M. Puskas

The 14-year-old accused pleaded guilty to first degree murder after fatally stabbing a 15-year-old fellow resident at a group foster home.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that the maximum youth sentence of 10 years should be imposed, with no credit for pre-disposition custody.

The court accepted the joint submission, noting the horrific circumstances of the unprovoked attack, the accused's history of violent behaviour, and his significant psychiatric conditions.

The accused was sentenced to six years in custody followed by four years of conditional supervision in the community.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's post-offence conduct at a sexual assault trial.

The accused had failed to appear for a court date and fled the country for five years, claiming he left due to threats to his life rather than the criminal charges.

The court found the accused's explanation, based on hearsay and rumours, lacked probative value.

The court held that the evidence of flight was logically relevant to the accused's culpability and its probative value exceeded any prejudicial effect.

The Crown's application was granted.

The accused were charged with aggravated assault arising from a tavern altercation and brought a pre‑trial application seeking a judicial stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They alleged that a negligent police investigation, including failures to identify witnesses, properly document blood evidence, and secure surveillance video, impaired their ability to make full answer and defence contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

The court reviewed the investigative steps taken by police and found that their decisions were reasonable in the circumstances, including the timing of witness inquiries, handling of potential blood evidence, and attempts to obtain video recordings from the tavern.

The loss of relevant video footage resulted from the actions of tavern management rather than police custody or negligence.

Because no negligent investigation was established, the court held that there was no Charter breach and a stay of proceedings was not warranted.