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.

During a first-degree murder trial, the accused brought an application requesting that the Court call two third-party suspects as witnesses, or alternatively, permit the defence to call and cross-examine them.

The court declined to call the witnesses itself, finding it unnecessary and potentially disruptive to the adversarial process.

However, the court exercised its common law discretion to permit the defence to cross-examine the witnesses on specific topics, noting that the provisions of section 9 of the Canada Evidence Act were inadequate for this situation.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit expert evidence from a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu practitioner regarding the mechanics and effects of blood chokeholds.

The Crown theorized that the accused used a rear naked choke to kill the victim, explaining the lack of structural damage to her neck.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and the Abbey two-step process to assess the admissibility of the evidence.

The court found that the evidence had low probative value because there was insufficient evidence connecting the accused to martial arts training, and high prejudicial effect.

Furthermore, the court held that evidence regarding the physiological effects of chokeholds should be introduced by medical experts, not a martial arts practitioner.

The application to admit the expert evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to determine the admissibility of rebuttal evidence in response to the defence's allegations of inadequate police investigation in a murder trial.

The court provided general guidelines, ruling that the reviewing officer could not give opinion or hearsay evidence about the original investigation, but could testify about his own investigative steps.

The court also made specific rulings on several areas of challenge, deferring a decision on the admissibility of the accused's bad character evidence regarding firearms until later in the trial.

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.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application for the production of third-party medical records belonging to a key Crown witness.

The court found that the witness's credibility was central to the case and that there was an evidentiary link between the witness's mental health history and his reliability.

Balancing the witness's reasonable expectation of privacy against the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the court ordered the production of specific hospital records relating to the witness's psychiatric and substance abuse complaints.

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.