Megan A. Street

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after the trial judge found that the victim's unlawful confinement in a moving truck had ended when the victim jumped out and therefore the murder was not committed 'while committing' unlawful confinement under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction for first degree murder, holding that unlawful confinement continued after the victim escaped from the truck and that the confinement and murder were part of a single transaction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, confirming that unlawful confinement does not require physical restraint in an enclosed space and that coercive restraint through violence, fear, and intimidation suffices.

The Court held that the victim remained unlawfully confined as he ran for his life, and that the unlawful confinement and murder were temporally and causally connected, forming a single continuous transaction.

On a criminal appeal, the Court considered whether intent to avoid detection for possession of a stolen vehicle could negate the mens rea for failing to stop at the scene of an accident under s. 252(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued ineffective assistance tied to trial admissions on the offence elements.

The Court held that fleeing to avoid arrest as the driver of a stolen vehicle remained sufficiently connected to liability arising from care, charge, or control of the vehicle in the accident.

This did not amount to evidence to the contrary and did not establish a miscarriage of justice.

The conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

In a manslaughter sentencing appeal, the Court addressed when a trial judge may reject a joint submission following a guilty plea.

It held that departure is permitted only where the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest, rejecting a simple fitness approach.

Applying that standard, the Court found the trial judge erred in principle by substituting a modestly longer custodial term and adding probation despite the negotiated resolution and systemic interests in certainty.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was varied to match the joint submission of additional custody without probation.