Nancy J. Spies

During a jury trial for aggravated assault and weapons offences, the accused young person brought an application to exclude his adult criminal record, which consisted of a single conviction for first degree murder.

The defence had vigorously cross-examined the primary Crown witness on his extensive criminal record.

The court applied the Corbett framework and dismissed the application, finding that the probative value of the murder conviction on the accused's credibility outweighed its prejudicial effect, and that excluding it would create a serious imbalance given the attack on the Crown witness's credibility.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of two years, citing the offender's prior convictions for similar offences.

The defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the aggravating factor of the offender's criminal record against his compliance with previous court orders and his 40 months on bail without incident.

The court concluded that the offender did not pose a danger to the community and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by 12 months of probation.

The accused brought a defence application seeking a stay of proceedings after being subjected to repeated Level 3 strip searches each time he left the courtroom while permitted to sit at counsel table during his jury trial.

The court found the searches were conducted pursuant to an improper practice and were not supported by individualized reasonable grounds.

The repeated searches constituted serious breaches of the accused’s s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure.

The court held that routine strip searches cannot be justified merely because an in‑custody accused is seated at counsel table and emphasized the extreme intrusiveness of such searches.

Although a stay of proceedings was initially ordered to prevent ongoing Charter violations, the order was suspended when court security agreed to alter the seating arrangement and cease the searches.

The offender, a 63-year-old first-time offender with severe medical issues, was convicted of defrauding a factoring company of over $75,000 US by using a false identity and a shell corporation.

The Crown sought 18 months' incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of planning and deceit against the mitigating factors of the offender's poor health, genuine remorse, and lack of prior record.

The court imposed a 20-month conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by 12 months' probation, community service, and a DNA order, declining to order restitution due to the offender's inability to pay.

The offenders were convicted of robbery and unlawful confinement following a home invasion where imitation firearms were used and young children were present.

The Crown sought sentences of 6 years for Brown and 8 years for Hersi.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, but also weighed the offenders' youth and prospects for rehabilitation.

Brown, a first-time offender who constructively pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 2.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

Hersi, who played a more significant role, had a prior record, and was convicted of uttering threats, was sentenced to a total of 4.5 years minus pre-sentence credit.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possessing a loaded restricted firearm and related offences, having fled from police and discarded the weapon in a residential backyard.

At the time, he was bound by two weapons prohibition orders and a probation order.

The Crown sought 8 to 10 years, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 5 years, citing the offender's pending deportation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years, finding the Crown's position unreasonably high but noting the serious aggravating factors.

The court granted enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at a ratio of 1.3:1 due to the loss of parole eligibility.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possessing a loaded restricted firearm and related offences, and by a judge of breaching weapons prohibition and probation orders.

The offender fled from police and threw the loaded handgun into a residential backyard.

The court considered the offender's prior firearms conviction, his pending deportation to Jamaica, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years imprisonment, less enhanced pre-sentence credit at a ratio of 1.3:1, resulting in 74 months remaining to be served.

During a jury trial for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, the defence twice applied for a mistrial after the Crown referred in opening submissions to information received from a confidential informant indicating the accused would possess a firearm.

The defence argued the comments introduced highly prejudicial investigative hearsay that could not be tested through cross-examination.

The court accepted that some aspects of the Crown’s opening were improper but held the prejudice could be cured through limiting instructions and by restricting the evidence elicited from the investigating officer.

Applying the mistrial test from R. v. Khan, the court concluded the jury’s exposure to the information did not compromise the trial to the extent that only a new trial could remedy it.

Both mistrial applications were dismissed.

Two accused were tried for robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and related offences arising from a home invasion robbery.

The complainant testified that four men forced entry into her residence, displayed firearms, searched the premises, and confined the occupants.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused participated in the robbery and confinement but found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearms were real rather than imitation.

Both accused were therefore convicted of the included offence of robbery and unlawful confinement.

One accused was also convicted of uttering threats after evidence established he used a phone linked to threatening calls made to the complainant.

During a criminal trial for alleged sexual assault, the accused brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code seeking to cross‑examine the complainant regarding possible alternative sources of injuries and DNA evidence.

The defence argued that sexual activity with others shortly before the alleged assault might account for genital injuries and the presence of DNA from multiple males on the complainant’s clothing.

The court held that limited questioning about sexual activity in the hours preceding the alleged assault could be permitted where it had significant probative value relating to alternative causes of injury.

However, broader questioning into the complainant’s sexual history during the period she owned the clothing was excluded because its minimal probative value was outweighed by the serious prejudice and invasion of privacy.

The application was therefore granted in part and denied in part.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code after obtaining accounts receivable financing from a factoring company through false representations.

The Crown alleged the accused impersonated a purported majority shareholder and corporate officer to secure financing based on fabricated receivables and misrepresentations about corporate ownership.

Evidence included witness identification, banking records, ATM surveillance images, and testimony from a corporate signatory showing the accused controlled the company and received most of the advanced funds.

The court found the accused intentionally misrepresented his identity and corporate structure to induce the advance and diverted the funds for personal benefit.

The court concluded the Crown proved deceit, deprivation, and fraudulent intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender was convicted after trial as a party to robbery while armed with a handgun contrary to s. 344 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the mandatory minimum sentence, parity with co‑accused, and whether the sentence should run concurrently or consecutively to an existing sentence for a separate robbery.

The court held that the minimum sentence was five years because the Crown had not provided notice under s. 727 to rely on a prior conviction for enhanced punishment.

Applying parity with co‑offenders and the totality principle, the court concluded a concurrent sentence was appropriate.

A six‑year custodial sentence was imposed, concurrent with an existing sentence, resulting in an effective total sentence of approximately eight years and four months.

During a criminal trial for fraud over $5,000, the Crown sought to admit statements allegedly made by the accused to a police detective while in custody.

A voir dire was held to determine whether the statements were voluntary.

The accused testified that he only spoke after being told that his girlfriend had been arrested and could face jail if he did not cooperate.

Given the absence of a recording and conflicting evidence regarding what the officer said, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether an inducement had been made.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, and the statements were ruled inadmissible.

The accused was convicted after trial of fraud over $5,000 contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code for defrauding a church of $80,154.75 while serving as its volunteer treasurer.

Over approximately four and a half years, the accused obtained signatures on blank cheques, made 95 unauthorized payments to himself, falsified bank statements, and concealed the fraud from the church board.

Although he repaid portions of the funds, the court found a net loss exceeding $23,000 and determined that many repayments were made to conceal the scheme rather than as restitution.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation for breach-of-trust fraud, and finding no exceptional mitigating circumstances warranting a conditional sentence, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The accused was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, followed by one year of probation and a restitution order of $24,000.

The accused was arrested during a high-risk takedown based on information from a confidential informant and police observations of a suspected drug transaction.

A search incident to arrest revealed drugs and a loaded firearm.

The accused applied to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing his ss. 8 and 9 rights were violated because police lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The court found the arrest for firearm possession was unlawful, breaching ss. 8 and 9, but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable.

The court also ruled the accused's utterances to police were voluntary and admissible.

The accused were arrested during a high-risk takedown following an undercover police operation targeting a ketamine drug transaction.

One accused was charged with trafficking and possession of marihuana, but the court found the Crown failed to prove his knowledge or involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals.

The other accused admitted to trafficking but brought a Charter application alleging police used excessive force during his arrest, including kicking him in the head while handcuffed.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that unknown officers subjected the accused to excessive and gratuitous force, breaching his s. 7 and s. 12 Charter rights.

Consequently, the charges against him were stayed pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences after police stopped his vehicle and discovered small quantities of marijuana and crack cocaine on his person and a loaded revolver hidden behind the vehicle’s dome light.

The Crown alleged the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking and that the accused knowingly possessed the firearm.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including a suspected exchange with another vehicle and the presence of a firearm, did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs were intended for trafficking.

The hidden firearm’s location and the accused’s control of the vehicle were insufficient to prove knowledge of the weapon.

The accused was acquitted of all firearm offences and drug trafficking counts but convicted of the included offences of simple possession of marijuana and cocaine.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a 20-year-old woman with a severe developmental disability.

The accused admitted to having consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant, resulting in her pregnancy.

The core issues were whether the complainant had the capacity to consent to sexual intercourse and, if not, whether the accused had an honest but mistaken belief in her capacity to consent.

The court heard expert evidence indicating the complainant functioned cognitively at the level of a three to five-year-old child.

The court found that the complainant lacked the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of sexual intercourse, including the risks of pregnancy and disease.

Furthermore, the court rejected the accused's defence of honest but mistaken belief, finding that he was willfully blind to her obvious developmental limitations and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused pleaded guilty during a jury trial to careless use of a firearm, being an occupant of a motor vehicle knowing a firearm was present, and carrying a concealed weapon.

The court considered whether the firearm was loaded and found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the rounds in the magazine were live ammunition.

The offender was a licensed gun owner with no criminal record who carried the handgun for protection while purchasing marijuana and transported it contrary to legal requirements.

Applying the principles in ss. 718–718.2 and considering conditional sentencing jurisprudence, including R. v. Proulx, the court concluded the risk of re‑offending was very low and that a conditional sentence would satisfy denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The accused received an 18‑month conditional sentence with strict house arrest conditions, community service, and a 10‑year discretionary weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with armed robbery and disguise with intent.

The Crown alleged he was one of three men who robbed the victim after a woman acted as a decoy.

The trial judge found the identification evidence unreliable and accepted that the accused's alibi raised a reasonable doubt about his physical presence at the robbery.

However, based on text messages and accomplice testimony, the court found the accused participated extensively in planning the robbery and directing the decoy.

The accused was convicted of armed robbery as an aider and abettor, but acquitted of disguise with intent.