5 total
Application to exclude evidence of a third man's presence during an alleged sexual assault dismissed.
The accused, charged jointly with sexual assault, applied to exclude evidence referencing a third man who was allegedly present during the offence but whose charges were withdrawn.
The applicant argued the evidence would cause moral and reasoning prejudice.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the probative value of the evidence—such as explaining the complainant's narrative, the police investigation, and the DNA results—significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.
The court also noted it would be impractical to excise the references and that any prejudice could be addressed through jury instructions.
The accused driver was committed to stand trial for second-degree murder as a party to a nightclub shooting.
At a preliminary inquiry into the deaths of Tyler McLean and Zemarai Khan Mohammed, who were shot outside the Rebel nightclub on October 1, 2017, the Crown sought committal of both accused on murder charges.
Tanade Mohamed conceded committal on two counts of second-degree murder as the alleged shooter.
Abdirisaq Ali, who drove the vehicle from which the shots were fired, contested committal and sought to be committed only as an accessory after the fact.
The court found that while the accessory provisions captured Ali's involvement, there was a reasonable inference that Ali knew Mohamed had a gun and intended to assist in the murders, based on Ali's conduct in positioning the vehicle, waiting in the parking lot, and fleeing the scene.
The court committed both accused to stand trial on two counts of second-degree murder.
The accused was discharged on first-degree murder but committed to stand trial for second-degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.
This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether the accused should be committed to stand trial on first-degree murder or second-degree murder charges.
The Crown alleged that the accused planned and deliberately murdered the victim by shooting him in the head.
The Crown's primary evidence was surveillance video showing the accused entering the victim's apartment with a gun pointed at the victim's back.
The defence conceded sufficient evidence existed for second-degree murder but contested first-degree murder.
The court found that while the surveillance video evidence of the gun was significant, when considered in the context of all evidence—including the accused allowing the victim to leave the apartment briefly, the absence of evidence of animus between the parties, and the lack of evidence of a struggle—the evidence did not support a reasonable inference of planning and deliberation required for first-degree murder.
The court discharged the accused on first-degree murder but committed him to stand trial on second-degree murder.
The court imposed a suspended sentence on an Aboriginal offender for a residential break and enter following a restorative sentencing circle.
The accused pleaded guilty to breaking and entering into a dwelling and failing to comply with a Probation Order.
The court conducted a sentencing circle, an innovative restorative justice process involving the accused, his parents, Aboriginal Legal Services representatives, and counsel.
The court considered the serious nature of residential break and enters, the accused's Aboriginal background documented in a Gladue Report, his drug addiction, and his significant rehabilitative potential.
Despite the gravity of the offence and the accused's prior similar conviction six weeks earlier, the court imposed a suspended sentence with probation, crediting pre-trial custody at 1.5 multiplier as equivalent to an 8-month sentence.
The court declined to commit the accused on first-degree murder because the fatal stabbing preceded the alleged unlawful confinement.
The Crown sought committal on first-degree murder under section 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code based on constructive murder arising from unlawful confinement.
The accused was charged with second-degree murder in the stabbing death of the victim.
The Crown argued that the victim was unlawfully confined in his bedroom following the stabbing in the living room, and that the confinement and murder formed part of the same transaction.
The defence argued that the confinement occurred after the victim was stabbed and that the victim managed to escape the apartment.
The court found insufficient evidence that the accused exploited a position of dominance over the victim through confinement to justify committal on first-degree murder.
The accused was committed to stand trial on second-degree murder only.