Terry Leon Kirichenko

The three offenders were convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for the stabbing death of a 22-year-old victim.

The sentencing judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenders were the aggressors who tracked down the victim for revenge after an earlier altercation where the victim had cut the principal offender with a knife.

The court rejected the Crown's argument for an 'aggravated manslaughter' sentence range, finding the earlier provocation mitigated the offenders' moral blameworthiness.

After applying significant credit for pre-trial custody, harsh jail conditions including triple bunking, and strict bail conditions, the principal offender was sentenced to a further 14 months, the second offender to 6.5 months, and the third offender to time served.

The accused, Mr. Verma, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the complainant, JB, consented to sexual activity, specifically focusing on her capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant, another witness (Ms. Morriseau), and the accused.

The court found that the complainant was too intoxicated to have the capacity to consent to sexual activity, rejecting the accused's version of events.

While some alleged sexual touchings were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to the complainant's fragmented memory, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused inserted his penis into the complainant's mouth to achieve an erection and engaged in vaginal intercourse, despite her lack of capacity to consent.

The accused was found guilty.

During a criminal trial for a stabbing, the Crown applied under section 9.2 of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine its own witness on a prior inconsistent statement.

The witness testified at trial that one of the accused attempted to break up the fight, which contradicted his earlier police statement and preliminary inquiry testimony.

The court granted the application, finding the Crown could not have been expected to lead this evidence in-chief.

However, the court restricted the Crown from questioning the witness about post-offence phone calls with the accused, ruling that such questions would improperly suggest consciousness of guilt and be highly prejudicial.

The accused were charged with firearm offences after police found a loaded handgun in a satchel inside a vehicle.

The police had arrested one of the accused on an outstanding warrant and subsequently searched the vehicle.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of their rights under ss. 7, 8, and 10(b), including claims of racial profiling, excessive force, unlawful search, delay in access to counsel, and lost CCTV evidence.

The court found that the police violated s. 7 by negligently losing CCTV footage, s. 8 by unlawfully searching the satchel without reasonable grounds, and s. 10(b) by delaying access to counsel and attempting to elicit evidence before the accused spoke to a lawyer.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the handgun and a knife found on the co-accused under s. 24(2).

Both accused were found not guilty on all counts.

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.

The three accused were charged with firearms and drug offences following a vehicle stop.

They brought Charter applications alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The Crown argued the stop was a valid dual-purpose stop under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the officers' testimony lacked credibility and that the HTA rationale was a pretext for an unlawful criminal investigation.

The court concluded the accused were arbitrarily detained and subjected to unreasonable searches.

Given the seriousness of the breaches and the finding that the officers misled the court, the evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals.

Natalia Giselle Smith was charged with importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine.

Her co-accused, Charita Maryah Johnson, was convicted.

The Crown relied on actual knowledge to establish Smith's liability, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith knew she was importing a prohibited substance.

The court admitted Johnson's videotaped statement to police under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding it necessary due to Johnson's hostile testimony and reliable due to corroborating evidence and voluntariness.

Despite circumstantial evidence linking Smith to the cocaine, including possession of luggage tags and paying excess fees, the court found that the possibility of luggage sharing and Johnson's inconsistent testimony created a reasonable doubt.

Smith was found not guilty of all charges.

Joel Stevenson was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a seven-year imprisonment sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or, alternatively, four years with substantial credit for pre-sentence bail conditions, emphasizing the offender's Aboriginal heritage and the application of Gladue principles.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the seriousness of the offence, finding that deterrence and denunciation were paramount.

After considering the unique systemic and background factors affecting the offender, including intergenerational trauma from residential schools and personal history of abuse and incarceration, and balancing these with the seriousness of the offence and the principle of parity with a co-accused, the court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment.

An eight-month credit was awarded for harsh pre-sentence release conditions, resulting in a net sentence of four years and four months.

A youth was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and breach of probation following a stabbing incident at a party.

The Crown alleged the defendant stabbed the victim unprovoked in a bedroom.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting she was engaged in a physical altercation with the victim both inside and outside an apartment, during which she grabbed a knife from the kitchen and used it defensively after being thrown to the ground and punched.

The trial judge found the victim's evidence largely unreliable due to his serious injuries and drug and alcohol consumption.

The defendant's account was substantially corroborated by the only eyewitness.

The court found no evidence of intent to kill for the attempted murder charge and determined the Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt for the aggravated assault charge.

All charges were dismissed.

A young person was charged with assault arising from an altercation following a motor vehicle accident.

The Crown alleged the defendant used force without consent.

The defence claimed the force was consensual.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault, rejecting the defendant's credibility in favour of the complainant's account, which was corroborated by an independent witness.

The court applied the R. v. W. (D) framework and determined the defendant initiated an unprovoked attack and participated in kicking and punching the complainant while on the ground.