Jill McKenzie

The court considered whether Jheidon Serieaux, convicted of first-degree murder, should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

After a bifurcated hearing, the court found that Mr. Serieaux suffered from schizoaffective disorder at the time of the offence, with persistent psychotic symptoms, and that he was not malingering.

The court preferred the evidence of Dr. Komer and Dr. Grimes over Dr. Gojer, concluding that Mr. Serieaux was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act or know that it was morally wrong.

Mr. Serieaux was found NCRMD and remanded to the Ontario Review Board.

The court sentenced Carl Richard for convictions arising from a shooting at a Hamilton bar, including discharging a firearm with intent, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and assault with a weapon.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including Richard's lengthy criminal record, the seriousness of the offence, provocation, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

A global sentence of 10 years was imposed, less pre-trial custody and mitigation for harsh conditions, resulting in approximately 5 years and 11 months to be served.

The accused, Richard Hannell, was found guilty of criminal harassment against a news reporter, E.T. The accused repeatedly followed E.T. to her work locations, took photographs without her knowledge, and posted numerous tweets expressing romantic interest and later anger, including a disturbing email suggesting she should die.

Despite police warnings, the accused persisted in his conduct, causing E.T. to fear for her safety, leading her employer to remove her from the morning show.

The court found the Crown proved all elements of criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the accused's implausible and inconsistent testimony.

This is a sentencing decision for L.H., who pleaded guilty to sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought an 18-month custodial sentence, while the Defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant violation of the victim's sexual and physical integrity while she was asleep and the persistence of the assault despite her resistance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's young age, lack of prior criminal record (excluding a conditional discharge for a previous assault), guilty plea, remorse, and strong family support.

The court found that a conditional sentence would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the gravity of the offence and the aggravating circumstances.

An 18-month custodial sentence was imposed, followed by a 2-year probation order and ancillary orders including DNA, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The accused, Jason Kovacevic, charged with operating a conveyance while impaired by a drug, was self-represented.

During the trial, the court initiated a voir dire regarding a potential breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The arresting officer could not recall if he offered counsel of choice or if the accused requested a specific lawyer, and appeared to lack understanding of his informational and implementational duties regarding the right to counsel.

The court found that the officer failed to comply with his Charter obligations, resulting in a breach of the accused's right to counsel.

The court deferred the s. 24(2) analysis regarding the exclusion of evidence until all evidence was heard.

The accused, L.S., brought a pre-trial application for disclosure and production of third-party records from the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) and the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS) in a sexual assault and sexual interference prosecution.

The application sought HPS occurrence reports, CCAS records related to the current investigation and prior investigations, and exchanges of information between the Crown, HPS, and CCAS.

The court dismissed the request for HPS records, prior CCAS records, and inter-agency exchanges due to insufficient evidentiary basis and lack of likely relevance.

However, the court ordered the CCAS records already in the Crown's possession, related to the current investigation and specifically concerning the complainant's disclosure of a video of the child, to be produced to the court for review under section 278.5 of the Criminal Code, finding them likely relevant to the complainant's credibility and necessary in the interests of justice.

Dylon Duarte was convicted of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of Tyquan Brown.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which could range from 10 to 25 years.

The Crown sought 20 years, citing numerous aggravating factors including a history of domestic violence, after-the-fact conduct, and an element of planning.

The defence argued for a 10-12 year period, emphasizing lack of planning and the offender's remorse and efforts at rehabilitation.

The court found the murder to be within a domestic violence context, despite the victim being a stranger, due to the offender's rage and obsessive pursuit of his ex-partner leading to the killing.

Considering the aggravating factors and the expanded range for domestic violence murders (12-17 years), the court fixed the parole ineligibility period at 16 years.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-contact order with the victim's family.

The appellant, Alisa Chaly, appealed convictions for refusing to provide a breath sample and breach of recognizance, following an acquittal on impaired driving.

She raised ten grounds of appeal, including errors in determining reasonable grounds for the breath demand, timeliness of the demand, waiver of the right to counsel, arbitrary detention, failure to preserve video evidence, and conviction for breach of recognizance.

The court reviewed the trial judge's findings, applying a deferential standard for factual findings and legal conclusions.

The appeal court found that the trial judge correctly applied the law regarding reasonable grounds, timeliness of demand, and waiver of counsel, and that the appellant failed to establish arbitrary detention or prejudice from lost video evidence.

The conviction for breach of recognizance was also upheld as it was contingent on the other convictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

Christopher Newton applied for severance of accused persons in a multi-count indictment, seeking to be tried separately from co-accused Shaquille Collins.

Newton argued that joinder would delay his trial beyond a reasonable time and confuse the jury due to different charges (second-degree murder for Newton, first-degree murder for Collins) and complex liability paths.

The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence was intertwined, separate trials would be inefficient, and juries are capable of following complex instructions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the 13-week delay was not significant enough to override the presumption of joint trials, and that jurors are capable of understanding complex legal instructions.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct from 2008, involving domestic assault and unauthorized possession of a firearm, as similar fact evidence in a trial for similar charges.

The Crown argued the evidence was necessary to rebut the defence's assertion that the complainant planted the firearms.

The court applied the Handy framework and dismissed the application, finding the prior incident lacked sufficient similarity to the current charges and that its admission would be highly prejudicial.

A 35-year-old female offender was subject to a dangerous offender application following guilty pleas to aggravated assault and breach of probation.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under section 753(1)(a)(i) and/or (ii) of the Criminal Code with an indeterminate sentence.

The court found the offender met the threshold for a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour demonstrating substantial indifference to foreseeable consequences under section 753(1)(a)(ii), establishing dangerousness beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court declined to impose an indeterminate sentence, finding a reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

The court imposed 7 years imprisonment (less pre-sentence custody credit of 3 years 9 months, leaving 3 years 3 months to serve) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

Two young persons charged with assault causing bodily harm (one also charged with assault with a weapon) brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The charges arose from an incident on July 30, 2011.

The first trial date was set for December 2012 but was adjourned when the Crown disclosed on the eve of trial that a surveillance videotape had been misplaced by police.

A second trial date was scheduled for November 2013.

The court found that the total delay of 27.5 months, with 17 months attributable to Crown disclosure failures and institutional resource limitations, constituted an unreasonable delay.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the minimal remedy for the section 11(b) breach.