Maureen Anne Pecknold

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and firearm possession, brought a motion for further disclosure from the Crown.

The requested disclosure included notes from a confidential source handler (PC Neadles) and information related to an unrelated motor vehicle accident involving a person of interest (Marcus Nugent).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the confidential source notes were protected by informer privilege, which the applicant failed to overcome by demonstrating necessity for innocence or guilt.

The information related to the motor vehicle accident was deemed irrelevant to the applicant's case.

The applicant, F.N., sought bail after being charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder following the poisoning of two young children with sodium nitrite, resulting in one fatality.

The court considered the three grounds for detention under the Criminal Code, with particular focus on the tertiary ground, which assesses whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Despite the applicant presenting strong sureties and a reasonable release plan, the court found the Crown's circumstantial case to be formidable, given the applicant's access to the chemical and familiarity with the victims' household.

The gravity of the offence, involving the deliberate poisoning of defenceless children, was deemed extremely high.

The application for bail was dismissed, as the court concluded that a reasonable, informed member of the public would lose confidence in the administration of justice if the applicant were released under these circumstances.

The applicant, Mohandranjan Navaratnam, sought a mistrial and permission to re-elect to a jury trial, arguing that the Crown's delayed disclosure of an occurrence report breached his Charter rights to full answer and defence and a jury trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the report was subject to third-party disclosure, not first-party, and that even if it were, the delay did not prejudice the applicant's rights given his prior knowledge of the incident and existing defence strategy.

The accused brought a constitutional challenge against sections 276(2), 278.92, 278.93, and 279.94 of the Criminal Code, as amended by Bill C-51.

These provisions govern the admissibility of a complainant's sexual history and private records in sexual assault cases, requiring defence disclosure of records in their possession and granting the complainant standing with counsel at admissibility hearings.

The accused argued these amendments violated his fair trial rights, right to make full answer and defence, and right to remain silent under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding the amendments constitutional.

It held that the provisions appropriately balance the accused's fair trial rights with the privacy, security, and dignity interests of sexual assault complainants, and do not infringe on the right against self-incrimination or the right to surprise in cross-examination.

The defendant, Nicholas Walker, was charged with first-degree murder in a retrial following a Court of Appeal order.

The trial proceeded without a jury.

The Crown alleged Walker was the shooter and that the killing was planned and deliberate, stemming from prior acrimony with the victim, Clifenton Ford.

The defence primarily challenged identification and the elements of planned and deliberate murder.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence including video footage, DNA, and witness testimony, found beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker was the shooter.

The court also concluded that the murder was planned and deliberate, leading to a conviction for first-degree murder.

The applicant, charged with murder, sought a second bail review after his initial application was denied.

The court considered new evidence constituting a material change in circumstances, including a new supervision plan with his parents as sureties, their relocation to Oshawa to distance him from the crime scene, substantial financial pledges, and significant support from family friends.

Additionally, the court considered the increased vulnerability of the applicant, who suffers from asthma and bronchitis, to COVID-19 in detention.

The court found the new plan sufficient to address public confidence concerns and granted bail with strict conditions.

The accused was charged with prowling and breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence on December 31, 2016 and January 2, 2017, as well as breach of probation for possessing a pellet gun on January 24, 2017.

The Crown relied primarily on the identification evidence of the victim, supported by circumstantial evidence including motive, the presence of a matching ammunition magazine at the scene, and sightings of the accused's vehicle.

The defence challenged the reliability of the identification, highlighting significant discrepancies between the victim's descriptions and the accused's physical characteristics, the victim's failure to identify the accused in a photo lineup, and exculpatory DNA evidence from a tuque found at the scene.

In the context of a dangerous offender application, the applicant (Robertson) sought to exclude expert reports (de Munnik, Marshall, and Woodside) on grounds that they constituted personal health records unlawfully obtained by the Crown.

The court found that the consents signed by Robertson as a young offender were limited in scope and duration, and did not authorize disclosure to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Given the conflicting information provided to Robertson regarding confidentiality and the lack of legal advice at the time, the court ruled that the reports of de Munnik and Marshall were not lawfully obtained.

Consequently, Dr. Woodside's report, which relied on these inadmissible reports, was also excluded.

The Crown was directed to propose a new expert assessor.

This sentencing decision concerns David Kreindl, who was convicted of aggravated assault and other offences after shooting his intimate partner, J.R., in the face with a flare gun, causing severe and lasting physical and psychological injuries.

The court considered sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, emphasizing denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and public protection, particularly given Kreindl's prior conviction for the murder of another intimate partner.

The Crown sought a 15-year sentence, while the defence proposed 10-12 years.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the premeditated nature of the assault, the profound victim impact, Kreindl's criminal record, lack of empathy, poor rehabilitation prospects, and disregard for court orders.

Mitigating factors were minimal, primarily his difficult reintegration into Canada after 20 years of imprisonment.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit similar fact evidence of the accused's prior manslaughter conviction in a first-degree murder trial.

The court applied the R. v. Handy framework, balancing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect.

While some similarities existed between the current murder charge and the prior manslaughter (gambling debt, use of a meat cleaver), the court found significant dissimilarities in the circumstances and a substantial time gap of over 13 years.

The court determined that the evidence's probative value on issues such as situation-specific propensity, planning, intent, mental disorder, accident, or self-defence was insufficient to outweigh the profound moral and reasoning prejudice to the accused.

The Crown's application was dismissed, and the similar fact evidence was deemed inadmissible.

David Kreindl was charged with multiple counts, including attempted murder and aggravated assault, after shooting J.R. in the face with a flare gun.

The court found Kreindl guilty of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, threatening, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life or wound, maim, or disfigure.

However, the court found him not guilty of attempted murder, as the Crown failed to prove specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the severity of the victim's injuries and the intentional nature of the shooting.

Kreindl was also found guilty of failing to comply with an undertaking and two counts of failing to appear in court.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of break and enter with intent to commit theft and one count of robbery.

The offences occurred on March 28, 2011, when the accused and three accomplices broke into two residential apartments in Toronto.

In the first incident, they stole electronic equipment.

In the second incident, they forcibly entered an occupied apartment, assaulted the occupants with a knife, and stole cash, electronics, jewelry, and other valuables.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought twenty months.

The court imposed a sentence of twenty months for the robbery and ten months concurrent for the break and enter, taking into account the accused's youth, difficult background, rehabilitation potential, and the seriousness of home invasion offences.