Y. Laine

The offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, firearms offences, and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The murder involved a targeted public shooting with two firearms, resulting in one death and injuries to two others.

The court considered the offender's youth, guilty plea, and social context evidence of anti-Black racism, but found the aggravating factors, including elements of planning and deliberation, required a significant period of parole ineligibility.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 16 years, and a concurrent 13-year sentence for the firearms and drug offences.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a committal order made by a preliminary inquiry judge.

The preliminary inquiry judge had admitted the complainant's written statement under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code and denied the applicant's request to cross-examine the complainant under s. 540(9).

The Superior Court found that while the admission of the statement was an evidentiary error, it was not jurisdictional.

However, the blanket denial of cross-examination on the sole piece of evidence forming the Crown's case amounted to a breach of natural justice and a jurisdictional error.

The certiorari application was granted, and the matter was remitted for a new preliminary inquiry.

The accused was charged with robbery, forcible confinement, assault with a weapon, threatening bodily harm, and possession under.

The Crown's case relied on direct eyewitness identification from one victim who selected the accused from a photo line-up and identified him in court, corroborated by extensive circumstantial evidence including security video footage from multiple locations establishing a timeline of events.

The defence challenged the identification evidence as unreliable, arguing the witness description was generic and the photo line-up was flawed.

The court found the eyewitness identification credible and reliable, supported by compelling circumstantial evidence including video surveillance from apartment buildings and a bank showing the stolen bank card being used.

The court convicted on robbery, forcible confinement, and threatening bodily harm, conditionally staying the assault with a weapon charge as part of the same transaction as the robbery.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of robbery with a firearm, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and possession of property obtained by crime after robbing a convenience store with a pellet gun.

The Crown sought a sentence of five years, while the defence sought four years and nine months, matching the co-accused's sentence.

The court found the accused's role was more serious as he instigated the robbery and used the weapon to strike the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of four years and 11 months, reduced by credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions to a net sentence of three years and 354 days.

The defendant brought an application to withdraw his guilty plea to two counts of assault and one count of threatening, all arising from a domestic incident.

The defendant claimed his plea was involuntary because he was threatened by stares from the complainant's family in the courthouse hallway and was subsequently assaulted after leaving court.

The court dismissed the application, finding the plea was voluntary and that the defendant's evidence amounted to mere assertion of involuntariness based on subjective perception rather than objective fact.