Mark Rieger

The applicant was charged with three drug offences, including trafficking cocaine, by Information sworn on July 9, 2015.

The trial was scheduled for May 17, 2017, resulting in a total delay of 678 days (22.5 months).

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found that the net delay of 21 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court cases.

The Crown could not rebut the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating case complexity.

Additionally, the police failed to diligently execute the arrest warrant, remaining inactive for nine months despite the applicant being in custody with other police services.

The court found the delay unreasonable both under the new Jordan framework and under pre-Jordan law when applied contextually.

All charges were judicially stayed.

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused to police following his arrest for sexual assault.

The accused argued his rights under ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter were violated because he was not fully informed of the reasons for his detention, including that he was a suspect in several other similar sexual assaults and that the complainant was a minor.

The court found that the police failed to inform the accused of the full extent of his jeopardy, depriving him of the ability to make an informed choice about whether to speak to police or to obtain meaningful legal advice.

The statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault after stabbing the victim with a kitchen knife during an alcohol-fueled altercation.

He also pled guilty to multiple breaches of his recognizance.

The court weighed the unprovoked nature of the attack and the use of a concealed weapon against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and his efforts to address his severe alcohol addiction.

The court imposed a global sentence of 42 months imprisonment, reduced to 18.5 months after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

Damian Romaine Campbell was convicted by a jury of one count of simple assault, three counts of assault with a weapon, and one count of aggravated assault against his domestic partner.

The primary sentencing issue was the extent to which immigration consequences could be considered, as Campbell, a permanent resident, faced deportation if sentenced to six months or more on any single count.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of six to eight years, while the defence proposed consecutive sentences of six months less a day per count to preserve Campbell's right to appeal a removal order.

The court found that the proposed defence sentence would be inadequate and artificial, failing to meet sentencing objectives given the severity, frequency, and duration of the domestic violence.

A global sentence of four and a half years was imposed, reduced by pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for uttering a threat, arguing his guilty plea was not informed due to a mistaken belief that a conditional discharge was guaranteed following a judicial pre-trial.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the appellant understood the sentence was not guaranteed.

However, the court allowed the appeal against sentence, concluding that the trial judge erred in principle by misapprehending the severe immigration consequences of a suspended sentence.

The suspended sentence was vacated and replaced with an absolute discharge.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder and serving a life sentence with 25 years parole ineligibility, applied under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period.

At the judicial screening stage under s. 745.61, the court was required to determine whether there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the period of parole ineligibility.

After reviewing extensive documentary evidence, including correctional records, psychological assessments, and statements from family members, the court concluded that the applicant continued to minimize responsibility for the offence and had not demonstrated meaningful change in character.

Although the applicant had made some institutional progress, the seriousness of the offence, lack of full accountability, and ongoing manipulative behaviour outweighed rehabilitative factors.

The court held that a reasonable jury would not be substantially likely to grant a reduction.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order seeking state-funded counsel after Legal Aid funding and subsequent appeals were denied.

The charges included more than 75 offences involving drug trafficking, weapons, and proceeds of crime, and the Crown anticipated a lengthy and complex trial.

While the court accepted that the charges were serious and complex and that Legal Aid had been refused, it found the accused failed to establish financial indigence.

The accused had not exhausted available avenues to obtain counsel, including applying for the release of seized assets under s. 462.34(4) of the Criminal Code, and failed to provide full disclosure regarding substantial precious metals purchases exceeding $134,000.

The court concluded that the accused had not demonstrated inability to fund counsel privately and dismissed the Rowbotham application.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from a fatal stabbing outside a bar, the court determined the appropriate custodial sentence.

The offender retrieved a large knife from home after a verbal confrontation and later stabbed the unarmed victim multiple times during a confrontation in a parking lot.

The court found high moral blameworthiness given the deliberate retrieval and concealment of the weapon and the vulnerable position of the victim, although provocation relating to the victim’s treatment of the offender’s girlfriend was a mitigating factor.

Applying the sentencing range for morally blameworthy manslaughter established in appellate authority, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence while also considering the offender’s lack of criminal record, employment history, and prospects for rehabilitation.

A nine‑year sentence was imposed with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody.