M. Murdoch

The accused was tried for assaulting a peace officer and uttering a death threat following an interaction where the officer shot the accused.

The officer testified that the accused grabbed his radio antenna and threatened to kill him while reaching into a backpack containing a sawed-off shotgun.

Two civilian witnesses testified they did not see a physical altercation, and one testified she did not hear the threat.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the civilian witnesses credible and reliable, raising a reasonable doubt about the officer's recollection.

The accused was acquitted of both charges, though he had previously pleaded guilty to weapons offences.

The accused parents were charged with abducting their child from the care of the Children's Aid Society during a supervised access visit.

Prior to trial, the accused brought an application seeking to challenge the validity of the initial apprehension warrant issued under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court dismissed the application, holding that challenging the warrant at the criminal trial would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on a judicial order.

The court found that the statutory scheme provided an adequate remedial mechanism to challenge the apprehension, and allowing a collateral attack would jeopardize the orderly administration of child protection matters.

The accused was charged with possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 after a stolen pick-up truck was found at a remote farm.

The accused's fingerprints were found on the exterior passenger door of the stolen vehicle.

Shortly after the vehicle was discovered, the accused and a companion were found walking nearby, dressed in feedbags to protect against the cold.

The court rejected the accused's exculpatory testimony that she had been abandoned by a designated driver, finding it implausible and inconsistent.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including the fingerprint evidence and the accused's suspicious conduct, the court found the accused guilty.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings until state funding for defence counsel was provided after his legal aid certificate was cancelled.

The Crown argued the application was premature because counsel remained on the record and further alleged the accused had not prioritized funding his defence.

The court held that removal of counsel from the record is not an absolute prerequisite to a Rowbotham application and must be assessed contextually.

Given the accused’s indigence, serious and complex fraud charge, health limitations, and extensive disclosure, the court concluded that a fair trial could not proceed without counsel.

A conditional stay was granted to permit the Attorney General an opportunity to arrange funding for defence counsel.