Joshua Tupper

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting an unarmed construction worker at a worksite following a motor vehicle collision and attempted theft of a work van.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The sentencing judge found no evidence of planning but noted the aggravating factors of introducing a loaded firearm into a public altercation.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 12 years.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon following an unprovoked stabbing in a shopping mall.

The court determined the appropriate sentence was five and a half years in prison, noting the seriousness of the offence and the offender's intoxication.

However, after applying credit for over three years of pre-trial custody, including enhanced credit for harsh lockdown conditions, the sentence was reduced to time-served with no probation order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a complainant under 16.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony and supporting evidence from the complainant’s mother, including an alleged admission by the accused and observations of blood following the alleged assault.

The court found serious credibility and reliability concerns with both witnesses, including significant inconsistencies and the complainant’s change of the alleged date of the assault by several years.

The court held that the Crown failed to establish the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The accused, a loss prevention officer at a retail warehouse store, was charged with two counts of theft over $5,000 under s. 334 of the Criminal Code following a coordinated diversion theft captured on store security footage.

The Crown alleged the accused orchestrated the diversion by sending other employees away from the store entrance to allow accomplices to remove merchandise.

The evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial and relied heavily on video recordings and witness testimony describing the accused directing staff away from the entrance moments before merchandise exited.

The court found the Crown proved that a theft exceeding $5,000 occurred but held that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the theft.

Suspicion alone was insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof.