Roger Dietrich

The accused was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Antoine Bouchard on January 23, 2022, in Thunder Bay.

The accused admitted to shooting the victim but claimed self-defence, asserting that the victim and two others were attempting to rob him while armed.

The Crown presented forensic evidence, including post-mortem examination findings and ballistics analysis.

Key witnesses included the alleged robbers and the accused.

The court found that the accused reasonably believed force was imminent, acted for the purpose of self-defence, and that his response was proportional to the threat faced.

The accused was acquitted of second-degree murder.

The court sentenced Joshua Biernacki for trafficking in heroin, following a jury verdict acquitting him of manslaughter in the overdose death of Deborah Beer.

The decision reviews the tragic facts, the offender’s background, and the impact on the victim’s family.

The court analyzes the legal framework for sentencing, including the principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and considers the appropriateness of a conditional sentence.

Ultimately, the court imposes an 18-month conditional sentence followed by two years of probation, with ancillary orders, finding that a custodial disposition is required but can be served in the community given the circumstances.

The accused, Connor Doerr, was charged with aggravated assault following a physical altercation at a bar.

The court considered three issues: whether the Crown proved assault, the defence of self-defence, and causation of the victim's injuries.

The court found Mr. Doerr's testimony not credible and, based on video evidence, concluded that his actions were not defensive and were an excessive response.

The self-defence claim was disproven, and all elements of aggravated assault, including causation, were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of breath sample evidence, alleging breaches of her ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) Charter rights following a motor vehicle collision.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant for impaired driving, based on her admission of alcohol consumption, the smell of alcohol, and her attempt to flee the scene after making a suicidal statement.

The court also found no breach of the applicant's right to counsel, as a 9-minute delay was justified by safety concerns.

The application was dismissed.

This decision addresses the judge's proposed opening comments and jury selection procedures for a first-degree murder trial.

The judge adopted several suggestions from counsel, including referring to the accused as "defendant" and strongly emphasizing that jurors must not conduct external research.

The judge also accepted defence counsel's request to defer their opening statement and for potential jurors with knowledge of the case to submit written notes.

The judge declined to remove all references to the elements of the offence from the opening comments, affirming their general inclusion.

The accused, Michael Ball, brought a pre-trial application seeking evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning third-party involvement in the death or disposal of the body of Erin Howlett, and the adequacy of the police investigation.

The court found that evidence suggesting third parties were present at Howlett's death or assisted in disposing of her body was admissible, as it could raise reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt, even if not directly alleging they caused the death.

The court also affirmed the defence's right to challenge the police investigation's adequacy, including specific failures to investigate third parties or conduct certain tests.

The accused, Michael Ball, is charged with first-degree murder.

In this pre-trial application, the Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of ante mortem statements made by the deceased, Erin Howlett.

The defence also sought a ruling on the admissibility of certain statements, some for the truth of their contents (hearsay) and others for non-hearsay purposes (original evidence).

The court ruled on the admissibility of various statements, excluding double hearsay, statements about the deceased's job loss due to "money gone missing" due to high prejudice and low probative value, and limiting the use of false statements about studying to be a financial planner to assessing credibility and corroborating the accused's police statement, not as evidence of other plans.

The accused, Michael Ball, charged with first-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of a statement made to police.

Police staged a break-in at Ball's residence, removed firearms, and left a threatening note linking him to the murder.

Ball reported the break-in and the note, leading to an interview where he was cautioned but felt compelled to speak due to statutory obligations (reporting stolen firearms) and perceived threats.

The court found that police tactics, including creating an aura of violence and using statutory compulsion, breached Ball's s.7 Charter rights (right to silence, principle against self-incrimination).

The court concluded that admitting the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s.24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown applied under s. 653.1 of the Criminal Code for a pre-trial ruling from the first trial (which ended in a mistrial) to be binding on the second trial.

The prior ruling by Justice Taylor found the accused's statement to police voluntary and admissible, but did not address a Charter s. 7 issue.

The accused sought to raise a s. 7 Charter challenge regarding the statement at the second trial.

The court, applying factors from R. v. Victoria, found it would not be in the interests of justice to bind the second trial to the prior ruling, as new Charter arguments were being advanced, and the public interest in a serious criminal case warranted hearing constitutional concerns on their merits.

Following conviction for robbery while armed with a handgun and having face masked, the court imposed a sentence of three and a half years in penitentiary plus enhanced credit for pre-trial custody totaling approximately six years.

The court balanced serious aggravating factors including the use of a firearm in a public place, careful planning, and significant victim impact against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, Indigenous heritage, educational achievements, and future prospects.

The court applied Gladue principles while recognizing that denunciation and deterrence remain paramount for firearm-related offences.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, and having his face masked while committing an indictable offence.

The defence conceded all elements except identity.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence from a white t-shirt found at the scene, witness descriptions, and testimony from two unsavoury witnesses with significant credibility issues.

The court found the accused guilty of armed robbery and masking his face, but not guilty of the firearm charge due to a statutory interpretation issue regarding section 85(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, applied for a change of venue for his re-trial.

In his first trial, the jury convicted him of causing an indignity to a body but could not reach a verdict on the murder charge, resulting in a mistrial.

The applicant argued that extensive pre-trial publicity regarding the 'split verdict' created a likelihood of prejudice in the local area.

Relying on expert evidence regarding the effects of pre-trial publicity, the court found that knowledge of the first trial's outcome would likely taint a new jury's ability to be impartial, as it implied the first jury rejected the accused's evidence.

The application was granted and the venue was ordered changed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with second-degree murder of Dakoda Martin and aggravated assault of Andre Williams.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for aggravated assault and manslaughter but argued there was no evidence of subjective foresight of death required for second-degree murder.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including the location and nature of the fatal chest wound, the depth of penetration, and evidence of a deliberate stabbing to a vulnerable area while the victim lay on the ground, could reasonably support an inference that the accused knew the bodily harm would likely cause death.

The accused was committed to stand trial on second-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The applicant, facing multiple firearms charges, brought a pretrial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of the trial was 17 months.

The court applied the Morin framework, attributing portions of the delay to inherent time requirements, the accused's scheduling constraints, and the Crown's vetting of a sealed Information to Obtain.

Balancing the societal interest in trying serious gun offences against the prejudice suffered by the applicant in pretrial custody, the court concluded the delay was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with assault using a liquid or powder spray on the complainant on May 29, 2013.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the identification evidence of the complainant, who identified the accused as one of his attackers in poorly lit conditions at 2:00 a.m.

The defence called two alibi witnesses who testified the accused was at their residence at the time of the alleged assault.

The court found significant frailties in the identification evidence, including inconsistencies regarding the light source, the momentary nature of the observation, and the complainant's failure to mention seeing the accused holding a canister in his initial police statement despite later testifying to this fact.

The court also noted the animosity between the complainant and accused, which compromised the complainant's credibility.

Despite concerns with the alibi evidence, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in reaching trial, alleging a violation of her rights under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charge involved assault against two children arising from an incident on November 21, 2012.

Four trial dates had been set and adjourned before the application was brought.

The court found institutional delay of approximately 12 months after accounting for inherent time requirements.

The court granted the stay, finding that the accused suffered real, actual, and inferred prejudice from the repeated adjournments and delays, which exceeded any secondary societal interest in prosecution.

During a murder trial, the court was required to determine the admissibility of a statement made by the accused to police after earlier statements had been excluded due to a breach of s. 10(a) of the Charter.

The defence argued the later statement was tainted by the earlier constitutional breach and was not voluntary.

Applying the analytical framework for tainted statements and the common law confessions rule, the court held that the earlier breach had been cured by intervening events, including the accused’s arrest for murder and multiple opportunities to consult counsel.

The court further found the police interview tactics did not constitute inducements or oppression and did not overbear the accused’s will.

The statement was proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was admissible.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to armed bank robberies committed in Windsor and four additional robberies in Toronto involving firearms, disguises, and violence against bank employees.

The parties jointly proposed a global sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

The court held that although a higher sentence in the range of 12 to 15 years would otherwise be fit given the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the joint submission did not meet the high threshold required to reject it.

The court also considered the application of the Truth in Sentencing Act and the proper credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719 of the Criminal Code.

Credit was granted at 1:1 for the period before the guilty pleas and 1.5:1 for the period after the pleas due to sentencing delay beyond the offenders’ control.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit videotaped out‑of‑court statements made by a witness to undercover officers in a “Mr. Big” operation as substantive evidence under the principled hearsay exception.

The witness recanted or professed lack of memory during cross‑examination under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that although necessity was established, the Crown failed to demonstrate threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities.

The witness’s repeated claims of memory loss prevented meaningful cross‑examination and undermined the jury’s ability to assess reliability.

Additionally, the inducements and incentives inherent in the “Mr. Big” scenario raised serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the statements.

The videotaped statements were therefore ruled inadmissible as substantive evidence.

In a voir dire during a murder prosecution, the accused sought to exclude three police statements on the basis of Charter violations.

Police had told the accused he was being questioned in relation to a missing persons investigation when they in fact believed the investigation concerned homicides.

The court found this mischaracterization violated s. 10(a) of the Charter by failing to properly inform the accused of the reason for his detention.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court held the breach was serious, significantly affected the accused’s Charter-protected interests, and that exclusion would not undermine adjudication on the merits.

Statements given during the July 2008 interviews were excluded, while a later statement given after arrest for murder was ruled admissible.