Julie Annette Battersby

The accused was tried for the first-degree murder of his daughter and the attempted murder of his son after giving them sleep medication and alcohol during a suicide attempt.

During the pre-charge conference, defence counsel requested that criminal negligence causing death be left with the jury as a discrete included offence to first-degree murder.

The trial judge declined the request, ruling that in the circumstances of the case, criminal negligence causing death is manslaughter by another name and leaving both would unnecessarily complicate jury deliberations.

The accused struck a pedestrian with his vehicle in a strip mall parking lot following a verbal altercation and drove away without stopping.

He was charged with dangerous driving, failing to stop, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and breach of recognizance.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to stop and breach of recognizance, but acquitted him of the assault and dangerous driving charges, finding reasonable doubt as to whether the collision was intentional or if the driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The accused sought release on bail following charges including forcible entry, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of prohibited weapons, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and forcible confinement.

The Crown alleged the accused was the main perpetrator in a violent home invasion and assault that resulted in serious injuries to the victim.

The accused testified in his own defence, claiming limited involvement and self-defence.

The court found the Crown's case reasonably strong but granted bail with stringent conditions, including residence outside Toronto with a substantial surety and monitoring requirements.

The accused sought a bail review after a justice of the peace ordered detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds in relation to multiple alleged sexual assaults and robberies against sex workers.

The applicant argued that the justice of the peace erred by undermining the presumption of innocence and misapplying the tertiary ground, and that new evidence regarding GPS or RF ankle monitoring constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court held that the justice of the peace properly applied the presumption of innocence and was entitled to comment on the strength of the Crown’s case.

Applying the principles from St-Cloud, the court found no error in the tertiary ground analysis and concluded that the proposed electronic monitoring did not constitute a material change affecting the detention decision.

The bail review was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment and two counts of failure to comply with probation.

While on probation for prior criminal harassment of another woman, he repeatedly contacted the complainant via Facebook despite police caution and her non-response.

The accused exhibited signs of erotomania and a delusional disorder, believing the complainant reciprocated his affections despite clear evidence to the contrary.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months imprisonment with 3 years probation, including strict no-contact conditions and mandatory mental health treatment.

Sentencing decision for a first offender who pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police observed him discard the handgun following a crash arising from street racing.

The court treated the public possession and abandonment of a loaded handgun near a roadway and sidewalk as a serious aggravating circumstance engaging denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and public protection.

While the offender's guilty plea, youth, lack of record, employment history, and community support were mitigating factors, the offence was placed near the true-crime end of the spectrum described in the firearm sentencing jurisprudence.

A penitentiary term of three years was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive house arrest, together with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with 14 offences, including assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his former spouse.

The trial was a credibility contest between the accused and the complainant, with no independent corroborating evidence of the alleged violence.

Applying the W(D) framework, the court found that the conflicting evidence left it in a state of reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault and criminal harassment after following a young woman from a bus late at night, pursuing her to her residence, and squeezing her buttocks before fleeing.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s age, the frightening circumstances of the stalking behaviour, and the offender’s prior criminal record including a previous sexual assault conviction.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, supportive family, employment stability, compliance with strict bail conditions, and a psychological assessment indicating low to moderate risk manageable in the community.

Applying the proportionality principle under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code and emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court concluded the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors.

A suspended sentence with three years’ probation and ancillary orders was imposed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown presented evidence regarding Marlon Marshall's alleged involvement in four counts each of robbery, wear disguise, use of an imitation firearm, and one count of possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown discharged Marshall on four counts of robbery with a firearm.

The court examined whether sufficient evidence existed to commit Marshall for trial on the remaining charges.

The court found overwhelming evidence on the January 10 robbery charge and committed Marshall for trial on all remaining counts, including the December 16, November 24, and December 8 robberies, based on circumstantial evidence of identity including similar modus operandi, physical descriptions, apparel, weaponry, and cumulative similarities across the offences.