Maureen Pecknold

The applicant, serving a life sentence for first-degree murder and attempted murder with no parole eligibility for 25 years, applied under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period.

The screening judge considered the applicant's institutional record, letters of support, and the nature of the gang-related offences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's lack of remorse and failure to take accountability for the specific violent acts meant there was no reasonable prospect a unanimous jury would reduce his parole ineligibility.

In a retrial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce lay opinion evidence from a restaurant owner who recognized the accused in poor-quality security footage of the shooting.

The defence opposed the admission, arguing the witness was not in a better position than the trier of fact and could not point to specific identifying features.

The court applied the Leaney test and ruled the evidence admissible, finding that the witness's long-standing acquaintance with the accused and his interactions with him at the restaurant shortly before the shooting put him in a better position than the court to make a comparison.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after violently beating a woman in his apartment, resulting in serious injuries including a broken nose.

The accused had a criminal record that included previous assaults against a domestic partner.

The Crown sought an additional 6 to 12 months in custody on top of time served, while the defence sought a sentence of time served and probation.

The court imposed a sentence of two years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 17 days to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The offender, a pastor, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against two young parishioners during a purported religious 'cleansing' ceremony.

The Crown sought a sentence of 3 to 5 months' imprisonment, emphasizing the egregious abuse of trust.

The court agreed that the offences warranted a 5-month custodial sentence to address denunciation and deterrence.

However, the court found that the offender's almost three years spent on stringent house arrest bail conditions, which prevented him from working, had a substantial impact on his life and amounted to a form of punishment.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court granted credit for the house arrest equal to the requested custodial term, imposing a suspended sentence with three years of probation, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, and SOIRA orders.

The offender was found guilty of second degree murder after shooting an unarmed victim in the back as he fled a house party.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 15 to 17 years, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the use of a loaded firearm and shooting a fleeing victim to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 16 years, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

In a second‑degree murder prosecution, the accused brought a motion to exclude proposed in‑dock identification evidence from a Crown witness.

The witness first identified the accused approximately ten and a half months after the homicide during testimony at another individual’s preliminary inquiry, after seeing the accused’s photograph in media reports following his arrest.

The identification arose through leading questions and occurred in circumstances suggesting contamination and suggestion.

The court held that the identification did not qualify as reliable recognition evidence and had no meaningful probative value while posing a substantial risk of prejudice.

Exercising its discretion, the court excluded the evidence from the jury.