Parole ineligibility

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder after stabbing the deceased, who had previously robbed him of a firearm.

On appeal, the appellant argued that administrative errors in compiling the 2022 jury roll violated his Charter rights to a representative jury and caused a miscarriage of justice.

He also challenged the trial judge's refusal to leave self-defence with the jury, the admission of prior discreditable conduct evidence, the voluntariness of his police statement, and the fitness of his 13-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no appearance of unfairness in the jury roll process, no air of reality to self-defence, and no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or sentencing.

The accused was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for shooting the victim.

The court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years.

The court noted that this was the accused's second first-degree murder conviction, but due to the Supreme Court's decision in Bissonnette, consecutive periods of parole ineligibility could not be imposed.

The court also ordered a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a lifetime non-communication order with the victim's family and a key witness.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder and kidnapping after a missing cocaine shipment led to the execution-style killings of two men.

On appeal, they challenged the trial judge's jury instructions regarding prior discreditable conduct, a Vetrovec caution, a third-party suspect defence, and the elements of aiding.

One appellant also appealed the denial of a severance application and his 23-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions or the refusal to sever the trials.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the parole ineligibility period was proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The offender was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree murder, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of discharging a firearm with intent, arising from a shooting outside a Toronto nightclub.

The Crown sought 20 years of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 15 years.

The court considered the devastating impact on the victims' families and the community, the aggravating factor of using a loaded handgun in a crowded public place, and the mitigating factors of the offender's youth and lack of a prior criminal record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility set at 20 years for the murders, and concurrent seven-year sentences for the other offences.

The appellant appealed his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 20 years for second-degree murder, which the trial judge ordered to be served consecutively to a previous parole ineligibility period for first-degree murder pursuant to s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Bissonnette, which struck down s. 745.51 as unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter, the Crown conceded the order could not stand.

The Court of Appeal allowed the sentence appeal to the limited extent of quashing the consecutive order, making the parole ineligibility periods run concurrently.

The accused was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder for the stabbing deaths of a father and son in their home.

The mandatory sentence is life imprisonment.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 20 years, while the defence sought 16 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the accused's background, and the impact of pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court set the period of parole ineligibility at 18 years concurrent on each count, commencing from the date of arrest.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting the victim and subsequently dismembering and destroying the body.

The Crown sought a 23-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 14 years with a further reduction for Charter breaches related to prolonged administrative segregation.

The court found the egregious post-offence conduct and the offender's extensive criminal record warranted a 20-year parole ineligibility period.

The court also found that the offender's prolonged administrative segregation violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter, granting a 3-year reduction.

The final period of parole ineligibility was fixed at 17 years.

The offenders, two brothers, were convicted of second degree murder for the planned and deliberate killing of an innocent 17-year-old victim, whom they mistakenly believed was associated with a group that had previously robbed one of the offenders.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 13-17 years, citing systemic anti-Black racism and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court found the murder to be exceptionally egregious, bordering on first degree murder, and sentenced both offenders to life imprisonment with a 20-year period of parole ineligibility, alongside mandatory weapons prohibitions and DNA orders.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for shooting the victim in the head with a concealed handgun.

The court considered the devastating impact on the victim's family, the offender's lack of a significant criminal record, and the jury's recommendations for parole ineligibility.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 16 years, along with non-communication, DNA, and lifetime weapons prohibition orders.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder for the sexual assault and murder of his wife, applied under the 'faint hope clause' (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code) for a reduction in his 25-year parole ineligibility period.

The court conducted a judicial screening to determine if there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would unanimously recommend early parole.

Finding that the applicant maintained his innocence, showed no meaningful character change, and that the index offence was highly aggravating, the court concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden.

The application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder for the stabbing deaths of two women with whom he had been romantically involved.

The court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years for each count, to be served concurrently.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-communication order with the victims' families.

The appellants were convicted of second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault following a drive-by shooting that occurred after they were robbed at a flea market.

They appealed their convictions on multiple grounds, including the jury selection process, the trial judge's refusal to leave self-defence and provocation with the jury, jury instructions, and evidentiary rulings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeals, reducing the periods of parole ineligibility and the sentences for attempted murder and aggravated assault, as the trial judge had erred in principle by exceeding the Crown's sentencing position without notice and failing to give adequate weight to the appellants' youth and rehabilitative prospects.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and the sentence increasing his period of parole ineligibility.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on intoxication and the required intention for murder.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the relevance of intoxication to mens rea and adequately summarized the defence's position regarding an alcohol-induced blackout.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with 15 years of parole ineligibility after shooting the victim outside a bar.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on self-defence, failed to leave the defence of provocation, and misstated witness evidence.

He also appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly tailored the self-defence instruction to the key factual issue of whether the victim drew a gun first, correctly concluded there was no air of reality to provocation, and made no material errors regarding witness testimony.

The sentence was upheld as fit given the aggravating factors, including the use of an illegal handgun in a public place.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, applied for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period under the 'faint hope' clause.

The court conducted an initial judicial screening to determine if there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would grant the application.

Considering the applicant's positive institutional record, successful completion of rehabilitative programs, expressions of remorse, and family support, the court found that the applicant met the threshold.

The application was allowed to proceed, and a jury was ordered to be empanelled.

The appellants appealed their convictions for first and second degree murder arising from a firebombing that killed two children.

The Crown's theory was that the primary appellant orchestrated the arson to silence the children's mother, who had accused him of sexual assault, and hired the other appellants to execute the plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's admission of bad character evidence, Vetrovec caution regarding an unsavoury witness, instructions on unlawful object murder, or instructions on post-offence conduct.

The court also upheld the 23-year parole ineligibility period for the appellant convicted of second degree murder.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing at a social event.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for second degree murder with no parole eligibility for 13 years, and a concurrent 8-year sentence for attempted murder.

The court considered the unprovoked nature of the attack and the severe impact on the victims as aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and positive employment history.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder for shooting his common-law partner in the head with a homemade firearm and burying her body in their backyard.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 17 to 18 years, while the defence argued for the statutory minimum of 10 years, supported by a jury recommendation.

The court rejected the jury's recommendation, finding it unrealistic given the serious aggravating factors, including the domestic context, use of a firearm, and extensive after-the-fact conduct to conceal the crime.

Applying the McKnight range for domestic homicides, the court fixed the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder and assault causing bodily harm in relation to the death of his common-law partner's two-year-old son.

The child suffered extensive, repeated blunt force trauma while in the offender's care, culminating in fatal abdominal injuries.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for second-degree murder with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the brutal breach of trust against a vulnerable infant.

A concurrent sentence of five years was imposed for the assault causing bodily harm.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for his role in the stabbing death of the victim, whose body was subsequently burned and dumped in a ditch.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 20 years, while the defence argued for 12 to 14 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the group attack, the extensive efforts to destroy evidence, and the offender's continued violent behaviour while in custody.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.