T. Powell

The applicant, convicted of planned and deliberate first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, applied under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code for judicial screening of a "faint hope" application to reduce his parole ineligibility period.

The court considered the statutory factors under ss. 745.61 and 745.63, including the horrific nature of the offence, the applicant's post-offence conduct, his purported acceptance of responsibility and remorse, his conduct in custody, victim impact evidence, and risk assessments.

Despite acknowledging some genuine progress in custody and low to low-moderate risk of reoffending, the court found that the applicant's late-breaking claim of remorse was opportunistic and not genuine, his criminal thinking remained entrenched, and there was no reasonable prospect a unanimous jury would reduce his parole ineligibility.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude two handguns found in his pockets during a search incident to arrest.

The arresting officer arrested the accused based on his association with a target of a firearms investigation and his departure from an apartment building shortly after tactical officers arrived to execute a search warrant.

The court found the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, rendering the arrest unlawful and violating s. 9 of the Charter.

Consequently, the search incident to arrest violated s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearms under s. 24(2), finding the police conduct was negligent and significantly impacted the accused's liberty and privacy interests.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and failed to object to inadmissible bad character evidence.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the Crown had improperly elicited highly prejudicial bad character evidence, including allegations of violence, misogyny, and homophobia, without seeking a ruling on its admissibility.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding that credibility was the central issue at trial and it was not apparent that the trial judge had disregarded the inadmissible evidence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application seeking disclosure of information provided to police by a confidential informer, arguing the informer was a material witness and the information was necessary to raise a reasonable doubt.

The court held that the 'innocence at stake' test is the sole exception to informer privilege, even for material witnesses.

While the applicant established that the privileged information was not available from any other source, the court found the application premature.

The court dismissed the application without prejudice, ruling that the trial judge would be in a better position to determine if the applicant could raise a reasonable doubt without the privileged information after the Crown's key witness was cross-examined.

The applicant sought a bail review after a justice of the peace revoked his prior bail and ordered his detention.

The justice of the peace had found the applicant 'releasable' but ordered detention because the proposed sureties were deemed unsuitable.

The Superior Court found this was an error in law, as the test for release was conflated with the adequacy of the proposed plan.

The court upheld the finding that the applicant was releasable on the secondary ground and, having approved three new sureties, ordered the applicant's release on a recognizance with conditions.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings after pleading guilty to assault against his spouse, breach of recognizance, and theft under $5000.

He sought to withdraw the guilty pleas and obtain a new trial, alleging the pleas were not voluntary and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court reviewed the legal requirements for valid guilty pleas under s. 606 of the Criminal Code and the framework governing claims of ineffective representation.

It found the appellant’s evidence unreliable and determined the pleas were voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.

The court also concluded that counsel’s performance was competent and that no prejudice or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The applicant, charged with numerous serious offences including home invasion, unlawful confinement, and firearms offences, applied for a detention review after spending approximately 2.5 years in pre-trial custody.

He argued that the delay constituted a material change in circumstances and that the original show cause justice erred in principle by detaining him on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that much of the delay was attributable to the applicant himself.

The court also upheld the original justice's findings that detention was necessary for the protection of the public and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, given the horrific nature of the allegations and the strength of the Crown's case.