S. Taraniuk

The offender was convicted by a jury of one count of dangerous driving causing death and five counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after speeding through a downtown intersection and colliding with a vehicle making an illegal left turn, causing his vehicle to strike a crowd of pedestrians.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought three years.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victims, the offender's prior record, and the aggravating factors of multiple victims and driving for remuneration against mitigating factors including the offender's tragic background, the impact of anti-Black racism, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of four years in custody, reduced by three years of pre-sentence custody credit, leaving one year to serve, along with a ten-year driving prohibition.

During a first-degree murder trial, proceedings were halted for several months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Upon assessing the jury's availability to resume the trial in the fall, the court conducted individual inquiries with several jurors.

The court discharged two jurors due to undue hardship related to childcare, schooling, and employment concerns exacerbated by the pandemic.

As only nine jurors remained, and the parties did not consent to continue without a jury, a mistrial was declared.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial motions to edit the videotaped police statements of two co-accused before they were played for the jury.

The moving parties sought to excise references to fears of reprisal, the interviewing officer's opinions on the credibility of another witness, and portions of other witnesses' statements played during the interviews.

The court dismissed most of the requested edits, finding that the passages were necessary to provide context for the accused's responses and that any potential prejudice could be cured by proper limiting instructions to the jury.

A few specific passages lacking probative value and carrying potential prejudice were ordered excised.

The four co-accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to be seated at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's box during their trial.

The Crown opposed the application, citing courtroom security and the default practice of using the prisoner's box.

The court balanced the security concerns, which required six escort officers if the accused sat at counsel table, against trial fairness considerations, including the need for effective communication between the accused and their counsel during a lengthy trial.

The court granted the application, finding that the accused met their onus and that sitting at counsel table would facilitate communication and ensure the accused were viewed as individuals by the jury.