S. Repka

The court sentenced Norman Joseph May for the manslaughter of Shirley Hatley, following a joint submission by Crown and defence for 11.5 years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody.

The case proceeded on an uncontested basis, with the facts read into the record and not disputed.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, and Mr. May’s personal circumstances, including his prior record and health issues.

The court accepted the joint submission, emphasizing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the brutality of the offence, and imposed the recommended sentence.

This decision addresses a Garofoli application to review a search warrant for firearms-related offences.

The Information to Obtain (ITO) used to secure the warrant contained significant false, misleading, and unconstitutionally obtained information, which was excised on review.

The court assessed whether, based on the amended record, reasonable grounds existed to believe an offence was committed and that evidence would be found at the residence.

While a thin basis for believing an offence was committed was found, the court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe evidence of the offence would be found at the residence.

This was primarily due to the lack of a direct connection between the firearm and the residence, the fact that the accused was not in possession of the firearm upon arrest, and the extensive misleading information in the original ITO undermining the affiant's credibility.

The search was deemed unreasonable, constituting a s.8 Charter breach.

The s.24(2) Charter analysis regarding the admissibility of seized evidence was deferred.

This is an optional sentence review under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for a young person convicted of second degree murder.

The applicant was sentenced to seven years custody (four years secure custody followed by three years community supervision) in February 2015.

At the time of this review in July 2017, the applicant had been in custody for approximately four years and eight months.

The court considered the applicant's significant progress in rehabilitation while at a youth facility, his subsequent transfer to an adult correctional facility following institutional incidents, and the limited rehabilitative programming available in the adult facility.

The court found grounds for review based on the applicant's progress and the greater rehabilitative opportunities available in the community.

The court ordered the applicant's release from custody and placement on conditional supervision for the remainder of the youth sentence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexually touching a 13-year-old victim with his penis in July 2013 when he was 30 years old.

While awaiting sentencing, he committed additional offences: uttering threats to cause bodily harm and breaching a probation order.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 13 months; the defence sought 6 to 9 months.

The court imposed 12 months imprisonment for the sexual touching offence, with concurrent 30-day sentences for the breach and threats, followed by 3 years of probation with extensive conditions.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence must take precedence over rehabilitation in cases involving child sexual abuse.

The accused, age 23, was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual touching of a three-year-old child.

The Crown's case relied on the child's statement to his grandmother and subsequent police interview, in which the child disclosed that the accused had touched his penis.

The grandmother testified that she left the child briefly in the accused's unsupervised care and noticed the child's clothing was askew upon her return.

The accused denied the allegations.

The court found credibility issues with both the grandmother's evidence regarding her judgment in allowing an intoxicated person to supervise the child, and the accused's testimony regarding his presence upstairs in the home.

Ultimately, the court determined it could not be certain whether the touching occurred as alleged and acquitted the accused.

The accused was tried on ten counts of domestic violence offences spanning from 2001 to 2013, including assault, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, and mischief.

The Crown alleged a pattern of serious domestic violence against the complainant over the course of their dysfunctional relationship.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming he only responded defensively when the complainant attacked him.

The trial judge found credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, noting inconsistencies between her account and corroborating witness evidence, as well as the absence of injuries that would reasonably be expected from the alleged assaults.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.