Mary Theresa Murphy

The accused was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial on a charge of first-degree murder in connection with the death of Marvin Matthew on May 26, 2023.

The accused stabbed the deceased multiple times with a hunting knife after discovering him in a sexual encounter with the accused's girlfriend.

The jury rejected the accused's self-defence claim and found him guilty of the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

At sentencing, the court imposed an effective 11-year penitentiary sentence, accounting for pre-sentence custody credit of approximately 3 years and 8 months, resulting in a sentence of 7 years and 4 months to be served.

The court emphasized the gravity of the offence, the breach of bail conditions, and the absence of genuine remorse.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Tracey VanHartsKamp, who pled guilty to assault and uttering death threats motivated by racial bias against a vulnerable immigrant woman and her child on public transit.

The court carefully balances aggravating factors including hate motivation, the presence of a child victim, and the public transit context, with mitigating factors rooted in the offender’s Indigenous background, intergenerational trauma, FASD diagnosis, and progress on a healing path.

The judge imposes a conditional sentence order to allow continued access to culturally appropriate rehabilitation programs, emphasizing restorative justice principles in sentencing Indigenous offenders.

Darren Pennock pleaded guilty to fraud, breach of trust, and uttering forged documents involving the misappropriation of $327,045 from the John Howard Society of Peel over seven years while serving as CEO.

The court considered aggravating factors including the breach of trust, repeated and calculated deceit, and significant impact on a vulnerable community served by the charity.

Mitigating factors included Pennock’s guilty plea and restitution made by a second mortgage on his home.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence, and sentenced Pennock to 12 months’ jail plus three years’ probation with specific conditions.

This is a sentencing decision for two defendants, N.P. and C.O., who were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their daughter, J.P., contrary to s. 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The conviction followed an appeal by the Crown after initial acquittals.

The court considered the unsanitary living conditions, the defendants' difficult upbringings, their youth at the time of the offence, and the absence of lasting physical or mental harm to the child.

Applying principles of restraint, individual deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation for both defendants, rejecting the Crown's request for a conditional sentence and the defence's request for an absolute discharge for N.P.

The defendants were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life and forcible confinement of their four-year-old daughter.

Police discovered the apartment in an extremely unsanitary condition with feces, urine, rotting food, and garbage throughout.

The child was found confined to her room by a rope tied to the doorknob.

The court acquitted both defendants on both charges, finding that the confinement fell within lawful parental authority and that the Crown failed to prove the child was in necessitous circumstances or that the unsanitary environment posed a non-trivial risk of harm without expert evidence.

The defendant was convicted of assault (2x), forcible confinement, and publishing intimate images following a trial.

At sentencing, the Crown sought nine months custody (six months for the intimate images offence and three months consecutive for the remaining charges) plus 18 months probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of no more than five or six months, or alternatively, imprisonment not exceeding five months.

The court imposed a sentence of six months in jail less one day for the publishing intimate images offence, and a 90-day conditional sentence for the assault and forcible confinement offences to be served consecutively to the jail sentence, plus 18 months probation and ancillary orders.

The court found that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the intimate relationship violence and deliberate, cruel sharing of intimate images as revenge.

The defendant, Bradley Cheveldayoff, was sentenced for manslaughter after being acquitted of second-degree murder.

The incident involved a physical altercation followed by Cheveldayoff shooting the unarmed victim, Gabriel Nikov, six times in the back as he walked away.

The court considered Cheveldayoff's violent criminal record, his disregard for court orders (carrying a firearm while prohibited), and the severe impact on the victim's family.

While acknowledging the initial provocation, the court found a significant disconnect between the scuffle and the fatal shooting.

The Crown sought 18-19 years and delayed parole, while the defence sought 8-12 years and opposed delayed parole.

The court imposed a sentence of 16 years, reduced to 12 years after credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh detention conditions, but declined to impose delayed parole under s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code, finding the overall sentence sufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

This decision addresses two applications within a second-degree murder trial.

First, the defence sought an order compelling the Crown to call a witness, Malique Kamara, whose statements were inconsistent and whose latest account radically contradicted previous versions.

The court dismissed this application, affirming the Crown's prosecutorial discretion and the absence of a duty to call a witness it deems unreliable, even if previously indicated.

Second, the defence applied to have the partial defence of provocation left to the jury.

The court granted this application, finding that there was an "air of reality" to the subjective elements of suddenness and loss of control, and a "real doubt" regarding whether an ordinary person subjected to the assault would form the intention to commit murder and act upon it, thus warranting the defence to be considered by the jury.

In a second-degree murder trial, the court adjudicated four evidentiary applications.

The defence was permitted to introduce evidence of the deceased's prior violent disposition to support self-defence or provocation, with a corresponding right for the Crown to adduce reply evidence of the accused's violent antecedents to ensure trial fairness.

A hearsay utterance by the deceased, indicating an intent to rob the accused, was admitted under the "statement of present intention" exception, satisfying necessity and reliability criteria despite witness inconsistencies.

Lay opinion evidence was largely excluded, save for an observation of the accused's emotional state.

Finally, a post-offence video depicting the accused re-enacting the shooting was deemed admissible as circumstantial evidence relevant to identity and to rebut self-defence.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and breaches of a section 810.2 recognizance.

The assault occurred on July 7, 2017, when the accused punched the victim on the head and stole her earring while she was walking to work.

The accused was subject to multiple prior orders requiring him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, which he breached.

The court imposed an 18-month sentence minus 196 days of presentence custody, plus 3 years of probation with conditions including no contact with the victim.

Nicole Irish pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision striking down mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking.

Despite defence counsel seeking a suspended sentence due to the accused's difficult life, drug addiction, and recent housing stability, the court found that exceptional circumstances for a non-custodial sentence were not present.

The court balanced aggravating factors, such as a lengthy criminal record and non-attendance at drug treatment, with mitigating factors, including a small quantity of drugs, a guilty plea, and rehabilitative progress since obtaining housing.

An intermittent sentence of 30 days and two years' probation was imposed, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and forfeiture of seized funds.

A judicial interim release hearing for an 18-year-old accused charged with multiple offences including break and enter with intent, possession of property obtained by crime, and failure to comply with bail conditions.

The accused had an extensive criminal history dating back to 2010, including weapons offences, break and enters, and trafficking-related charges.

The Crown's primary concern was public safety under the secondary ground.

The court found the Crown had a very strong case based on eyewitness identification, GPS tracking, and recovered stolen property.

Although the accused's mother offered to act as surety with additional financial pledges and the defence proposed a mental health support plan, the court determined the proposed release plan was inadequate to address public safety concerns given the accused's escalating pattern of criminal conduct, history of non-compliance with court orders, and substance abuse issues.