John Michael Woogh

The applicant, facing fourteen charges including domestic assault and multiple breaches of release conditions, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary grounds.

He argued that the passage of time, a revised release plan involving his mother and stepfather as sureties, and his completion of programs in custody constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the upcoming trial date mitigated the passage of time, the proposed sureties could not exert meaningful control given the applicant's history of breaches, and the program completions were not shown to reduce his risk of reoffending.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of breaking and entering with intent, one count of mischief, and breach of a probation order.

The sentencing decision addressed his extensive criminal record of 169 offences over 30 years, including 15 prior breaking and entering convictions, and his Indigenous heritage as presented in a Gladue Report.

The court acknowledged the defendant's recent efforts towards rehabilitation and engagement with Indigenous support services but found insufficient evidence to directly link systemic Gladue factors to his moral blameworthiness for the current offences.

Considering his persistent offending and non-compliance with court orders, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society.

The accused applied for bail while facing charges including first degree murder of a newborn child, concealing the body of a child, failing to obtain assistance in childbirth with intent to conceal birth, and failing to provide the necessaries of life.

The Crown opposed release relying primarily on the accused’s statement that she had suffocated the infant.

The court reviewed psychiatric evidence suggesting serious mental health concerns and the possible applicability of the infanticide provisions, as well as the absence of a determined cause of death and uncertainty whether the child was born alive.

Considering the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code and the factors set out in R v St-Cloud, the court found the Crown’s case not strong and accepted a detailed release plan with family sureties and medical supervision.

Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including house arrest, psychiatric treatment, and supervision by sureties.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The union filed membership evidence for more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

However, statements of desire opposing the certification were also filed, signed by employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the statements of desire were voluntary.

The majority of the Board concluded that the statements were signed voluntarily, as management was not involved in their origination or circulation, and the employees did not sign out of fear of employer reprisals.

A dissenting Board member found that management had created a climate that thwarted voluntary expression.

The matter was directed to continue for hearing in conjunction with a related unfair labour practice complaint.