Margaret Addie

Adrian Williams pleaded guilty to possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered sentencing principles including proportionality, parity, and totality, as well as an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the offender's background, including experiences with anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination.

The Crown sought a four-year consecutive sentence, while the defence proposed three years, arguing the Fentanyl was diluted.

The court imposed a four-year sentence, consecutive to a prior manslaughter conviction, finding the Crown's proposal fit after weighing aggravating factors (subsequent manslaughter conviction, criminal record, institutional misconduct) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, family support, job offer, and social context as it relates to moral culpability).

Deidre Martin was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and weapons dangerous after stabbing her boyfriend, Alejandro Velez.

Martin claimed self-defence, alleging Velez assaulted and sexually assaulted her.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, the scene evidence, and the three components of self-defence (trigger, motive, and response) under Section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found significant credibility concerns with Velez's testimony and that the scene evidence was inconsistent with his account but consistent with Martin's.

Despite inconsistencies in Martin's testimony, the court found reasonable doubt that Velez did not assault and sexually assault her, and that Martin acted with a defensive purpose.

While the proportionality of Martin's response (using a hunting knife and inflicting serious wounds) raised concerns, the court considered her vulnerability, history of domestic violence, and the spontaneous nature of the act.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Martin was found not guilty on all charges.

This decision addresses jury instructions on modes of participation for two accused, Richard Ireland and Trayon Johnson, in a joint jury trial for second-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown's application for Ireland as a principal (s. 21(1)(a) Criminal Code) and Johnson as an aider (s. 21(1)(b) Criminal Code) was granted.

The Crown's application for Johnson as a co-principal (s. 21(2) Criminal Code) was dismissed, as was Johnson's request for the jury to be instructed only on s. 21(2) and thus preclude a second-degree murder verdict for him.

The court found an air of reality for Johnson's conviction as an aider but not as a co-principal for second-degree murder.

Trayon Johnson, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, applied to introduce his exculpatory police statement made on October 20, 2017, under the *Edgar* exception.

The court granted the motion, finding that despite instances of dishonesty and manipulation during the 12-hour interview, a contextual analysis left doubt regarding the spontaneity of the statement.

In such cases, the statement should be admitted for the jury to assess its weight and the accused's credibility, not for the truth of its contents.

The jury will be instructed on how to use the statement to assess Johnson's reaction and credibility when confronted with the allegations.

Trayon Johnson, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, sought an order under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to challenge prospective jurors for cause.

He proposed augmenting the traditional *Parks* questions with multiple-choice options to address subconscious racial bias against men of African ancestry.

The court acknowledged the existence of racial stereotypes and unconscious bias, finding that appropriately-constructed multiple-choice questions could be more effective than standard "yes/no" questions in identifying such biases.

The proposed multiple-choice questions were approved to ensure an impartial jury.

The applicant, Adrian Williams, sought bail after being charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The application was heard during the COVID-19 pandemic, with expert medical evidence presented regarding the risks of the virus in correctional facilities.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code, including the applicant's criminal record, the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the public health implications of the pandemic.

Despite the public health concerns, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his detention was not necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, given his history of breaching court orders and the extreme violence of the alleged crimes.

Bail was denied.