Peter Napier

The applicant brought a private prosecution against his wife's employer and her superiors, alleging criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, intimidation, and retaliation.

Following a pre-enquete hearing, the Justice of the Peace refused to issue process on six counts due to insufficient evidence, and the Crown Attorney stayed the remaining count.

The applicant sought certiorari and mandamus to quash the refusal and review the stay.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error by the Justice of the Peace and confirming the Crown Attorney's absolute discretion to stay the charge.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the respondent following his conviction for sexual touching of a 13-year-old girl contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the respondent constituted a threat to the physical and mental wellbeing of others based on a pattern of repetitive sexual behaviour showing a failure to restrain and a likelihood to inflict severe psychological damage, as well as a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his conduct.

The court rejected arguments for lesser measures, finding that community-based supervision and treatment could not adequately protect the public.

The respondent was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate detention in a penitentiary.

The appellant appealed his convictions for theft under, mischief, and breach of an undertaking.

At trial, the appellant had admitted the facts alleged by the Crown, which involved taking a portable hunt camp and posting no trespassing signs on Crown land in breach of a probation order.

On appeal, the appellant argued the elements of the offences had not been proven.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the admitted facts conclusively proved the elements of the offences and the appellant could not resile from his admissions.

The accused was tried on seven counts of assault and sexual assault alleged to have occurred against his spouse during their marriage.

The case turned primarily on the credibility of the complainant and the accused, presenting a classic 'he said/she said' scenario.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the trial judge found inconsistencies and reliability issues in the complainant's testimony, and while not fully accepting the accused's denials, was left with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault after stabbing three people at a New Year's Eve party.

The 25-year-old offender had a lengthy criminal record including 13 prior assault convictions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the unprovoked nature of the attack and the severe impact on the victims.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of approximately 62 months, reduced to 38 months net after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The respondent, Abdirahman Ahmed, was sentenced for five offences, including sexual assault with a knife, forcible confinement, uttering threats, assault against a correctional officer, and assault causing bodily harm against an inmate.

The Crown sought to have him declared a dangerous offender under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration.

The court reviewed extensive evidence, including psychiatric assessments, institutional records, and criminal history, concluding that Ahmed met the statutory criteria for a dangerous offender under sections 753(1)(a)(i), (a)(ii), and (b).

Despite arguments for a determinate sentence based on potential for rehabilitation and age-related decline in recidivism, the court found no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, given Ahmed's persistent violent behaviour, lack of engagement in treatment, and high risk of recidivism.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed.

The accused was convicted of being a party to the offence of intentionally discharging a handgun while reckless as to life or safety, breaching firearm prohibition orders, careless storage and use of firearms, pointing a firearm, possession of firearms without a licence, occupying a motor vehicle with a firearm, and possession of loaded prohibited firearms.

The accused was the driver in a drive-by shooting incident on Bank Street in Ottawa.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 years, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years, taking into account sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation, and retribution, while considering rehabilitation and the accused's role as the driver rather than the actual shooter.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application challenging delay in prosecution following his conviction on multiple counts related to a drive-by shooting.

The total delay from arrest to trial was 28 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown relied on exceptional circumstances, including the discrete event of defence counsel's appointment to the bench and the case's inherent complexity.

The court found the delay reasonable based on the discrete event exception, case complexity, and transitional considerations reflecting the parties' reliance on the previous Morin framework.

The accused brought a constitutional challenge under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against a conviction under s. 244.2(3)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code for intentionally discharging a firearm while reckless as to the life or safety of another person.

The accused was the driver of a vehicle from which his co-accused fired a shot at another vehicle.

The accused argued the mandatory minimum sentence of five years constituted cruel and unusual punishment, relying on the principle of parity with his co-accused who received a lesser sentence.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding it was bound by precedent and that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence and the accused's instrumental role in its commission.

The accused was jointly charged with another individual on a 32-count Information including attempted murder, firearm-related offences, and drug possession charges.

The Crown withdrew charges of attempted murder and several firearm and drug possession counts.

At trial, the central issues were whether the accused had knowledge of firearms in the vehicle he was driving, whether he was a party to the firearm discharge offence, and whether he possessed drugs found upon arrest.

The court found the accused guilty of 21 counts based on circumstantial evidence establishing his knowledge and control of the firearms, his participation in the shooting incident through his driving conduct, and his possession of drugs found in the vehicle where he was arrested.

The accused was found guilty of 10 counts related to discharging a firearm at a crowded shopping mall on Boxing Day, striking the victim in the foot.

The Crown sought a 10-year global sentence, while the defence sought 7 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the extreme recklessness of the act, but acknowledged the lack of serious injury and the accused's relatively young age.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, consisting of 7 years for the shooting and 1 year consecutive for possessing a firearm while prohibited, less 2.5 years credit for pre-sentence custody.

This criminal trial concerned a shooting incident at a busy mall.

The accused, Yaqoub Ali, was charged with multiple counts related to the shooting.

The central issue was the identification of the shooter, who was referred to as "Superman" based on surveillance video.

The court relied on a combination of surveillance video evidence, corroborated eyewitness testimony, and evidence extracted from the accused's cell phone (including text messages and photos) to establish the identity of the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, Yaqoub Ali, was charged with 10 counts related to a shooting at a mall.

The central issue was the identity of the shooter, referred to as "Superman" due to his attire.

The victim did not cooperate with the police.

The court relied on surveillance video evidence, the corroborated testimony of one eyewitness (Adam Kilmartin), and circumstantial evidence from the accused's cell phone, including text messages indicating a dispute with the victim and photographs showing the accused wearing a hat similar to the shooter's.

Despite inconsistencies in other eyewitness accounts, the cumulative effect of the evidence led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

Yaqoub Ali was found guilty.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge imposed on the respondent for an unprovoked attack on a pregnant public transit operator.

The Crown argued the sentence failed to reflect denunciation and deterrence and was contrary to the public interest.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly balanced the sentencing principles, including the respondent's mental health issues and status as a first-time offender, and correctly applied the principles for conditional sentences.

On a dangerous offender application following guilty pleas to numerous sexual offences against children, the court held that the luring, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and extortion offences constituted serious personal injury offences under s. 752 of the Criminal Code.

The evidence established a lengthy pattern of repetitive and persistent sexual offending, repeated breaches of court orders, minimization, and failure to respond to supervision and treatment, creating a threat to the life, safety, and mental well-being of others under s. 753(1)(a).

Applying the sentencing regime in ss. 753(4) and 753(4.1), the court found no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence with long-term supervision would adequately protect the public.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to manslaughter and two counts of aggravated assault arising from a retaliatory, drug-related shooting in a residential neighbourhood.

The offender acted as the getaway driver, knowing serious bodily harm was a foreseeable consequence of the planned confrontation, and fled after hearing gunshots.

The court emphasized denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence, particularly given the offender's recent release from custody, probationary status, prior obstruction-of-justice conviction connected to another homicide, and institutional misconduct.

Applying parity with analogous manslaughter party cases, the court imposed seven years for manslaughter, concurrent two-year sentences for the aggravated assaults, enhanced pre-trial custody credit at 1.5:1, and ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, and no-contact orders.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown proceeded on facts arising from a collision with an Enbridge van.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches and excluded all evidence obtained from the unlawful stop through to the Intoxilyzer results.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The trial judge had concluded that breath samples were not taken “as soon as practicable” under s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code due to several perceived unexplained delays.

The appeal court held that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding delays following arrest and during roadside investigation, which had reasonable explanations.

Because those errors materially affected the acquittal, the appellate court set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant, a male prison inmate, challenged the constitutionality of cross-gender frisk searches and unannounced cell patrols conducted by female guards under sections 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that inmates have a substantially reduced expectation of privacy, meaning sections 7 and 8 are not violated by these security practices.

Furthermore, the Court found no violation of section 15 equality rights, noting that the historical, biological, and sociological differences between men and women mean that cross-gender searches do not have the same threatening effect on men as they do on women.

Even if a section 15 breach existed, it would be saved under section 1 due to the important goals of inmate rehabilitation, institutional security, and employment equity.