Caolan Moore

The offender was sentenced for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and unauthorized possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order, having been acquitted of attempted murder based on self-defence.

The court considered the offender's lived experiences with anti-Black racism, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including COVID-19 lockdowns, and his lack of prior firearm convictions.

A total sentence of 40 months was imposed, reduced to 15 months remaining after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm, aggravated assault, and firearms possession offences following a shooting in a commercial parking lot.

The accused shot his cousin after the cousin lunged at him, allegedly armed with a knife.

The court found the accused acted in lawful self-defence when he discharged the firearm, resulting in acquittals on the shooting-related charges.

However, the court held that the accused did not act in self-defence when he initially took possession of the loaded firearm from a friend, as there was no imminent threat at that time.

The accused was found guilty of possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce a video chronology prepared by police.

The chronology compiled still shots from extensive surveillance video, adding identifying information, circles, arrows, and short neutral descriptions.

The defence objected, arguing the video itself is the only admissible evidence and the chronology amounted to Crown advocacy.

The court ruled the video chronology admissible as a demonstrative aid to assist the jury in comprehending voluminous and complex video evidence.

The court held that such summaries are permissible if they are neutral, introduced through a witness who can be cross-examined, and accompanied by limiting instructions to the jury.

The accused were charged with first-degree murder.

At the outset of the trial, two of the accused brought an application to exclude cellphone video recordings showing them celebrating at a nightclub hours after the shooting, arguing the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

The Crown argued the videos were probative of their relationship, their presence together after the shooting, and their state of mind.

The court found the videos highly probative of the accused's identity, relationship, and state of mind, and concluded that the probative value strongly outweighed any general prejudice.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the videos were ruled admissible subject to agreed-upon editing.

During a trial for first degree murder, the Crown brought an application to adduce a post-arrest statement made by the accused to the police.

The accused brought a cross-application to exclude the statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing his s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated because he did not understand the legal advice he received from duty counsel and his own lawyer.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the accused was advised of his rights multiple times, spoke to counsel three times, and clearly understood the advice.

The court also ruled the statement was admissible in the Crown's case-in-chief, as there was independent evidence of fabrication to support its use as after-the-fact conduct evidence.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during their jury trial.

The court balanced fair trial considerations against courtroom security.

Given that the accused were detained in custody, had histories of institutional misconduct, and there was hostility between the co-accused, the court found that security concerns outweighed the potential prejudice of sitting in the dock.

The application was dismissed.

The three accused were jointly charged with first-degree murder.

One of the accused gave a post-arrest video statement to the police implicating himself and his co-accused.

The accused brought pre-trial applications to redact portions of the statement, and two of the accused alternatively sought to sever their trials.

The court granted the redactions consented to by the Crown but refused further redactions, finding the contested portions highly probative of the maker's involvement and credibility.

The court dismissed the application for severance, holding that the strong policy preference for joint trials applied and that a mid-trial and final jury instruction would adequately cure any reasoning prejudice to the co-accused.

The Crown brought an application at the outset of a first-degree murder trial to admit six utterances made by the deceased shortly after being shot.

The court analyzed the admissibility of the statements under the dying declaration exception, the spontaneous utterance exception, and the principled approach to hearsay.

The court found that while only the statements made to police qualified as dying declarations, all six utterances were admissible as spontaneous utterances and under the principled approach to hearsay, as the pressure of the shooting excluded the possibility of concoction or distortion.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown's case relied on strong circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records and surveillance video, suggesting the accused lured the victim to a meeting where he was shot by a co-accused.

The court found the accused met the onus on the primary ground but failed on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record, and the proposed sureties, including his mother in whose home loaded handguns were found, were deemed incapable of supervising him.

The court also held that releasing the accused would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

The accused was found lying in a backyard suffering from a gunshot wound following a gunfight in a residential neighbourhood.

A loaded prohibited firearm was found nearby.

The Crown's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused possessed and discharged the firearm.

The court found significant gaps in the evidence, including unreliable police testimony regarding the exact location of the firearm and the presence of multiple other individuals involved in the shootout.

The court concluded there were reasonable inferences other than guilt, such as the firearm being left by another participant, and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, and other offences, sought a bail review after being detained for two years.

The court found that the prolonged pre-trial custody constituted a material change in circumstances, warranting a de novo hearing.

The court concluded that the applicant was releasable on the secondary ground, as the proposed plan of 24/7 house arrest with two sureties was sufficient to mitigate the risk of re-offending.

Furthermore, balancing the tertiary ground factors, including the strength of the Crown's case and the gravity of the offences against the strict release plan and the applicant's lack of a criminal record, the court held that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant was ordered released on strict conditions.