M. Wyszomierska

During a murder trial, the defence sought to adduce evidence suggesting that two third parties were responsible for the killing.

The court considered whether the proposed evidence established a sufficient nexus between the third parties and the offence to meet the “air of reality” threshold for third‑party suspect evidence.

Applying the principles from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the court held that there was no evidence of motive, opportunity, propensity, or other connection linking the proposed suspects to the homicide.

The alleged inconsistencies in their statements and cell phone records did not reasonably support an inference of involvement and amounted only to speculation.

The application to introduce third‑party suspect evidence was dismissed.

In a second‑degree murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce multiple autopsy photographs depicting the deceased’s injuries.

The defence objected, arguing the photographs were highly graphic and unnecessary given admissions regarding the cause of death, the injuries, and the expert pathologist’s conclusions.

Applying the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis described in R. v. P.(R.) and R. v. Handy, the court held that several close‑up images of the head and face were extremely graphic and their probative value was diminished by the defence’s proposed admissions.

Those photographs were excluded, while less prejudicial images illustrating the body’s condition and certain injuries were admitted to assist the pathologist’s testimony.

The ruling balanced the evidentiary value of visual evidence against the risk of reasoning prejudice for the jury.

The Crown sought certiorari and mandamus to review a preliminary inquiry decision that committed two accused to trial for second‑degree murder rather than first‑degree murder and discharged another accused.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider the whole of the evidence and improperly rejected inferences supporting constructive first‑degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code based on unlawful confinement.

The reviewing court held that the justice committed a jurisdictional error by failing to address evidence of unlawful confinement of a second victim, which could support first‑degree murder within the same transaction.

Mandamus issued requiring committal of two respondents to trial for first‑degree murder.

The application regarding the third respondent was dismissed because the justice properly applied the limited weighing permitted for circumstantial evidence and committed no jurisdictional error.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and multiple firearms and ammunition offences following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment in Oshawa.

Cocaine, two loaded handguns, and ammunition were found hidden under a desk drawer in the bedroom normally occupied by the accused's mother.

The Crown argued the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The defence contended there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the items and that other residents and visitors had access to the bedroom.

The court found that while the accused or his brother likely brought the contraband into the apartment, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt which brother was responsible.

The realistic possibility that the brother hid the items without the accused's knowledge was fatal to the prosecution's case.

The offender was sentenced following convictions arising from a shopping mall incident in which he fired a loaded handgun while fleeing loss‑prevention officers after committing theft.

The offences included discharging a firearm to evade arrest, unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm and magazine, possession while prohibited, and multiple breaches of recognizance conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the risks created by firing a weapon in a crowded public place and the offender’s extensive criminal record.

Applying the totality principle and considering comparable sentencing ranges for serious gun offences, the court imposed a global sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.

Credit was granted for pre‑sentence custody and harsh detention conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of six years and eleven and one‑half months.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for his role in the stabbing death of the victim, whose body was subsequently burned and dumped in a ditch.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 20 years, while the defence argued for 12 to 14 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the group attack, the extensive efforts to destroy evidence, and the offender's continued violent behaviour while in custody.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.