M. Godinho

The Crown brought a count-to-count similar act application during a jury trial for attempted abduction, seeking to use evidence from one count to prove criminal intent on another.

The self-represented accused made no submissions, but amicus curiae and s. 486.3 counsel raised concerns about the timing of the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the evidence had moderately high probative value, its prejudicial effect was very high because the application was raised after the defence had closed its case, potentially impacting defence strategy and cross-examination.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and mischief against his intimate partner and her son over a 15-month period.

The assaults caused permanent and life-altering injuries to the partner, including facial disfigurement.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or minimal custodial sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The offender was sentenced to a global custodial term of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, proposing two new sureties to replace the unsuitable one from the initial hearing.

The applicant was charged with robbery, intent to commit an indictable offence while masked, and failing to stop for police.

The court found that while the new sureties were an improvement, they did not constitute a material change in circumstances because they did not address the underlying reasons for detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds, specifically the applicant's history of robberies and the seriousness of the offences.

The application was dismissed.