Michelle Fernandes

The accused, Shou Chen, was convicted of second-degree murder.

This decision concerns the sentencing, specifically the parole ineligibility period.

The court considered the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and jury recommendations, as required by the Criminal Code.

Despite the Crown seeking a 12-year parole ineligibility period, the court found a compelling causal link between the accused's late-onset schizophrenia and the offence.

This mental disorder, combined with the accused's lack of prior record and the jury's recommendation for the minimum, led the court to impose the mandatory minimum 10-year parole ineligibility period.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA databank submission were also made.

The accused, Shou Chen, facing a second-degree murder charge, brought a mistrial application after his forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Pearce, revised his opinion, no longer supporting a "not criminally responsible" (NCRMD) defence on a balance of probabilities.

The defence sought a mistrial to find another expert psychiatrist and secure Legal Aid funding.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a mistrial is a remedy of last resort and was not warranted.

The judge found that the change in expert opinion, partly attributable to defence counsel's delay in providing relevant reports, did not cause actual prejudice or unfairness, as the defence retained strategic options for presenting its case.

The court also noted the case's long history of defence-related delays.

The accused, Shou Chen, facing a second-degree murder charge, objected to the admissibility of recognition/identification evidence from a Crown witness, Mr. Wan Peng Mei.

The Crown sought to have Mr. Mei identify the accused from surveillance video footage based on his prior acquaintance.

The defence argued that the witness was in no better position than the jury due to poor image quality.

The court applied the "prior acquaintance/better position" test, finding that Mr. Mei had significant prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him from the video, despite the image quality.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, concluding its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice, with appropriate jury instructions to mitigate risks of unreliability.