Kate Doorly

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting his common-law wife by throwing a can at her head and throwing her against a wall, and to breaching a non-contact release condition by being found in her apartment.

The sentencing proceeded through a restorative justice sentencing circle involving the accused, the victim, the accused's mother, an Aboriginal Elder, court personnel, and counsel.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, including no-contact provisions, counselling requirements for substance abuse and domestic violence, and weapons prohibition.

The sentence reflected principles of restorative justice and the accused's sincere efforts at rehabilitation despite his significant criminal history and substance abuse issues.

The accused brought a motion to stay a charge of Over 80 based on unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was arrested on April 2, 2016, with trial scheduled for November 16, 2017, representing 19.5 months of delay.

The Crown argued that defence delay should be deducted, resulting in a net delay of 16 months, below the 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The defence contended the net delay was 18.5 months.

The court found the net delay was 18.5 months and that the Crown failed to establish an exceptional circumstance to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The charge was stayed.

The accused was charged with obstructing a police officer by misidentifying himself.

The Crown's case relied on identification evidence from two officers: PC Perilli, who arrested the accused at a motel and later identified him in a YouTube video, and PC Gorski, who provided recognition evidence based on prior dealings with the accused.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found significant flaws in the identification procedure, including the absence of a critical cell phone photo used for comparison, inconsistencies between officer accounts, and the poor quality of surveillance video.

The court concluded that while individual officers expressed certainty, the reliability of the identification process was compromised, leaving reasonable doubt as to identity.