Trevor David Jukes

This decision concerns the sentencing of Z.M.L. for manslaughter under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The court found Z.M.L. guilty as a joint principal in a violent group assault that caused the death of William Wapoose.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year custody and supervision order, with a significant custodial component in an adult facility.

The defence argued for a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order (DCSO), asserting Z.M.L.'s involvement did not constitute serious bodily harm and that time on bail was sufficient.

The court rejected the DCSO, finding Z.M.L.'s actions caused serious bodily harm, and imposed a three-year custody and supervision order, consisting of eighteen months in an adult facility (with credit for time served) followed by eighteen months of conditional supervision.

The court emphasized accountability, rehabilitation, and denunciation, while acknowledging the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness for youth.

The accused, J.F., charged with sexual assault, brought an application under sections 276.1 and 276.2 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual history with him, including their ongoing sexual relationship and consensual bondage activities.

The accused argued this evidence was necessary for full answer and defence and to provide context.

The Crown opposed on grounds of relevance.

The court dismissed the application, finding the proposed evidence irrelevant to the issues at trial and that its admission would support the "twin myths" prohibited by section 276(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court also found that the evidence lacked significant probative value and would prejudice the complainant's dignity and privacy.

The accused, J.F., brought an application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code for the production of counselling records from Crisis Homes Inc. (Faye Peterson) pertaining to the complainant, S.S., in a sexual assault case.

The accused argued the records were likely relevant to the complainant's credibility, particularly given her statement that counselling encouraged her to report the assault.

The Crown, Faye Peterson, and the complainant opposed the application, asserting high privacy interests and arguing the accused's request was speculative.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused failed to demonstrate that the records were "likely relevant" or that their production was "necessary in the interests of justice," as the complainant had explained her statement regarding counselling as related to safety concerns rather than influencing her recollection of events.