R. Fried

Vernon Holder was charged with attempted murder and seven other violent crimes against the complainant, KP.

The court found Holder not guilty of attempted murder and threatening death, and not guilty of assault with a motor vehicle.

However, he was found guilty of aggravated assault (as a lesser included offense of attempted murder), assault with a beer bottle, assault with a wine bottle, assault with a cellphone, and assault causing bodily harm.

A common assault charge was stayed under Kienapple principles.

The judgment discusses the admissibility of a 911 call as res gestae and as part of the narrative, and applies the R. v. W.(D.) framework to assess the evidence, finding the accused's testimony to be untruthful.

The accused, Jing Wen Shi, was charged with failing to provide the necessities of life to her newborn baby, contrary to section 215(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, after giving birth alone at home.

The Crown alleged she knew of the pregnancy and purposely neglected the baby.

The defence argued she was unaware of the pregnancy until labour and was physically incapacitated by shock and blood loss.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding her prior knowledge of pregnancy and her physical capacity to act, concluding that her actions did not amount to a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent parent in the circumstances.

The accused was found not guilty.

The offender was sentenced for aggravated assault, pointing a firearm, and multiple firearms possession and breach offences arising from two separate incidents.

In the first incident, the offender confronted a victim with a loaded handgun, pistol-whipped him, and the gun discharged during the ensuing struggle.

In the second incident, the offender was arrested at a residence where a second illegal handgun was found.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the public nature of the assault and the offender's breach of recent bail conditions against mitigating factors including his youth, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

A global sentence of 5.5 years was imposed, reduced to 39 months after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh lockdown conditions.

The accused confronted the victim with a loaded handgun, believing the victim had assaulted his girlfriend.

The accused pistol-whipped the victim, causing the gun to discharge accidentally.

A struggle ensued, and the gun discharged twice more.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, aggravated assault, and pointing a firearm.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and pointing a firearm, but acquitted him of attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent, finding the Crown failed to prove the specific intent required for those offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and firearm offences, sought a bail review after being in custody for over 90 days.

The Crown conceded no substantial likelihood of reoffence (secondary ground) but opposed release on the tertiary ground, arguing it would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court considered the strength of the Crown's case (strong for most charges, weak for attempted murder), gravity of offences, firearm use, and potential lengthy imprisonment.

While acknowledging the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicant's desire to see his children, these factors were outweighed by the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal record, and the weaknesses in the proposed bail plan.

The application for release was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and possessing a firearm while prohibited.

The Crown sought a 3.5-year sentence with 3-4 months of Duncan credit, while the defence sought a 3-year sentence with 14 months of Duncan credit.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3.5 years, finding denunciation and deterrence to be the primary sentencing objectives.

The court granted 32 months of Summers credit and 10 months of Duncan credit due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a sentence of time served and 12 months of probation.

The accused were charged with three counts of break, enter and theft and two counts of possession of property obtained by crime.

They brought a pre-trial application challenging the validity of a search warrant on the basis that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating their section 8 Charter rights.

Additionally, one accused alleged a violation of his section 10(b) rights to counsel.

The court found that while the Information to Obtain contained misleading information and conclusory statements, the remaining evidence was sufficient to support issuance of the warrant.

The court also found a serious breach of section 10(b) rights but determined that the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was not temporally or factually connected to the seizure of the evidence.

The accused was convicted of obstruct police, personation, and possession of marijuana, and acquitted of three counts of assault police and one count of threatening an officer.

The court found breaches of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to extensive police misconduct, including excessive force, collusion, and false testimony.

The Crown sought a reduced sentence as the remedy, while the defence sought a stay of proceedings.

The court granted a stay of proceedings for all three remaining offences, finding that the depth and breadth of police misconduct—including failure to address injuries, false statements to superiors, unchallenged assault, collusion in notes and testimony, and excessive force against a restrained and defenceless accused—was so egregious that only a stay could adequately address the damage to the integrity of the justice system.

The accused was charged with uttering threats, assault on three police officers, obstruction of justice, fraudulent personation, and possession of marijuana following his arrest for public intoxication.

The trial examined events occurring on January 5-6, 2012, spanning arrest, transport, booking, strip search, and cell detention.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused obstructed police by falsely identifying himself as his brother Richard Young and was in possession of marijuana.

However, the Crown failed to prove the threat and assault charges.

The court found the defence established on a balance of probabilities that the accused's Charter rights under sections 7 and 12 were violated through excessive force applied by police at the booking parade and in the holding cell.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a suitable breath sample at a roadside stop.

The Crown alleged that while detained at the roadside, the accused failed without reasonable excuse to provide a breath sample.

The accused argued that his limited English comprehension created special circumstances requiring a Tamil interpreter, and that he did not wilfully refuse.

The court found that although the accused had limited English fluency and the officer's manner of instruction was rushed and impatient, the accused demonstrated sufficient understanding through his responses and actions.

The court applied the legal principle that wilfulness is not an essential mens rea element for this offence; knowledge or awareness of the prohibited act is sufficient.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to provide a breath sample.