Lia Bramwell

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert witness on outlaw motorcycle gangs, specifically the Hells Angels and Red Devils, in a trial where the accused allegedly attempted to forcibly remove a victim's gang-related tattoo.

The defence opposed the qualification, arguing the evidence was unnecessary, unreliable, and the officer lacked proper qualifications.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and found the officer was properly qualified based on her extensive experience.

The court ruled her evidence on gang structure and culture was necessary, but excluded her proposed testimony interpreting text messages and her evidence on tattoo removal practices that relied on inherently suspect hearsay.

The accused pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner and breach of recognizance.

The court considered the severe nature of the assault, the accused's lack of prior record, his low risk of reoffending, and the impact of stringent pre-sentence bail conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 90 days of intermittent jail for the assault, followed by a 12-month conditional sentence for the breach, and probation.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to admit the videotaped police statement of a witness who died shortly after the incident.

The witness did not see the stabbing but spoke to both the deceased and the accused on the day of the incident.

The court found the statement lacked threshold reliability due to the witness's severe liver disease, cognitive decline, and apparent bias.

The motion was largely dismissed, with the statement ruled inadmissible hearsay, save for a brief observation regarding the deceased's demeanor prior to the incident.

The accused, Hassan Bdeir, brought a motion at the start of his sexual assault trial to have witnesses testify without face coverings or masks, arguing that facial expressions are crucial for credibility assessment and his right to make full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the motion, ruling that witnesses testifying in person must wear masks, citing the precautionary principle in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and balancing the accused's constitutional rights against public health and safety.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his convictions for two counts of sexual assault.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record and diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish the requisite pattern of repetitive or persistent aggressive behaviour, or a failure to control sexual impulses, to warrant a dangerous offender designation.

However, the court found the offender to be a long-term offender, as there was a substantial risk of reoffending but a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community with appropriate treatment, including antipsychotic medication.

The offender was sentenced to 5 years and 4 years concurrent for the sexual assaults, less 2.5 years credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The Crown brought an application pursuant to section 601(2) of the Criminal Code to amend counts 1 and 2 at the close of its case.

Count 1 sought to replace the named victim (Special Constable Condie) with a group (Carleton University security personnel) and to include both descriptions of the offence under section 264.1(1)(a) (threat to cause death or bodily harm).

Count 2 sought similar amendments, replacing Special Constable Larochelle with Carleton University security personnel and adding the complete wording of the offence.

The defence objected on grounds of timing and irreparable prejudice.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the timing was appropriate under the Criminal Code, that the defence had prior notice, and that no irreparable prejudice would result from the amendments.

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter after luring the victim to an apartment over a drug debt.

The offender and two young persons assaulted and forcibly confined the victim, who subsequently fell to his death from a balcony while attempting to escape.

The court weighed the offender's high moral blameworthiness, his instigation of the assault, and his lack of genuine remorse against his family support and rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Liban Gure and Daniel Jean-Charles, were charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault following the death of an 18-year-old who fell from a 16th-floor balcony.

The Crown alleged the victim was beaten over a drug debt and fled to the balcony in fear for his life.

The court found that Gure initiated the assault and participated in the confinement and beating that caused the victim's fatal flight, rendering him guilty of manslaughter as a co-principal.

However, due to the unreliability of the Crown's key witnesses, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding Jean-Charles's participation and acquitted him.

The Crown applied under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code for an order remanding the offender, R.M.P., for a dangerous offender/long-term offender assessment following his conviction for two counts of sexual assault.

The court found that R.M.P. had been convicted of a serious personal injury offence.

The primary issues were whether there were reasonable grounds to believe R.M.P. might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender, and if so, who should perform the assessment.

The court reviewed R.M.P.'s extensive criminal record, including multiple convictions for sexual assault, assault, assault with a weapon, robbery, uttering threats, and breaches of court orders, noting a pattern of escalating violent and aggressive behaviour and failure to control sexual impulses.

The court concluded there were reasonable grounds for the assessment.

The defence objected to the Crown's proposed assessor, Dr. Jonathan Gray, but the court found no cogent reason to reject him, noting his qualifications and availability.

The application was granted, and R.M.P. was remanded for a psychiatric assessment by Dr. Gray.

R.M.P. was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault.

During the sentencing phase, specifically concerning a Crown application under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code for a dangerous or long-term offender assessment, defence counsel raised concerns about R.M.P.'s fitness to continue participating.

A fitness hearing was held, considering psychiatric reports and testimony.

The court applied the "limited cognitive capacity" test, which requires a rudimentary understanding of the judicial process, its consequences, and the ability to communicate with counsel.

Despite R.M.P. suffering from schizophrenia and exhibiting delusions, the court found that he met the fitness criteria, being able to follow proceedings, understand roles, and be redirected.

The defence failed to establish unfitness on a balance of probabilities, and their request for a finding of unfitness and a treatment order was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay in a sexual assault case.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan applied only to the period from charge to conviction (27 months and 10 days), not including post-conviction events like dangerous offender applications.

After deducting 85 days for defence delay and 14 days for a discrete exceptional event (flooding), the net delay was well below the 30-month ceiling.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was unreasonable or that the case took markedly longer than it should have.

The applicants, charged with manslaughter, brought an O'Connor application seeking the production of mental health and medical records of a key Crown eyewitness.

The witness suffered from cognitive deficiencies and mental illnesses, which the applicants argued affected her reliability and credibility.

The court found that the applicants met the 'likely relevance' threshold at the first stage of the O'Connor regime, relying on evidence from the preliminary inquiry regarding the witness's mental health challenges.

The court ordered the production of specific medical and psychiatric records to the court for review.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, and uttering threats against an 11-year-old child, as well as subsequent sexual offences against other young children.

The court reviewed extensive psychiatric evidence indicating the offender is an intractable pedophile with a high risk of reoffending and a history of deceit and substance abuse.

Finding no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community, the court declared the offender a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate penitentiary sentence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to multiple offences including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, simple assault, and possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition.

All assaults were committed against his former common-law partner over a six-month period.

The defendant had an extensive criminal record spanning over twenty years, including prior convictions for violence, weapons offences, and breaches of court orders.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of six years and thirty-four days, rejecting the defendant's submissions regarding rehabilitation prospects and emphasizing the primacy of denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and forcible confinement arising from an attack on a child in a public park in 1997.

The Crown relied heavily on DNA evidence obtained from semen found on the complainant’s clothing, which was later matched to the accused after his DNA was entered into the national databank following a later conviction.

The defence argued that the DNA could have been transferred indirectly and invoked the framework in R. v. W.(D.), asserting reasonable doubt.

The court rejected the accused’s account that his semen was deposited during consensual sex in a different area of the park and found the theory implausible and unsupported by evidence.

The judge concluded that the DNA continuity and analysis were reliable and that speculative alternative explanations could not raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of the right to make full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter due to missing police notes and investigative materials in a historical sexual assault prosecution.

The defence argued that the loss of notes from several investigating officers and the absence of photo lineup materials impaired the ability to challenge the investigation.

The court applied the principles governing lost evidence from R. v. La and related jurisprudence, considering whether the evidence was relevant, whether its loss resulted from unacceptable negligence, and whether the accused suffered actual prejudice.

The court concluded that the substance of the allegedly missing evidence was preserved through existing reports, testimony, and other documentation, and that the missing materials were either irrelevant or duplicated elsewhere.

No prejudice to the ability to make full answer and defence was established and no Charter breach occurred.

The defence brought a motion to admit video demonstration evidence showing a private investigator striking a new cribbage board against a cement pillar to demonstrate the force required to break the board.

The Crown opposed admission on grounds of lack of relevance and prejudicial effect.

The court excluded the evidence, finding that the video demonstration bore insufficient similarity to the facts at trial, lacked probative value due to material differences between the demonstration and the alleged incident, and was highly prejudicial because it raised speculative possibilities that could undermine the complainant's credibility without evidentiary foundation regarding the differences in materials and conditions.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon (cribbage board) against a 15-year-old victim with learning disabilities.

During cross-examination, defence counsel produced a cribbage board and placed it in the witness's hand without warning, causing her severe emotional and physical distress.

The witness indicated she could answer questions about the board but could not continue with it present.

The trial judge restricted further presentation of the board to the witness while allowing cross-examination to continue.

Defence counsel subsequently brought an application for mistrial alleging reasonable apprehension of bias based on the trial judge's comments and rulings regarding the cribbage board.

The application was dismissed.

During a jury trial, the defence requested that the trial judge include a Vetrovec warning in the jury charge concerning the credibility of the complainant and another Crown witness due to their criminal histories and credibility concerns.

The court considered the governing principles regarding when a special caution to the jury about unreliable witnesses is appropriate.

The judge held that the complainant did not fall within a category of witnesses requiring such a warning because his credibility issues were apparent and could be assessed by the jury without special instruction.

However, the court exercised its discretion to provide a Vetrovec warning regarding the second witness, whose extensive criminal record included crimes of dishonesty and whose testimony conflicted with police evidence.

The jury would therefore be cautioned to scrutinize that witness’s evidence and consider whether it was confirmed by other evidence.

Sentencing decision following conviction of two accused for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against a young child with sickle cell anemia.

The accused inflicted repeated physical abuse including whipping with a belt, resulting in significant scarring.

The court imposed custodial sentences of 9 months for the mother and 5 months for the co-accused, finding that non-custodial sentences would be inadequate given the severity of abuse, the vulnerability of the victim, the positions of trust held by the accused, and the complete absence of remorse or insight demonstrated by either accused.