Sandra M. Town

A young person admitted shooting the victim in the back of the head inside a bar, but disputed first-degree murder and argued that the killing and related firearm offence were excused by duress.

The court held the Crown proved murder but not planning and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt, given doubt about whether a threat from the drug supplier may have affected the accused's ability to deliberate; a conviction for second-degree murder was entered instead.

Assuming duress was legally available, the court found the Crown disproved essential elements of the defence, particularly the absence of a safe avenue of escape and the criminal-association limitation, because obvious lawful alternatives existed and the accused knowingly remained in a violent drug-trafficking enterprise.

The court declined to decide the constitutional challenge to s. 17 of the Criminal Code as moot and convicted on the firearm counts that remained in issue.

This decision addresses the interpretation of section 527 of the Criminal Code concerning the conveyance of prisoners to court when they refuse to attend.

The court held that a s. 527 order compels the custodian to deliver the prisoner to court and that the use of necessary force to do so is authorized under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code without requiring explicit language in the order.

The court emphasized that prisoners do not have a choice to refuse attendance and that correctional staff must be aware of their legal authority to use reasonable force.

The decision clarifies the interplay between s. 527 and s. 25, rejecting the need for “extraction orders” with specific force authorization clauses.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and making sexually explicit material available to a child.

The Crown conceded the charge of making sexually explicit material available to a child.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant, a child, and the defence witnesses (the accused and his grandparents).

Significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, coupled with evidence suggesting potential coaching by her father and the credible testimony of the grandparents, led the court to conclude that the Crown had not proven the remaining charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The Crown brought an application for an order permitting two child witnesses to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) with a support person present.

The accused consented to the use of CCTV but requested that defence counsel be permitted in the room with the witnesses during cross-examination.

The court denied the request, finding that allowing defence counsel in the room would defeat the purpose of section 486.2 of the Criminal Code and cause undue stress to the child witnesses.

The court ordered that the witnesses testify via CCTV with defence counsel remaining in the courtroom.