K. Pritchard

The offender pleaded guilty to firearm offences after discharging a rifle outside her brother's residence during a domestic dispute with her ex-partner.

The court considered the offender's Indigenous background and the Gladue factors, noting her commitment to rehabilitation while in custody.

Given the Crown's case was not overwhelming, the court placed significant weight on the guilty plea as an expression of remorse.

The offender was sentenced to time served (648 days enhanced credit) plus one day, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with arson and manslaughter following a fatal fire at a rooming house.

The Crown's case relied heavily on two alleged confessions by the accused and his history of making threats to burn down the building.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the Crown witnesses, many of whom suffered from mental health issues or had extensive criminal records.

Furthermore, the presence of a plausible alternate suspect with a motive raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on both charges.

During a trial for arson and manslaughter, the Crown brought an application to admit the preliminary hearing testimony of two missing witnesses under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the necessity requirement was met because police made reasonable efforts to locate the transient witnesses.

The reliability requirement was also met as the evidence was given under oath and subject to contemporaneous cross-examination.

The application was granted and the audio recordings were admitted into evidence.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, making sexually explicit material available to a person under 16, and exposing genitals to a person under 16 involving a child known to him through a familial relationship.

The abuse occurred repeatedly over many months while the child was being babysat by the offender’s spouse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under ss. 718 and 718.01 of the Criminal Code, noting the offender’s lengthy historical record for sexual offences involving children and his failure to accept responsibility.

Although the offender relied on age, health issues, and family dependency as mitigating factors, the court found the aggravating circumstances—including breach of trust, grooming behaviour, and severe psychological harm to the victim—required a significant penitentiary term.

A sentence of six years’ imprisonment was imposed along with lifetime prohibitions and sex offender registration.