John David Kingdon

On a pre-trial evidentiary motion in a homicide prosecution involving an anticipated self-defence claim, the court ruled on the admissibility of the deceased's ante mortem statements, evidence of the deceased's peaceable disposition, and numerous photographs.

The court held that certain statements made by the deceased to a friend were admissible under the state of mind exception and the principled hearsay approach because necessity and threshold reliability were established and the probative value outweighed prejudice.

Peaceable disposition evidence was admitted in part as relevant to rebut the self-defence theory, but evidence from the deceased's brother concerning the debt was excluded due to undue prejudice.

The court also conducted a category-by-category balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect for photographic evidence, admitting some images and excluding others as cumulative or insufficiently probative.

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder after randomly attacking two individuals with a knife.

The defence conceded the acts but argued that the accused was not criminally responsible under s. 16 of the Criminal Code due to a mental disorder including psychosis and schizophrenia.

Psychiatric experts agreed the accused suffered from a major mental disorder but differed on whether it rendered him incapable of knowing his acts were morally wrong.

The court found that the accused understood the legal wrongfulness of his actions, citing his attempts to evade police and his admissions during a videotaped statement.

The court rejected the defence argument that command hallucinations rendered him incapable of appreciating moral wrongness and found the evidentiary basis for that theory weak.

The defence failed to meet its burden on a balance of probabilities, and the accused was convicted on both counts of attempted murder.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing or refusing to comply with a demand for breath samples under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had accepted the defence of officially induced error based in part on the police advising that the accused “may” be charged if she refused to provide a breath sample.

On appeal, the court held that the use of the word “may” was not erroneous because police retain discretion whether to lay charges.

The court further found that the accused’s own testimony demonstrated she did not rely on any police advice in deciding to refuse the demand.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different judge.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after bringing a loaded handgun into a community centre while searching for individuals involved in a prior robbery.

During a confrontation, the offender attempted to strike a young person with the firearm and the gun accidentally discharged, fatally wounding the victim.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors including the illegal possession of a loaded firearm, breach of a recognizance prohibiting firearm possession, flight from police, and the devastating impact on the victim’s family and the community.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, youth, lack of prior criminal record, expressions of remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence reflecting denunciation and deterrence while granting enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody due to remand conditions and institutional lockdowns.