Michael Newell

The accused was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing incident at an apartment.

The accused admitted to causing the death and injuries but raised the defence of advanced intoxication due to polysubstance abuse (alcohol, methamphetamine, and fentanyl).

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding his memory and consumption at the scene, finding his post-offence conduct demonstrated an ability to foresee the consequences of his actions.

The court found the accused had the requisite intent for second-degree murder under s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, convicting the accused of the lesser included offence of aggravated assault.

Samson Ram was charged with assault against his spouse, Tina Ram.

He admitted to applying force but claimed implied consent, arguing the incident was a "consensual fight" initiated by the complainant, and that no bodily harm was caused.

The court examined the common law doctrine of "consensual fight" as established in R. v. Jobidon and R. v. Paice, specifically questioning its applicability and scope in the context of domestic violence.

Considering the unique policy concerns of domestic violence, the court adopted a narrower interpretation, holding that intentional application of force "capable of causing an injury that is more than trivial" vitiates consent in domestic altercations.

The court found that the force used by Mr. Ram, repeatedly slamming his spouse on the floor, was capable of causing more than trivial injury and was intended to cause bodily harm, thus vitiating any implied consent.

Alternatively, the force exceeded the reasonable scope of any implied consent.

Mr. Ram was found guilty of assault.

The defendant was convicted of three counts of murder.

The court previously imposed concurrent life sentences with 25 years of parole ineligibility for the first two counts, adjourning the third count pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Bissonnette.

Following the release of Bissonnette, which struck down s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional, the court imposed a concurrent life sentence with a concurrent 25-year period of parole ineligibility for the third count.

This decision addresses the parole ineligibility period for the defendant, Cory Fenn, who was convicted of three counts of second-degree murder.

The Crown sought a 72-year parole ineligibility period, while the self-represented defendant requested the minimum 10 years.

The court imposed a 25-year parole ineligibility period for the murders of the intimate partner and one child, finding these acts to be part of a continuous criminal enterprise.

The sentencing for the third murder (of the second child) was adjourned pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the constitutionality of consecutive parole ineligibility periods under section 745.51 of the Criminal Code.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in cases involving domestic homicide and abuse of minors, citing the brutal nature of the offences and the defendant's lack of remorse as aggravating factors.

The accused was charged with three counts of second-degree murder for the killings of his partner and her two children.

The accused admitted to the killings but argued he lacked the requisite intent for murder due to a cocaine-induced psychosis.

The court rejected the intoxication defence, finding the accused's actions and post-offence conduct inconsistent with a psychotic state.

The court found the accused had the specific intent for murder for all three victims and found him guilty on all counts.

During a trial for three counts of second-degree murder, a voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness of the accused's videotaped statement to police.

The accused, who was self-represented with the assistance of amicus curiae, argued the statement was involuntary due to excessive force during arrest, oppressive conditions in custody, and a lack of an operating mind.

The court found that the police use of force was a reasonable response to the accused's resistance, the custody conditions were not oppressive, and the accused demonstrated an operating mind throughout the interview.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The Crown brought a motion to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct and the deceased's ante-mortem statements in a trial for second-degree murder.

The Crown sought to show the accused's animus and motive by introducing evidence of jealousy, arguing, and prior assaults.

The court applied the tests for prior discreditable conduct and threshold reliability for hearsay.

The court admitted evidence of recent threatening behaviour, jealousy, and a recent assault, finding the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect and the statements met threshold reliability.

However, the court excluded evidence of older alleged assaults and a threat without context, finding them insufficiently reliable or probative.

The offender pleaded guilty to luring a 13-year-old girl via the internet for the purpose of facilitating sexual abuse under section 152 of the Criminal Code, and to distributing intimate images of the victim without consent under section 163.1.

The offender induced the victim to perform sexual acts and self-harm on video, captured screenshots, and subsequently distributed these images to peers in the victim's community as an act of revenge when the victim moved on to a local boy.

The victim suffered severe psychological harm, including anxiety, depression, suicide attempts, bullying, and academic decline.

The court imposed a sentence of five years less 68 days (4 years and 297 days) on the primary count, with three years concurrent on the secondary count, plus ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA, firearms prohibition, and section 161 conditions.

The Crown brought applications seeking the issuance of summonses to compel the appearance of four respondents who missed their fingerprint dates during the COVID-19 courthouse closure.

The respondents were required to comply with the Identification of Criminals Act but were unable to do so when courthouses closed in March 2020.

The Crown sought summonses as a less intrusive alternative to arrest warrants.

The court granted the applications, finding statutory authority under section 512(1) of the Criminal Code to issue summonses for the purpose of compelling appearance for fingerprinting and photography, interpreting the relevant provisions harmoniously with Parliament's expressed principle of restraint.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of transferring firearms between September 4 and September 18, 2019, and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

An undercover police officer responded to an advertisement for camping equipment and crossbow bolts, leading to the purchase of five firearms and ammunition over a two-week period.

The accused was a licensed gun owner with a lengthy criminal record dating back to the early 1990s, including convictions for violence and drug possession.

The court imposed a sentence of six years in the penitentiary, less credit for pre-trial custody and enhanced credit for harsh conditions at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence against the accused's personal circumstances, including childhood sexual abuse, untreated learning disabilities, and drug addiction.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of bank robbery and one global count of wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence.

He was sentenced for robbing six different banks and one attempted robbery over a period of approximately one month.

The offences were sophisticated, pre-planned, and involved the use of stolen vehicles and disguises.

The total amount stolen was $104,800.36, with net losses to the banks of $93,190.36.

The accused was a 20-year-old first offender with no prior record, from a supportive family background, and demonstrated significant potential for rehabilitation.

The court balanced the extremely serious nature of the offences and substantial victim impact against the accused's youth, lack of record, and mitigating circumstances.

The court imposed a sentence of four years and two months incarceration, with a restitution order and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The accused, charged with ammunition and drug offences, brought a Charter s. 8 application to exclude evidence obtained during a search of a basement apartment.

They argued the police unlawfully entered the apartment prior to obtaining a warrant under the pretense of retrieving baby supplies, and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading grounds for a night time search.

The court found that while the warrantless entry to retrieve baby items did not meet the threshold for exigent circumstances, excising the observations made during that entry left sufficient grounds to issue the warrant.

The court also held that the night time search was reasonable and less intrusive given the circumstances.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was convicted after trial of agreeing with a person to commit sexual interference with a child under 16 years of age via telecommunication, contrary to s.172.2(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment minus 48 days pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in approximately 10.4 months imprisonment, followed by a 2-year probation order.

The court rejected the defendant's constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, finding that a fit and proportionate sentence materially exceeded the minimum and rendered the constitutional issues moot.

The applicant sought to stay proceedings for the offence of making an arrangement with a person to commit a sexual offence under section 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code, alleging entrapment by a police officer.

The applicant argued that the officer randomly tested his virtue without reasonable suspicion and alternatively that the officer induced him to commit the offence by exploiting his vulnerable state.

The court dismissed the application, finding that reasonable suspicion developed during the investigation through legitimate investigative steps, that the officer was engaged in a bona fide inquiry targeting a known hub for online sexual predators, and that there was no inducement or pressure applied to the applicant.

The accused was charged with making an arrangement with a person to commit sexual interference with a child under 16 years of age contrary to section 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused posted an advertisement on Craigslist seeking a sexual encounter and communicated with an undercover police officer posing as a woman named Sara Kristoff.

The accused arranged to meet the officer and engage in sexual activity with both the officer and her purported 3-year-old daughter.

The accused's defence was that he was engaged in role play and fantasy and never intended to actually commit the offence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as patently incredible and found him guilty based on the explicit communications demonstrating his clear intention to arrange a sexual encounter with the child.

The defendant was charged with two offences: having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

The defendant admitted to being impaired and having a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The sole issue was whether the defendant had care or control of the motor vehicle.

The defendant entered his truck after declining a driving service, sat in the driver's seat, then moved to the passenger seat while waiting for another driving service to arrive.

The court found that the defendant had a concrete plan to obtain a ride home through a driving service and would not have changed his mind about driving.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and care or control of a motor vehicle while over 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, arising from an incident on September 11, 2015.

The trial proceeded on March 8 and 10, 2017.

The Crown established reasonable grounds for arrest based on dispatch information, observations of the accused's condition, and her admission of alcohol consumption.

The accused raised a bolus drinking defence, claiming she consumed a significant quantity of vodka after relinquishing control of her vehicle.

The court found the accused not guilty on both counts, determining that the consumption of alcohol occurred after she relinquished care or control of the vehicle.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Jason Rodgerson, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The defence sought to exclude the statements, alleging violations of Charter Sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), and arguing involuntariness.

The court found that a spontaneous utterance made upon arrest and the initial portion of a videotaped interview (by Detective Henderson) were admissible, as they were voluntary and obtained without Charter infringement.

However, the subsequent portions of the videotaped interview (by Detectives Dingwall and Hoard) were excluded under Section 24(2) of the Charter due to a violation of Section 9, as the police deliberately delayed bringing the accused before a Justice of the Peace on drug charges to continue the homicide investigation, even after the accused had asserted his right to silence and no new information justified further interrogation.

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, threat to cause bodily harm, and weapons dangerous.

The Crown sought three to six months imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence with the first four months under house arrest, followed by two months of curfew, and one year of probation.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate despite the serious nature of the offence, as the defendant posed minimal risk of reoffending, had strong employment prospects, and had registered for anger management programming.

The defendant was tried on four counts: assault causing bodily harm, threat to cause bodily harm, weapons dangerous (an axe), and theft under (a computer hard drive).

The incident occurred on February 10, 2014 in Oshawa when the defendant arrived at the residence of his ex-partner to retrieve his martial arts equipment.

The complainant, who was living with the ex-partner, was present despite being asked to leave.

A physical confrontation ensued resulting in the complainant suffering a broken jaw requiring surgery.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting the complainant attacked him with a knife.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the defendant's account based on physical evidence regarding the knife's condition and the implausibility of the defendant's version of events.