Robert Wadden

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to address an alleged arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the Charter and by failing to consider relevant evidence regarding the mens rea for the offence.

The appeal court held that the evidentiary record did not establish a prima facie Charter breach that would trigger a duty on the trial judge to inquire into a potential violation.

The officer had lawfully approached the appellant who was sitting in a parked vehicle in a public parking area and therefore no detention arose prior to the breath demand.

The court also found the trial judge’s reasons adequately demonstrated consideration of the evidence and explained the rejection of the appellant’s explanation for failing to provide a sample.

The offender was convicted by a jury of manslaughter after fatally stabbing the victim during a drunken altercation in his apartment following a party.

The evidence established that the offender concealed a knife prior to a confrontation and inflicted eight stab wounds during a fight in which the victim was beating him.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a concealed knife in a fist fight, multiple stab wounds including a fatal heart wound, initiation of the conflict, flight from the scene, and the offender’s alcohol abuse and lack of insight.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth (18 years old), lack of criminal record, severe assault by the victim at the time of the stabbing, remorse, and strong rehabilitative prospects.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence of six years.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, applied for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period under the faint hope clause.

The court conducted an initial judicial screening to determine if there was a substantial likelihood of success before a jury, applying the new threshold introduced by Bill S-6.

Despite the brutal nature of the murder and the applicant's continued denial of guilt, the court found that his exemplary institutional behaviour, low risk to public safety, and advancing age provided sufficient substance to warrant a jury hearing.

The application was granted and a jury was ordered to be empanelled.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to quash their committal to stand trial for first degree murder.

They argued there was insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation, pointing to an intervening act where the victim's colleague opened fire on them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that evidence of prior communication, arriving in a convoy, rushing the victim while armed, and the nature of the attack provided a sufficient basis for a properly instructed jury to infer planning and deliberation.

The appellant's second-degree murder conviction was previously overturned on appeal and a manslaughter conviction was substituted.

The Court of Appeal sentenced the appellant for manslaughter arising from the shooting of a convenience store owner during an armed robbery.

Considering the gravity of the offence, the appellant's extensive criminal record, his aboriginal status, and the time already served in pre-sentence and post-sentence custody, the Court imposed a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment, equivalent to a 14-year sentence had it been imposed at the original trial.

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