Misha Feldman

The accused was convicted of two separate murders and faced a potential order under s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code that his parole ineligibility periods be served consecutively, totaling 41 years.

The accused challenged the constitutional validity of s. 745.51, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter by permitting life-long sentences without hope of release.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the discretionary power to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murders does not require or permit grossly disproportionate sentences.

The court also noted that the royal prerogative of mercy provides a realistic hope of eventual release.

The accused, Mauro Granados-Arana, facing a first-degree murder charge, challenged the admissibility of certain crime scene and autopsy photographs that the Crown sought to tender into evidence.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect test, noting that modern juries are less easily inflamed by graphic images.

The court found that crime scene photographs were admissible without objection.

For autopsy photographs, the court ruled that photographs depicting defensive hand injuries and head/shoulder injuries were admissible.

Their significant probative value in illustrating the nature and extent of injuries, the degree of force used, the perpetrator's intent, and corroborating expert opinion outweighed their potential prejudicial effect, especially given their black and white presentation.

The application to exclude the photographs was dismissed.

In a pre-trial motion for a first-degree murder case, the Crown sought to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, including drug trafficking, acts of violence, and motive.

The court endorsed agreements between the parties allowing evidence of the accused's drug trafficking to provide narrative context, and allowing witnesses to state they feared the accused without detailing specific prior violent acts.

The court also ruled that the Crown could lead evidence of the accused's motive—specifically that he killed the deceased in retaliation for a prior assault by the deceased's close associate—finding its probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact.

The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking in Methylone, Ketamine, and Cannabis.

An application to exclude evidence under the Charter was dismissed.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, noting the commercial nature of the drug enterprise and the lack of significant mitigating factors.

A total sentence of 23 months incarceration was imposed, reduced to 8 months after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation with specific conditions, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The offender was found guilty of second degree murder after shooting an unarmed victim in the back as he fled a house party.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 15 to 17 years, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the use of a loaded firearm and shooting a fleeing victim to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 16 years, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown brought a motion to admit other discreditable conduct evidence in a prosecution for first degree murder after the defence indicated it may raise not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

The proposed evidence included prior incidents of violence and jealousy within the accused’s relationship with the deceased, as well as unrelated statements reflecting violent and sexual attitudes.

Applying the balancing test from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential moral and reasoning prejudice.

Evidence from several witnesses describing prior violent conduct toward the deceased and a jealous reaction toward a third party was admitted as contextual evidence relevant to motive and intent.

Evidence concerning unrelated sexually violent remarks was excluded as insufficiently connected to the alleged offence and highly prejudicial.