Michael Cantlon

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder for the 1983 killings of two women.

The murders remained unsolved for decades until genetic genealogy identified the offender.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 18 years.

The court considered the extreme gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the brutal nature of the killings, alongside Gladue factors and the offender's guilty pleas.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 21 years.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after an unprovoked physical altercation in a bank vestibule resulted in the victim's death from blunt force trauma.

The Crown sought 10 to 12 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought 5 to 8 years.

The court weighed the brutal and senseless nature of the attack against the offender's guilty plea, remorse, and harsh presentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment before statutory credit for presentence custody.

The accused, charged with murder, was released on bail.

A mandatory publication ban under s. 517 of the Criminal Code was imposed at the bail hearing.

Following misleading public comments by politicians and the police chief, the accused brought an application to partially lift the publication ban on the bail reasons to counterbalance the misinformation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 517 does not permit partial bans, and while the court has common law jurisdiction to vary the ban, doing so would likely cause more harm than good.

The court held that the accused's fair trial rights would be adequately protected by existing safeguards, including the passage of time, challenge for cause, and jury instructions.

The defendant, charged with first-degree murder in the death of a plainclothes police officer who was struck by the defendant's vehicle in an underground parking garage, applied for bail.

The court assessed the strength of the Crown's case, finding the case for murder weak due to a lack of motive and the availability of a rational alternative inference that the defendant panicked, believing he was being attacked by strangers.

The court found a reasonably strong case for manslaughter based on criminal negligence.

Concluding that the defendant met his onus under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, the court granted bail on strict conditions, including house arrest, electronic monitoring, a driving prohibition, and a substantial surety pledge combined with an exceptional cash deposit.

The accused pleaded guilty to eight counts of first-degree murder for the killings of eight men over a seven-year period.

The Crown sought consecutive periods of parole ineligibility totaling 50 years under section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, while the defence sought concurrent periods totaling 25 years.

The court weighed the horrific nature of the crimes, the impact on the victims' families and the LGBTQ community, and the accused's age of 67.

Given the accused's early guilty plea, which spared the community a traumatic trial, and the fact that he would be 91 years old before being eligible to apply for parole, the court ordered the 25-year parole ineligibility periods to run concurrently.