R. Flumerfelt

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder for a homicide that occurred over 23 years ago.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel, sentencing the accused to life imprisonment with a 12-year period of parole ineligibility.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and rehabilitation, noting the accused's acceptance of responsibility.

A DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The applicant, a police officer facing a four-count indictment for breach of trust and obstructing justice, brought an application to sever counts 1 and 2 from counts 3 and 4.

The first two counts related to her conduct as a civilian witness in a domestic violence trial, while the latter two related to an undercover 'integrity scenario' investigation.

Applying the factors from R. v. Last, the court found a strong factual and legal nexus between the counts, noting that severing them would remove necessary context for the jury.

The application for severance was dismissed.

The Crown sought to qualify an oral maxillofacial surgeon to provide expert opinion evidence on the diagnosis, mechanism, causation, direction of force, and magnitude of force of the complainant's jaw fractures in an aggravated assault trial.

Following a voir dire, the court qualified the doctor to opine on the diagnosis and mechanism of the injuries based on his extensive clinical experience.

However, applying the Mohan and Abbey frameworks, the court held the doctor was not properly qualified to opine on causation, direction, or magnitude of force, as he lacked specialized training, research, or prior qualification in those specific forensic areas.

The applicant sought to re-litigate an abuse of process stay application after the original judge, who had dismissed the application but not yet provided reasons, was elevated to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant argued that only the trial judge has jurisdiction to hear a stay application.

The court held that a judge other than the trial judge has jurisdiction to hear a stay application under s. 24(1) of the Charter and Rule 27 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court also found that it had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings under s. 669.2(1) of the Criminal Code and that it was not in the interests of justice to re-litigate the identical application on the same record.

The motion was dismissed.