Meredith Gardiner

The accused, Matthew McQuarrie, was sentenced for second-degree murder following a guilty plea and a joint submission on sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission, imposing a sentence of life imprisonment with parole ineligibility fixed at 15 years.

The decision balanced the aggravating facts of the vicious killing with the highly mitigating effect of the guilty plea, which saved significant judicial resources and provided closure to the victim's family.

The court also imposed a lifetime firearms prohibition, a DNA order, a forfeiture order, and a no-contact order.

The offender, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to robbery and possession of a restricted weapon following a planned jewellery store robbery.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence and a $162,500 fine in lieu of forfeiture.

Applying Gladue principles, the court imposed a total sentence of five years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

However, the court declined to impose the fine in lieu of forfeiture, holding that Gladue principles can inform the exercise of discretion under s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code, and that imposing such a fine on an impoverished Indigenous offender would disproportionately harm his rehabilitation.

This is a sentencing decision for William Bannister, who pleaded guilty to careless driving causing the death of a 7-year-old child.

The accident occurred when Bannister made a left turn without due care, colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the defendant's significant carelessness, and his positive character, age, and genuine remorse.

Reviewing similar cases, the court determined that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, imposing the maximum fine, probation, and driving suspension, but no jail time, distinguishing the moral blameworthiness from dangerous driving.

The accused, Jeremiah Andre Reed, was charged with attempted murder (stabbing Grant Douglas) and breach of a probation order (possessing a weapon).

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which the court found credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies and a criminal record, due to strong corroborating evidence and the complainant's direct involvement in the events.

The court found the identification of the accused to be highly reliable given the complainant's prior acquaintance with him and the circumstances of the attack and subsequent pursuit.

Direct evidence of the accused's intent to kill was found in his own words.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Mason Ireland pleaded guilty to robbery.

The court considered sentencing principles, Gladue factors due to his Indigenous heritage, enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody during COVID-19, credit for stringent bail conditions, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture for the unrecovered stolen jewelry.

The court imposed a 4.5-year custodial sentence, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, and a fine of $162,500 in lieu of forfeiture.

The defendant, Patrick Morgan, was found guilty of sexual assault involving unprotected intercourse with a profoundly intoxicated victim (K.L.) whom he had initially tried to help.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the breach of trust, the mens rea of recklessness, and significant mitigating factors including the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and personal hardships.

The Crown sought 12-18 months institutional incarceration, while the defence argued for a conditional discharge.

The court found that a conditional discharge was contrary to public interest due to the need for denunciation and general deterrence, but also that traditional incarceration was not fully appropriate given the unique circumstances and the defendant's strong rehabilitative prospects.

A conditional sentence of 16 months was imposed, to be served in the community with electronic monitoring, followed by 18 months probation.

The defendant, Nathan Hathaway, was charged with four counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and four counts of impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drug causing bodily harm following a tragic head-on collision.

The court assessed witness credibility, toxicology reports, and expert opinions regarding methamphetamine impairment and driving conduct.

It was found that the defendant voluntarily ingested a substantial amount of methamphetamine, which impaired his ability to drive, and his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable driver, demonstrating a disregard for public safety.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts.

The offender, aged 18 at the time, pleaded guilty to manslaughter for her role in the stabbing death of the victim.

The offender instigated a confrontation between the victim and her boyfriend, escalated the physical altercation, and fled the scene after her boyfriend fatally stabbed the victim.

The court found her moral blameworthiness to be high, characterizing the offence as aggravated manslaughter.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash his committal for trial on charges of discharging a firearm and aggravated assault.

The accused argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider the whole of the evidence because the complainant recanted his identification of the accused during cross-examination.

The reviewing court dismissed the application, finding the preliminary inquiry judge properly considered all the evidence, including the complainant's adoption of his prior statement during examination in chief, and did not exceed his jurisdiction.

The Crown sought to introduce three categories of bad character evidence at the accused's trial for first-degree murder and indignity to a human body: statements made to a psychiatric nurse about killing and cannibalism, handwritten rap lyrics, and a photograph of a fictional serial killer.

The court first ruled that the Crown's allegation of cannibalism was too speculative to be placed before the jury.

However, the court admitted the statements to the nurse and the rap lyrics, finding that their probative value regarding motive, intent, and planning outweighed their prejudicial effect, provided a limiting instruction is given.

The photograph was excluded due to its low probative value and high potential for prejudice.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence sought to exclude breathalyzer evidence on grounds of Charter violations under sections 10(b) and 24(2), arguing that the accused was denied a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel at the roadside during a 19-minute delay while awaiting a tow truck.

The court found a section 10(b) violation but ultimately admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the circumstances favoured inclusion despite the breach.