Konrad Erik De Koning

The Crown applied to designate the respondent as a Dangerous Offender following his conviction for aggravated assault, which involved stabbing a stranger multiple times.

The respondent, an Indigenous man with a history of severe childhood trauma, substance abuse, and a lengthy criminal record involving violence and breaches of court orders, conceded the designation criteria were met but sought a determinate sentence followed by a Long-Term Supervision Order.

The court found that the respondent posed a high risk to re-offend and that there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence would adequately protect the public.

The respondent was designated a Dangerous Offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of imprisonment.

Dangerous offender application following guilty pleas to manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and attempted robbery arising from an unprovoked fatal stabbing, a second random stabbing, and an attempted carjacking.

The court found the predicate offences formed part of both a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour and a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, established through a lengthy record of unprovoked assaults, robberies, weapon use, breaches, and continuing in-custody assaults.

The court preferred the Crown psychiatrist's assessment that the offender posed a high risk of violent recidivism and gave significantly less weight to the defence psychiatrist's opinion that untreated PTSD and traumatic brain injury made the risk manageable through a determinate sentence and long-term supervision.

After considering Gladue factors, treatment history, cognitive functioning, and available Indigenous programming, the court held that anything less than an indeterminate sentence would be speculative and inadequate to protect the public.

The applicant, facing human trafficking charges, brought an abuse of process application after the Crown preferred a direct indictment.

The direct indictment was sought shortly after a preliminary inquiry judge granted the defence's request to cross-examine the complainant at the upcoming preliminary inquiry.

The applicant argued this was an improper circumvention of a judicial order.

The Superior Court found that while the Crown's stated rationale regarding delay was unmeritorious and its true intention was to avoid having the complainant testify twice, the Crown acted within its statutory authority under s. 577 of the Criminal Code.

The court concluded the conduct did not rise to the level of flagrant impropriety required for an abuse of process, and dismissed the application.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference and child luring against his intimate partner's 10- or 11-year-old daughter.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse involving a breach of trust.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, finding it manifestly unfit given the gravity of the offences.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 6.5 years in custody (5.5 years for sexual interference and 1 year consecutive for child luring), less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with various ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order.

Jade Boucetta pleaded guilty to voyeurism and distributing intimate images without consent.

The victim, K.E., was intoxicated and unaware of the recording.

The video, showing sexual intercourse, was sent to a Snapchat group.

The incident had a severe and lasting impact on the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the devastating impact, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, including electronic monitoring, community service, and social media restrictions, finding it could meet the sentencing principles given the specific circumstances and absence of certain aggravating factors found in other cases.

The accused, a police officer, pleaded guilty to breach of trust after using his position to access confidential vehicle registration information for his son.

The son subsequently used this information to commit a home invasion that resulted in a homicide.

The court weighed the paramount sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation against the accused's guilty plea, lack of prior record, and the fact that he did not foresee the homicide.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence order.

The Crown and defence attended a case conference to determine whether the defendant's sentencing hearing should proceed remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant objected to a remote hearing and requested an in-person hearing.

The court ordered that the hearing proceed by videoconference pursuant to the newly enacted provisions of the Criminal Code, finding that a remote hearing would be fair, public, and appropriate given public health concerns.

The defendant, Jason Borden, pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and proceeded to trial on charges of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, aggravated assault, and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The court reviewed video evidence and witness testimony, making detailed findings of fact regarding an altercation between Borden and Darius Salmon.

Borden raised defences of self-defence and accident.

The court found no air of reality to the self-defence claim, and even if there were, Borden's actions were not reasonable given the circumstances, as Salmon was unarmed and did not physically threaten Borden before the gun was drawn.

The court also rejected the defence of accident, finding Borden's testimony regarding the gun's discharge not credible.

Consequently, Borden was found guilty on all three remaining counts.

The applicant, facing multiple firearms and driving charges, sought a review of a detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code and a 90-day detention review under s. 525.

The applicant argued that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court agreed, finding that the pandemic is a material change allowing for a de novo bail hearing, regardless of whether the accused has underlying health issues.

Upon reviewing the proposed bail plan involving strict house arrest with sureties, the court found the applicant met his reverse onus and granted release.

The applicants, charged with manslaughter and second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application to determine whether the amendments in Bill C-75 eliminating peremptory challenges (repeal of s. 634 of the Criminal Code) have retrospective effect.

The court held that the availability of peremptory challenges is a procedural matter, not a substantive right.

Therefore, the repeal applies retrospectively to all matters before the court as of the coming into force date, September 19, 2019.

The defendant pleaded guilty to disposing of a child's dead body with intent to conceal the birth, contrary to s. 243 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence agreed that a custodial sentence was not appropriate.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was in the defendant's best interests due to mental health issues and profound remorse.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court found that while a conditional discharge was in the defendant's best interests, it would be contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with a two-year probation order, including conditions for counselling and a victim surcharge.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting and sexually interfering with his 12-year-old niece while he was on parole for manslaughter.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and the offender's intoxication, against mitigating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 months' custody for sexual interference, with the sexual assault charge conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offender received 809 days of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against his 12-year-old niece.

The complainant alleged that the accused touched her buttocks and digitally penetrated her while she was sleeping in the living room.

The court found the complainant's core narrative to be credible and reliable despite some minor inconsistencies.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.