Philip Arne Kotanen

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon (a chair) and assault causing bodily harm against his mother.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally struck his mother on the head with a chair, causing a gash requiring 10 stitches.

The accused claimed the injury was accidental, resulting from him dropping the chair from chest level.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting the defence of accident based on the credibility of the complainant and Crown witnesses, the accused's inconsistent statements, his post-incident behavior, and the circumstantial evidence of intent.

At a preliminary inquiry into a charge of second-degree murder, the court determined whether sufficient evidence existed to commit the accused for trial.

The accused was charged with causing the death of a five-month-old infant through head injury while babysitting.

The Crown argued that medical evidence of severe brain injury, combined with evidence of animus and post-offence conduct, supported committal on second-degree murder.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for manslaughter but argued the medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish the subjective intent required for murder.

The court found that a jury could reasonably infer from the medical evidence of severe repetitive mechanical assault, the ruling out of accident, evidence of animus, and post-offence conduct that the accused possessed the requisite subjective intent for second-degree murder.

Young persons charged with assault brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging prosecutorial misconduct by Crown counsel.

The Crown counsel engaged in three separate incidents: approaching a youth witness in the hallway and encouraging him to tell the truth; a more aggressive second encounter with the same witness during lunch recess using profanity and references to perjury; and making derogatory comments toward the accused and their fathers as he left the courtroom.

The applicants argued the conduct breached their section 7 Charter rights to a fair trial and undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The Crown was administratively removed from the case prior to judgment.