Kylie Margaret Buker

The accused, the sole caregiver for her autistic son, was charged with administering a noxious substance after allegedly giving him an overdose of his anti-seizure medication.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of her incriminating statements to paramedics and hospital staff.

The court excluded statements made to one paramedic in the back of an ambulance, finding they were involuntary and obtained in a coercive context violating section 7 of the Charter, but admitted statements made to another paramedic and a nurse.

Based on the admissible statements, the court found the accused intended to administer an overdose but had reasonable doubt as to whether she actually succeeded due to her own impaired state.

The accused was found guilty of the lesser included offence of attempting to administer a noxious substance.

The accused, B.B., was charged with multiple sexual offences against his biological daughter, including sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, confinement, and administering a noxious thing.

The complainant, a child, gave two videotaped statements and testified at trial, but her evidence was inconsistent and lacked present memory of many details.

The court found significant frailties and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, as well as a lack of corroboration.

The accused’s testimony was found to be measured and reasonable.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

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.

Joshua Burton was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree murder for stabbing his mother and grandmother to death.

This decision concerns the sentencing, specifically determining the period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought 18 years, while the defence sought 15 years.

The court considered the nature of the offences, the circumstances surrounding their commission (including the brutality, disposal of bodies, and impact on victims), the offender's character (lack of prior record, but also lack of insight and empathy), and the divided jury recommendations.

The judge imposed a concurrent parole ineligibility period of 17 years for each count, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Brandon Boise, was charged with violating conditions of an order, specifically attending a property frequented by Jessica Carter and contacting children.

The court assessed witness credibility, including an alibi defense presented by the accused's father, Ronald Boise.

The judgment provides a detailed interpretation of the term "frequents" in the context of non-contact orders, establishing seven guiding principles.

The court found the alibi unreliable and determined that the property was indeed frequented by the complainant.

Boise was acquitted of the charge related to contacting children due to lack of evidence but found guilty of two counts of violating the attendance conditions at the frequented location.

The accused, Austin Boyle, was found guilty of assaulting his intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating factors including the violent nature of the assault, abuse of an intimate partner, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included his lack of a criminal record and youth.

The court emphasized denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Despite the accused's lack of remorse and insight, an intermittent 60-day jail sentence was imposed, followed by two years of probation with conditions including restitution, no contact with the victim, counselling (anger management, alcohol abuse, domestic violence), community service, and a weapons prohibition.

A DNA sample was also ordered.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life, contrary to s. 215 of the Criminal Code, against an accused whose girlfriend died from diabetic ketoacidosis.

The court found that the deceased was under the accused's charge and that his failure to summon medical aid, particularly by taking a sleeping pill that rendered him insensible, constituted a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable and prudent person.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was objectively foreseeable to a reasonable person, lacking specific medical knowledge of diabetes, that the deceased's symptoms would lead to death or permanent injury within the timeframe affected by the accused's inaction.

The accused was acquitted.

This criminal trial concerned charges of assault against Austin Boyle involving his former girlfriend, Taylor Slugg.

The court meticulously analyzed witness testimony, including that of the complainant, the accused, and the accused's mother, alongside crucial surveillance video evidence.

The defence's account, which claimed the complainant was highly intoxicated and that the accused's actions were protective, was found to be inconsistent with the video evidence and deemed fabricated.

The court applied principles of reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence, ultimately finding the accused guilty of multiple assaults, including pushing the complainant, violently manhandling her in a hotel hallway, and choking her in a hotel room.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The police stopped the accused on the private driveway of his condominium after receiving a civilian complaint about his driving.

The court acquitted the accused of impaired driving due to reasonable doubt regarding the arresting officer's memory and observations, which were contradicted by video evidence.

However, the court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample, rejecting his Charter arguments under s. 10(b) and his reliance on R. v. McColman regarding the private driveway stop.

An application for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter was also dismissed, as the delay was attributed to both parties underestimating the required trial time.

Marshall Davidson was charged with impaired driving.

His defence argued that breath test evidence should be excluded due to Charter violations.

The court found that police violated Davidson's s. 8 Charter rights by unlawfully entering his family home without valid consent and his s. 10(b) rights by delaying the right to counsel and making an invalid roadside screening demand.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct, particularly the officer's reckless disregard for Charter obligations and the significant impact on Davidson's privacy, outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence.

Consequently, the breath test results were excluded, and Davidson was found not guilty.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and assault causing bodily harm following a bar incident where he punched a security guard and caused another security guard to strike a wall.

The Crown sought a 30-day custodial sentence with 18 months probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years probation, finding that despite the violent nature of the offence, the accused's status as a youthful first offender, his remorse, acceptance of responsibility, positive presentence report, and rehabilitative prospects warranted restraint over incarceration.