Jeffrey R. Manishen

Two paramedics were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life after misdiagnosing a fatal gunshot wound as a superficial BB gun injury and failing to transport the victim to a trauma hospital immediately.

The Crown sought a 2.5-year penitentiary sentence, arguing that uncharged offences like manslaughter should be considered aggravating factors.

The court rejected this argument, finding it fundamentally unfair since the Crown chose the specific charge.

Balancing the offenders' high moral blameworthiness for failing to follow their training against their lack of criminal records, positive community support, and the collateral consequences of their convictions, the court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence for each offender.

The appellant was acquitted by jury of second degree murder after shooting a man he found breaking into his truck, claiming self-defence.

The trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider the appellant's role in the incident under s. 34(2)(c) of the Criminal Code as a factor bearing on the reasonableness of his use of lethal force.

The majority held that the phrase 'the person's role in the incident' in s. 34(2)(c) captures the accused's conduct throughout the incident from beginning to end, without requiring that the conduct be unlawful, provocative or morally blameworthy.

The omission of this instruction was a material error that had a bearing on the acquittal, warranting a new trial.

The appeal was dismissed with Côté J. dissenting on the question of materiality.

The accused paramedics were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to a 19-year-old gunshot victim.

Upon arriving at the scene, the accused failed to recognize the victim had suffered a penetrating wound to the abdomen, instead concluding he was experiencing a psychiatric issue and had been shot by a BB gun.

They delayed transport, performed inappropriate lifts, and failed to take the victim to a lead trauma hospital.

The court found their actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of reasonably trained paramedics, endangering the victim's life.

Both accused were found guilty.

The Crown applied to admit statements made by the accused during a police interview following his arrest for murder.

The accused had shot a person attempting to steal his truck.

During the interview, the accused repeatedly asserted his right to remain silent based on legal advice.

The interviewing officer continued questioning, suggesting that explaining his actions could result in a lesser charge or support a claim of self-defence.

The court found that the officer's tactics constituted an implied inducement, overcoming the accused's will to remain silent.

The Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, and the statements were ruled inadmissible.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the accused applied to introduce character evidence of the deceased to support a claim of self-defence.

The accused had shot the deceased, who was attempting to steal his truck, and claimed the deceased made a threatening gesture as if holding a gun.

The proposed evidence included the deceased's prior convictions for fleeing police, outstanding property charges, a withdrawn assault charge, and photographs of the deceased with weapons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence did not demonstrate a propensity for violence or the use of weapons, and its admission would not legitimately assist the jury while risking prejudice.