L. Kurt Wildman

The offender was convicted of manslaughter for the starvation death of his 21-month-old daughter, who was in his sole care.

The offender absconded prior to the sentencing hearing, and the court proceeded in his absence pursuant to section 475(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the prolonged and deliberate withholding of food and water constituted extreme child abuse by a parent in a position of trust, the court sentenced the offender to 15 years' imprisonment.

The accused, charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing the death of his 21-month-old daughter, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude two statements he made to police.

He alleged breaches of his rights under ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, and argued the statements were not voluntary.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the accused understood his jeopardy, was not arbitrarily detained, and was provided reasonable opportunities to consult with counsel.

The court also found the statements were voluntary, as the accused possessed an operating mind and the conditions were not oppressive.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused, the sole caregiver for his 21-month-old daughter, was charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death after she died of severe malnutrition and dehydration.

The accused conceded he failed to provide the necessaries of life but argued he was incapacitated by a head injury sustained eight days prior to her death.

The court rejected this defence, finding no evidence of incapacity and noting the child's deterioration would have occurred over weeks.

The court found the accused's failure to provide nourishment was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The appellant appealed a sentencing decision imposing a conditional sentence of six months followed by one year probation for two Criminal Code offences related to applying for and using a false passport.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred in law or principle in refusing to impose a conditional discharge by failing to properly consider the "public interest" factor under section 730 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's conclusion that a conditional discharge was not in the public interest was entirely warranted given the appellant's use of a fraudulent passport to make multiple entries into the United States.