Tara Patricia Cassidy

The accused was charged with four counts of theft under $5,000, 31 counts of failing to comply with probation orders, and one count of possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary ground, arguing the accused posed a substantial risk to public safety.

The accused proposed release on his own recognizance with GPS monitoring, exclusion zones, and support from Sound Times.

The court found that the accused's lengthy criminal record, persistent pattern of breaching probation conditions, and repeated re-offending at the same locations demonstrated a substantial risk to public safety.

The proposed release plan was found insufficient to mitigate this risk.

While the court acknowledged the accused's vulnerabilities under s. 493.2(b) of the Criminal Code, including mental health challenges and status as a Black man, these did not outweigh the public safety concerns.

The court ordered the accused's detention under the secondary ground.

The accused, Andrew Douglas, brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on a first-degree murder charge at the close of the Crown's case.

The application was opposed by the Crown.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a properly instructed jury to reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the first-degree murder charge, particularly regarding planning and deliberation.

The case was allowed to proceed to the jury on the first-degree murder charge.

This ruling addresses a Corbett application in a first-degree murder trial.

The accused sought to limit the admissibility of his criminal record for cross-examination on credibility.

The Crown argued for the full record, contending the defence would attack the deceased's character.

The court balanced the probative value of the convictions against the prejudicial effect of propensity reasoning, particularly for violent and similar offences.

The judge ruled that only convictions for obstruction of a Peace Officer and theft (read down from robbery) would be admissible, finding that the defence's argument regarding the deceased's possession of a firearm was a direct response to the indictment, not an attack on character, thus not creating an imbalance requiring the full record.

The applicant, J.L., sought leave to introduce electronic records and cross-examine the complainant, B.M., regarding their contents, as well as to testify about them, pursuant to section 278.94 of the Criminal Code.

The records included Facebook messages from November 2015 suggesting prior sexual activity, messages from April 2016 discussing sleeping arrangements and having a flirtatious tone before the alleged assault, and messages from April 2016 (the day after the alleged assault) and later, which discussed the sexual encounter and the complainant's departure.

The Crown and complainant's counsel objected to admissibility.

The court found the November 2015 messages relevant as a specific instance of sexual activity and potentially contradictory to the complainant's police statement.

The April 2016 pre-assault messages were found relevant for impeachment value and to provide context for the complainant's decision to come to the applicant's residence.

The April 2016 post-assault messages were deemed relevant as a potential prior inconsistent statement regarding the complainant's departure.

The court applied the factors under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code, concluding that the records were not being adduced for prohibited inferences, had probative value, were necessary for full answer and defence, and would not prejudice the administration of justice or have a chilling effect.

All three sets of communications were admitted as evidence, and the applicant was permitted to cross-examine the complainant and testify regarding them.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of Fraud Over $5,000 for stealing approximately $162,480.29 from his employer over a period of 5½ years by making unauthorized technology purchases and reselling the equipment online.

The Crown sought 8-10 months in jail followed by two years of probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12-18 months plus three years of probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years of probation, finding exceptional mitigating circumstances including the accused's status as a first offender, guilty plea, genuine remorse, addiction-driven offending, community support, and two years of abstinence from gambling and drugs.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death to members of a jury during her second-degree murder trial.

Two police officers testified to hearing threatening statements directed at the jury members, though their recollections of the exact words differed.

The accused testified that she was stressed and frustrated but could not recall the specific words she uttered and denied intending to intimidate anyone.

The court found that while the actus reus of uttering a threat was established, the Crown failed to prove the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on the basis that she was venting in frustration without intent to intimidate or be taken seriously.