J. Falconer

The plaintiffs brought an action against the investigating coroner, supervising coroners, and Ontario following the death of a four-year-old child in a remote First Nation community.

The plaintiffs alleged misfeasance in public office, negligent supervision, breach of s. 15 of the Charter, and breach of the honour of the Crown regarding the coroner's investigation.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court struck all claims without leave to amend, finding that the coroners' actions fell within their statutory discretion, statutory immunity barred the negligence claims, no private law duty of care was owed, and the Charter and honour of the Crown claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from a fatal stabbing during a confrontation in a public park, the court determined the appropriate sentence.

The accused, aged eighteen at the time and with no prior criminal record, stabbed the victim once in the chest after being slapped during a confrontation that followed earlier intimidation involving a knife.

The court identified significant aggravating factors including carrying a large knife in public while intoxicated, brandishing it earlier to intimidate others, failing to assist the victim, fleeing the scene, and disposing of the weapon.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, supportive background, and low risk of reoffending.

Applying the recognized sentencing range for aggravated manslaughter and balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a custodial sentence within the lower end of the established range.

During a second degree murder jury trial, the defence applied for an inquiry under s. 644 of the Criminal Code to determine whether a juror should be discharged due to alleged conduct suggesting partiality, including turning away during the accused’s testimony and making gestures during closing submissions.

The court held that the alleged behaviour did not meet the high threshold required to justify an inquiry into a juror’s fitness.

Juror conduct must raise a serious issue regarding the ability to perform duties before the court interferes with jury secrecy.

The court emphasized that jurors may form provisional views during trial provided they remain open to deliberation.

The application for an inquiry and the related request for a mistrial were dismissed.