Timothy Francis Edwards

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter for a fatal stabbing that occurred during a brief physical altercation.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary term, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the accused carrying and quickly using a large knife, and the profound impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, lack of prior record, remorse, cooperation with police, and potential for rehabilitation.

The judge rejected a conditional sentence, finding it insufficient to reflect the gravity of the crime, and imposed a 34-month penitentiary sentence after accounting for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a firearm prohibition, and knife forfeiture were also made.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown alleged that the accused collided with a vehicle stopped at a red light and then attempted to distance himself from the collision.

The defence challenged the officer's reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the officer's consideration of the three-hour requirement under the Criminal Code, the identification of the driver, and whether the evidence met the Stellato standard for impairment.

The court found that the accused was the driver, that the officer properly considered the time element, that identification was established beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the evidence demonstrated at least slight impairment of driving ability.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant, Valeri Gueorguiev, challenged search warrants executed on his property, alleging that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained errors and misleading information, thereby violating his rights under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The Crown conceded some errors in the ITO but argued that, even with corrections, sufficient reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrants.

The court found that the corrected ITO provided adequate grounds for the warrants and that the police errors were not intentional or reckless.

Consequently, the application to quash the warrants and exclude evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

The accused was charged with possession, accessing, and distribution of child pornography.

The defence brought a renewed section 11(b) Charter application to stay proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The Crown disclosed a critical 25-page expert technical crime report only 20 months after arrest and less than two months before trial, necessitating an adjournment.

The court found the Crown substantially responsible for the delay, which exceeded the Jordan guideline threshold, and granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused were convicted of discharging a firearm into a residential home and mischief under $5000.

The court imposed sentences of 5 years imprisonment on each accused, with credit for presentence custody.

The offence involved firing multiple bullets into a home in the early morning hours, with one bullet narrowly missing a sleeping child.

The court found the shooting was planned and deliberate, targeting the home of a family member of a drug dealer.

Weapons prohibition orders for 10 years and DNA orders were imposed.

The accused were charged with discharging a firearm and mischief under $500 for firing a rifle into a residential home, narrowly missing an occupant.

The Crown alleged that Mohammed was the shooter and Rodney was the driver.

The Crown's case relied on direct and circumstantial identification evidence, which standing alone was insufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof.

The Crown also called a jailhouse informant to buttress the identification evidence.

The court found that while the informant was an unsavoury character with a lengthy criminal record, certain elements of his testimony were corroborated by evidence not available to the public, thereby enhancing his reliability.

The court concluded that the combination of identification evidence and the informant's testimony satisfied the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

The defendant, CH, was charged with sexual assault, breach of a probation order, assault, and attempted sexual assault, stemming from two incidents involving his partner.

The court, applying the principles from R v W(D) regarding credibility in criminal trials, found reasonable doubt concerning the earlier sexual assault and the attempted sexual assault on May 16, 2015, due to conflicting and muddled evidence.

However, the court found the complainant's account of the physical assault on May 16, 2015, to be precise and clear, leading to a conviction for assault and the consequential breach of probation.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon without authorization, two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon, careless storage of a firearm, careless storage of ammunition, possession of a firearm obtained by an indictable offence, and possession of a firearm with its serial number defaced.

A .32 calibre silver revolver with three live rounds and a spent shell casing were discovered during a search warrant execution at the accused's apartment.

The accused challenged committal for trial, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge, a material element of possession.

The court found the evidence circumstantial and sparse, with equally plausible inferences available regarding knowledge by either the accused or a third party with regular access to the apartment.

The court discharged the accused, finding the Crown failed to meet the threshold for committal.

The accused was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Care or Control Over 80 following an investigation while sitting in a parked motor vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused exhibited indicia of impairment warranting arrest.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, arguing there were no objective reasonable and probable grounds, and sought exclusion of breath test results under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found breaches of Charter ss. 8 and 9 rights but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) analysis.

The court convicted on the Care or Control Over 80 charge but acquitted on the Impaired Care or Control charge.