R. Handlarski

During a trial for first degree murder, the accused applied for directed verdicts of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data and security video, to place the accused at the scene of the shooting or assisting the shooters.

The court dismissed the directed verdict applications, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to convict.

The court also ruled on several jury charge issues, declining to instruct the jury on co-principal liability, abetting, or the common unlawful purpose doctrine for second degree murder, and opting to provide an expanded instruction on circumstantial evidence.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a motion to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during their trial.

The Crown opposed the motion, arguing for the traditional placement in the dock due to security concerns and to allow the jury a better view for identification purposes.

The court reviewed the conflicting jurisprudence on the issue and concluded that there is no presumption regarding an accused's placement.

Applying a case-by-case analysis based on fair trial interests and courtroom security, the court found that sitting at counsel table enhances communication with counsel and avoids the risk of prejudice associated with the dock.

Given the accused's good behaviour during prior court appearances and the lack of specific security risks, the motion was granted.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, applied to sever their trial from a co-accused who had recently been extradited to Canada and was unready for the scheduled trial.

The applicants had been awaiting trial for nearly 30 months and had caused no delay.

The Crown opposed severance, citing the societal interest in a joint trial.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicants' right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter outweighed the public interest in a joint trial, especially given the Crown's duty to mitigate delay caused by discrete events like extradition.

The Crown brought an application to admit the video statements of two accused, Vickerson and Fairbarn, obtained during a large-scale fraud and drug trafficking investigation.

Fairbarn also applied to exclude her statements under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found Vickerson's statements were voluntary and admissible, as he was properly advised of his rights, spoke to duty counsel, and chose to answer questions.

However, the court found Fairbarn's statements were not voluntary due to a combination of factors, including an unrecorded conversation with a detective who allegedly offered inducements, and a failure to fully advise her of her jeopardy regarding the trafficking investigation.

Fairbarn's statements were excluded.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after severely beating his 66-year-old roommate, causing a near-fatal traumatic brain injury.

The attack was unprovoked and occurred while the accused was intoxicated.

The court considered the accused's difficult background, mental health issues, and alcohol addiction as mitigating factors, balanced against the severe aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the victim and the accused's prior criminal record.

The court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and imposed a sentence of 54 months, less 30 months credit, resulting in 2 years less a day to be served, followed by 3 years of probation.