Mike Boyce

The offender, Justin Cassie-Berube, was sentenced for manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault related to the death of a five-year-old child, Chloe.

The court found that the offender failed to provide necessities of life and medical attention to Chloe, leading to her death, and had repeatedly abused her.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, breach of trust, and the deliberate failure to seek medical help to avoid legal jeopardy.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, young age, and mental health issues, though his lack of true remorse limited mitigation.

A global sentence of 14 years imprisonment was imposed, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The accused, Justin Cassie-Berube, was charged with six counts relating to the death of a five-year-old girl, including failing to provide necessaries of life, criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The judgment detailed the child's deteriorating health due to a bladder rupture and other injuries, and the accused's conscious decision to withhold medical attention due to fear of legal jeopardy from the child's visible bruises.

The court concluded that the accused's conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person, directly contributing to the child's death.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of the accused's videotaped statement to police following his arrest for robbery and theft of a motor vehicle.

The defence conceded the first two-thirds of the interview were voluntary but argued the final portion was inadmissible because the interviewing officer offered a quid pro quo inducement to return the accused to his cell if he provided information about a gun.

The court found that the officer's statements did not amount to a clear inducement and did not overcome the accused's free will.

The court concluded the statements were voluntary and ruled the entire interview admissible.

The applicant, David Blackwood, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following a detention order for charges including robbery and choking.

The court found a material change in circumstances, triggering a de novo review.

Despite a strong surety and consideration of difficult jail conditions, the court determined that Blackwood's extensive history of non-compliance with court orders and criminal record indicated a substantial likelihood of re-offending.

The application for release was dismissed, and his detention was maintained.

During a criminal trial for second-degree murder and accessory after the fact, the court ruled on whether the partial defence of provocation should be put to the jury and whether directed verdicts of acquittal should be entered for the accessory charges.

The court found an air of reality to the provocation defence, noting evidence that the deceased may have fired first.

The court dismissed the application for a directed verdict on accessory after the fact to a firearms offence, but granted a directed verdict of acquittal for accessory after the fact to murder, as the victim was not yet dead when the assistance was provided.

This ruling addresses final jury instructions in a criminal trial.

The court decided not to leave the partial defence of provocation to the jury due to a lack of air of reality, specifically regarding the absence of an identifiable indictable offense by the victim and suddenness.

However, the court found an air of reality for self-defence, warranting its submission to the jury, based on the accused's belief of threatened force and purpose of protection, despite concerns about the reasonableness of the force used.

A 'rolled-up' instruction, combining provocation, intoxication, fear, and suddenness for the mental intent of murder, was granted.

Limiting instructions were provided for the accused's after-the-fact conduct, clarifying its relevance to self-defence and intoxication but not to the intent for murder.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, brought a pre-trial application (voir dire) to exclude his statement to the police, arguing that his Charter rights (ss. 7, 8, 9) were breached due to a warrantless entry into a dwelling house for his arrest.

The court found that the police lawfully entered the dwelling based on the occupant's invitation and that the accused was found in plain view.

Consequently, no Charter breach occurred.

Even if a breach had been established, the court determined that admitting the statement would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter, considering the good faith of the police, the minor nature of any potential breach, and society's interest in adjudicating serious offences on their merits.

The application was dismissed, and the statement was deemed admissible.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged the complainant did not consent to sexual activity due to intoxication.

The complainant had no memory of the events due to alcohol consumption.

The accused testified he obtained consent before engaging in sexual activity.

The court applied the WD analysis and considered whether the Crown proved the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and reliable, and that it raised a reasonable doubt regarding consent.

The court acquitted the accused.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exclude evidence of alleged flight as after-the-fact conduct in a prosecution for first-degree murder.

The Crown intended to tender evidence that the accused attempted to travel to Afghanistan shortly after the fatal stabbing, arguing that such conduct was relevant to consciousness of guilt and inconsistent with a claim of self-defence.

The defence argued the travel related to a pre-planned wedding trip and that the evidence would be more prejudicial than probative.

The court held that the relevance and admissibility of the alleged after-the-fact conduct could not be determined in the abstract prior to the evidentiary context of trial.

The application was therefore adjourned to be determined when the evidence is tendered at trial.

The accused was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his 15-year-old cousin.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court conditionally stayed several counts and proceeded to sentence the accused on five counts of sexual interference and one count of invitation to sexual touching.

The court considered the significant breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the devastating impact on her and her family as aggravating factors.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 3.5 years in penitentiary, along with DNA, SOIRA, non-communication, and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused, an acting operations supervisor at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, was charged with multiple counts of fraud on the government and breach of trust by a public officer.

She participated in a joint enterprise with an immigration consultant to expedite and favorably process immigration applications in exchange for money and benefits.

The court found that the accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of her office by disclosing confidential information, providing preferential treatment, and accepting benefits.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except one count of bribery.