Tim Edwards

The accused, awaiting trial for first degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on pre-trial publicity and racial bias.

The Crown consented to the challenge but disputed the form of the questions regarding race.

The accused called expert evidence to propose new, multi-part questions to uncover racial bias.

The court rejected three purely attitudinal questions but permitted a modified version of the fourth question that incorporated the behavioural component of partiality required by law.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit two bodies of evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The evidence related to the accused's alleged prior possession of two handguns used in the homicide.

The first body of evidence consisted of cell phone photographs showing the accused with a revolver similar to one of the murder weapons.

The second body of evidence involved the accused's presence at a prior shooting where the second murder weapon was discharged.

The court ruled both bodies of evidence admissible, finding that their probative value in establishing the accused's identity and access to the murder weapons outweighed their prejudicial effect as prior discreditable conduct, subject to potential editing and admissions to limit prejudice.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice after removing her friend's pool cues from a bar following a fatal stabbing.

The Crown argued the cues could have been used for identification, while the defence argued the accused merely retrieved her friend's property without intent to impede the investigation.

The court found that the perpetrator was well-known to patrons and staff, making the cues unnecessary for identification.

The court concluded that a specific intent to obstruct justice could not be inferred from the circumstantial evidence, and the accused was found not guilty.

Sentencing following a guilty plea to breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing theft.

The offender had an extensive criminal history including numerous prior break and enter convictions and was on probation at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought a five‑year penitentiary sentence while the defence sought four years with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody based on institutional conduct.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public given the offender’s persistent recidivism but accepted evidence of positive institutional behaviour and program participation as circumstances justifying enhanced credit under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

Enhanced credit reduced the custodial sentence to twenty‑four months less one day in a provincial institution.

The applicant, charged with break and enter and other offences, sought a stay of proceedings or a reduction in sentence under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest in violation of ss. 7 and 12.

The applicant fled the scene, ran through fences and trees, and actively resisted arrest when tackled.

The court found that the police officers' use of pepper spray, distractionary strikes, and baton strikes was a proportionate, necessary, and reasonable response to the applicant's resistance and potential threat.

The application was dismissed as no Charter breach occurred.