Jordyn Cowley

The offender was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for his role in a fatal shooting.

The court found that the offender was aware of the presence of a firearm and was a party to the offence under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

After weighing aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, against mitigating factors, such as harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and rehabilitative potential, the court determined an appropriate sentence of 113.5 months.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody, the offender was sentenced to 58 months' imprisonment.

During a trial for first degree murder, the accused applied for directed verdicts of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data and security video, to place the accused at the scene of the shooting or assisting the shooters.

The court dismissed the directed verdict applications, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to convict.

The court also ruled on several jury charge issues, declining to instruct the jury on co-principal liability, abetting, or the common unlawful purpose doctrine for second degree murder, and opting to provide an expanded instruction on circumstantial evidence.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during their trial.

The Crown opposed the motion, arguing for the traditional placement in the dock due to security concerns and to allow the jury a better view for identification purposes.

The court reviewed the conflicting jurisprudence on the issue and concluded that there is no presumption regarding an accused's placement.

Applying a case-by-case analysis based on fair trial interests and courtroom security, the court found that sitting at counsel table enhances communication with counsel and avoids the risk of prejudice associated with the dock.

Given the accused's good behaviour during prior court appearances and the lack of specific security risks, the motion was granted.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, applied to sever their trial from a co-accused who had recently been extradited to Canada and was unready for the scheduled trial.

The applicants had been awaiting trial for nearly 30 months and had caused no delay.

The Crown opposed severance, citing the societal interest in a joint trial.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicants' right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter outweighed the public interest in a joint trial, especially given the Crown's duty to mitigate delay caused by discrete events like extradition.

The applicant, awaiting trial for first-degree murder and firearms offences, sought bail based on changed circumstances since his initial detention order.

The court found that trial delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a recent outbreak at the detention centre, a strengthened release plan, and a pre-trial ruling strengthening the Crown's case constituted material changes warranting a fresh analysis.

However, after weighing the secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, including the applicant's repeated possession of loaded handguns and the strength of the Crown's case, the court concluded that detention remained necessary and dismissed the application.

The accused, awaiting trial for first degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on pre-trial publicity and racial bias.

The Crown consented to the challenge but disputed the form of the questions regarding race.

The accused called expert evidence to propose new, multi-part questions to uncover racial bias.

The court rejected three purely attitudinal questions but permitted a modified version of the fourth question that incorporated the behavioural component of partiality required by law.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit two bodies of evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The evidence related to the accused's alleged prior possession of two handguns used in the homicide.

The first body of evidence consisted of cell phone photographs showing the accused with a revolver similar to one of the murder weapons.

The second body of evidence involved the accused's presence at a prior shooting where the second murder weapon was discharged.

The court ruled both bodies of evidence admissible, finding that their probative value in establishing the accused's identity and access to the murder weapons outweighed their prejudicial effect as prior discreditable conduct, subject to potential editing and admissions to limit prejudice.