Laura A. Bird

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and possession of cannabis for distribution, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing strong circumstantial evidence of the accused's involvement in a planned execution, an antisocial lifestyle, and a risk to public safety.

The court considered the accused's health condition (asthma) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic but found that the proposed release plan with sureties was insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of re-offending and endangering the community.

The application for bail was dismissed.

R.D., a 16-year-old, pleaded guilty to 10 counts related to three jewellery store robberies and one attempted robbery.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under Section 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, arguing that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted and a youth sentence would not sufficiently hold R.D. accountable.

The defence sought the maximum youth sentence of three years.

The court found that R.D. demonstrated sufficient maturity at the time of the offences, which were well-planned and violent, and that a youth sentence would not be sufficient for accountability.

R.D. was sentenced as an adult to a global term of 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, Nilesh Patel, appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 7, 9, and 10(b), and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The trial judge found a 10(b) violation but not 7 or 9, and declined a stay.

On appeal, the court found a Section 9 violation due to unlawful detention for 38 minutes after the appearance notice was issued.

However, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that there was no Section 7 violation, as the injuries sustained were not a "substantial interference" with physical or psychological integrity, and there was no intentional infliction of suffering by police.

The court concluded that a stay of proceedings was not justified, as the police conduct was not egregious enough to meet the high threshold for such a remedy, and the trial judge had already ameliorated the sentence to account for the unlawful detention and discomfort.

The appeal was dismissed.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Jason Rodgerson, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The defence sought to exclude the statements, alleging violations of Charter Sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), and arguing involuntariness.

The court found that a spontaneous utterance made upon arrest and the initial portion of a videotaped interview (by Detective Henderson) were admissible, as they were voluntary and obtained without Charter infringement.

However, the subsequent portions of the videotaped interview (by Detectives Dingwall and Hoard) were excluded under Section 24(2) of the Charter due to a violation of Section 9, as the police deliberately delayed bringing the accused before a Justice of the Peace on drug charges to continue the homicide investigation, even after the accused had asserted his right to silence and no new information justified further interrogation.

The accused, David Odesho, brought an application under Section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from a strip search and challenged the admissibility of gunshot residue (GSR) evidence found on his underwear.

The court found that the strip search violated Section 8 because there were insufficient grounds to justify it and it was conducted unreasonably, particularly due to being videotaped in its entirety and not authorized by an independent supervisor.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded the underwear and GSR analysis under Section 24(2) of the Charter.

Additionally, the court ruled that the single particle of GSR found on the underwear 48 hours after the shooting lacked logical relevance and was inadmissible as expert evidence under the Mohan test, given the numerous alternate explanations for its presence and its low probative value.

The accused, Bradley Sippel, was charged with criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and two counts each of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, following a collision that killed one cyclist and injured two others.

The Crown alleged excessive speed and failure to safely pass the cyclists.

The defence claimed a sudden loss of awareness or blackout.

The court rejected the accused's explanations, finding his testimony evasive and fabricated.

The court concluded that the accused's pattern of excessive speeding, failure to slow down in a school zone, and deliberate decision to maintain speed and delay evasive action constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care, demonstrating a wanton and reckless disregard for public safety.

Sippel was found guilty on all counts.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The court considered the admissibility of crime scene and autopsy photographs, evidence of the accused's knife collection, and proposed expert psychiatric testimony.

The court admitted several panoramic and autopsy photographs, requiring editing for some to minimize prejudice, while excluding others deemed repetitive or overly graphic.

Evidence that the accused possessed a knife collection was deemed admissible through police testimony, but the physical knives or their photographs were excluded due to high prejudicial effect outweighing marginal probative value.

The proposed expert evidence from a forensic psychiatrist, intended to explain the accused's actions based on past trauma, was ruled inadmissible as it failed the necessity criterion, amounted to impermissible oath-helping, and encroached on the jury's function to assess intent and self-defence.

Sean Thomas pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and seven counts of robbery, including home invasions and convenience store robberies, committed over six weeks in 2012.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the sophistication and planning of the offences, victim vulnerability, use of weapons (including a discharged shotgun), and the significant impact on victims.

Mitigating factors included his youth (18 at the time of offences), genuine remorse, family support, and efforts towards rehabilitation in custody.

The court applied principles of totality and parity, imposing a global sentence of nine years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in three years and six and a half months remaining.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication orders.