Laurie Lacelle

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit twelve statements made by the accused, who was charged with first-degree murder.

The statements were categorized as 'background statements', 'interrogation statements', and 'implied confession' statements.

The court excluded the 'implied confession' and 'background' statements, finding their probative value was far outweighed by the extreme prejudice of introducing vague allegations of other homicides.

The court allowed edited segments of two 'interrogation statements' to be admitted, finding they retained their proper meaning and provided highly probative evidence regarding blood found in the accused's truck.

The Crown applied under s. 652 of the Criminal Code for an order directing the jury to view the scene where the victim's remains were found and two other nearby locations.

The accused is charged with first-degree murder.

The court applied the test from R. v. Johnson, requiring the applicant to establish a real and demonstrable advantage to the jury's understanding of the evidence.

The court found that the extensive photographic, video, and 3D model evidence available would sufficiently convey the topography, remoteness, and size of the culvert.

The application for a jury view was dismissed.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct towards a third party, arguing it demonstrated animosity towards mentally ill persons or those who upset him, which was relevant to motive in a circumstantial murder case.

The court dismissed the application, finding the proposed evidence lacked context, was not sufficiently cogent to establish a bona fide theory of motive, and its prejudicial impact far outweighed its probative value.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit hearsay statements made by deceased persons in a first-degree murder trial.

The central issue was the threshold reliability of the statements under the principled exception and the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule.

The court considered the deceased victim's mental health history, specifically evidence of schizophrenia and paranoia, as a relevant factor in assessing whether statements were made under 'circumstances of suspicion'.

The court admitted one statement made by the victim to a friend, finding it materially corroborated, but excluded the remaining disputed statements due to insufficient threshold reliability.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude statements made to police under s 24(2) of the Charter, arguing they were tainted by a prior s 8 breach involving an invalid search of his residence.

The court found that statements made during police visits where search-related property was returned or discussed were causally and contextually linked to the prior breach.

The court rejected the Crown's request to merely edit the statements, ruling that the tainted statements must be excluded in their entirety to prevent the administration of justice from being brought into disrepute.

Statements made during visits unrelated to the seized property were not excluded.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a covert search of his residence authorized by a general warrant.

The police sought to find items linking the accused to the murder, including a composition book containing a map of alleged crime scenes.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the general warrant lacked sufficient objective and subjective grounds, relying on stale-dated information and a conditional psychiatric opinion.

Consequently, the search violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the serious nature of the Charter-infringing state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The evidence was excluded.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The parties were unmarried but shared a child and had cohabited, meeting the definition of 'spouse' under the Family Law Act.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for needs-based support due to a significant income disparity and her role as primary caregiver.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim spousal support of $741 per month, representing the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, along with retroactive arrears.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, seeking $1,700 per month.

The respondent, who was paying $400 per month, argued that the current amount should be maintained.

The parties had been married for 26 years and were in significant debt, having made a consumer proposal.

The court considered the parties' incomes, debts, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $950 per month, finding it reasonable and just pending trial.

The accused was charged with robbery after allegedly taking fentanyl patches from a 67-year-old complainant at his rural home.

The accused admitted to taking the patches but claimed it was part of a pre-arranged drug transaction to settle a debt.

The court rejected the accused's testimony due to inconsistencies and her prior statement to police denying involvement.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court accepted the complainant's evidence that the accused and an accomplice smashed his door window and threatened him with a gun to obtain the fentanyl.

The accused was found guilty of robbery.

The offender, Matthew Armstrong, was sentenced for serious offences including robbery of a Shoppers Drug Mart while armed and masked, theft of a motor vehicle, and driving while disqualified.

The Crown sought 8-10 years, while the defence argued for 5-6 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record, parole status at the time of the offence, the vulnerability of pharmacies, significant victim impact, the dangerous nature and quantity of stolen fentanyl, and the offender's role in planning the robbery.

Mitigating factors included a disadvantaged childhood and expressed desire for change, though given modest weight due to a history of re-offending.

The court applied sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and totality, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 8 years consecutive to his existing sentence.

The offender, a financial advisor, was convicted of defrauding 10 clients of over $215,000 over a 3-year period.

The offender returned the funds to his clients before being charged, resulting in no financial loss.

The Crown sought a 30-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court sentenced the offender to 15 months' imprisonment and imposed a lifetime prohibition order under s. 380.2 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with multiple offences following an armed robbery at a Shoppers Drug Mart by two masked men.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, Facebook messages, and the testimony of an unsavoury witness.

The court applied the Nikolovski principles for video identification and the Villaroman framework for circumstantial evidence.

The court concluded that the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including similarities in tattoos, clothing, and a recovered glove, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was one of the perpetrators.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, a financial advisor, was charged with multiple counts of fraud, theft, misappropriation, and forgery relating to his handling of funds for 10 clients.

The Crown alleged that the accused received funds from clients to invest, but instead deposited them into his own accounts, retained them for extended periods, and provided forged documents to conceal his actions.

The court found the accused guilty on 33 of the 34 remaining counts, concluding that he intentionally retained client funds contrary to their directions, placing their financial interests at risk, and used forged documents to deceive them.

D.C. was found guilty on two counts of sexual abuse against his younger half-sister, T., involving repeated acts of intercourse over 18 months while D.C. was in a caregiving role.

The offences occurred when D.C. was 18-19 and T. was 5-6 years old.

The court considered sentencing principles, including the primacy of denunciation and deterrence for child abuse, and aggravating factors such as breach of trust, the victim's young age, the invasive nature, and the repetition of the abuse.

Mitigating factors included D.C.'s status as a youthful first offender and his difficult background.

The court applied Court of Appeal guidance for a minimum sentence of five or six years for prolonged sexual abuse by an adult in a position of trust.

D.C. was sentenced to 4 years and 5 months imprisonment, after receiving 7 months credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, a 20-year order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, a $200 victim fine surcharge, and a no-contact order with the victim and her immediate family while in custody.

The applicant, Rodney Helmer, sought to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence seized from his residence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The search warrant was based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied on information from four confidential informants (CIs) and police surveillance, alleging cocaine trafficking.

The court conducted a Garofoli review, assessing the compelling nature, credibility, and corroboration of the CI information using the Debot criteria.

Despite some deficiencies in the ITO, including misleading characterizations and omissions, the court found the totality of the information, as modified on review, sufficiently reliable to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The application was dismissed, as no Charter breach was found.

The accused was tried on multiple sexual offences arising from alleged abuse of a child between the ages of 12 and 14 while he was in a parental-type relationship with her mother.

The court found the complainant entirely credible in demeanour but materially unreliable on several particulars because of significant contradictions across prior statements, preliminary inquiry evidence, and trial testimony.

Applying W.(D.) and assessing the totality of the evidence, the court rejected the accused's minimizing claim that he was merely an involuntary participant, but relied on common features between his admissions and the complainant's evidence to find repeated sexual touching proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on counts 1 through 4 and acquitted on the invitation count because the evidence left a reasonable doubt on the alleged invitation to oral sex or bathroom touching.

Alexander Just was found guilty of two counts of production of cannabis marijuana and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large-scale commercial nature of the operation, the use of foreign workers, and the significant street value of the seized cannabis.

Mitigating factors included his status as a first offender, strong community support, good character, and rehabilitation prospects.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the defence proposed 12 months.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years in penitentiary, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and declined a probation order.

The offender was found guilty of production of cannabis, possession of psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking, and multiple firearms offences, including possession of restricted firearms and breaching a lifetime prohibition order.

The offences arose from a commercial drug operation on his rural property where police found a large quantity of drugs and 12 operable firearms.

The court declined to reduce the sentence for technical Charter breaches but granted credit for restrictive pre-sentence bail conditions.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 5 years in custody, comprising 12 months for the drug offences and 4 years consecutive for the firearms offences.

The court sentenced an offender convicted of multiple sexual offences against his step-child committed repeatedly over a six-year period beginning when the complainant was eight years old.

Applying the sentencing principles in ss. 718, 718.01, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the appellate guidance in D.D. and D.(M.), the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount in child sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust.

Aggravating factors included the complainant's young age, profound breach of trust, invasive sexual acts including oral sex and digital penetration, the duration and regularity of the abuse, and devastating victim impact.

Mitigating factors included prior good character, family support, compliance on bail, and a low actuarial reoffence assessment, but absence of pedophilia diagnosis was not mitigating.

A five-year penitentiary sentence was imposed concurrently, together with ancillary orders.

The parties separated when the mother moved from Ontario to Ohio with their four-year-old child.

Following separation, the parties established a status quo where the child rotated between their residences every six weeks.

Both parties brought motions for interim sole custody.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, finding that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine the child's best interests and that maintaining the six-week rotation status quo until trial was appropriate.

The court granted the father's request for the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer but denied his request for an order requiring the mother to sign a Canadian passport application.