Peter Westgate

The applicant sought to vary a section 110 prohibition order and probation order to permit recreational hunting using cross-bows and compound bows.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to vary the section 110 order for recreational hunting purposes, as section 113 of the Criminal Code only permits variations for employment or sustenance hunting.

However, the court had jurisdiction to vary the probation order and granted a limited variation to the "no weapons" term to permit compound bows for hunting purposes only, finding this would not endanger public safety.

The accused, charged with murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of a third-party suspect defence, pointing to his co-accused who had previously pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact.

The court assessed whether there was a sufficient nexus between the third party and the offence, focusing on motive and opportunity.

Finding that the third party had a severe drug addiction requiring money and was present at the crime scene and with the accused during the relevant times, the court concluded there was some evidence to support the defence.

The application was granted, and the third-party suspect defence was permitted to be put to the jury.

The Crown applied during a voir dire to admit crime scene and autopsy photographs of the deceased in a first-degree murder trial.

The accused argued the photographs were gratuitous, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial.

The court found the photographs were highly probative to illustrate the forensic pathologist's opinions, corroborate testimony, and rebut potential defences such as self-defence or a third-party suspect.

The court concluded the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and granted the application to admit the photographs.

The Crown applied to admit utterances of the accused made to two civilian witnesses as prior discreditable conduct, and two ante-mortem statements made by the victim to the same witnesses.

The accused is charged with first degree murder.

The court found that the accused's prior threats to kill the victim were relevant to animus, motive, and intent, and their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect.

The court also ruled that the victim's ante-mortem statements were admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and the principled approach, as they were reliable, necessary, and highly probative of the victim's state of mind and the relationship between the parties.

The Crown applied to edit letters written by the accused while in custody awaiting trial for second-degree murder.

The defence argued that without significant editing, the letters would invite prohibited propensity reasoning, while the Crown argued they contained highly probative confessions relevant to identity, motive, and the third-party suspect defence.

The court balanced the probative value against the prejudicial effect, ordering the removal of references to the accused's knowledge of the legal system and inflammatory language, but retaining passages that amounted to confessions or related to the third-party suspect defence.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, sought to exclude audio and videotaped statements made to police following his arrest.

The court found that a specific utterance made during transport to the police station was obtained in violation of the accused's rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, as he had not been given a reasonable opportunity to speak to counsel and was seeking clarity on his charges.

This utterance was excluded under s. 24(2).

However, the court found the subsequent 3.5-hour videotaped statement was voluntary under the Oickle rule and did not violate the accused's s. 7 right to silence, despite his numerous assertions of the right, as police conduct was not oppressive and the accused maintained an operating mind.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts arising from an armed bank robbery committed on October 8, 2008: robbery while armed with an imitation firearm, disguise with intent, auto theft, and auto possession.

The Crown pursued a dangerous offender designation under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the accused met the criteria for dangerous offender status based on a pattern of repetitive armed robberies spanning from 1988 to 2008, demonstrating a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of inflicting severe psychological damage on others.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 13 years imprisonment (with credit for approximately six years of pre-trial detention resulting in two years remaining) followed by a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order, rather than an indeterminate sentence, based on positive developments in the accused's behaviour and mental health stabilization while in custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The accused had a significant prior record of drinking and driving offences spanning multiple decades.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12 months.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served in the community followed by 18 months of probation, with strict conditions including a nine-month curfew, electronic monitoring, abstinence from alcohol counselling, prohibition on operating a motor vehicle, and a lifetime driving prohibition.

The court found that mitigating factors, including a 17-year gap in the accused's record, successful employment, participation in counselling, and the accused's care for a dying brother, warranted a conditional sentence rather than incarceration.

The accused was sentenced for indignity to human remains and obstructing police in connection with the death and disposal of a six-week-old child.

The child died under mysterious circumstances, and the accused and the child's father disposed of the remains in a dumpster behind a convenience store, then misled police during the investigation.

The accused received 27 months in custody with credit for 23 months of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 4 months, followed by 3 years of probation with various conditions including substance abuse counselling, life management skills training, and ongoing contact with Children's Aid Society.