S. Caponecchia

During a trial for sexual interference, the Crown and Defence brought several pre-trial and mid-trial applications regarding the admissibility of evidence.

The court ruled that the accused's statements to police on November 18 and October 26 were voluntary and did not violate his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

However, a statement made on October 28 was excluded because the accused was heavily intoxicated, rendering it involuntary.

The court also ordered redactions to the complainant's police interview to prevent impermissible oath-helping, and made mid-trial rulings allowing some prior consistent statements by the complainant to rebut allegations of recent fabrication.

A youth offender pled guilty to three offences under the Criminal Code: procuring a person under 18 to provide sexual services, receiving financial benefit from the sale of sexual services, and advertising the sale of sexual services.

The offender, aged 17 at the time of the offences, recruited two underage girls (ages 15 and 16) into prostitution over a two-day period in July 2015, acting as their pimp and collecting the proceeds.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order for six months (credited as time served due to restrictive bail conditions) followed by two years probation with strict conditions.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after originally being charged with second degree murder in the death of his common law spouse.

Psychiatric evidence established that the offender suffered from a persecutory-type delusional disorder that significantly diminished his moral culpability.

The court considered the sentencing range for domestic manslaughter and the mitigating effect of mental illness, concluding that denunciation and deterrence carried reduced weight where the offence arose from severe psychiatric impairment.

The court imposed a custodial sentence within the agreed range and addressed the proper credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719 of the Criminal Code following amendments introduced by the Truth in Sentencing Act.

The offender received enhanced credit of 1.2:1 for time spent in pre‑sentence custody based on the particular circumstances of detention, including mental health considerations and institutional conditions.

The applicant sought a review of her detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

She was charged with three counts of robbery with a firearm, which carries a reverse onus for bail.

The applicant proposed a new surety plan involving two friends.

The court found the proposed sureties to be unreliable and ineffective, noting the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's alleged attempts to mislead police.

The application for release was dismissed.