Mary Theresa Murphy

The accused was convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of probation.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought 9 to 12 months.

The court noted the accused's extensive criminal record, ongoing addiction, and lack of remorse or rehabilitative efforts.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 months' incarceration, along with a weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.

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 accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of probation after police executed a search warrant at her apartment.

Police found 5.29 grams of cocaine on her person, 17.68 grams in a safe in her bedroom, and over $2,000 in cash.

The accused claimed the drugs on her person were for personal use and that she was unaware of the drugs in the safe, which she alleged belonged to a friend.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as implausible, finding that the quantity of drugs, cash, and digital scales were consistent with trafficking.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

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.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child who alleged that the accused touched her vaginal area over and under her pyjamas while reading bedtime stories over an extended period when she was between seven and eight years old.

The trial judge assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s delayed disclosure and considered the principles in W.(D.) and jurisprudence on evaluating child witnesses.

While the complainant’s testimony appeared sincere, the court identified internal inconsistencies, reliability concerns regarding certain details, and evidence suggesting potential motive related to family dynamics and conflict between the complainant and the accused.

Considering the totality of the evidence, including the accused’s testimony and the surrounding circumstances, the court found that the accused’s denial could reasonably be true.

The Crown therefore failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.