Purchase This Domain

Criminal infractions — Second degree murder — Self-defence — Provocation — Appellant convicted of second degree murder after shooting deceased during a nightclub altercation — Did the trial judge err in rejecting self-defence and provocation? — Whether the appellant’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 34(1), 232 — Trial judge’s findings supported by evidence and legal principlesCriminal procedure — Appeals — Palpable and overriding errors — CCTV footage — Appellant argued trial judge erred in assessing CCTV evidence, particularly timing of actions — Whether trial judge’s factual findings were unreasonable or unsupported by evidence — Standard of appellate review for factual findings — No palpable and overriding error foundEvidence — Credibility — Subjective beliefs — Appellant’s testimony regarding self-defence and provocation — Trial judge rejected appellant’s subjective belief that he was pistol whipped and acted in self-defence — Whether trial judge’s credibility findings were illogical or irrational — Trial judge entitled to reject implausible and self-serving evidence — Verdict not unreasonableEvidence — Provocation — Partial defence — Appellant argued deceased’s actions provoked him to lose self-control — Trial judge found appellant’s actions deliberate and not a result of sudden loss of self-control — Whether trial judge erred in rejecting provocation defence — Proper application of s. 232 of the Criminal Code

Criminal procedure — Jury instructions — Constructive possession — Appellant convicted of possession of a firearm knowing it to be unauthorized — Did the trial judge err in instructing the jury on constructive possession when the Crown’s theory did not rely on it? — Functional approach to appellate review of jury instructions — No error found in the trial judge’s instructions on possessionCriminal procedure — Jury instructions — Relating law to evidence — Appellant argued trial judge failed to relate the law of possession to the evidence — Did the trial judge err in this regard? — Jury properly equipped to decide the case based on the law and evidence — No error foundCriminal procedure — Self-represented litigants — Assistance by trial judge — Appellant argued trial judge failed to provide adequate assistance regarding the legal meaning of possession — Did the trial judge err in assisting the self-represented appellant? — Trial judge commended for efforts to assist appellant, including appointing amicus curiae — No error foundEvidence — Discreditable conduct — Admission of prior discreditable conduct evidence — Appellant objected to admission of such evidence and jury instructions on its use — Did the trial judge err in admitting the evidence and instructing the jury? — Proper jury instructions provided on the use of discreditable conduct evidence — No error foundEvidence — Disclosure — Access to Crown disclosure — Appellant argued prejudice due to challenges in accessing disclosure during trial — Did the trial judge err in addressing disclosure issues? — Efforts made by trial judge and Crown to address disclosure challenges — No prejudice found in relation to the possession charge

Family — Parenting orders — Sole decision-making authority — Primary care — Best interests of the children — Parenting time schedule — Did the trial judge err in varying the parenting order to grant the mother sole decision-making authority and primary care of the children? — Section 16 of the Divorce Act governs the determination of parenting orders based on the best interests of the childrenFamily — Support orders — Child support — Spousal support — Financial obligations — Undue hardship — Did the trial judge err in varying the support order to increase child support and continue spousal support? — Divorce Act principles prioritize the financial needs of children and spouses over other debtsChild protection — Family violence — Culturally specific domestic violence — Emotional harm to children — Did the trial judge err in finding that the father’s conduct constituted culturally specific domestic violence and family violence under the Divorce Act? — Section 16(3)(j) of the Divorce Act requires consideration of family violence and its impact on childrenFamily — Best interests of the children — High-conflict parenting — Credibility findings — Did the trial judge’s decision align with the best interests of the children as required under section 16 of the Divorce Act? — The best interests of the children are determined by assessing factors under section 16(3) of the Divorce Act, with deference to trial judge findings