Stephanie Anne Boydell

This is a voir dire ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Anthony Alas, who was charged with second-degree murder.

The primary issue was whether the statements were the product of an atmosphere of oppression, specifically due to the police's alleged failure to provide the accused with stomach medication.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, concluding that the accused's will was not overborne by police conduct or the circumstances.

The court considered the accused's mental state, the absence of threats or inducements (including any suggestion regarding his partner's potential arrest), and the presence of oppressive circumstances.

Despite some concerns about how the accused's medical needs were handled, the court determined that the overall police conduct was polite and accommodating, and the interview was calm and non-confrontational.

Ricky DeSousa was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of evading police, and pleaded guilty to eight counts of robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors including the vulnerability of robbery victims, use of a weapon, injuries to victims, and the fact that aggravated assault victims were police officers.

Mitigating factors included DeSousa's guilty plea to robberies, triable issues on other counts, and community support for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment, consisting of eight years consecutive for the robberies and five years concurrent for the aggravated assault and evasion of police, with the five-year sentence to be served consecutively to the eight-year robbery sentence.

Pre-trial custody credit of eight years and eleven months was applied, including an additional 90 days for harsh lockdown conditions.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA sample were also made.

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder of police officers, failing to stop his vehicle during a police pursuit, and aggravated assault of a peace officer, following a violent vehicular takedown.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, but sufficient to establish the lesser included offence of aggravated assault, based on objective foresight of harm.

The accused was also found guilty of evading police, as the court inferred he knew he was surrounded by officers.

The charge of aggravated assault of a peace officer was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The defendant was charged with 13 offences arising from a deteriorating marriage, including multiple counts of threatening death, assault, assault with a weapon, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant (the defendant's estranged wife), with limited corroborating evidence.

The defendant admitted to mischief but denied the remaining charges.

The court found significant credibility issues with both parties due to their substance abuse (alcohol and cocaine use during the relevant period), lack of independent witnesses to most incidents, and inconsistencies in the complainant's account.

The court convicted the defendant on three counts: assault with a weapon, assault, and mischief, all arising from an April 2013 incident.

All other charges were dismissed.

Sentencing following convictions for break and enter to commit theft, obstruction of justice, and possession of break-in instruments arising from a planned theft of vehicles from a commercial dealership.

The offender had an extensive criminal record involving repeated property offences and prior custodial sentences that had failed to deter further offending.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society, finding the offences constituted a sophisticated enterprise crime.

A five‑year penitentiary sentence was imposed for break and enter, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

Pre‑trial custody credit was limited to a 1:1 ratio, with a further deduction under the totality principle.