Rosemarie Juginovic

The offender was convicted of manslaughter for the beating death of his wife.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the domestic nature of the violence, the brutality of the attack, and the offender's lack of genuine remorse.

Mitigating factors were limited to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including triple-bunking and loss of in-person visits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court determined a fit sentence was 9.5 years imprisonment, reduced to 1684 days after applying credit for pre-sentence custody.

In a trial for second degree murder, the Crown sought to adduce statements made by the accused to police on the day of his wife's death.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the statements, arguing they were involuntary due to oppression and intoxication, and that the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The court found that the accused had an operating mind and the statements were voluntary.

However, statements made during the six-and-a-half-hour delay between the accused's arrest and his consultation with counsel were excluded to preserve trial fairness.

Statements made prior to arrest and during subsequent video-recorded interviews were admitted.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the Crown sought to adduce evidence of the defendant's prior discreditable conduct toward his deceased wife.

This included hearsay statements the deceased made to her sister about the defendant's abusive behaviour.

The court ruled the statements admissible under the principled approach to hearsay.

Necessity was established by the declarant's death, and threshold reliability was met based on the inherent trustworthiness of the statements, given the close relationship between the sisters, the deceased's reluctance to complain, and corroborative evidence from the deceased's daughter.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder following the death of his wife, who died from blunt force trauma resulting in a lacerated liver.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence and that the fatal injuries were accidental.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as a fabrication, finding that he inflicted the severe beating that caused her death.

However, due to the accused's significant intoxication and the lack of evidence regarding how the assault unfolded, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether he had the specific intent required for murder.

The accused was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

The defendant, Jessie Breese, was convicted of armed robbery, possession of a loaded firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm following a bank robbery.

The court conducted a psychiatric examination under the Mental Health Act but found insufficient grounds for further inquiry into responsibility.

The sentencing decision balanced aggravating factors, such as the use and discharge of a firearm in a confined space with bystanders, and mitigating factors, including the defendant's youth, deteriorating mental and physical health, and a supportive family network.

The court imposed a total sentence of five years and nine months, concurrent for all charges, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and a mandatory DNA order.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, possession of a loaded firearm, and reckless discharge of a firearm following a bank robbery.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video surveillance and the testimony of a co-accused who had already pleaded guilty.

The court carefully assessed the co-accused's evidence as an unsavoury witness, finding it credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding he was the individual who brandished and fired a handgun during the robbery.

The applicant, Irina Gordon, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was 33 months and 3 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

However, the court deducted 6 months and 2 days attributable to defence waiver, bringing the net delay to 27 months and 1 day, which is below the Jordan ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings.

Furthermore, as a transitional case, the Crown satisfied the court that the delay was justified based on reasonable reliance on the pre-Jordan law (R. v. Morin guidelines), under which the actionable delay was less than the 18-month guideline.

The application was dismissed.