S. Doherty

The accused, charged with drug and firearms offences following a traffic stop, brought an application for the production of police records relating to the arresting officers' prior traffic stops and training materials.

The accused argued the records were relevant to an anticipated Charter challenge alleging racial profiling and an unlawful search.

The court dismissed the application, finding the records were neither first-party disclosure as they were not fruits of the investigation, nor subject to third-party production as the accused failed to establish their likely relevance beyond mere speculation.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter after fatally shooting a trespasser who was breaking into his truck in the middle of the night.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 4 years.

The court assessed the offender's moral blameworthiness, noting the use of a loaded firearm with an after-market turkey choke, but also considering the offender's lack of criminal record, strong community support, and genuine remorse.

The court rejected the defence's characterization of the incident as 'near self-defence' but acknowledged the offender's perceived lack of alternatives.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

The defence sought to call a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Peter Collins, to provide expert opinion evidence on the neurobiological responses to stress and the impact of military training on decision-making.

The Crown objected, arguing the evidence was unnecessary and within the common knowledge of the jury.

The court applied the Mohan framework and the Supreme Court's guidance on self-defence from this very case, concluding that the expert evidence was necessary to help the jury assess the reasonableness of the accused's conduct and his role in the incident.

The application to admit the expert evidence was granted, subject to certain redactions.

The Crown sought to introduce expert opinion evidence from a forensic pathologist regarding the sequence of shots and the positioning of the deceased at the time of the shooting in a second degree murder trial.

The accused objected, arguing the opinion exceeded the expert's scope of expertise and would confuse the jury.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the Mohan framework and gatekeeper analysis, concluding the expert was properly qualified and the evidence was logically relevant and necessary.

The court ruled the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect and admitted the expert opinion.

The offender was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault for digitally penetrating a 12-year-old child while he was employed as her babysitter.

The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offence and the profound impact on the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 18 months' imprisonment for sexual interference, stayed the sexual assault charge under the Kienapple principle, and imposed ancillary orders including a 15-year prohibition order and a 20-year sex offender registry order.