Jon Fuller

The accused, David Séguin, pleaded guilty to five charges, including impaired driving (drug/alcohol), dangerous driving, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and driving while prohibited.

These offenses occurred on two separate dates (August 17, 2021, and December 29, 2021).

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years, while the defence proposed time served plus probation.

The court considered aggravating factors, notably the accused's extensive criminal record for similar driving offenses (11th impaired driving conviction, 2nd dangerous driving, 3rd prohibited driving), and the fact that offenses were committed while prohibited and on bail for a prior similar offense.

Attenuating factors included the guilty plea and successful completion of addiction therapy.

The court imposed a global sentence of approximately 36.5 months of imprisonment, a 10-year driving prohibition, and $900 in victim fine surcharges.

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter after luring the victim to an apartment over a drug debt.

The offender and two young persons assaulted and forcibly confined the victim, who subsequently fell to his death from a balcony while attempting to escape.

The court weighed the offender's high moral blameworthiness, his instigation of the assault, and his lack of genuine remorse against his family support and rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Liban Gure and Daniel Jean-Charles, were charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault following the death of an 18-year-old who fell from a 16th-floor balcony.

The Crown alleged the victim was beaten over a drug debt and fled to the balcony in fear for his life.

The court found that Gure initiated the assault and participated in the confinement and beating that caused the victim's fatal flight, rendering him guilty of manslaughter as a co-principal.

However, due to the unreliability of the Crown's key witnesses, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding Jean-Charles's participation and acquitted him.

T.F.D., a young person, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under s. 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), arguing that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted and a youth sentence would be insufficient for accountability.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that T.F.D.'s actions, though horrendous, were those of an impulsive, immature, and troubled adolescent whose judgment was further impaired by substance use, thus the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted.

The court determined that the maximum youth sentence of 7 years, including 4 years of intensive rehabilitative custody and 3 years of conditional supervision under an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) Order, was appropriate and sufficient for accountability and public protection through rehabilitation, especially given T.F.D.'s acceptance into the IRCS Program.

A.M. was charged with five criminal offences, including two counts of sexual assault, mischief, assault with a weapon (knife), and assault by strangulation, against the complainant C.J., with whom he had a long-term relationship and children.

The trial focused heavily on C.J.'s credibility and reliability, particularly given inconsistencies in her testimony and her attempts to recant charges due to cultural and family pressures.

The court found A.M. guilty of both sexual assault charges and assault by strangulation, while acquitting him of mischief and assault with a weapon due to insufficient evidence.

The judge emphasized that C.J.'s cultural background and attempts to protect A.M. did not diminish her credibility or the reliability of her core allegations, which were corroborated by a recorded conversation where A.M. pressured her to lie.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault, one count of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of assault with a weapon.

He applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the laying of the information to trial was 18 months and two weeks, exceeding the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown offered earlier trial dates in January 2018, but defence counsel did not respond.

The court found that while the Crown's initial email was an appropriate step, it was insufficient and the Crown failed to take further reasonable available steps, such as bringing an application in Certificate of Readiness court to canvass earlier dates.

The court concluded there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the delay and granted the stay of proceedings.

The applicant sought a variation of his release order to change his residence from a supervised facility to his mother's home, citing his acceptance into a university program as a material change in circumstances.

The court acknowledged the university acceptance as a material change, requiring a fresh analysis of bail conditions.

However, the application was dismissed on secondary and tertiary grounds, as the proposed supervision plan was deemed insufficient to manage the applicant's risk of re-offending or interfering with justice, given his history of impulsivity, past breaches of no-contact orders, and manipulative behaviour, particularly concerning the safety of the complainant and children.

The applicant sought a review of his continued custody after a Justice found his proposed release plan insufficient and detention warranted on secondary grounds.

The applicant argued the Justice erred in law and principle by not considering his bail rights, the surety's role, and viable release conditions.

The reviewing judge, applying the principles from R. v. St-Cloud, found no error in the Justice's decision, noting the pattern of violence, disregard for conditions, and escalation of alleged offences.

The application for review was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

The applicants, charged with manslaughter, brought an O'Connor application seeking the production of mental health and medical records of a key Crown eyewitness.

The witness suffered from cognitive deficiencies and mental illnesses, which the applicants argued affected her reliability and credibility.

The court found that the applicants met the 'likely relevance' threshold at the first stage of the O'Connor regime, relying on evidence from the preliminary inquiry regarding the witness's mental health challenges.

The court ordered the production of specific medical and psychiatric records to the court for review.

The accused was charged with assaulting a person with an imitation weapon, using an imitation firearm while attempting to commit an indictable offence of assault with an imitation firearm, and possession of an imitation weapon for the purpose of committing an offence.

The charges arose from events on November 25, 2016, following an altercation between the accused's friend and the victim's son.

The trial judge found significant credibility issues with the Crown's witnesses, including material discrepancies regarding the distance of the alleged threat, whether words were spoken, and the location of witnesses.

The judge concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused pointed the imitation firearm at the victim or that he possessed it for the purpose of committing an offence.

All three counts were dismissed.

In a criminal prosecution for robbery, the Crown brought a voir dire application seeking to admit recognition evidence from two civilian witnesses who identified the accused in surveillance video.

The defence conceded the admissibility of one witness but objected to the other on the basis that the probative value was low and the prejudicial effect outweighed it.

Applying the “prior acquaintance/better position” test articulated in Berhe and Brown, the court found the witness had sufficient prior familiarity with the accused from frequent interactions as a store customer.

The court concluded the witness was in a better position than the trier of fact to identify the accused on the video and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice.

The recognition evidence was admitted on a threshold basis, with issues of reliability left for the jury’s assessment of weight.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault against Nancy Stol, uttering threats, failing to comply with a recognizance, and obstructing justice by attempting to get witnesses to recant their statements.

The Crown relied on testimony from Michael Crosby, a witness who lived with the accused and victim, and Nancy Stol, the alleged victim.

The court found the accused's out-of-court statements to police to be reliable and credible, despite her recantation at trial.

The court rejected the accused's attempts to discredit the evidence and found him guilty of five counts of assault and related offences, but acquitted him of obstructing justice as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that both named witnesses were asked to recant.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown refused to provide a translated transcript of the breath room video, which was conducted entirely in Russian between the accused and a Russian-speaking breath technician.

The accused's counsel sought an order requiring the Crown to provide a full English translation of the video as part of their disclosure obligation.

The court held that the Crown must provide the translated transcript, finding that disclosure obligations require the Crown to ensure the accused can make full answer and defence and that the Crown itself must be able to properly assess the strength of its case.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an incident on a Keswick street where he struck the complainant, causing serious head injuries requiring brain surgery.

The defendant admitted striking the blow but claimed self-defence, asserting he believed the complainant was about to strike him.

The incident followed a confrontation at a local bar the previous evening where the complainant made threats and displayed aggressive behaviour.

The court examined conflicting eyewitness accounts and found the defendant's evidence, while not without blemish, raised a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.

The court acquitted the defendant on the basis that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defence.

The accused, young first-time offenders and parents, pleaded guilty to causing the death of their one-month-old infant son.

Tran pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking the child twice in the face to stop him from crying, fearing discovery by his brother.

Bui pleaded guilty to failure to provide necessities of life after failing to seek immediate medical attention due to fear of family discovery of the out-of-wedlock birth.

The court imposed sentences reflecting principles of denunciation and general deterrence while considering mitigating factors including genuine remorse, guilty pleas, and the momentary nature of the assault.

The accused was charged with 23 counts of prohibited contact with his former spouse.

He pleaded guilty to 3 counts of failing to comply with probation and 1 count of criminal harassment.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record spanning 28 years, including 16 convictions involving violence and 17 breaches of court orders.

He violated probation orders prohibiting contact within hours of release from jail, engaging in repeated unwanted contact with the victim at multiple locations.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years less 1 day, with 414 days remaining to be served after crediting 315 days of pre-trial custody.

Post-release probation conditions included a 3-year term with strict no-contact provisions and geographic restrictions.

The accused was convicted at trial of extortion contrary to s. 346(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused attended the victim's home, left a phone number, and threatened the victim's wife, stating that if her husband did not call back they should "watch out." This initiated an escalating series of intimidation and threats designed to extort $54,000 from the victim.

The Crown sought a one-year custodial sentence.

The court appointed an amicus to assist the unrepresented accused in identifying mitigating factors and reviewing relevant sentencing precedents.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months in custody less credit for 79 days time served, followed by three years of probation with conditions including a prohibition on contact with the victim and a lifetime firearms prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the Crown failed to prove that breath samples were taken “as soon as practicable” under s. 258(1)(c)(ii), and that police breached his Charter right to counsel under s. 10(b), including by failing to provide a Prosper warning.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held the trial judge reasonably concluded that an 18‑minute transport to the police station satisfied the “as soon as practicable” requirement and that police acted reasonably and promptly.

The court further found the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and did not act diligently in pursuing that right, and that his statement declining to speak with counsel constituted an unequivocal waiver.

The conviction was upheld.

A licensed paralegal and her firm sought judicial review of directions issued by a justice of the peace requiring paralegals to remain behind the bar in the courtroom until their matters were called and suggesting that matters involving lawyers be called ahead of those involving paralegals.

The applicants argued that the justice of the peace exceeded jurisdiction, breached natural justice, and violated s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by disadvantaging paralegals economically and professionally.

The court held that courtroom seating arrangements and management of the calling of cases fall within a judicial officer’s authority to control court process and maintain order.

Economic interests are not protected by s. 7 of the Charter, and the impugned directions did not engage life, liberty, or security of the person.

The justice of the peace therefore acted within jurisdiction and did not breach principles of natural justice.

The accused was charged with six counts of assault upon his spouse and one count of assault upon his child, allegedly occurring between June 2005 and November 2010.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant spouse, who alleged repeated assaults occurring approximately twice monthly throughout their marriage.

The defence denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to exaggerations, inconsistencies with police statements, and lack of corroboration from medical professionals despite claims of severe injuries.

The corroborating witnesses (the complainant's brother and mother) provided contradictory accounts and failed to mention key incidents in their initial police statements.

The accused testified credibly and consistently, denying all allegations.

The court acquitted the accused on all counts.