Sarah Sullivan

This preliminary inquiry concerned charges of aggravated assault and criminal negligence against the accused, Mohamed Belkhier, relating to injuries sustained by a 5-month-old infant.

The inquiry focused solely on the aggravated assault count.

The Crown argued that the accused caused the injuries and failed to report them, suggesting a jury could infer intentional force.

The defence contended there was insufficient evidence for intentional force or objective foresight of harm, asserting the injuries were accidental.

The court reviewed the purpose and function of a preliminary inquiry, particularly the limited weighing of circumstantial evidence.

While the court found no evidence to support the Crown's theory of intentional force beyond conjecture, it determined there was sufficient evidence to infer recklessness in the accused's handling of the infant, which could objectively foreseeably cause bodily harm.

Consequently, the accused was committed to stand trial for aggravated assault.

Sigfrid Stahn was convicted by a jury of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

The incident occurred on July 4, 2020, when Stahn, while impaired, veered into oncoming traffic on Highway 12, colliding with Mr. Guenter Naumann, who subsequently died.

Stahn had a significant criminal record, including two prior impaired driving convictions (1985, 1989) and a lengthy history of Highway Traffic Act infractions.

The court considered victim impact statements detailing the profound grief of the Naumann family.

Applying sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, particularly denunciation and general deterrence, and reviewing relevant case law (R. v. Muzzo, R. v. Altiman, R. v. Fracassi), the court identified aggravating factors including Stahn's prior record and apparent lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors were limited.

The Crown sought a 9-year custodial sentence and a 15-year driving prohibition, while the defence sought 6 years and a 10-year prohibition.

The court sentenced Stahn to 8 years imprisonment, an 11-year driving prohibition following release, and ordered a DNA sample.

The accused, an inmate at a correctional centre, faced a 16-count indictment involving allegations of sexual assault, assault, and threatening against seven fellow inmates.

The accused brought an application to sever the counts into three separate trials, arguing that a joint trial would result in impermissible propensity reasoning and prejudice.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the counts shared a strong factual nexus and that it intended to adduce count-to-count similar act evidence.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last and concluded that the truth-seeking function of the process would be best served by a joint trial, as the Crown's anticipated similar act evidence application was reasonably viable and there was a strong factual nexus across all counts.

The severance application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

He contended that following the enactment of Bill C-75, which eliminated preliminary hearings for his charge, the presumptive ceiling for his Superior Court trial should be 18 months rather than 30 months.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the 30-month ceiling applies to all cases in the Superior Court regardless of whether a preliminary hearing is held.

The court also found that the anticipated net delay of 22 months, after deducting Covid-19 related exceptional circumstances, was not markedly longer than reasonably required.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

S.B. pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to her 8-month-old infant, R.B., who sustained multiple fractures.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's age, breach of trust, and delay in seeking medical attention, alongside mitigating factors including S.B.'s mental health issues, reduced cognitive capabilities, postpartum depression, and guilty plea.

Applying sentencing principles from R. v. McCauley and R. v. Habib, the court found special mitigating circumstances warranted a conditional sentence.

S.B. was sentenced to a 15-month conditional sentence, followed by 36 months probation, a 10-year section 110 order, and a DNA order.

The Crown sought a voluntariness determination for a video recorded statement made by the accused, who was charged with first degree murder.

The defence brought a cross-motion to exclude the statement under sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found the initial portion of the statement voluntary and admissible.

However, the latter portion was ruled involuntary and inadmissible because the interviewing officer used inducements and implied threats, suggesting the accused would only have credibility if he spoke during the interview.

The court also found a section 10(b) Charter breach because the officer failed to hold off on questioning after the accused requested counsel upon being detained.

The accused brought an application to stay criminal charges on the basis of alleged violations of his Charter rights (sections 7 and 12) arising from an incident at Central North Correctional Centre where he was pepper sprayed by correctional officers during a meal service.

The accused had been convicted of seven offences related to a home invasion and was awaiting sentencing.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, finding that a stay was not appropriate given the serious nature of the underlying offences and the accused's extensive criminal record.

The court also found that the evidence did not establish that excessive force was used by the correctional officers.