Keeley Margaret Marie Holmes

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault arising from an attack on a vulnerable victim with Asperger Syndrome at a shopping mall.

The Crown applied for a publication ban on the victim's identity pursuant to section 486.5 of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the publication ban, finding that it was in the interest of the proper administration of justice to protect the victim's identity and privacy, balancing the victim's vulnerability and the risk of harm against the principles of open court and freedom of the press.

The accused, Trae Worrie, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, sought a ruling to permit the jury to consider his protected out-of-court statements to forensic experts for the truth of their contents, in support of his not criminally responsible (NCR) defence.

The Crown opposed, arguing the statements should only be used to assess the basis of expert opinions, not for their truth.

The court ruled that while the accused consented to the use of the statements for the NCR defence, his exculpatory statements were inadmissible for the truth of their contents unless the Crown sought to admit them.

The statements could be used for the limited purpose of assessing the basis of expert opinions and as original evidence of mental state (e.g., preposterous statements indicating delusions).

The offenders, Romario Brissett and Devar Francis, were convicted by a jury of living off the avails of juvenile prostitution and exercising control over a minor for prostitution.

The Crown sought sentences of 2.5 years concurrent with 5 years for both.

The offenders sought 5 months consecutive or time served.

The court rejected the application of new mandatory minimums not in effect at the time of the offence and declined to apply the reasoning from R. v. Jackson regarding systemic racism for African-Canadian offenders due to lack of direct connection to the offenders' circumstances.

The court also rejected the argument for reduced sentences based on immigration consequences, finding the proposed sentences disproportionate.

Romario Brissett was sentenced to four years' incarceration, and Devar Francis was sentenced to three years' incarceration, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant sought disclosure of school counselling records and Children's Aid Society records created following allegations of sexual assault made by a complainant.

The applicant argued the records were likely relevant to credibility and to establishing potential motive to fabricate.

The court applied the two-stage test under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found the likely relevance threshold was met for the school counselling records, it determined that the best interests of justice test was not satisfied due to the availability of alternative sources of evidence and the high privacy interest in therapeutic records.

However, the court ordered production of the child welfare agency records for judicial review, finding a diminished expectation of privacy in those records and that they were not created in the context of a therapeutic relationship.

An applicant sought to terminate his Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) registration order after serving 11 years of a 20-year mandatory registration requirement.

The applicant had pleaded guilty to sexual interference involving his step-daughter between ages 9 and 14, with over 50 sexual encounters occurring over time.

The applicant argued that the impact of continued registration, including stress, anxiety, and fear of disclosure, was grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The Crown opposed termination.

The court applied the statutory test under section 490.016(1) of the Criminal Code and rejected the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold of demonstrating gross disproportionality between the impact on the offender and the public interest in protecting society through effective prevention and investigation of sexual offences.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having over 80 ml of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

A police officer observed the accused's vehicle with no lights on, approached him at a gas station, and formed suspicion of impairment based on odour of alcohol, slurred speech, and staggering.

The officer made an approved screening device demand, but the accused inhaled rather than exhaled twice.

The officer arrested the accused for impaired operation.

The Crown relied on breath samples obtained approximately 65 minutes after the initial observation.

The trial judge found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt due to incomplete and vague evidence, and that the breath samples were not obtained as soon as practicable due to an unexplained 9-minute delay for a phone call and a 13-minute gap at the police division.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual exploitation contrary to section 153 of the Criminal Code.

The sexual exploitation charge was withdrawn by the Crown.

The trial involved allegations that the accused, a 51-year-old kitchen preparation cook at Red Lobster, sexually assaulted a 16-17-year-old co-op student on multiple occasions between April and May 2016.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony regarding four discrete incidents in the dry storage room and other physical contact in the workplace.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility and reliability, citing significant inconsistencies between her initial statement to the employer, her statements to police, and her trial testimony.

The court found that while the accused may have committed the alleged assaults, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies and omissions in the complainant's evidence.

N.J. pleaded guilty to six counts, including procuring (s.212(1)(h)) involving four teenage complainants and two counts of assault.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the number and nature of crimes, the vulnerability of the young women, and the predatory character of the offender's actions as a pimp.

Mitigating factors included N.J. being a first-offender, his guilty pleas, and restrictive bail conditions.

The Crown sought a 10-year global sentence, while the defence sought two years less a day.

The court imposed an effective total sentence of three years' incarceration, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order, after crediting 502 days for presentence custody and house arrest.

The offender, D.W., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching involving a seven-year-old victim.

The sexual assault conviction was stayed under the Kienapple Principle.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust and the victim's vulnerability, and mitigating factors including harsh pre-trial custody conditions and the certainty of deportation.

The court declined to grant credit for time spent in immigration detention as it was not directly a result of the charges.

A global sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment was imposed, with a 1.5:1 credit for 21 days of pre-bail custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, lifetime sexual offender registry, lifetime weapons prohibition, and a lifetime no-contact order with the victim and her family.

This ruling addresses the partial defence of provocation in a murder trial.

The accused, Iqbal Singh, sought to have provocation left to the jury, arguing that his extreme anger and loss of self-control stemmed from seeing his wife, Anita Summan, with Gurcharan Doal in a manner culturally inappropriate for a brother-sister relationship.

The court found no air of reality to the partial defence of provocation, concluding that the alleged wrongful act or insult was insufficient to deprive an ordinary person of self-control, even when infused with the accused's cultural background, as such beliefs must align with contemporary Canadian values and norms of behaviour, including gender equality and personal autonomy.

Mandeep Punia was charged with second-degree murder and Skinder Punia with accessory after the fact to murder.

The jury found Mandeep guilty of manslaughter and Skinder guilty of accessory to manslaughter.

This decision provides the judge's reasons for several trial rulings: (a) the effect of a registrar's error during peremptory challenges in jury selection, which was deemed procedural and saved by s. 643(3) of the Criminal Code; (b) the refusal to issue a Vetrovec warning for a crucial Crown witness (Supinder Litt) due to her non-unsavoury character, though a strong caution was given; (c) the refusal to give a Bero instruction regarding incomplete police recordings, as no deliberate failure to preserve evidence was found, but the jury was instructed that reasonable doubt could arise from the absence of evidence; and (d) the decision to leave the defence of provocation with the jury for Mandeep, finding an "air of reality" to the subjective element based on the totality of evidence, despite the defence not actively advancing it.

The accused, Iqbal Singh, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal on charges of first-degree murder and unlawful confinement.

The court reviewed the evidence against the legal tests for directed verdicts, unlawful confinement (actus reus and mens rea), planning and deliberation for first-degree murder, and constructive first-degree murder (temporal and causal connection).

The court found sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to find the essential elements of unlawful confinement and both forms of first-degree murder (planning and deliberation, and constructive murder).

Consequently, the application for directed verdicts on both counts was dismissed, allowing the charges to proceed to the jury.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the seizure of her breath samples on Charter grounds and argued that the samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found that the Crown discharged its burden of establishing reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including the failed roadside screening device test.

The court also found that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was found guilty.