3 total
Self-defence raised a reasonable doubt in youth murder trial.
Youth criminal trial on a charge of second degree murder arising from a fatal stabbing during a late-night marijuana transaction.
The defence asserted self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, alleging that the deceased and others lured the drug supplier to the residence in order to rob him and attacked the accused and the supplier without warning.
The court found the robbery scenario more likely than not, accepted that the accused acted for a defensive purpose, and held the Crown failed to disprove the reasonableness of the accused’s response in the circumstances, including his age, size, the sudden group assault, and lack of safe escape.
The accused was acquitted because the Crown failed to prove a culpable homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.
Committal for second degree murder quashed and replaced with manslaughter due to lack of evidence of subjective foresight of murder.
The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial on charges including second degree murder, arising from a stabbing during a drug deal turned robbery.
The preliminary inquiry justice had committed the applicant for murder based on the combined operation of s. 229(c) and s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.
The reviewing court found this was a jurisdictional error, as there was no evidence the applicant had subjective foresight that an intentional murder was likely to be committed.
The committal for second degree murder was quashed and replaced with manslaughter, while committals on remaining drug and weapons charges were upheld.
The accused was acquitted of assault with a weapon but convicted of simple assault.
The accused was charged with Assault and Assault with a Weapon following an incident with his domestic partner.
The complainant alleged the accused threw vodka in her eyes and punched her during an argument.
The accused testified the vodka splash was accidental while attempting to take the glass from her, and denied punching her.
The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the punch was vague, uncertain, and unsupported by independent evidence, resulting in acquittal on the assault charge.
However, the court found the accused guilty of the included offence of simple assault under s. 266, finding that he used force to take the glass from the complainant without her consent, resulting in the vodka being splashed into her eye.
