Karen Simone

The accused, Shou Chen, facing a second-degree murder charge, brought a mistrial application after his forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Pearce, revised his opinion, no longer supporting a "not criminally responsible" (NCRMD) defence on a balance of probabilities.

The defence sought a mistrial to find another expert psychiatrist and secure Legal Aid funding.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a mistrial is a remedy of last resort and was not warranted.

The judge found that the change in expert opinion, partly attributable to defence counsel's delay in providing relevant reports, did not cause actual prejudice or unfairness, as the defence retained strategic options for presenting its case.

The court also noted the case's long history of defence-related delays.

The accused, Shou Chen, facing a second-degree murder charge, objected to the admissibility of recognition/identification evidence from a Crown witness, Mr. Wan Peng Mei.

The Crown sought to have Mr. Mei identify the accused from surveillance video footage based on his prior acquaintance.

The defence argued that the witness was in no better position than the jury due to poor image quality.

The court applied the "prior acquaintance/better position" test, finding that Mr. Mei had significant prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him from the video, despite the image quality.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, concluding its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice, with appropriate jury instructions to mitigate risks of unreliability.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempting to obstruct justice by lying to police about the identity of the person who killed her ex-boyfriend.

The accused was assaulted by her ex-boyfriend with a knife, and her current boyfriend shot and killed him in defence.

When police arrived, the accused gave false statements claiming she did not know who the shooter was, and she attempted to persuade a witness not to mention her boyfriend to police.

The accused maintained this lie for seven and a half months before finally admitting the truth.

The court imposed a nine-month conditional sentence followed by one year of probation, balancing her youth, guilty plea, and lack of criminal record against the serious nature of obstructing justice in a homicide investigation.

Hassan Jarrar was charged with three counts of breaching a section 810.2 recognizance.

The Crown withdrew one count.

The court found Jarrar guilty on two counts: having contact with a female under 16 years of age (K.S.) and breaching curfew.

The court rejected the defence of mistake of fact regarding K.S.'s age, finding Jarrar knew she was 14 and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

The court also found Jarrar breached his curfew by staying at a motel with K.S. instead of his designated residence.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault, sexual touching of a person under 16, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

At sentencing, the court imposed a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order for ten years.

The Crown subsequently brought an application to correct the order to life, as mandated by the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to correct the error.

The court held that while judges may correct errors in expressing their manifest intention, they cannot simply correct manifest errors where the original decision was one of commission rather than omission.

Following convictions for sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm against young children, the Crown brought an application to designate the offender a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered expert psychiatric evidence, historical youth offences, and the offender’s conduct in grooming and repeatedly abusing two victims.

Although aspects of the psychiatric risk assessment were treated with caution due to reliance on unproven allegations, the court found overwhelming evidence of entrenched pedophilia, denial of responsibility, and refusal to engage in treatment.

These factors demonstrated a high likelihood of future sexual recidivism and severe psychological harm to potential victims.

The court concluded that neither a determinate sentence nor long‑term offender supervision would adequately protect the public and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The accused, Leon Alexander and Edmund Benjamin, were charged in relation to the stabbing deaths of Andy James and Brandon Ramdeen following a boat cruise.

The Crown alleged that Alexander stabbed James or was a party to the stabbing, and that both accused participated in a group assault on Ramdeen during which he was fatally stabbed by another individual.

The trial judge found that while Alexander assaulted James, he did not stab him and his actions were not a significant contributing cause of death.

The judge also found the identification evidence regarding the assault on Ramdeen to be unreliable.

Both accused were acquitted of all charges.

In a homicide prosecution arising from two fatal stabbings following a boat cruise event, the Crown sought to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased identifying the assailant and statements of unidentified bystanders overheard during a related fight.

The court considered the res gestae exception and the principled approach to hearsay under authorities including Starr, Mapara, and Khelawon.

Although necessity was established for the deceased’s statements, the court found reliability lacking due to contradictory identifications, the dark and chaotic conditions of the incident, and the declarant’s misidentification of another individual.

The court also rejected the admission of anonymous bystander statements because their circumstances did not demonstrate spontaneity or reliability and carried a high risk of prejudice.

Only the deceased’s initial spontaneous exclamations describing the stabbing, but not identifying an assailant, were admitted.

During a murder trial, the applicant sought to introduce the police statement and examination-in-chief of an unavailable witness from a previous related trial under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The applicant did not seek to introduce the cross-examination from the previous trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that without the cross-examination or an adequate substitute, the threshold reliability of the statements was not established due to significant inconsistencies and credibility issues.

Following convictions for sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm against two young victims, the Crown initiated a dangerous offender application.

Prior to the hearing, the court ruled on the admissibility of documentary records from multiple agencies relating to the accused’s youth criminal history, probation supervision, psychiatric treatment, and counselling.

The court held that hearsay evidence is admissible at sentencing proceedings, including dangerous offender hearings, provided it is credible and trustworthy and subject to the Crown’s burden to prove disputed aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the records were prepared contemporaneously by professionals performing public duties and were therefore sufficiently reliable.

The documents were admitted, with certain limitations on their use and with the possibility that their authors could be called for cross-examination if accuracy were seriously challenged.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against two young boys.

The Crown alleged the accused sexually assaulted the boys during the summer and fall of 2009 while spending time with their family.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming a close father-son bond with one boy and denying any inappropriate contact.

The court found the boys' evidence credible and reliable, supported by circumstantial evidence including anal injuries and behavioral changes.

The court also admitted the boys' accounts as similar fact evidence, finding they mutually corroborated each other.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm against one boy and sexual assault simpliciter against the other.