Nancy Marie Komsa

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, robbery with a firearm, and other offences after shooting a victim and stealing multiple vehicles.

Prior to sentencing, the offender applied for bail, proposing a residential surety and electronic monitoring.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the offender's history of fleeing, untreated addiction, and the severity of the offences justified detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter based on criminal negligence in relation to the death of his infant child.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a six‑year penitentiary sentence but disputed the appropriate credit for pre‑sentence custody under ss. 719(3) and 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted the joint submission, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the abuse of a vulnerable infant and breach of parental trust.

Enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody was granted due to segregation, safety concerns arising from the nature of the offence, and communication restrictions with the offender’s spouse.

The court applied mixed credit rates for different custody periods and imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicant sought to quash a preliminary inquiry order committing him to stand trial for second degree murder arising from the death of his infant child.

He argued the preliminary inquiry justice committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider his exculpatory statement that the injuries resulted from an accidental fall during bathing.

The court held that the preliminary inquiry justice properly considered both inculpatory circumstantial evidence and exculpatory direct evidence in accordance with the test articulated in R. v. Arcuri.

The expert medical evidence describing the severity and nature of the injuries, combined with conflicting statements by the applicant, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of intentional infliction of injuries.

As a result, the committal for trial was proper and no jurisdictional error occurred.