Paul J.S. Kowalyshyn

Kourtny Lynn Audette pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the fatal stabbing of Nicholas Laprise, a client for sex-for-hire.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, including the use of a hunting knife on a vulnerable, unarmed victim, and the offender's lack of prior record, history of abuse, mental health issues (PTSD, depression, anxiety, substance abuse), and intoxication at the time of the incident.

The court rejected further claims of provocation or self-defence beyond what justified the reduction from murder to manslaughter.

The judge imposed a sentence of eight and a half years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused, Raymond Rosettani, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against R.C., relating to incidents that occurred when R.C. was between 11 and 14 years old.

The trial involved testimony from both R.C. and Mr. Rosettani.

The court found R.C.'s evidence to be honest, straightforward, credible, and reliable, supported by specific details confirmed by the accused.

Despite the accused's categorical denials, the court rejected his evidence, finding that it did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The Crown met its burden, and convictions were registered on both counts.

The applicant sought to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligation under a separation agreement dated June 20, 2003, citing two material changes in circumstances: his early retirement from employment and the respondent's increased income.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought continuation of support at the original amount.

The court found that while the applicant's early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances based on the loss of extended health benefits, the applicant's voluntary decision to retire early did not justify full termination of support.

The court reduced spousal support in stages to reflect the applicant's reduced income while recognizing the respondent's ongoing need and the compensatory nature of the support obligation.

Crown appeal of an acquittal on a charge of stunt driving contrary to section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial Justice of the Peace erred in law by imposing a requirement that an officer must "lock in" the speed reading on a radar device as an essential element of the offence.

Both Crown and Defence agreed this was an error.

The appellate court found that the trial Justice properly found the officer was qualified, the radar device was in proper working order, and the accused was driving at 171 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and entered a finding of guilt.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death contrary to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code.

On September 15, 2012, the accused, with a blood alcohol level of 129-134 millilitres per 100 millilitres of blood, failed to stop at a stop sign on Highway 40 in Chatham-Kent, causing his vehicle to break through a guardrail.

His passenger, a close friend, suffered severe head injuries and died.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, finding exceptional circumstances warranted a sentence below the typical range for such offences.

The accused brought a voir dire application to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at a motorcycle club clubhouse.

The accused challenged the validity of the telewarrant on multiple grounds, including failure to demonstrate impracticability of personal appearance, lack of full and frank disclosure, misleading statements, and insufficient grounds.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained materially misleading and inaccurate statements, particularly regarding surveillance activities and complaints history.

The court determined that without the problematic paragraphs, insufficient grounds remained to justify the warrant's issuance.

Under the section 24(2) Charter analysis, the court excluded all evidence seized.

The accused was sentenced for animal cruelty resulting in death.

During a domestic dispute with his girlfriend, the accused threw his 12-week-old German Shepherd puppy out a door and down stairs, then chased and slammed it to the ground, causing fatal injuries.

The court imposed an eight-month custodial sentence (less 68 days pre-sentence custody), a ten-year animal ownership prohibition, and a two-year probation order with conditions including community service, substance abuse counselling, and restrictions on association with witnesses.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating an automobile sales and rental establishment (specifically a U-Haul leasing and renting operation) at a property zoned for automobile repair use only.

The court upheld the conviction, finding that the property was zoned as Urban Residential 1 (UR-1) with a legal non-conforming use as an automobile repair establishment.

The court determined that no U-Haul business was operating at the time the zoning bylaw was enacted in 2002, and therefore the appellant could not claim acquired rights to operate such a business.

The court also rejected arguments that the U-Haul operation constituted an accessory use or that ambiguities in the bylaw should be resolved in the appellant's favour.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the adequacy of the $950 fine was dismissed.