Leanne McCallum

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences following the seizure of a loaded 9mm handgun from her vehicle.

She brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of police conduct, including a warrantless entry into a condominium unit, the warrantless seizure of her vehicle, and the manner of execution of a search warrant on the vehicle.

The court found that while the initial entry into the unit and seizure of the vehicle were lawful, the officer's opening of the glove box to search for vehicle documentation (rather than the bullet authorized by the warrant) constituted an unreasonable search.

However, applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court admitted the evidence, finding the breach was minor, the privacy interest in a vehicle is diluted, and society has a strong interest in adjudication on the merits given the serious nature of illegal firearms.

Dimytri Ingram-Piruzevski pleaded guilty to manslaughter following the fatal stabbing of Keegan Blyth during a drug transaction.

Ingram-Piruzevski, who armed a youth with a lethal weapon, was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, reduced to a net 4 years and 9 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdown conditions.

The court balanced significant aggravating factors, including the context of a drug deal, arming a minor, and flight from the scene, against mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, early guilty plea, and cooperation with the police.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized items were also imposed.

The accused was charged with six offences arising from a home invasion, robbery, forcible confinement, and kidnapping for ransom.

The accused admitted committing the actus reus of all charges but raised a defence of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The accused claimed he suffered from delusional disorder and believed he was on a mission assigned by Chinese anti-corruption authorities to locate and apprehend corrupt Chinese officials in Canada.

The trial proceeded in two phases: the first addressing the Crown's case and the accused's testimony; the second addressing psychiatric evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, rejecting the NCR defence after finding the accused's account of his motivations was not credible and that he had not proven on a balance of probabilities that his mental disorder deprived him of the capacity to know his actions were wrong according to Canadian societal standards.

The applicant sought to vary a section 110 prohibition order and probation order to permit recreational hunting using cross-bows and compound bows.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to vary the section 110 order for recreational hunting purposes, as section 113 of the Criminal Code only permits variations for employment or sustenance hunting.

However, the court had jurisdiction to vary the probation order and granted a limited variation to the "no weapons" term to permit compound bows for hunting purposes only, finding this would not endanger public safety.

The applicant sought a stay of a driving prohibition imposed following a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml.

The stay was sought pending appeal, which alleged the trial judge erred in finding the breath samples were taken “as soon as practicable” and relied on facts not in evidence.

The court applied the established test for a stay pending appeal, requiring the applicant to show the appeal was not frivolous, that continuation of the prohibition was not necessary in the public interest, and that granting the stay would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found the appeal frivolous, noting the timeline showed police acted promptly and the first breath sample was taken well within the two‑hour limit contemplated by the Criminal Code.

The applicant also failed to demonstrate hardship or that the public interest favored suspending the prohibition.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

A young person was charged with first degree murder in the death of Allen Constance on May 13, 2012.

At a preliminary hearing, the Crown and defence narrowed the issue to whether the accused should be committed for trial on first or second degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence that the accused planned and deliberately killed the deceased, and committed the accused for trial on first degree murder.

The evidence established that the accused disliked the deceased due to romantic involvement with the accused's girlfriend, that threats were made by the deceased, that a fight was arranged by telephone approximately 1.5 hours before the incident, and that the accused armed himself with a concealed weapon before attending the location.