Keeley Margaret Marie Holmes

Following trial convictions on six firearms offences, the sentencing court imposed a 7-year global penitentiary sentence for public possession of a loaded handgun with an obliterated serial number while subject to a weapons prohibition.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount given the offender's related prior record, the recency of his release from a prior penitentiary-equivalent sentence, the public setting, and the physical struggle with police that heightened the risk of accidental discharge.

The court accepted mitigating factors including anti-Black racism, family trauma, remorse, employment, family support, restrictive bail compliance, and limited trial concessions, but held they could not outweigh the gravity of the offences and the offender's high moral culpability.

Enhanced credit was granted for harsh pandemic-era pre-trial custody and restrictive bail, but no additional sentence reduction was given for the minor s. 10(b) Charter breach.

Lifetime weapons, DNA, and forfeiture orders were also made.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder of his former domestic partner.

The victim was killed in her home in a brutal attack involving multiple stab wounds and near-decapitation.

The offender had a documented history of violence and threats toward the victim, breached court-ordered no-contact conditions, and committed the murder while the victim's young child was present in the home.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility of 18 years, reduced from 20 years due to Charter violations arising from the offender's mistreatment during an Institutional Crisis Intervention Team deployment at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The applicant, Melissa Merritt, challenged the constitutionality of the absence of an appeal route following the dismissal of a directed verdict application and a subsequent mistrial.

She argued that section 7 of the Charter requires an appeal to the Court of Appeal in these circumstances and attacked sections 674 and 675 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the argument, holding that Parliament is entitled to restrict appeals to those provided by statute and that interlocutory appeals are not constitutionally required.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant later pled guilty to manslaughter.

This endorsement addresses a media request for the release of exhibits from the sentencing hearing in R. v. Ritchie.

The court permitted the release of all exhibits to the media, subject to privacy protections for inmates and the victim’s child, and restrictions on the publication of certain sensitive materials, including medical and psychiatric reports.

The order was made with the consent of all parties involved.

In a firearms prosecution arising from a traffic stop outside a licensed establishment, the accused brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention and denial of the right to counsel.

The court held that the initial parking lot interaction did not amount to detention, and that the subsequent stop was a lawful sobriety investigation rather than a racially motivated or arbitrary detention.

The court found a minor breach of s. 10(b) based on an unjustified 19-minute delay in facilitating contact with counsel after arrest.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court declined to exclude the firearm and ammunition because the breach was low in seriousness, had modest impact, and the evidence was real, reliable, and critical.

Joseph Kalina pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography involving a large collection of images and videos depicting young girls under ten years old being sexually exploited.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors including the volume and depravity of the material, and the offender's limited appreciation of the harm caused.

Mitigating factors included Kalina's age (81), guilty plea, remorse (though diminished by minimization), and health concerns.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 2.5 years, reduced from the Crown's 3-year recommendation due to age and health, and denied a conditional sentence.

Ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA, and s.161 orders were imposed for 20 years.

Jastaran Sandhu was found guilty of manslaughter as a party to a fatal shooting that resulted in the death of Gursevek Jagpal.

The jury concluded that Sandhu abetted the assault by encouraging the shooter, knowing a firearm was involved.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Sandhu's planning of the confrontation, his active encouragement of the shooting, and his post-offence conduct (lying to 911 and destroying evidence).

Mitigating factors included his youth (18 at the time of the offence), his lack of a prior criminal record, and strong family support.

The court sentenced Sandhu to nine years imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody and time spent under restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 8 years and 291 days.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a victim surcharge.

Cristian Figueroa, convicted of first-degree murder, applied under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period (a "faint hope" application).

The court, acting as a screening judge, assessed whether the application had a "reasonable prospect of succeeding" before a jury, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant's character, and his conduct while serving his sentence.

Despite the horrific nature of the crime and the applicant's continued denial of full responsibility, his significant rehabilitative efforts, positive institutional conduct, and relatively low risk of reoffending led the court to conclude that a jury could reasonably grant clemency.

The application to empanel a jury was granted.

The applicant, Robert Gordon, sought a stay of proceedings for sexual assault under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 25-month and 1-day delay.

The Crown requested summary dismissal due to the applicant's late service of application materials.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable explanation for the late filing, prejudice to the Crown, inconsistency with the Rules' objectives, and a promotion of complacency contrary to the principles of R. v. Jordan.

The court also noted that the trial could have been conducted within Jordan guidelines had both parties maintained their initial positions regarding pre-trial motions.

The accused was charged with extortion, simple assault, and aggravated assault against a vulnerable complainant with schizophrenia.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant's eyewitness identification of the accused as the perpetrator, a man who regularly attended his apartment.

The defence argued mistaken identity, presenting evidence that the accused was known by a different name and that another man matching the description existed.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant's identification unreliable due to substance use, inconsistencies, and cross-racial identification frailties.

The court also noted a failure by police to investigate an alternative suspect linked to DNA at the scene.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The court delivered oral reasons for sentence after Roger Jaggernauth was found guilty of attempted murder and counselling to commit murder.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a total sentence of 16.5 years custody, with credit for pre-sentencing custody.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the devastating impact on the victim, the domestic context of the offences, the victim's vulnerability, the fact the attack occurred at her home, and the extensive planning involved in the contract hit.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, pro-social history, and time spent on house arrest.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it proportionate and consistent with sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, Roger Jaggernauth, was charged with attempted murder and counselling to commit murder.

The charges stemmed from a crossbow attack on Marlene Pimenta, his former partner, following a contentious separation and family law dispute over her financial investment in his home.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including Jaggernauth's strong motive, his solicitation of a "hitman" from a former biker club member (Paul Eakin), threatening utterances to his work supervisor (David Allan), and "heat conscious" after-the-fact conduct prior to being officially contacted by police.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence, viewed holistically, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jaggernauth orchestrated the attack with intent to kill and deliberately counselled murder.

The defendants, jointly charged with serious drug and gun offences, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to scheduled trial date was 29.25 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling.

The Crown offered priority trial dates, which the defence rejected due to insufficient preparation time, despite the Crown's argument that disclosure issues could be addressed later.

The court found that the offered preparation time (3-4 weeks) was inadequate for a five-day trial involving serious indictable offences, and therefore, the defence was not responsible for the ensuing delay.

After deducting for defence-caused delay and complexity, the net delay remained 27.5 months, infringing the defendants' right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The proceedings were stayed.

The accused, Bernard LaCombe, was found guilty of one count of sexual assault involving four non-consensual sexual acts with an intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intimate partner relationship and breach of trust, and mitigating factors such as the accused's health issues and the out-of-character nature of the offences.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three and a half to four and a half years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court sentenced the accused to three years in a penitentiary, along with a five-year firearms prohibition and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Victor Alvarado pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the fatal stabbing of his friend, Orlando Donaldson.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a knife, the significant victim impact, and the offender's criminal record, which included prior violent offences involving a knife.

Mitigating factors included the genuine guilty plea, remorse, the triable issue of self-defence, the causal link between his paranoid schizophrenia and his actions, and the harsh pre-trial detention conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized denunciation and individual deterrence, noting that general deterrence is less significant when mental illness drives behaviour.

A sentence of six years incarceration was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial on historical intrafamilial sexual offence allegations, the court acquitted on four counts involving one complainant but convicted on two counts involving a second complainant.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and credibility principles for historical sexual assault cases, the court found the second complainant credible and rejected the accused's evidence that the sexual activity only began when the complainant was an adult.

The court held that the accused, a significantly older great-uncle who spent time alone with the complainant and was entrusted with his care, stood in a position of trust under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

It further held that the accused abused that position of trust so as to vitiate apparent consent under s. 273.1(2)(c), supporting a conviction for sexual assault.

The acquittals on the remaining historical counts followed from exculpatory defence evidence that left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault relating to four separate incidents involving a complainant he met on a dating app.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony and text messages, while the accused denied the allegations and advanced an alibi for one incident.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's evidence due to significant inconsistencies and exaggeration.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness and convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The Crown sought a pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of uncharged discreditable conduct evidence against the accused, A.N., who is charged with second-degree murder.

The evidence included A.N. selling marihuana to J.W. (the co-accused who testified for the Crown) on the days leading up to the homicide, and A.N.'s alleged participation in an earlier knifepoint robbery with J.W. The court ruled that evidence of marihuana sales was admissible as part of the narrative to explain the relationship and J.W.'s possession of the knife.

However, the court found the evidence of the earlier knifepoint robbery inadmissible, concluding its probative value was outweighed by its significant moral and reasoning prejudice, as it was not essential to the narrative and, if anything, tended to support the defence's position regarding mens rea.

The accused was charged with second degree murder following the death of his friend, who was found beaten to death in his rented room.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence of the accused's ex-wife, who testified that the accused confessed to the killing during a drunken phone call.

The court accepted the ex-wife's testimony, finding it corroborated by cell phone records and non-public details of the crime scene.

Despite evidence of the accused's intoxication, the court found he possessed the requisite mens rea for murder given the brutality of the assault and his subsequent actions to conceal the crime.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after her daughter suffered a severe laceration to her forehead.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, alleging the accused intentionally injured the child out of frustration.

The accused testified the injury was an accident caused by a malfunctioning highchair.

Applying the principles from Villoroman and W.(D.), the court found that while the accused's testimony was not fully accepted, it left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an inference that the injury was accidental, resulting in an acquittal.