conditional sentences.