Ryan Mushlian

The defendant, M.C., was sentenced for sexual offences against an 11-year-old victim (TS), where he abused a position of trust.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 2 years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 1 year.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, which mandates increased sentences for child sexual offences and emphasizes denunciation and deterrence, the court rejected a conditional sentence.

M.C. was sentenced to 15 months incarceration, along with a 3-year probation order, DNA order, 10-year s. 161 order, 20-year SOIRA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The offender, a massage therapist, was found guilty of sexually assaulting a client during a therapeutic massage.

The court considered the Crown's request for a 9-12 month jail term and the defence's request for a conditional sentence or 2 months intermittent incarceration.

Aggravating factors included a significant breach of trust and the victim's vulnerability.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and the non-violent nature of the assault.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence for healthcare professionals who abuse trust.

The offender was sentenced to 90 days intermittent custody, 12 months probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order.

The applicant brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 24(2) to exclude ammunition discovered during a police search of his residence.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant lacked reasonable grounds to believe ammunition would be found.

The court dismissed the application, finding the ITO met the low threshold for the 'will afford evidence' requirement and that it was a reasonable inference the applicant had additional ammunition stored at his nearby residence after accidentally shooting himself with a firearm during a robbery.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings, alleging breaches of his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sections 7, 10(b), and 12.

The court found that police officers assaulted the applicant while he was vulnerable in a hospital bed, handcuffed, and suffering from a gunshot wound, and that his right to counsel without delay was violated.

The court accepted the applicant's evidence over the officers' and found the police conduct to be offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency.

Applying the R. v. Babo test for abuse of process, the court determined that a stay of proceedings was the appropriate remedy, as no alternative remedy could adequately disassociate the justice system from such egregious misconduct.

The appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for charges of assault with a weapon and forcible confinement.

The appellant died before the appeal was decided, but the court exercised its discretion to hear the moot appeal due to its jurisprudential importance.

The court found that the trial judge erred in law by allowing the Crown to raise the NCRMD issue without first making a full finding of guilt, including mens rea, as required by the first precondition in Swain.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, holding that an appellate court cannot substitute itself for the trial judge to make an initial finding of fact on mens rea.

The court also found the second Swain precondition was not met, as the appellant's evidence of delusions did not put his mental capacity for criminal intent in issue.

Had the appeal not been moot, the court would have allowed the appeal, quashed the NCR finding, and ordered a new trial.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant following a social gathering at his condominium.

The complainant alleged the accused forcibly raped her in his bedroom, while the accused denied any sexual or physical contact.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found that while parts of the complainant's evidence were compelling, inconsistencies and contextual circumstances, combined with the accused's relatively unshaken denial, left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained following an initial bail hearing on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court considered the applicant's escalating criminal behaviour, including breaches of prior court orders and serious firearm-related charges, and a proposed release plan that included GPS monitoring.

Despite the heightened risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities, the court found a substantial likelihood of the applicant re-offending and that his release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

James Anthony Scordino was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Angela Skorulski.

The court imposed a mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, firearm forfeiture, and primary DNA order.

The victim fine surcharge was waived.

The court acknowledged the brutal nature of the killing and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

During a first-degree murder trial, the jury asked whether there was any evidence that the accused contacted his lawyer about removing the victim from a civil lawsuit.

The Crown requested that the court mention circumstantial evidence, while the defence requested instructions to prevent reversing the burden of proof.

The trial judge applied the principles from R. v. S.(W.D.) and answered the question with a simple 'no', finding it to be accurate, complete, and fair to both sides.

During a first-degree murder trial, the Crown argued that manslaughter should not be left as an available verdict for the jury.

The court agreed, finding no air of reality to an accidental or unintentional killing, as the forensic evidence showed the victim was shot multiple times in the head, including a final contact shot to the back of the head while incapacitated.

The jury was left with verdicts of not guilty, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder.