M. Alexander

Caleb Burgler pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after robbing an 86-year-old woman, Marion Fenwick, causing her to fall and sustain a hip fracture, which led to her death from pneumonia.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, foreseeability of harm, the offender's flight, and the significant impact on the victim's family and community.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, first offender status, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and family support for rehabilitation.

The offender's long-standing opioid addiction was not considered a mitigating factor.

The court sentenced the offender to six years in jail, less pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

The accused was charged with assault following an incident in which he ejected his former intimate partner from his home by tipping her mattress, causing her to fall to the floor.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial turned on conflicting accounts of the severity and nature of the contact.

The court found that while the accused did eject the complainant from her bed, the force used was justified under the common law right of an occupier to eject a trespasser, as the complainant had breached the implied term of her licence to occupy the premises by engaging in egregious property damage and had refused repeated demands to leave.

The court rejected defences under sections 34 and 35 of the Criminal Code but found the common law defence available and applicable.

Richard Dowdell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

The court determined the parole ineligibility period, considering aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the home invasion, and the brutal nature of the attack, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's immediate admissions, guilty plea, remorse, and long-standing mental illness (Bipolar disorder with psychosis).

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and the offender's mental state, ultimately imposing a life sentence with parole ineligibility for 12 years, rejecting the Crown's request for 14 years.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The defence sought exclusion of Intoxilyzer readings under Charter section 24(2) based on alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the accused was denied a reasonable opportunity to speak with her counsel of choice before providing breath samples, constituting a Charter section 10(b) breach.

The court rejected other Charter arguments regarding the timeliness of the approved screening device demand and the reasonableness of grounds for the Intoxilyzer demand.

However, applying the Grant test for section 24(2) exclusion, the court found that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits, resulting in exclusion of the breath samples and dismissal of the charge.