Stephen Albers

The accused pleaded guilty to being unlawfully in a dwelling-house contrary to s. 349 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved the accused forcing her way into the home of an elderly couple, demanding keys, and physically assaulting both victims, causing injuries requiring hospitalization.

The Crown sought a 12-month conditional sentence order followed by probation and restitution.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, emphasizing the accused's first-time offender status, guilty plea, remorse, and employment in the educational system.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with conditions including 18 months of probation, 100 hours of community service, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a non-contact order, and restitution of $90.00.

This decision provides the reasons for various pre-trial and trial motions in a criminal case where the accused, Alam Buoc, was ultimately convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted murder after a 12-week jury trial.

Key rulings included the refusal to discharge a juror despite pre-trial publicity, the allowance of remote witness testimony due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the dismissal of a s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay, with significant delay attributed to the accused's conduct and the pandemic.

The court also admitted hearsay statements under the res gestae exception and detailed the extensive role of amicus curiae in assisting the self-represented accused throughout the complex proceedings, which included a mistrial due to the pandemic.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals for impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At trial, the judge excluded breath samples and police observations under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding a section 8 breach because the arresting officer lacked subjective grounds to arrest for impaired driving.

The trial judge also found the officer's testimony attempting to justify the arrest was misleading, which exacerbated the seriousness of the breach.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's factual findings regarding the officer's lack of subjective grounds and misleading testimony were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The accused, a 65-year-old sports coach, was charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and forcible confinement after allegedly giving a 17-year-old athlete a full-body massage at his home.

The accused testified that the massage was strictly for recovery purposes and denied any sexual touching or confinement.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court disbelieved the accused's evidence but found that the totality of the evidence, including timeline inconsistencies and contradictory text messages, left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.