Threatening death

This sentencing decision addresses serious domestic violence offences committed by K.B., who pleaded guilty to multiple counts including assault, assault with choking, threatening to damage property, threatening death, and theft.

The offender has a significant prior record for domestic violence offences in Alberta, including sexual assault and assault with a weapon, and had been paroled for over five years before reoffending.

The court carefully balanced aggravating factors such as the severity and multiplicity of offences and prior record, with mitigating factors including guilty pleas, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, remorse, and community support.

The total sentence imposed was 30 months imprisonment, with credit for 337 days pre-sentence custody and Summers credit, followed by a three-year probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and mandatory counselling.

The defendant, Jordan Maxwell, was charged with sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant alleged that Maxwell sexually assaulted her and threatened her life while she was babysitting his children.

Maxwell denied the allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

While finding the complainant more credible and believable than the defendant, the court noted inconsistencies and uncertainties in the complainant's evidence regarding timing and details, which prevented the Crown from proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The appellant, Jeffrey Mitchell, appealed his convictions for two counts of threatening death and his 90-day conditional sentence and two years probation.

The convictions stemmed from text messages sent to his former wife and her new partner, and a stick figure decal on his truck.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on propensity evidence, failed to apply the W.(D.) analysis, misapprehended evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny.

He also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his dyslexia and reliance on voice-to-text.

The Superior Court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the propensity evidence admissible for context, the W.(D.) principles correctly applied (evidenced by an acquittal on one count), no misapprehension of evidence, and no uneven scrutiny.

The fresh evidence application was denied due to lack of cogency and insufficient explanation for its late introduction.

The sentence was deemed reasonable and not manifestly unfit.

The defendant, P.N., was accused of seven counts including assault, mischief, threatening death, and sexual assault by his ex-girlfriend.

The court found significant issues with the complainant's credibility and reliability, including shifting testimony, a strong motive to fabricate allegations due to the defendant's deception about his marriage, and the perjury of a key Crown witness (the complainant's roommate).

The complainant's account of the sexual assault was deemed unlikely and lacking detail.

The defendant was found not guilty on all counts due to the Crown's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, A.Z.A., was sentenced following convictions for three counts of threatening to cause death, one count of sexual assault, and one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm against his wife and daughters.

The offences occurred over a lengthy period, involving a pattern of domestic violence and abuse of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the seriousness and duration of the crimes, the victim's vulnerability, and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the absence of a prior criminal record.

Applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, and drawing comparisons to similar cases involving intimate partner violence, the court imposed a sentence of 8 years imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a weapons prohibition, and a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The appellant, Mario Inacio, appealed his convictions for robbery, unlawful confinement, assault, threatening death, and extortion, stemming from a dispute over a $400 rent payment.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to adequately assess the reliability of the complainant's evidence, given her admitted drug use and memory problems.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of reliability, noting that the judge was aware of the complainant's issues but nonetheless accepted her evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

This criminal trial involved five charges against the defendant, S.S., related to alleged assaults and threats against his estranged wife, M.G., and their son, Sa., across three separate incidents in 2019 and 2020.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the complainants and the defendant, and critically examined a surreptitiously recorded audio file presented by the defence.

The judge found the defendant guilty of assaulting M.G. and Sa. on July 12, 2020, and assaulting M.G. between January 11 and December 31, 2019.

However, the charges of assault and threatening M.G. on June 23, 2020, were dismissed due to gaps in the Crown's evidence, particularly the lack of questioning of the son regarding that specific incident.

The court found the defendant and his sister fabricated evidence regarding the June 23 incident and that the defendant tampered with the audio recording for the July 12 incident, significantly diminishing his credibility.

The accused, J.W., pleaded guilty to sexual assault, threatening death, and unlawful confinement of K.G. The court was tasked with sentencing, considering the Crown's request for 8-10 years and the Defence's request for 7.5 years.

The decision weighed aggravating factors, including the violent nature of the offences, the victim's vulnerability as an Aboriginal female, and the significant impact on her life and career.

Mitigating factors included the offender's Aboriginal status, mental health issues, and cognitive deficits, stemming from intergenerational trauma.

The court sentenced the offender to nine years imprisonment, granting 1.5:1 credit for time in detention centres and 1:1 credit for time spent in a more comfortable hospital environment, resulting in a balance of four years to be served in a federal institution.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

The defendant, Preston Proulx, was accused of sexual assault, forcible confinement, threatening death, and assault against his former girlfriend.

The central issue was credibility, as the complainant and defendant presented vastly different accounts of the events.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, supported by photographic evidence and the defendant's emails containing admissions and demonstrating a tendency to anger and dishonesty.

The defendant was found guilty of all four charges.

The accused was charged with theft, threatening death, assault with a weapon, and robbery following an incident at a Home Depot store.

Loss prevention officers observed the accused allegedly hiding two Milwaukee tool batteries under his sweater and exiting without paying.

When they attempted a citizen's arrest, the accused resisted, brandished a box cutter, threatened to kill one officer, and fled.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon and threatening death, but acquitted him of theft and robbery due to reasonable doubt regarding whether he actually left the store with the merchandise.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the citizen's arrest under section 494 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and threatening death.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, accepting the complainant's testimony of non-consensual intercourse and forceful restraint, supported by physical evidence.

The court found the accused not guilty of uttering a death threat, as the alleged statement lacked context and credibility.

The accused was convicted after trial of assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and threatening death arising from a violent incident with his former common law partner.

The Crown sought a maximum reformatory sentence with ancillary orders.

The defence sought an intermittent sentence on the sexual assault count and a conditional sentence on the remaining counts.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totalling 16 months in a provincial reformatory, followed by three years of probation, while considering Gladue principles applicable to the Indigenous accused and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The Crown applied to have Ali Butt declared a Dangerous Offender following his guilty pleas to two charges of criminal harassment and two charges of threatening death.

Butt opposed the Dangerous Offender designation but conceded that the criteria for a Long Term Offender were met.

The court found that a pattern of violent conduct had been established, meeting the requirements of ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code, and that there was a high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

However, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Butt's conduct was intractable, considering his treatment prospects, willingness to engage in therapy, and developing insight.

Consequently, the Dangerous Offender designation was denied.

Butt was declared a Long Term Offender and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for criminal harassment and threatening death, along with an eight-year Long Term Supervision Order.

Malcolm Valade was charged with threatening death and discharge of a firearm while reckless.

He pled guilty to the firearm charge, and the threatening charge was dismissed.

This decision provides reasons on sentencing for the firearm offence.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including a toxic family relationship and the offender's mental health issues.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought twelve months.

The court determined that if the mandatory minimum of four years for the firearm offence is constitutional, the sentence would be four years imprisonment, as the offender qualified as a "best offender." If the mandatory minimum were not constitutional, the court would have imposed a twenty-month prison term.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his conviction for sexual assault and two counts of threatening death.

The accused, aged 48 with over 50 prior convictions and a history as a long-term offender, committed a sexual assault on an elderly shelter resident and made death threats to police officers.

A forensic psychiatrist assessed the accused as presenting high to very high risk for violent and sexual recidivism with intractable mental disorders including anti-social personality disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and substance abuse disorder.

The accused consented to the dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court accepted the consent and imposed detention in a penitentiary for an indefinite period.

Anthony Birch and Lance Richardson were charged with multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and threatening to cause death, stemming from an incident in Baycrest Park.

Birch was also charged with wearing a disguise.

The victims, Floryna Balagbag and Andre Pal, were robbed, assaulted, and threatened at gunpoint and knifepoint.

Both accused testified in their own defence, presenting alibis that the court found lacked credibility.

The court assessed the identification evidence from the victims and circumstantial evidence, including items found with Birch and his inconsistent statements to police.

The court rejected the defence's evidence and found both accused guilty on all counts, relying on the victims' descriptions, photo lineup identification, and the compelling circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

The accused, Lewis Lauzon, was charged with sexually assaulting and threatening to kill the complainant.

The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, who was an 18-year-old at the time of the alleged offences.

The defence highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant's memory and the implausibility of certain aspects of the account, while the Crown emphasized the complainant's core consistency, lack of motive to fabricate, and corroborating circumstantial evidence.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness despite some inconsistencies and memory frailties, concluding that the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with three counts of threatening death contrary to section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The threats were contained in a letter written to President Barack Obama on December 17, 2012, with copies sent to various recipients.

The letter expressed grievances against the Toronto Star, University of Toronto Law School, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and posed rhetorical questions about whether the accused should "pump bullets" into staff members of these organizations.

The accused argued the letter was purely rhetorical and not intended to threaten.

The court found that the language constituted threats of death on an objective standard and that the accused intended to intimidate.

The accused was convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from two separate incidents involving his wife: assault, unlawful confinement, choking, threatening death, and mischief on September 1, 2013, and three counts of mischief on November 3, 2013.

The accused pleaded guilty to some mischief charges but not guilty to the remaining charges.

The trial proceeded with testimony from the complainant and a corroborating witness, followed by the accused's testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's denials.

The court convicted the accused on all remaining charges based on the evidence that he was highly intoxicated and engaged in violent and threatening behaviour toward the complainant.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault, one count of threatening death, and one count of assault causing bodily harm against the complainant.

The Crown alleged the defendant assaulted the complainant in separate incidents, on one occasion causing injury, and threatened to kill her.

Following a trial with multiple hearing dates, the court found the accused guilty of one count of assault based on evidence that the defendant blackened the complainant's eye during an altercation the evening prior to a planned move.

The court dismissed the remaining charges, finding insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that all injuries were caused by the accused.