Brian Darcy Davorin Kolman

Aruran Suthakaran was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission (gun violence in a public place with transferred intent), the offender's character (no prior record, strong family support), and jury recommendations (10 years parole ineligibility).

Despite the jury's recommendation, the court imposed a 12-year period of parole ineligibility, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence for gun-related crimes, while acknowledging the offender's strong rehabilitation prospects.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and mandatory DNA order were also imposed.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Suthakaran, during a videotaped in-custody interview, intending to use them for cross-examination if he testified.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to oppressive circumstances during the interview.

The court found that despite the police's persistence and the accused's emotional state and repeated requests to end the interview, the circumstances did not amount to oppression.

The statements were deemed voluntary and admissible.

The accused, Courtney Foster, was found guilty of attempted murder and assault against his former wife, Barbara Foster.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the violent and sustained nature of the attack, the significant physical, emotional, and financial impact on the victim, and the accused's prior record of violence.

Mitigating factors included the accused's willingness to plead guilty to aggravated assault, his employment history, expressed remorse, the consequence of deportation post-sentence, and participation in rehabilitation programs while in custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, reduced to 6 years after accounting for pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Courtney Foster was charged with attempted murder after stabbing Barbara Foster multiple times.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court reviewed evidence of prior domestic abuse, the events of the attack (car collisions, use of a kitchen knife, multiple stab wounds, and the accused's statement "I'm going to fucking kill you"), and the victim's injuries.

The defence argued lack of intent to kill, suggesting a desire to talk or merely injure.

The court found the victim's testimony credible and reliable, and concluded that the accused's actions and words demonstrated a specific intent to kill, despite the victim's successful struggle to prevent a deeper throat wound.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder.

The Crown sought to admit several post-arrest utterances made by the accused, Derrick Goulding, in a sexual assault trial.

Goulding argued the statements were involuntary and that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value, particularly those implicating co-accused Shawn Clyke.

The court found Goulding's statements were voluntary, as he was aware of his rights and the implications of speaking.

However, the court ruled that utterances directly implicating Clyke had no probative value against Goulding and their prejudicial effect outweighed any utility, even with a jury instruction.

Consequently, those specific portions of Goulding's statements were ordered to be excised before being adduced as evidence.

The defendant, Kyle Hazelton, was charged with criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, all stemming from an incident on July 18, 2013, that resulted in the death of Scott Shannon.

The Crown alleged that Hazelton intentionally or negligently accelerated his truck while Shannon was holding onto the driver's side, causing his death, and then failed to stop.

The defence argued that the Crown's inferences were speculative and that the key witness's evidence was unreliable.

The court found the Crown's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of witness observations, the nature of the acceleration, and Hazelton's knowledge of the accident.