K. Matthews

The accused, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing the victim once in the chest during an argument while heavily intoxicated.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, arguing the offence was near-murder, while the defence proposed four to seven years.

Applying Gladue principles and weighing the accused's remorse, guilty plea, and history of trauma against the aggravating factors of intoxication and use of a weapon, the court imposed a sentence of six years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of sexually assaulting his cousin after providing her with a substance she believed was crack cocaine.

The Crown sought a 3-year sentence, while the defence sought 18 months to 2 years.

The court considered the devastating impact on the victim, the accused's lack of a prior record, his rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated on unrelated charges, and his Indigenous background as detailed in a Gladue report.

The accused was sentenced to two years plus one day in a penitentiary, to be served consecutively to his current sentence.

The accused, a 47-year-old Indigenous man with a lengthy criminal record, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking the victim in an unprovoked attack.

The court considered Gladue factors but prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the accused's history of violence and non-compliance with court orders.

The accused was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh pandemic conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 1297 days.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking the victim once on the neck, causing a fatal brain hemorrhage.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine disputed facts for sentencing.

The court found that the accused meant to cause serious bodily harm but did not have the requisite intent for murder.

The court rejected claims of provocation and found insufficient evidence that intoxication played a mitigating role, concluding the unprovoked attack occurred in very aggravating circumstances.

The accused, an Indigenous man with significant health issues including kidney failure, pleaded guilty to defrauding an Aboriginal Health Access Centre of $59,901.70 while serving as its Treasurer.

The court considered Gladue factors, the accused's health, and the devastating impact of the fraud on the organization.

A 12-month conditional sentence was imposed, followed by two years of probation, along with orders for full restitution and a lifetime prohibition from holding positions of financial authority.

The accused, a nightclub promoter, was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving two different complainants at different nightclubs in 2008.

The Crown applied to admit the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence across both counts, which the court dismissed due to insufficient similarity and prejudicial effect.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, finding the accused's exculpatory evidence contrived and unreliable.

The court found the accused guilty on Count 1, accepting the first complainant's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court acquitted the accused on Count 2, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the second complainant's identification of the accused due to her inability to recall his distinctive tattoos.

The Crown brought an application under section 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code to remand the respondent for an assessment to determine whether he should be declared a dangerous or long-term offender.

The respondent had recently been convicted of two counts of sexual assault and had a lengthy criminal record including prior sexual offences.

The court reviewed the respondent's history, psychological reports, and Gladue factors, concluding that there was a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences of his actions.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender and ordered the assessment.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after the victim suffered a severe stab wound to the arm during a gathering.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the victim's testimony, which the court found unreliable due to his high level of intoxication and admission of giving false evidence.

Relying instead on the testimony of another witness present, the court concluded it could not exclude the reasonable possibility that the stabbing was accidental.

The accused was found not guilty.