Monte McGregor

A 17-year-old youth was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting a taxi driver multiple times without apparent motive, and of firearm offences related to a shooting incident three weeks prior.

The Crown sought an adult sentence.

The sentencing judge applied the two-stage test under s. 72(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. I.M. and R. v. S.B. At stage one, the judge found the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the offender's intellectual disability in the mild range, complex trauma, disadvantaged background, impulsivity, and demonstrated capacity for rehabilitation while in custody.

At stage two, the judge imposed the maximum youth sentence of seven years custody followed by conditional supervision under an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision order, with concurrent one-year sentences for the firearm offences.

The accused, I.T., a young Black youth charged with second-degree murder, brought a Corbett application to exclude or sanitize parts of his youth record for the purpose of assessing his credibility if he were to testify.

The court considered the traditional Corbett factors (nature, remoteness, similarity of convictions, and attack on Crown witness credibility) and, significantly, extended the consideration of systemic anti-Black racism, drawing on principles from R. v. King and R. v. Morris.

The application was allowed in part: a conviction for assault peace officer was excluded, firearm possession convictions were sanitized to "possession of a restricted weapon" and "possession of a restricted weapon contrary to a prohibition order", and a robbery conviction was substituted with "assault and theft".

The court found that these modifications balanced the probative value of the record against the heightened prejudicial effect due to racial stereotypes and the risk of improper propensity reasoning.

This is a pre-trial ruling in a murder trial concerning the admissibility of two types of evidence: lay recognition opinion testimony (video and voice) and prior discreditable conduct of the accused.

The court admitted the recognition evidence from two youth detention center staff members, finding they had sufficient familiarity with the accused to offer valuable identifying information, including unique mannerisms and gait.

The court also admitted evidence of the accused's prior possession and discharge of the alleged murder weapon three weeks before the killing, and possession of another handgun three days before, balancing its high probative value for identity and means/opportunity against its moral prejudice.

The court imposed limitations on how the relationship evidence between the accused and the staff witnesses could be presented to mitigate prejudice related to the accused's detention history.

The Crown brought a motion to admit "recognition" evidence from the accused's former girlfriend, Dejaunte Blake, to identify the accused in surveillance video related to a first-degree murder charge.

The defence opposed, arguing the relationship was not significant enough and the video quality was poor.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. Leaney, found the witness was in a better position than the jury to identify the accused due to her intimate and regular contact with him.

The court admitted the evidence, ruling that concerns about video quality and prior inconsistent statements went to weight, not admissibility.

In a first-degree murder trial, the court ruled on the admissibility of three wiretap excerpts, balancing their probative value against their prejudicial effect.

Two excerpts were excluded: one lacked sufficient link to the killing and carried significant prejudice by associating the accused with incarcerated individuals, and the other lacked probative value regarding a potential getaway vehicle or the shooting itself.

The third excerpt, which involved the accused discussing a homicide and police inquiries with his girlfriend, was admitted as highly probative of post-incident conduct related to his involvement in the shooting.

The Crown sought to admit "recognition evidence" from a hotel customer service representative to identify the accused in surveillance video related to a first-degree murder charge.

The defence opposed, arguing the witness lacked sufficient exposure to the accused.

The court dismissed the Crown's motion, finding that the witness's limited prior interactions with the accused, reliance on a short, obscured video clip, and identification based on clothing and gait (rather than facial features or consistent observation of gait on stairs) did not place her in a better position than the trier of fact to identify the accused.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon (a chair) and assault causing bodily harm against his mother.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally struck his mother on the head with a chair, causing a gash requiring 10 stitches.

The accused claimed the injury was accidental, resulting from him dropping the chair from chest level.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting the defence of accident based on the credibility of the complainant and Crown witnesses, the accused's inconsistent statements, his post-incident behavior, and the circumstantial evidence of intent.

During a preliminary inquiry into charges including attempted murder, the Crown sought to introduce a written report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police indicating that a DNA specimen from a jacket found at the crime scene matched the accused Russell Bullock on the National DNA Data Bank.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the report, arguing inadequate notice was given and that the evidence was not credible or trustworthy.

The court ruled the report admissible under section 540(7) of the Criminal Code, finding that the legislative framework governing the National DNA Databank and the statutory duties of the RCMP Commissioner provided sufficient credibility and trustworthiness to the evidence at the preliminary inquiry stage.

The court sentenced the accused after a guilty plea to aggravated assault arising from a prolonged intimate-partner attack causing a fractured jaw, scalp lacerations, and extensive bruising.

The court applied the sentencing objectives in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while also weighing rehabilitation in light of youth, guilty plea, and adverse background.

Aggravating factors included pre-planning, death threats, domestic context, and an extensive youth and adult criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the early plea and some evidence of educational and program participation.

A custodial term with probation and ancillary orders was imposed.