M. Flosman

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing the death of her 11-month-old son, who died from acute fentanyl intoxication after being exposed to the drug in their shared bed.

The court accepted a joint submission from the Crown and defence, sentencing the accused to two years in jail, less pre-trial custody, followed by two years of probation.

The court emphasized the primacy of denunciation and deterrence for offences involving child abuse, while also considering the accused's guilty plea, traumatic background, and rehabilitative efforts.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder after being pressured by co-accused to help locate the victim, who was subsequently shot and killed by one of the co-accused.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of 5.5 years, reduced to 18 months after crediting 48 months for pre-trial custody and lockdown conditions.

The court noted the accused's cooperation with the Crown, his youth, Indigenous background, and lack of prior adult record as mitigating factors.

The accused, charged with arson and related offences, brought four applications during his trial.

He sought to quash a wiretap authorization, exclude the evidence of a police agent, and stay the charges due to late disclosure.

The court granted the application to quash the wiretap authorization, finding that the Information to Obtain (ITO) omitted material facts and failed to accurately present the informant's credibility issues, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The wiretap evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The remaining applications, including the request for a stay of proceedings due to late disclosure, were dismissed, as the late disclosure did not irreparably prejudice the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court delivered reasons for sentence following criminal proceedings against the accused.

The sentencing hearing took place in the Superior Court of Justice in the Central East Region.

Counsel for the Crown and the defence made submissions regarding the appropriate penalty.

The decision sets out the court’s reasons for determining the sentence to be imposed on the accused.

The accused was arrested and interviewed by police after making statements to undercover officers.

The Crown did not intend to introduce the police interview.

The defence brought an application to introduce specific exculpatory portions of the police interview, arguing they amplified the accused's earlier statements to the undercover officers.

The Crown opposed, arguing the statements were hearsay, self-serving, and would allow the accused to avoid cross-examination.

The court granted the application, finding the statements were an amplification of the earlier undercover interview and that the Crown would not be unfairly disadvantaged as it could introduce other parts of the interview.

The defence brought a pre-trial application seeking an order to make an opening statement to the jury immediately after the Crown's opening address, rather than at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the discretion should not be exercised, especially since the defence would not undertake to call evidence.

The court balanced the risks of an early statement against fairness issues and the special circumstances of the case, including the defence's intention to concede guilt on a secondary count to focus the jury on the primary count of second-degree murder.

The court granted the application, finding an early, targeted opening by the defence appropriate.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking permission to challenge prospective jurors for cause due to extensive pre‑trial publicity surrounding a homicide prosecution.

The parties agreed on five proposed voir dire questions addressing jurors’ exposure to media coverage and potential pre‑formed opinions, but disagreed on a sixth question referencing the alleged dismemberment of the deceased.

The court considered the distinction between prejudice against the accused and generic prejudice arising from the nature of the offence, as discussed in appellate authorities.

The judge held that the sixth question constituted an impermissible offence‑based question and that the presumption of juror impartiality had not been displaced.

The challenge for cause was permitted but the proposed sixth question was excluded.

Pre-trial evidentiary ruling in a homicide prosecution concerning the admissibility of photographs of the deceased taken prior to death.

The Crown sought to introduce several social photographs to show the victim’s physical stature and to humanize the victim before the jury.

The defence argued the photographs lacked probative value and risked eliciting sympathy from the jury, offering instead to concede the victim’s size and stature through an agreed statement of facts.

Applying the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis from established authorities, the court concluded that one photograph had limited but legitimate probative value and minimal prejudicial effect.

The court permitted the Crown to introduce a single photograph depicting the victim’s small stature, subject to appropriate jury instructions.