J. Goulin

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct—specifically, an incident of physical abuse against another child—to cross-examine the complainant's mother if she testified for the defence.

The Crown argued the evidence was relevant to the mother's credibility, not for propensity reasoning.

The court found the evidence constituted other discreditable conduct and applied the balancing test from R. v. L.B. The application was dismissed, as the potential prejudicial effect of distracting the jury with a collateral issue outweighed the weak probative value of the evidence.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder for shooting his girlfriend three times, including while she was on the phone with a 911 operator.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 17 to 20 years, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the domestic nature of the homicide, the abuse of trust, the use of a firearm, and the callousness of the killing to be significant aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the accused's expressions of regret and the harsh conditions of his pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 14 years.

The accused was charged with the first-degree murder of his intimate partner, whom he shot three times.

The defence argued that the accused was in a drug-induced psychosis at the time of the shooting and lacked the specific intent for murder, seeking a verdict of manslaughter.

The Crown argued the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court admitted various hearsay statements and preposterous utterances to assess the accused's state of mind.

The court rejected the defence's expert psychiatric evidence, finding the accused had the intent to kill.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The applicant was convicted of attempted robbery and subsequently retained new counsel to bring a mistrial application prior to sentencing, alleging ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.

The applicant argued his trial counsel failed to adequately prepare, failed to cross-examine key Crown witnesses on prior inconsistent statements, and provided flawed advice regarding the waiver of a preliminary inquiry.

The Superior Court of Justice found that trial counsel's failure to cross-examine key witnesses on crucial evidence and failure to properly advise the applicant on the benefits of a preliminary inquiry compromised trial fairness.

The mistrial application was granted.

The accused was charged with procuring two women to become prostitutes and exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of one of them for the purpose of gain.

The court found that the accused manipulated and coerced the first complainant, a vulnerable young woman with significant debt, into stripping, performing 'extras', and escorting, while taking the money she earned.

The accused was found guilty of the charges relating to the first complainant.

However, the court found the second complainant was a strong, independent woman who made her own choice to dance for money without being procured by the accused, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and multiple firearms offences related to a planned armoured truck robbery.

The accused testified that he believed he was participating in an 'inside job' where no firearms would be used and the guards would cooperate.

The trial judge applied the W.(D.) framework and rejected the accused's testimony as unbelievable, finding it inconsistent with common sense and the circumstantial evidence, including the presence of loaded firearms, disguises, and the lack of identification on the participants.

The court found the accused guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery and the firearms possession charges, but not guilty of altering a firearm's serial number due to lack of evidence.