Michael Boyce

The accused, J.D., was charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of M.E.H. The victim was lured to a park by A.H. at J.D.'s behest, as revenge for a social media insult against J.D.'s deceased friend.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.

The court found the shooting to be an execution-style murder, thus planned and deliberate.

While one Crown witness's testimony (Z.L.) was largely rejected, the combined effect of another witness's testimony (A.H.), J.D.'s statement to police, cell phone data, video evidence, and intercepted communications led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that J.D. was responsible.

J.D. was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and indecent exposure, relating to four complainants: his former partner, her daughter, her friend, and the friend's daughter.

The court carefully assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainants' testimony, noting numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and memory issues, particularly regarding the specific details and timelines of the alleged incidents.

Finding that the evidence of the complainants was fraught with frailties that raised a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on all charges.

The offender was found guilty of historical indecent assault, sexual assault, and buggery against his foster brother, who was a child at the time.

The court found the offender was in a position of trust and abused the victim over a lengthy period.

The court considered the severe impact on the victim, the offender's lack of a criminal record, and his health issues.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 7 years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration, weapons prohibition, and s. 161 prohibition orders.

The accused, M.L., was charged with multiple counts of assault, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and breach of a no-contact recognizance.

The trial, which proceeded without a jury for 10 days, focused heavily on credibility issues, with the court finding significant inconsistencies and unreliability in the testimony of both the complainant and the accused.

The court applied established principles for credibility assessment, noting that a criminal trial is not a credibility contest.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt on the assault and sexual assault charges, leading to acquittals on those counts.

However, the accused was found guilty of breaching his recognizance due to phone calls made to the complainant while under a no-contact order.

The applicant, Denis Guindon, facing charges of indecent assault and buggery, brought a pre-trial motion to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity and records from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The court denied the admissibility of evidence regarding the complainant's other sexual activity, finding it was intended to impugn credibility, which is prohibited under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court allowed the use of Board records to cross-examine the complainant on inconsistencies regarding the timing of allegations against the accused and specific details of the alleged assaults by the accused, as these were deemed relevant to credibility and the accused's right to make a full answer and defence, with their probative value outweighing any prejudice.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and domestic assault offences, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity.

The accused sought to introduce evidence of rough sex, belittling, and post-offence sexual encounters to challenge the complainant's credibility and character.

The court dismissed most of the application, finding the proposed evidence relied on stereotypical reasoning and lacked significant probative value.

However, the court permitted a narrow body of rebuttal evidence regarding the complainant belittling the accused's sexual performance, but only if the Crown first leads the complainant's statement that the accused always took sexual advantage of her.

A young person was charged with driving while impaired by a drug contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a single-vehicle collision.

The defence raised two issues: whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, and whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by a drug.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including the accident, odour of marijuana, the defendant's admission of marijuana consumption, and observed signs of impairment.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Drug Recognition Expert's opinion was given limited weight due to concerns about the reliability of certain indicators relied upon and the significant time delay between the collision and the evaluation.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was convicted after trial of attempted murder of his wife, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and attempted suffocation.

The Crown sought 15 years imprisonment while the defence sought 7 years.

The court imposed 11 years imprisonment, less presentence custody of 2 years and 8 months, resulting in a remaining sentence of 8 years and 4 months.

The court found the attack was planned, deliberate, and persistent, committed in a domestic context with a weapon, causing severe and ongoing harm to the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, prior good character, and expressed remorse.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, but upheld the attempted suffocation conviction as a separate offence.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA databank order, and prohibition on contact with the victim and children.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and suffocation following a brutal attack on his wife with a baseball bat in their garage.

The accused admitted to the assault with a weapon but denied the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder and denied attempting to suffocate the victim.

The court found the accused guilty of all charges, determining that the circumstances of the attack—including the deliberate choice of a deadly weapon, the targeting of the victim's head, the repeated blows, the attempt to suffocate, and the unrelenting nature of the assault—demonstrated a specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing following a guilty plea to assault causing bodily harm arising from a single punch during a dispute over rent money.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including a severe brain injury, permanent neurological damage, seizures, and permanent loss of independence.

The court considered the proportionality principle, the offender’s lack of criminal record, remorse, substance abuse history, and compliance with bail conditions against the devastating harm caused.

While the defence sought a conditional sentence, the court held that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial term.

A sentence of eight months’ incarceration followed by two years’ probation with strict abstinence and counselling conditions was imposed.

The accused, a public servant with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, was convicted of multiple counts of fraud on the government and breach of trust for accepting money to provide preferential treatment to immigration applicants.

The court considered the accused's Aboriginal heritage under Gladue principles but found no causal link to the offences.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for breach of trust by a public official, the court sentenced the accused to four years' incarceration concurrently on all counts.

During a criminal trial for immigration-related offences, the Crown brought an application under s. 9(1) of the Canada Evidence Act to declare its own witness adverse and hostile.

The witness, a former co-accused who had previously pled guilty, was evasive, repeatedly claimed memory loss, and refused to refresh his memory from his prior Agreed Statement of Facts and preliminary inquiry testimony.

The court found the witness to be both adverse under the Act and hostile at common law, noting his clear motive to protect the accused and his refusal to provide helpful evidence.

The Crown was granted leave to cross-examine the witness at large.

During a trial for immigration fraud, the Crown brought a KGB application to admit the prior inconsistent statements of a hostile witness, specifically his guilty pleas and an Agreed Statement of Facts from his own related trial.

The witness had been uncooperative and claimed memory loss regarding the respondent's involvement.

The court found that the criteria of necessity and threshold reliability were met on a balance of probabilities.

The application was granted, and the statements were admitted to prove the truth of their contents, although the court ultimately assigned them virtually no weight.