V. Puls

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following the shooting death of the victim.

The Crown alleged the accused arranged the murder in retaliation for the robbery of a driver working for his illegal cannabis delivery service.

Relying heavily on intercepted communications, the court found the accused's own statements proved he procured and paid others to shoot the victim.

The court rejected defence arguments regarding intervening causes and alternative inferences.

The accused was found guilty of first-degree murder as an arranged murder under section 231(3) of the Criminal Code.

The applicants brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for first-degree murder and criminal organization charges arising from a large wiretap investigation (Project Siphon).

The total delay was 39 months for the homicide and over 41 months for the criminal organization charges.

After deducting defence delay and a two-month discrete exceptional circumstance for the COVID-19 pandemic, the net delay remained above the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found the remaining delay was justified by the particular complexity of the case, which involved voluminous disclosure, numerous targets, and complex privilege issues.

The applications were dismissed.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit, and procuring.

The court sentenced the offender to 6 years and 2 months for human trafficking and 3 years concurrent for receiving a material benefit, with the procuring charge conditionally stayed.

The court applied the Tang/Miller factors, noting the offender's significant control and coercion over the vulnerable victim over an 18-month period.

The sentence was reduced by 153 days to account for Summers and Duncan credits for harsh pre-sentence custody, as well as mitigation for onerous bail conditions.

The accused was charged with historical sexual assaults against a child alleged to have occurred during family visits to a residence between 1999 and 2002.

The complainant alleged repeated sexual touching and multiple incidents of rape when she was between nine and twelve years old.

The accused denied the allegations.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and assessed credibility, opportunity, and the reliability of delayed and incremental disclosure.

Considering inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, lack of corroborative evidence, and the surrounding circumstances affecting plausibility, the court held that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.