Michael Purcell

The accused was sentenced for intimidating a justice system participant (a provincial prosecutor) under section 423.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused sent threatening emails and made phone calls to the prosecutor and his wife at their home address in the early morning hours after the prosecutor declined to resolve the accused's Highway Traffic Act charges on favorable terms.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with 12 months of house arrest and GPS monitoring, followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the offence was serious and pre-meditated, the accused's untreated schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and related mental health issues materially contributed to the commission of the offence and warranted a reduction from the baseline custodial sentence of 18 months.

This decision concerns the prosecution of Archie McKay for five counts of first-degree murder following a fatal house fire in Kitchenuhkoosib Inninuwug, Ontario.

The court reviews extensive circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony, extrinsic misconduct, and ante-mortem statements, to determine whether McKay deliberately set the fire and possessed the requisite intent for murder.

The court finds McKay guilty of second-degree murder in relation to all five victims, concluding that the evidence does not establish planning and deliberation or criminal harassment necessary for first-degree murder.

The Crown applied to admit ante-mortem statements of the deceased, Geraldine Chapman, made to four individuals (Cheryl Meekis, Stewart Albany, Tom Chapman, Thyra Chapman) under the state of mind or principled exceptions to the hearsay rule in a first-degree murder trial.

The court assessed the relevance, necessity, and reliability of each set of statements.

Statements to Cheryl Meekis were ruled inadmissible due to lack of relevance and witness credibility issues.

Statements to Stewart Albany regarding fear/worry were admissible under the state of mind exception, while those alleging direct threats were inadmissible under the principled exception due to insufficient reliability.

Most statements to Tom Chapman were inadmissible, being deemed irrelevant or the witness's conclusions/biased interpretations.

Statements to Thyra Chapman regarding accusations of cheating and property damage were admissible under the principled exception, as their substantive reliability was established.

The accused was found guilty of threatening to cause bodily harm, threatening to cause damage to property, intimidation of a justice system participant, and criminal harassment.

The offences involved sending threatening communications to a police officer, a probation officer, and a judge, driven by the accused's religious beliefs and desire to destroy a Buddha statue.

The court sentenced the accused to 2 years and 3 months in custody, reduced by 90 days for pre-sentence custody, followed by 3 years of probation.

This is an application by the Crown in a first-degree murder trial to admit 'extrinsic misconduct evidence,' comprising police occurrence reports, 911 calls, and ante-mortem statements of the deceased, Geraldine Chapman, to friends and family.

The accused, Archie McKay, is charged with five counts of first-degree murder arising from a fire that killed Ms. Chapman and four children.

The Crown seeks to admit this evidence to prove the underlying offence of criminal harassment (s. 231(6) of the Criminal Code), establish the accused's state of mind (intent), and demonstrate motive and animus, which are probative of identity.

The accused argued that much of the evidence was irrelevant, lacked probative value, or was unreliable.

The court conducted an individual analysis of each piece of evidence, ruling some admissible for narrative, context, animus, motive, and to prove elements of criminal harassment, while deeming others inadmissible due to lack of relevance or probative value.

The admissibility of ante-mortem statements is subject to a further hearsay voir dire at trial.

This decision addresses two mid-trial rulings in a criminal case.

First, the Crown sought to introduce the preliminary inquiry transcript of a police constable who was unable to testify due to serious illness, pursuant to s. 715 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the criteria for admission were met and exercised its discretion to admit the evidence, as there was no unfairness to the accused.

Second, the Crown sought to admit emails sent by the accused to the investigating officer.

The court determined the officer was a "person in authority" from the accused's perspective and found the emails to be voluntary, as they were unsolicited and free from threats, promises, oppression, or police trickery.

Both applications by the Crown were granted.

The Crown applied under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting ten civilian witnesses from a remote First Nation community (Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug) to testify remotely via video in a first-degree murder jury trial.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that remote testimony would compromise trial fairness, particularly regarding the jury's ability to assess witness credibility and demeanour, given the seriousness of the charges and the contested issues of the fire's cause and criminal harassment.

The court granted the application in part, allowing four witnesses (William Cromarty, Alfred Beardy, Jennaya Shoomin, and Karla Cutfeet) to testify remotely due to their limited anticipated evidence or personal circumstances (age, mobility, school attendance).

However, the court denied remote testimony for six other witnesses (Bella Chapman, Solomon Begg, Thyra Chapman, Kristina Winter, Tiana Meekis, and Candace Crowe), deeming their anticipated evidence too crucial to be compromised by the limitations of video testimony.

The order for remote testimony was made conditional on various factors, including technical reliability, secure location, technical support, police presence, and proper oath administration.

The accused, Nicholas Cox and Erick Silva-Stone, pleaded guilty to unlawful act manslaughter in the death of Christopher Avery Houghton, which occurred during a robbery involving an unloaded firearm and subsequent stabbing.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence, imposing 12 years custody for Mr. Cox (who had a youth record for similar offences) and 10 years custody for Mr. Silva-Stone (a first-time offender).

The judge considered aggravating factors including the profound impact on the victim's family, the callous nature of the crime, the use of a weapon, and the commission during a robbery.

Mitigating factors included early guilty pleas, sincere expressions of remorse, young age, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct to establish the accused's identity and provide narrative context in a criminal trial for uttering threats, impeding justice, and criminal harassment.

The accused, Lance Crossley, was self-represented with amicus curiae assistance.

The court applied the general principle that prior misconduct evidence is inadmissible to prove propensity but recognized exceptions for identity, narrative, and similar fact evidence, requiring relevance and a probative value outweighing prejudicial effect.

The court admitted evidence from March 2018 to February 2020, finding it inextricably linked to the current charges and highly probative of identity, motive, and intent, subject to limiting instructions.

However, incidents from 2016 and January 2018 were deemed too remote and prejudicial, thus inadmissible.

The Crown applied to admit hearsay statements of a deceased witness, Sarah Jane Bluecoat, in a first-degree murder trial.

Ms. Bluecoat's statements were taken on May 2, 2019 (typed Q&A), and later adopted under oath and video-recorded on August 3, 2021, after she initially declined on July 14, 2021.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing that necessity was not met due to the Crown's failure to preserve cross-examination rights (e.g., by proceeding with a preliminary inquiry or using s. 709 of the Criminal Code) and that the statements lacked threshold reliability.

The court found that necessity was established by the witness's death, distinguishing the case from prosecutorial "neglect." The court further found that both substantive and procedural reliability were met, allowing the jury a satisfactory basis to evaluate the evidence, despite the absence of contemporaneous cross-examination.

The Crown's application was granted.

The accused was charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery arising from a bitcoin transaction.

The complainant alleged that the accused set him up to be robbed by an unknown third party.

The court applied the W.(D) framework to assess credibility and accepted the accused's evidence that he was not involved in the robbery.

The court also found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, leaving a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder following a shooting at a nightclub.

The accused admitted to shooting the deceased but claimed self-defence, arguing he feared for his life due to the deceased's history of violence and gang affiliation.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's response unreasonable given his role in instigating the confrontation and introducing a concealed firearm.

The court also rejected the partial defence of provocation, finding the accused did not lose self-control.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against two young sisters, ages 4 and 6 at the time of the alleged incidents.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the two child complainants, who provided accounts of sexual abuse during police interviews and subsequent court testimony.

The trial court found that despite some corroborating details in the children's accounts, their testimony was undermined by significant credibility issues, including fatigue, difficulty concentrating, contradictions between their statements, and the impact of leading questions and procedural delays.

The court acquitted the accused on all charges, finding that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, charged with the first-degree murder of her common-law spouse by stabbing, applied for judicial interim release.

The court found that while the proposed bail plan (involving the Elizabeth Fry Society and electronic monitoring) mitigated the primary and secondary grounds for detention, it failed to satisfy the tertiary ground.

Given the strength of the Crown's case, the potential for a lengthy sentence, and the accused's post-offence dissembling, the court held that releasing the accused without a reliable surety and strict supervision would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application was dismissed.

Derek Summers appealed his criminal conviction for driving while disqualified, arguing that it should be stayed under the Kienapple principle due to a prior conviction for driving while suspended under the Highway Traffic Act arising from the same incident.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the two offences had sufficient legal disparities in elements, mens rea, penalties, and gravamen to preclude the application of the Kienapple principle, thereby upholding Parliament's intent to deter criminal driving behaviour.

The offender, a financial advisor, was convicted of defrauding 10 clients of over $215,000 over a 3-year period.

The offender returned the funds to his clients before being charged, resulting in no financial loss.

The Crown sought a 30-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victims, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court sentenced the offender to 15 months' imprisonment and imposed a lifetime prohibition order under s. 380.2 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Melissa Jeaurond, pleaded guilty to careless storage of firearms, unauthorized possession of firearms, and possession of psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of psilocybin and its proximity to firearms, and mitigating factors such as her first-time offender status, remorse, guilty plea, and strong community support.

The court applied credit for stringent pre-sentence bail conditions (Downes credit).

The judge imposed a period of imprisonment for the drug and firearms offences, with sentences running concurrently, and a mandatory firearms prohibition.

The court denied the Crown's request for a discretionary DNA order, balancing the public interest against the offender's privacy interests given her low risk of recidivism and lack of prior record.

The accused, a financial advisor, was charged with multiple counts of fraud, theft, misappropriation, and forgery relating to his handling of funds for 10 clients.

The Crown alleged that the accused received funds from clients to invest, but instead deposited them into his own accounts, retained them for extended periods, and provided forged documents to conceal his actions.

The court found the accused guilty on 33 of the 34 remaining counts, concluding that he intentionally retained client funds contrary to their directions, placing their financial interests at risk, and used forged documents to deceive them.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood and impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The trial proceeded on a blended basis with a Charter application.

The court addressed four issues: whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to make a breath demand under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code; whether the section 254(3) demand was reasonable despite lack of evidence of officer training; whether the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights were breached when not permitted to dial counsel directly; and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the officer had reasonable suspicion, the demand was lawful, no Charter breach occurred, and the Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The offender was found guilty of production of cannabis, possession of psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking, and multiple firearms offences, including possession of restricted firearms and breaching a lifetime prohibition order.

The offences arose from a commercial drug operation on his rural property where police found a large quantity of drugs and 12 operable firearms.

The court declined to reduce the sentence for technical Charter breaches but granted credit for restrictive pre-sentence bail conditions.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 5 years in custody, comprising 12 months for the drug offences and 4 years consecutive for the firearms offences.