J. Manishen

The offender was convicted of manslaughter after fatally shooting a trespasser who was breaking into his truck in the middle of the night.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 4 years.

The court assessed the offender's moral blameworthiness, noting the use of a loaded firearm with an after-market turkey choke, but also considering the offender's lack of criminal record, strong community support, and genuine remorse.

The court rejected the defence's characterization of the incident as 'near self-defence' but acknowledged the offender's perceived lack of alternatives.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

The defence sought to call a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Peter Collins, to provide expert opinion evidence on the neurobiological responses to stress and the impact of military training on decision-making.

The Crown objected, arguing the evidence was unnecessary and within the common knowledge of the jury.

The court applied the Mohan framework and the Supreme Court's guidance on self-defence from this very case, concluding that the expert evidence was necessary to help the jury assess the reasonableness of the accused's conduct and his role in the incident.

The application to admit the expert evidence was granted, subject to certain redactions.

The Crown sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from a forensic pathologist regarding the sequence of shots and the positioning of the deceased at the time of the shooting in a second degree murder trial.

The accused objected, arguing the opinion exceeded the expert's scope of expertise and would confuse the jury.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the Mohan framework and gatekeeper analysis, concluding the expert was properly qualified and the evidence was logically relevant and necessary.

The court ruled the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect and admitted the expert opinion.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences against several young persons, including sexual interference, sexual assault, internet luring, and making and possessing child pornography.

The Crown applied for a long‑term offender designation under s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed psychiatric risk assessment evidence and found the offender presented a moderate risk of sexual reoffending, with a pattern of grooming behaviour toward vulnerable adolescents.

The court concluded that the statutory criteria for a long‑term offender designation were satisfied and that risk could be managed in the community through supervision.

A global penitentiary sentence of seven years and one month was imposed along with a five‑year long‑term supervision order and several ancillary orders.

Two accused charged with first degree murder applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on extensive circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage, eyewitness accounts of the shooting, cell phone records, and DNA evidence linking the accused’s vehicle to the victim.

The court found the Crown’s case to be overwhelming and concluded there was a high probability of conviction.

The proposed sureties, largely family members, were found inadequate to provide meaningful supervision or ensure compliance with bail conditions.

Detention was ordered on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, including concerns about flight risk, potential interference with the administration of justice, and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

The accused, a tow truck operator, was charged with criminal negligence causing death after parking his flatbed tow truck partially in the fast lane of Highway 403 to assist a stranded motorist.

A driver travelling in the fast lane struck the rear of the tow truck and was killed instantly.

The court assessed whether the accused's actions constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care of a reasonable tow truck operator.

After considering expert testimony on towing industry standards and human factors, the court found that the accused's actions, while risky, fell within accepted industry practices and did not amount to a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others.

The accused was found not guilty.