M. Morris

The offender was convicted of manslaughter for the starvation death of his 21-month-old daughter, who was in his sole care.

The offender absconded prior to the sentencing hearing, and the court proceeded in his absence pursuant to section 475(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the prolonged and deliberate withholding of food and water constituted extreme child abuse by a parent in a position of trust, the court sentenced the offender to 15 years' imprisonment.

The accused, the sole caregiver for his 21-month-old daughter, was charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death after she died of severe malnutrition and dehydration.

The accused conceded he failed to provide the necessaries of life but argued he was incapacitated by a head injury sustained eight days prior to her death.

The court rejected this defence, finding no evidence of incapacity and noting the child's deterioration would have occurred over weeks.

The court found the accused's failure to provide nourishment was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The Crown sought to call four expert witnesses in a trial for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death of a 21-month-old child.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the experts based on their independence and impartiality.

The court admitted the evidence of the coroner, forensic pathologist, and neuropathologist, finding them independent.

However, the court excluded the evidence of the paediatric nutritionist, who testified he would never work for the defence and viewed defence experts as 'hired guns', demonstrating an inherent bias in favour of the Crown.

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for its witnesses to testify via videoconference at a manslaughter trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused opposed the application and sought an adjournment, arguing that a fair trial required in-person testimony.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that virtual testimony with appropriate safeguards accommodated both public health interests and the accused's right to a fair trial.

The court dismissed the accused's adjournment requests, noting the trial had already been delayed multiple times and the proposed appeal of the virtual testimony ruling was highly speculative.

The offender was found guilty of possessing and accessing a large volume of child pornography.

The Crown sought an 18-month jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court struck down the mandatory minimum for accessing child pornography as unconstitutional.

The court found that the offender's severe schizophrenia and profound social isolation significantly reduced his moral blameworthiness and that a jail sentence would have a disproportionately crushing effect on him.

A 15-month conditional sentence was imposed.

During a jury trial for fraud, personation, and forgery, the Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across different counts involving different complainants.

The defence conceded the application for counts involving the Gametronics investment scheme, which shared a highly similar modus operandi.

However, the court dismissed the application for counts involving a GIC and an RRSP, finding insufficient similarity and concluding that the prejudicial effect of propensity reasoning outweighed any probative value.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his spouse during a period when he was on a weekend hospital pass while receiving psychiatric treatment.

The defence argued the accused lacked the mens rea for sexual assault due to an honest but mistaken belief in consent arising in the context of a long marriage and the complainant’s failure to verbally refuse.

The court rejected this argument, holding that under s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code an accused must take reasonable steps to ascertain consent where circumstances raise doubt.

The court accepted the complainant’s testimony and found the accused guilty of sexual assault under s. 271.

After conviction, psychiatric evidence established the accused suffered from bipolar disorder and likely failed to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions, resulting in a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Following a trial conviction for sexual assault and assault against an intimate partner, the court determined a fit sentence considering the offender’s extensive criminal record for violent offences and repeated breaches of court orders.

The sexual assault involved forced sexual intercourse with the complainant and was followed by a further physical assault.

The court emphasized general deterrence, specific deterrence, and protection of the public given the offender’s persistent violent conduct and poor response to prior sentences.

Credit for presentence custody was limited to one-for-one due to the offender’s record suggesting low likelihood of early parole.

A global sentence of four and a half years was imposed, reduced by credit for time served.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault arising from allegations that she engaged in sexual activity with a foster child while he was under her care.

The complainant alleged that the sexual activity occurred while he was fifteen and living in the accused’s home as a foster child, which would negate consent due to the accused’s position of trust under the Criminal Code.

The defence denied that any sexual activity occurred during the foster relationship and argued that the complainant fabricated the allegations to avoid substantial child and spousal support arrears.

The court found significant credibility concerns with the complainant, including false statements in sworn family court materials and evidence suggesting a motive to fabricate.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the evidence left a reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged acts occurred.