R. Barrs

The accused was convicted of second degree murder for shooting his girlfriend three times, including while she was on the phone with a 911 operator.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 17 to 20 years, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the domestic nature of the homicide, the abuse of trust, the use of a firearm, and the callousness of the killing to be significant aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the accused's expressions of regret and the harsh conditions of his pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 14 years.

The accused was charged with the first-degree murder of his intimate partner, whom he shot three times.

The defence argued that the accused was in a drug-induced psychosis at the time of the shooting and lacked the specific intent for murder, seeking a verdict of manslaughter.

The Crown argued the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court admitted various hearsay statements and preposterous utterances to assess the accused's state of mind.

The court rejected the defence's expert psychiatric evidence, finding the accused had the intent to kill.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The accused, a nightclub promoter, was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving two different complainants at different nightclubs in 2008.

The Crown applied to admit the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence across both counts, which the court dismissed due to insufficient similarity and prejudicial effect.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, finding the accused's exculpatory evidence contrived and unreliable.

The court found the accused guilty on Count 1, accepting the first complainant's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court acquitted the accused on Count 2, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the second complainant's identification of the accused due to her inability to recall his distinctive tattoos.

The offender was convicted of conspiracy to produce and possess marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, having operated a business that supplied equipment to large-scale marijuana grow operations.

The Crown sought forfeiture of real properties, vehicles, and bank accounts as offence-related property and proceeds of crime, as well as a fine in lieu of forfeiture for unrecovered funds.

The court ordered the forfeiture of the commercial property used for the business, the offender's residence, and several vehicles.

The court also imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $2,809,211.40 for unrecovered proceeds of crime.

The offender was sentenced to 20 months' incarceration.

The accused, owner of a hydroponics and garden supply store, was charged with conspiracy to produce and possess marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, aiding and abetting those offences, and money laundering.

The Crown alleged the accused operated his store as a 'one-stop shop' to supply marihuana grow operations, using clandestine business practices to protect customers' identities.

The court found the accused guilty of the conspiracy and aiding and abetting charges, concluding he knew and intended that his products and services would facilitate marihuana grow operations.

However, the accused was acquitted of money laundering, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the funds used to purchase 'ghost ownership' properties were derived specifically from the production of marihuana rather than unreported store profits.