Raymond Gemmill

The accused, charged with historical sexual assault, brought an application seeking to delay his s. 276 application regarding the complainant's prior intimate relationship with him until after the complainant's examination-in-chief.

The court dismissed the application, finding that allowing the delay based on a bare-bones notice of application would defeat the spirit and intention of s. 276, prejudice the Crown's ability to prepare, and invite the mischief Parliament sought to address in enacting the provision.

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify by video link from New Brunswick at the upcoming trial for gang sexual assault.

The complainant suffers from progressive Multiple Sclerosis, is immunosuppressed, and cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The court found that the complainant's debilitating medical condition, combined with the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, constituted exceptional circumstances.

The application was granted, allowing the complainant to testify via video link from a secure facility.

The Crown sought to vacate preliminary inquiries in five cases on the basis that amendments to the Criminal Code contained in Bill C-75, which came into force on September 19, 2019, retrospectively eliminated the right to a preliminary inquiry for offences punishable by less than 14 years imprisonment.

The accused had all elected to be tried by judge and jury and requested preliminary inquiries before the amendments came into force, but the inquiries had not been completed by the effective date.

The court held that the amendments do not apply retrospectively because they affect substantive rights and vested rights of the accused.

The preliminary inquiry is a substantive right that protects accused persons from exposure to unwarranted public trials.

The Crown's application was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder and one count of aggravated assault after stabbing his mother and stepfather.

The Crown applied for a finding that the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, and subsequently for a high-risk accused designation.

The court found that the accused suffered from schizophrenia, rendering him incapable of knowing his acts were wrong, and granted the NCR application.

Furthermore, given the accused's history of violence, lack of insight into his illness, and the substantial likelihood of future violence if untreated, the court designated him a high-risk accused and ordered his detention in a hospital.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder after choking the 62-year-old victim and slashing her throat in her home.

The victim had befriended the offender and loaned him money to support his drug addiction.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a parole ineligibility period of 17 to 20 years.

The court weighed the brutal nature of the killing, the gross breach of trust, and the offender's callous post-offence conduct against his guilty plea and lack of prior violent record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 18 years.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon for striking the complainant in the head with a baseball bat outside a pub.

The defendant admitted to the strike but raised self-defence under Criminal Code s. 34.

The court found that the defendant reasonably believed force was being used against him and that his response, while causing serious injury, was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The defendant was acquitted.

Two co-owners sought relief under the Partition Act regarding two severed parcels of land originally purchased jointly.

The parties disputed their respective beneficial interests arising from alleged unequal financial contributions decades earlier.

The court held that the respondent failed to prove unequal ownership and therefore the parties were presumed to hold equal interests as tenants‑in‑common.

Given the separate nature of the parcels and the long-standing use arrangements, the court vested one parcel entirely in each party rather than ordering a sale or unequal division.

The applicant, facing serious criminal charges, brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

Legal Aid was denied because the applicant provided misleading financial information, including a claim that he earned $10,000 per week.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide credible evidence of his indigence and could not rely on a Legal Aid refusal that he caused through his own misleading conduct.

The dismissal was without prejudice to bringing a more fulsome application.