Maggie Brown

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder for the 1983 killings of two women.

The murders remained unsolved for decades until genetic genealogy identified the offender.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 18 years.

The court considered the extreme gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the brutal nature of the killings, alongside Gladue factors and the offender's guilty pleas.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 21 years.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching the conditions of his Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) by consuming prohibited substances.

The first breach involved alcohol consumption in January 2019, and the second involved smoking a joint laced with crystal methamphetamine in October 2019.

A third alleged breach involving incidental contact with crystal methamphetamine was found not proven beyond reasonable doubt following a Gardiner hearing.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months less presentence custody, with enhanced credit for the harsh conditions of presentence detention and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his two nieces.

The Crown relied on similar fact evidence from both complainants, whose accounts of separate incidents were admitted at trial.

The trial judge found concerns regarding the circumstances of disclosure, including potential suggestive questioning by parents and the possibility of collusion or tainting between the complainants.

Despite finding both complainants credible and articulate, the judge determined that the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all charges.

The applicant, Andrew White, sought a declaration that electronic messages exchanged between himself and the complainant, A.S., and in a group chat with A.S. and her mother, were not "records" under s. 278.92(1) of the Criminal Code.

This determination was crucial to avoid the requirement of an application under s. 278.93 for their use at trial.

The court, following the procedure established in R. v. W.M., reviewed the messages and applied a normative analysis to determine if the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Considering the innocuous content, the manner of communication, the nature of the relationship (even with a minor complainant), and policy implications, the court concluded that the messages did not contain personal information for which there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the application was granted, and the messages were deemed not to be "records" under the Criminal Code.