Neil McCartney

The accused was charged with manslaughter following the death of a 17-year-old victim whose body was found in a park.

The victim died from hypothermia, blunt facial trauma, and ethanol intoxication.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and DNA, to prove the accused assaulted the victim before leaving him in freezing temperatures.

The defence argued the police investigation was flawed and pointed to alternate suspects.

The court rejected the alternate suspect theories, finding the circumstantial evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to the accused's guilt.

The court concluded the assault was a substantial contributing cause of death and found the accused guilty of manslaughter.

The Crown brought an application to admit a video-recorded statement of a deceased complainant into evidence at a trial for fraud and uttering forged documents.

The complainant, an elderly person who required personal support workers, alleged that the accused made unauthorized bank withdrawals.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding that while the necessity requirement was met due to the complainant's death, threshold reliability was not established.

The court noted concerns with the complainant's memory, the leading nature of the interview questions, and a prior inconsistent complaint to police involving another worker.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault alleged to have occurred in the mid‑1980s, criminal harassment in 2011, and two breaches of recognizance conditions.

The court found that the complainant’s evidence regarding a single instance of non‑consensual intercourse was undermined by inconsistencies, omissions in prior statements, and surrounding circumstances of a long‑term consensual relationship that continued for years thereafter.

The Crown also failed to prove the elements of criminal harassment, including repeated communications and a reasonable fear for safety, particularly given ongoing intermittent contact initiated by the complainant and her family.

Evidence relating to the alleged breaches of recognizance did not establish the required mens rea for the offences.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused applied for a review of a detention order under section 520 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with instructing a criminal organization and drug trafficking offences, with the Crown's case relying heavily on evidence obtained from an encrypted mobile device.

The reviewing judge found the Justice of the Peace committed errors in principle by making logically inconsistent findings between the primary and secondary grounds, and by failing to adequately consider the impact of a section 8 Charter argument on the strength of the Crown's case.

Furthermore, late disclosure revealing that police searched the device without a warrant and failed to obtain an extension for its detention constituted a material change in circumstances.

The detention order was vacated and the accused was released on strict conditions with substantial sureties.