Shannon Curry

The applicant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder for killing his father.

Prior to sentencing, the applicant brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years violates sections 12 and 15 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that his long-standing mental disorders and substance-induced psychosis at the time of the offence reduced his moral blameworthiness, making the mandatory sentence grossly disproportionate and discriminatory.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.

The court held that it was bound by the jury's verdict, which necessarily found that the applicant had the requisite specific intent for first degree murder, representing the highest level of moral culpability.

The court found no violation of section 12, as the sentence is not grossly disproportionate for an offender with such high moral blameworthiness.

The court also found no violation of section 15, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the mandatory minimum sentence disproportionately impacts persons with mental illness, noting that those who lack criminal responsibility or the requisite intent due to mental illness are not subject to the mandatory sentence.

The applicant sought a stay of her 18-month driving prohibition pending the appeal of her convictions for dangerous driving, impaired driving, and refusing to comply with a breath demand.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay under s. 261(1) of the Criminal Code.

While the court found the appeal had arguable merit and the applicant would suffer hardship due to her self-employment, it concluded she failed to demonstrate she was not a danger to the public given her erratic driving on a busy highway.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and weapons dangerous following a late-night altercation outside a nightclub.

The victims, who were highly intoxicated, instigated the confrontation and chased the accused and his friend when they attempted to flee.

The accused, fearing for his life, used a pocket knife to stab at least one of the pursuers.

The court found the accused acted in lawful self-defence and that his possession of the knife was not for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicant sought judicial screening under s. 745.61 of the Criminal Code for a jury hearing to reduce the 25‑year parole ineligibility period imposed following a conviction for first‑degree murder.

The court considered both the statutory filing deadlines under s. 745.6 and the substantive criteria under s. 745.63(1), including the applicant’s character, institutional conduct, nature of the offence, victim impact statements, and risk of recidivism.

The application was found to be filed outside the statutory time limits and therefore procedurally barred.

In any event, the court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the parole ineligibility period given the brutal sexually motivated murder, prior sexual violence, limited rehabilitation efforts, denial of responsibility, and ongoing risk factors.

The application was dismissed at the screening stage and the applicant was prohibited from making another application under s. 745.6(1).