Attempted murder

The accused was convicted by jury of the attempted murder of her infant daughter and her mother, and of aggravated assault of the daughter, following an incident in which all three were found unconscious after being injected with insulin.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on the attempted murder count relating to the mother on the basis that the jury instructions failed to distinguish between attempted murder and the offence of aiding suicide where the mother may have self-administered the insulin.

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, restoring the conviction, finding no air of reality to the theory that the mother voluntarily injected herself with suicidal intent.

The majority held that trial judges must only instruct on theories lacking air of reality where there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation, and that the cumulative circumstantial evidence did not support a reasonable inference that the mother intended to end her own life.

The dissent would have dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding an air of reality to the inference of autonomous self-injection and holding that the trial judge was required to instruct the jury on the legal significance of I.F.'s possible voluntary participation to the actus reus of attempted murder.

The offender was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder after driving his truck into a Muslim family in London, Ontario.

The sentencing judge found that the murders constituted terrorist activity under the Criminal Code, as they were motivated by white nationalist ideology and intended to intimidate the Muslim community.

The offender was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years for each murder, and a concurrent life sentence for the attempted murder, reflecting the extreme brutality and terrorist nature of the attack.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, attempted murder, and firearms offences following a public shooting at a shopping mall.

The offender fired at an intended target but missed, instead striking and killing an innocent bystander.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years for the murder, alongside concurrent sentences of 12 years for attempted murder and 8 years for the firearms offences.

The court rejected the application of the rule against multiple convictions for the attempted murder charge, noting the offences involved different victims.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm, aggravated assault, and firearms possession offences following a shooting in a commercial parking lot.

The accused shot his cousin after the cousin lunged at him, allegedly armed with a knife.

The court found the accused acted in lawful self-defence when he discharged the firearm, resulting in acquittals on the shooting-related charges.

However, the court held that the accused did not act in self-defence when he initially took possession of the loaded firearm from a friend, as there was no imminent threat at that time.

The accused was found guilty of possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a targeted shooting where the victim was shot at 28 times but survived.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell tower data, and the accused's subsequent use of the rental vehicle involved in the shooting.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, assessing whether guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's identity as the driver during the shooting, noting inconsistencies in the phone records and alternative reasonable inferences.

The accused was found not guilty on all charges.

The accused was charged with attempted murder after stabbing a neighbour with a kitchen knife.

The defence raised the mental disorder exemption under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, arguing the accused lacked the capacity to know his actions were wrong due to schizoaffective disorder and active psychosis.

Expert psychiatric evidence established that the accused suffered from chronic mental illness involving hallucinations and delusions, was non‑compliant with medication prior to the offence, and likely experienced auditory hallucinations at the time of the attack.

Applying the analytical framework for NCR determinations, the court accepted that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of rationally appreciating the moral wrongfulness of the act.

The court therefore found the accused not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

During a criminal trial involving allegations of attempted murder, arson causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and flight from police, the Crown sought to admit a statement made by the complainant identifying the accused shortly after being burned in a house fire.

The statement was relayed through a neighbour and tendered under the res gestae or spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

The defence challenged admissibility based on the complainant’s intoxication, inconsistencies in witness recollection, and the Crown’s failure to comply with procedural rules governing pre-trial applications.

The court held the statement was sufficiently reliable and contemporaneous with the traumatic event to meet the res gestae exception, and that the procedural non-compliance caused no prejudice to the defence.

Leave was granted to hear the late application and the hearsay statement was admitted, though the court cautioned that its weight might be reduced due to the complainant’s intoxication.

In a criminal appeal as of right, the Court considered whether the trial judge properly answered a jury question about the distinction between intent to kill and intent required for murder.

The Court held that the jury’s question raised a live intent issue that required clarification, and that merely referring jurors back to prior written instructions was insufficient.

Reviewing the record as a whole, the Court found a realistic possibility the jury misunderstood what had to be proved for murder and attempted murder.

The Court also noted the prosecution concession that the decision tree provided to the jury was erroneous on provocation.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered on both charges.

The accused was tried without a jury on charges of attempted murder, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, robbery, aggravated assault, and attempted obstruction of justice arising from a hotel room confrontation involving a sex worker and a client.

Surveillance video, text messages, and witness testimony showed the accused entered the room with a handgun during an argument over payment and a gun discharged shortly before the complainant fled with a head injury.

The court found the accused possessed and fired the firearm and caused the complainant’s injury, but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury was caused by the bullet or that the accused had the specific intent to kill.

The court also found the force used was not justified as defence of another and that the accused later attempted to influence a witness’s evidence through a letter.

Convictions were entered for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, aggravated assault, and attempted obstruction of justice, while the accused was acquitted of attempted murder and robbery.

The offender was convicted after trial of attempted murder and related firearms offences arising from a point‑blank shooting in Toronto.

The victim was shot three times, leaving him a quadriplegic and permanently confined to a wheelchair.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s criminal history, and the extreme harm caused.

Despite the offender’s youth and family support, numerous aggravating factors including prior violent offences, breach of bail conditions, and the senseless nature of the shooting justified the maximum sentence.

The court imposed life imprisonment for attempted murder, with concurrent sentences on related firearm and breach offences.

The offender pleaded guilty to attempted murder after attacking her adult daughter with an Exacto knife and a kitchen knife, slashing the victim’s throat and stabbing her before being interrupted by the victim’s boyfriend.

The victim survived but suffered severe and lasting physical and psychological consequences.

The court considered the broad sentencing range for attempted murder and emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly given the planned nature of the attack and the domestic relationship between offender and victim.

Although the offender had no criminal record, pleaded guilty, and expressed remorse, the offence involved deliberate planning, abuse of familial trust, and serious injury.

The court imposed an 11‑year penitentiary sentence, with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody and ancillary orders.

The accused applied for a directed verdict of acquittal after the Crown closed its case on a charge of attempted murder.

The Crown relied primarily on eyewitness recognition evidence from the complainant, who identified the accused through photo line-ups and an in-dock identification.

The defence argued the identification narrative was irreparably tainted by flawed police photo line-up procedures and minimal prior familiarity between the witness and the accused.

The court held that although the December 6, 2010 photo line-up was not ideal and raised legitimate concerns, it still met the threshold reliability required to be left to the jury.

The court concluded that the complainant’s recognition evidence and in-dock identification, if believed, could support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the matter should proceed to the jury.

Sentencing decision following convictions for attempted murder, criminal harassment, breach of recognizance, criminal negligence causing bodily harm with a motor vehicle, and failure to remain at the scene of an accident.

The offences arose from obsessive harassment of a former romantic partner culminating in the accused intentionally striking the partner’s new companion with a vehicle.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in domestic‑context attempted murder cases but also considered the offender’s advanced age, severe health issues, lack of prior criminal record, and lengthy history of positive community contributions as mitigating factors.

A six‑year sentence for attempted murder was imposed with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

The court also granted enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre‑trial custody due to the unusually harsh impact of incarceration on the offender’s health.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, and breaching a recognizance prohibiting possession of weapons.

The Crown’s case centered on recognition identification evidence from the victim, who had known the accused from prior encounters and observed him on a bus moments before being shot at close range.

The court carefully reviewed the inherent frailties of eyewitness identification but found the recognition evidence reliable when considered alongside corroborating testimony from a bus passenger and other circumstantial evidence.

The victim’s identification was supported by the sequence of events linking the accused from the bus to the shooting and by evidence placing him near the scene.

The court concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter and that firing a handgun at the victim’s head at point‑blank range established the intent required for attempted murder.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder at trial.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

On further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appellant challenged the reasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court unanimously agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the verdict was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of evidence relating to firing‑pin indentations on three cartridges recovered from the scene of an alleged robbery and attempted murder.

Police had test‑fired two of the cartridges during the investigation, which obliterated the original firing‑pin impressions and prevented later forensic comparison with a handgun recovered a year later.

The accused argued that the loss of the original impressions constituted unacceptable negligence and breached their right to make full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter, warranting exclusion of the evidence.

The court found that the police conduct amounted to unacceptable negligence and therefore constituted a breach of s. 7.

However, the court held that exclusion of the evidence was not an appropriate remedy because the potential prejudice was speculative and could be addressed through cross‑examination and a jury instruction regarding the Crown’s failure to preserve evidence.

The accused applied for a bail review after a justice of the peace ordered detention on the secondary ground following charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault arising from an alleged knife attack.

The reviewing court found that the proposed surety on review was reliable and capable of supervising the accused, addressing the secondary ground concerns.

The court then considered whether detention was necessary on the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the alleged offence and the apparent strength of the Crown’s case, the court held that the statutory factors did not reach the highest level and that the tertiary ground must be used sparingly.

Considering the accused’s age, lack of criminal record, positive antecedents, and the strength of the proposed surety, detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused applied under s. 591(3)(a) of the Criminal Code to sever counts relating to one complainant from a multi-count indictment involving seven complainants alleging sexual offences and attempted murder arising from nondisclosure of HIV-positive status.

The accused argued he intended to testify regarding the severed complainant’s allegations, which included disputed non-consensual conduct, but not regarding the other complainants whose sexual encounters were admitted to be consensual at the time.

The Crown opposed severance, asserting a strong factual nexus among the counts and a viable similar fact evidence application based on an alleged pattern of behaviour and extensive chat log evidence demonstrating intent.

The court held that the accused established an objectively justifiable basis for testifying on the severed counts but not the others, and that forcing a joint trial would prejudice the accused’s right to choose whether to testify.

Severance of the counts relating to the particular complainant was therefore granted in the interests of justice.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and several firearms and recognizance offences arising from a shooting at Fairview Mall during a pursuit following a shoplifting incident.

The central issue at trial was identification of the accused as the person captured on surveillance video wearing a red T‑shirt who fled and discharged a handgun during the chase.

The court assessed recognition evidence, eyewitness testimony, and extensive video and photographic evidence, admitting identification evidence from a probation officer who had frequent prior contact with the accused while excluding identification evidence from two police officers who lacked sufficient familiarity.

After comparing the video footage with the accused’s appearance in court and considering corroborating testimony from witnesses to the chase and shooting, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person in the video and that he fired a handgun at a pursuing security officer to avoid arrest.

However, the court found the Crown had not proven the specific intent required for attempted murder.

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder and attempted murder arising from a street stabbing that killed one victim and seriously injured another.

The court considered the factors under s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code for determining the period of parole ineligibility, including the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and the surrounding circumstances.

Aggravating factors included the unprovoked knife attack on unarmed strangers in a public place and the offender’s role as the aggressor.

Mitigating factors included youth, remorse, family support, and the guilty plea.

The court imposed life imprisonment for second degree murder with a 12‑year parole ineligibility period and a concurrent 10‑year sentence for attempted murder.