Mark Moorcroft

The accused was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder and one count of aggravated assault after stabbing his mother and stepfather.

The Crown applied for a finding that the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, and subsequently for a high-risk accused designation.

The court found that the accused suffered from schizophrenia, rendering him incapable of knowing his acts were wrong, and granted the NCR application.

Furthermore, given the accused's history of violence, lack of insight into his illness, and the substantial likelihood of future violence if untreated, the court designated him a high-risk accused and ordered his detention in a hospital.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice by persuading a fellow inmate to fabricate evidence for an appeal of prior convictions.

The Crown relied on letters purportedly written by the accused to the inmate.

The defence argued the inmate fabricated the letters to gain favour and applied for a stay of proceedings due to the loss of original letter exhibits from a previous trial.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused authored the letters, based on handwriting analysis and the minute details only the accused could know.

The court denied the stay application, finding no unacceptable negligence in the loss of originals and no actual prejudice to the defence, as authenticated photocopies and other evidence were available for a fair trial.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a co-worker.

The Crown alleged that the accused kissed and groped the complainant without consent during a lunch break in his pickup truck.

The accused testified that the complainant consented to kissing and that no groping occurred.

The trial judge found the accused's testimony to be contradictory, inconsistent, and illogical, and accepted the complainant's testimony that she did not consent to any sexual touching.

The trial judge also found that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and was reckless or wilfully blind to the absence of consent.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The accused applied to exclude firearms evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, alleging the warrant was invalid and violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The challenge relied on the Garofoli framework and argued that the Information to Obtain relied on insufficiently credible and corroborated confidential source information and that redactions impaired full answer and defence.

After considering the redacted ITO, a judicial summary of confidential information, and cross‑examination of the affiant, the court held the issuing justice could reasonably have authorized the warrant.

The court found the confidential source information sufficiently compelling and corroborated by police investigation.

In the alternative, even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under the s. 24(2) Grant analysis.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for multiple firearms offences including possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of firearms obtained by crime, possession of firearms and ammunition while prohibited, careless storage, and occupying a motor vehicle knowing of the presence of firearms.

The offences arose after police discovered several unsecured rifles and ammunition in the offender’s vehicle during a traffic stop and a loaded revolver at his residence, despite existing weapons prohibitions.

The court considered the offender’s prior criminal record, substance abuse history, and family support, as well as mitigating factors including remorse and some cooperation during proceedings.

Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the totality principle, the court imposed consecutive sentences for the most serious offences resulting in a global custodial term exceeding mandatory minimums.

A lifetime weapons prohibition, forfeiture order, and DNA order were also imposed.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation and found to be driving while suspended and subject to weapons prohibitions.

The officer noticed an ammunition box in plain view, asked the accused about it, and subsequently seized the box and several gun cases from the truck.

The accused later made statements and directed police to a handgun in his girlfriend's apartment.

The court found a minor s. 10(b) Charter breach regarding the initial questions and excluded the answers, but upheld the seizures under the plain view doctrine and consent.

The physical evidence and statements were admitted, and the accused was found guilty on all weapons charges.