N. S. Douglas

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2 of the Criminal Code seeking an order to allow two adult witnesses (the accused's ex-wives) to testify outside the courtroom by closed-circuit television or behind a screen during a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown also sought to have counsel appointed to cross-examine the witnesses rather than allowing the self-represented accused to do so.

The judge granted the application for appointed counsel but dismissed the application for the witnesses to testify outside the courtroom.

The judge found that the witnesses, despite their stated emotional distress, were able to testify effectively in open court without accommodation.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting his nine-year-old son contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The assault involved striking the child with an open hand and a leather strap, causing welts and bruising.

The Crown sought custody, emphasizing the seriousness of violence against children and the breach of trust.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, highlighting the accused's genuine remorse, immediate self-reporting, participation in rehabilitative programs, and his status as an Aboriginal offender.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, finding this to be a rare case warranting an exception to the general principle that violence against children demands incarceration and criminal conviction.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with first degree murder in the death of Xhuljeta Vlashi on August 27, 2012.

The Crown sought to establish that the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court heard evidence over five days from approximately thirty witnesses, reviewed agreed statements of fact, forensic reports, and eleven exhibits.

The accused suffered from documented schizophrenia and killed the one person in his life who was caring for him while she was on a video call with her niece.

The court found that while the evidence clearly established the accused killed the victim intentionally, there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for first degree murder.

The killing appeared impulsive, rash, and irrational, with no prior animosity, threats, or rational motive.

The court committed the accused to stand trial on the lesser charge of second degree murder.