A. Anderson

This decision concerns the prosecution of Archie McKay for five counts of first-degree murder following a fatal house fire in Kitchenuhkoosib Inninuwug, Ontario.

The court reviews extensive circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony, extrinsic misconduct, and ante-mortem statements, to determine whether McKay deliberately set the fire and possessed the requisite intent for murder.

The court finds McKay guilty of second-degree murder in relation to all five victims, concluding that the evidence does not establish planning and deliberation or criminal harassment necessary for first-degree murder.

The Crown applied to admit ante-mortem statements of the deceased, Geraldine Chapman, made to four individuals (Cheryl Meekis, Stewart Albany, Tom Chapman, Thyra Chapman) under the state of mind or principled exceptions to the hearsay rule in a first-degree murder trial.

The court assessed the relevance, necessity, and reliability of each set of statements.

Statements to Cheryl Meekis were ruled inadmissible due to lack of relevance and witness credibility issues.

Statements to Stewart Albany regarding fear/worry were admissible under the state of mind exception, while those alleging direct threats were inadmissible under the principled exception due to insufficient reliability.

Most statements to Tom Chapman were inadmissible, being deemed irrelevant or the witness's conclusions/biased interpretations.

Statements to Thyra Chapman regarding accusations of cheating and property damage were admissible under the principled exception, as their substantive reliability was established.

The Crown applied to admit three out-of-court statements made by three witnesses under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule during a trial for first-degree murder.

The statements included a police interview report and two sets of medical notes.

The court applied the four-part test for past recollection recorded, assessing reliability, timeliness, absence of memory, and present voucher for accuracy.

The court admitted the police statement with redactions and one set of medical notes in full, but excluded the psychiatric consult note due to reliability concerns regarding the source of the recorded information.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow six witnesses to testify remotely at a first-degree murder trial.

The witnesses included one civilian and five medical professionals, two of whom were proposed expert witnesses.

The court granted the application for the civilian witness due to her documented health issues and panic attacks related to traveling.

However, the court dismissed the application for the medical professionals, finding that the presumptive rule of in-person testimony should not be displaced merely for the convenience of busy professionals, especially given the seriousness of the charges and the high materiality of the expert evidence.

This is an application by the Crown in a first-degree murder trial to admit 'extrinsic misconduct evidence,' comprising police occurrence reports, 911 calls, and ante-mortem statements of the deceased, Geraldine Chapman, to friends and family.

The accused, Archie McKay, is charged with five counts of first-degree murder arising from a fire that killed Ms. Chapman and four children.

The Crown seeks to admit this evidence to prove the underlying offence of criminal harassment (s. 231(6) of the Criminal Code), establish the accused's state of mind (intent), and demonstrate motive and animus, which are probative of identity.

The accused argued that much of the evidence was irrelevant, lacked probative value, or was unreliable.

The court conducted an individual analysis of each piece of evidence, ruling some admissible for narrative, context, animus, motive, and to prove elements of criminal harassment, while deeming others inadmissible due to lack of relevance or probative value.

The admissibility of ante-mortem statements is subject to a further hearsay voir dire at trial.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking to alter a prior order that required the child to be returned to the mother’s care and requesting that the child remain temporarily in his custody with supervised access to the mother.

The court reviewed newly disclosed materials, including information from the Children’s Aid Society raising concerns about the mother’s mental health, instability regarding parenting responsibilities, and risk of emotional harm to the child.

Although the court noted problematic past behaviour by both parents, evidence indicated a more stable environment for the child while residing with the father.

Applying the best interests of the child principle, the court concluded the child should remain in the father’s care pending further review.

Temporary sole care and control was granted to the father, with the mother limited to supervised access until the adjourned hearing date.