N. McCartney

The Crown applied for an order remanding the offender for an assessment for a dangerous or long-term offender application following his conviction for aggravated assault against a fellow inmate.

The court reviewed the offender's criminal record, including youth convictions, intimate partner violence, and a manslaughter conviction.

The court found that the threshold for ordering an assessment, while low, was not met, as the offender's past behaviour did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for her role in the group beating death of a vulnerable, intoxicated victim.

The court considered significant Gladue factors, the offender's youth, her genuine remorse, and her substantial rehabilitative efforts while in pre-sentence custody.

Balancing the high moral culpability of the prolonged assault with the offender's rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a sentence equivalent to 6 1/3 years, resulting in 2 years less a day of further custody followed by 3 years of probation.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, brought an application to exclude his clothing from evidence, arguing it was seized from his father's apartment during a warrantless search in violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his father's home based on his familial and cultural background.

The court held the search was unreasonable as there were no exigent circumstances and the father did not provide valid, informed consent.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing the seriousness of the police conduct in entering a dwelling without a warrant and the negative impact on the Indigenous community's trust in police.

The accused, charged with fraud and using forged documents, applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the Crown's conduct in adjourning a preliminary inquiry, the subsequent death of the complainant, and the Crown's decision to prefer a direct indictment constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown's decisions were reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the complainant's death and the need to address delay issues, and did not compromise trial fairness.