Recent Decisions from CanLII

• R. v Amagoalik, 2026 NUCJ 28 (CanLII)

  October 23, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Guilty pleas — Proportionality and moral culpability — Whether denunciation and deterrence receive primary consideration under s. 718.04 — Vulnerable older victim, prior record, mental health and capacity issues, systemic and background factors — Consecutive custodial sentences imposed — Probation orderedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Fraud and forgery — Moral culpability and custodial necessity — Whether custodial sentence is necessary for unsophisticated financial crimes — Identification used, forged cheques cashed in public, poverty motivation and social economic standing considered — Sentence made consecutive to other files — Custody imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Multiple convictions — Keinapple — Stays — Whether there is a factual and legal nexus engaging the rule against multiple convictions — Forgery complete on making false document, subsequent use and fraud dependent on forgery — R v. Keinapple applied, R v. Hopkins cited — Counts stayedProcedure — Probation — Conditions — Victim protection — Whether no-contact and no-go probation conditions are fit and appropriate — Written revocable consent to RCMP, 24-hour cool off period, no contact when intoxicated, counselling and reporting — Conditions imposed to protect victim — Probation ordered

• R. v Audlakiak, 2026 NUCJ 27 (CanLII)

  October 6, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Jury trials — Non-attendance — Criminal Code, s. 598(1) — Whether sleeping in constitutes a legitimate excuse for failing to appear — Wilful blindness and pattern of non-attendance assessed — R v Lee and R v Harris applied — Accused failed to satisfy burden — Jury trial not reinstatedCriminal and statutory offences — Election and deemed waiver — Jury waiver — Criminal Code, ss. 598(1) and 598(2) — Whether accused is deemed to have waived trial by judge and jury — Statutory consequence of failing to appear without legitimate excuse — Right to benefit of trial by jury not preserved — Trial to proceed before judge alone — Election deemed judge-alone trial

• R. v Mosesee, 2026 NUCJ 26 (CanLII)

  October 2, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Sexual offences against a child — Mandatory minimum punishments — Convictions for attempted sexual interference (Criminal Code, s. 151) and communicating to obtain sexual services of a person under 18 (Criminal Code, s. 286.1(2)) — Mandatory minimum sentences considered, including R v Denis — Concurrent custodial terms imposed — Mandatory DNA order and SOIRA order made — Sentence imposedRights and freedoms — Charter, s. 12 — Cruel and unusual punishment — Mandatory minimum sentence — Whether the one-year mandatory minimum for an indictable conviction under Criminal Code, s. 151 is grossly disproportionate for this offender — Disparity between fit sentence and mandatory minimum analysed, including Crown election concerns in R v Bertrand Marchand — Gross disproportionality found — Mandatory minimum not imposedStatutory interpretation — Sentencing legislation — Bill C-16 — Criminal Code, s. 718.4 — Whether the new regime requires ending the R v Nur hypothetical analysis and focusing on cruel and unusual punishment for the offender before the court — Interaction with Charter, s. 11(i) noted but not determined — Court proceeds on offender-specific finding — Same analytical result reachedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Proportionality — Denunciation and deterrence — Whether a lesser custodial sentence is fit for the s. 151 conviction given the offender’s circumstances and the offence facts — Emphasis on Criminal Code, s. 718.01 and R v Friesen — Comparable Nunavut authorities considered — Fit sentence set below mandatory minimum — Concurrent custodial sentence imposed

• R. v A.A., 2026 NUCJ 25 (CanLII)

  September 29, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Sexual assault — Fit sentence for sexual assault of a child under two years — Aggravating factors including position of trust, victim vulnerability, prior sexual assault convictions — Denunciation and deterrence emphasised, proportionality and parity applied, restraint considered — Global custodial sentence imposedProcedure — Sentencing — Totality and credit — Whether uttering threats sentences should be consecutive — Totality and judicial restraint in combined sentence assessed — Pre-trial custody credited with enhanced calculation, remaining term determined — Threats aimed at a witness treated as disturbing and consecutive — Sentence structuredIndigenous peoples — Gladue principles — Indigenous offenders — How ss. 718.2(e) and 718.04 of the Criminal Code inform sentencing — Judicial notice of colonialism, displacement, residential schools and incarceration context for Inuit — Case-specific background and substance abuse considered, not excusing conduct — Indigenous sentencing principles appliedCriminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Section 161 order — Whether a s. 161 order should flow absent evidence of predation or luring — Risk to re-offend assessed from third sexual assault conviction and offence circumstances — Conditions restricting contact with persons under 16 and with the child crafted — Section 161 order imposed for a defined period

• Crowe v. Legal Services Board of Nunavut, 2026 NUCJ 24 (CanLII)

  September 28, 2026

  Procedure — Costs — Judicial review — Whether the successful applicant is entitled to costs despite not obtaining an order compelling appointment — Procedural fairness denial considered in costs entitlement — Partial success on relief not treated as disentitling — Each party bearing own costs rejected — Party-and-party costs awardedProcedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Rules of the Nunavut Court of Justice, C.R.Nu., R-010-96, rule 201 — Whether full or substantial indemnity costs are warranted based on offers to settle — Offers contingent on appointment to panel list — Timing of offer and limited relevance to incurred costs — Full or substantial indemnity refusedProcedure — Costs — Assessment — Whether time claimed by applicant’s counsel was excessive, including numerous emails and total hours — Comparison to respondent’s solicitor time considered — Work addressing merits and seeking relief not obtained treated as significant — Hours and rates accepted but concerns noted — Costs fixedProcedure — Costs — Discretion — What percentage should be applied to reflect an award of party-and-party costs — Discretionary scale applied at the low end — Percentage applied to claimed full indemnity amount to account for concerns identified — Party-and-party scale selected rather than indemnity approaches — Costs fixed, inclusive of GST

• R. v Tikivik, 2026 NUCJ 23 (CanLII)

  September 22, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Assault — Criminal Code, s. 266 — Whether the Crown proved the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt — Application of force, intent, absence of consent, knowledge of non-consent — Trial judge accepts complainant’s account of being slammed and punched — Charge proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Conviction enteredEvidence — Credibility — Conflicting testimony — R. v. W.D. — How to assess credibility where accused denies assault and complainant alleges it occurred — Whether the accused’s evidence is believed or raises reasonable doubt — Trial judge rejects accused’s and supporting witness’s evidence — W.D. framework applied — Conviction enteredEvidence — Reliability — Inconsistencies and intoxication — Whether memory gaps, intoxication, and passage of time undermine complainant reliability — Prior statement to police compared with trial testimony — Minor conflicts and omissions treated as immaterial — Complainant found credible and reliable despite delayed trial — Reasonable doubt rejected — Conviction enteredEvidence — Reasonable doubt — Defence testimony — Whether the accused’s testimony leaves the trier of fact in a reasonable doubt — Initial denial of knowing the night in issue followed by admissions of drinking and arguments — Contradictions and implausibility in accused’s evidence considered — Defence evidence found not to raise reasonable doubt — Conviction entered

• R. v W.C., 2026 NUCJ 22 (CanLII)

  September 18, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Mental disorder — Not criminally responsible — Criminal Code, s. 16 — Whether mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of knowing actions were wrong — Schizophrenia and psychosis linked to offence conduct — Burden on balance of probabilities applied — R. v. Oommen test applied — Not criminally responsible finding madeCriminal and statutory offences — Disposition — Review Board referral — Criminal Code, ss. 672.45(2), 672.54, 672.46(1) — Whether the court should make a disposition order without delay — Public safety as paramount concern — Insufficient information on medication dosage and compliance — Conditional discharge request declined — Matter referred to Review BoardEvidence — Expert evidence — Forensic psychiatry — Psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia — Whether expert opinion and collateral information supported s. 16 incapacity — Limited corroboration of pre-offence mental state considered — Continuing psychotic symptoms despite cessation of cannabis use assessed — Expert evidence relied upon — NCR finding supported — Not criminally responsible finding made

• Dr. Janet Haynes v The Government of Nunavut, 2026 NUCJ 21 (CanLII)

  August 24, 2026

  Procedure — Interlocutory motions — Jurisdiction — Motions judge inability to make determinations binding a trial judge — Whether acceptance “into evidence” of the 2016 Collective Agreement as governing agreement can be ordered — Final decision reserved to trial judge after viva voce evidence — Ashak v Ontario (Family Responsibility Office) cited — Relief declined for lack of jurisdictionLabour and employment — Collective agreements — Governing agreement dispute — Whether 2010 Collective Agreement or 2016 Collective Agreement governs during probationary employment — Conflicting positions on terms continuing during negotiations and “date of signing” coming into effect — Determination characterised as final and potentially determinative — Issue left for trial judge — No declaration madeProcedure — Documentary disclosure — Rule 219 — Whether defendant must disclose and certify completeness of the 2016 Collective Agreement available on a Government website — Defendant ordered to review link and advise if complete or provide missing documents — Specific search ordered for “meeting notes” on “Hire with Caution list” decision — Production obligations enforced — Orders grantedProcedure — Production format and redactions — Discovery — Whether redacted Excel worksheets improperly alter evidence and conceal where redactions occurred — Requirement that recipient be able to tell where redactions have taken place — R v Unnamed Person cited — Defendant ordered to convert all “Do Not Hire” and “Hire with Caution” lists in Excel format to PDF and apply relevant redactions — Order grantedProfessional responsibility — Litigation conduct — Bad faith — Whether evidential record shows “intentional duplicity, obstruction or obfuscation” by defendant or counsel warranting court sanction — High test for bad faith applied, distinction from unreasonable behaviour noted — No bad faith or unreasonable behaviour found on motion record — Sanctions refused, while costs for unprepared corporate representative awarded

• R. v Kownirk, 2026 NUCJ 20 (CanLII)

  August 20, 2026

  Statutory interpretation — Criminal Code, s. 85(1)(a) — Distinct conviction requirement — Whether a standalone plea to using a firearm during an indictable offence can be accepted without a distinct conviction for mischief under s. 430(1)(c) — Pringle, Andrade applied — New Indictment adding mischief filed — Further s. 606 inquiry conducted — Guilty pleas acceptedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Proportionality and totality — Fit sentence for uttering threats, mischief, using a firearm during an indictable offence, and breach of probation — Primacy of denunciation and deterrence under ss. 718, 718.1 — Consecutive and concurrent terms ordered — Presentence custody credit calculated — Global term fixed — Custodial sentence imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Effect of racial language in threats and extensive criminal record — Early guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitation efforts considered — Indigenous offender analysis under s. 718.2(e) — Degree of responsibility and gravity assessed — Moral culpability for firearm use characterized — Sentence adjusted accordingly — Sentence varied from Crown and Defence positionsCriminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Probation and prohibitions — Whether further probation appropriate given existing order — Life weapons prohibition under s. 109 with s. 113 exemption — Forfeiture of Osman phantom gun and knives under s. 491 — Victim surcharge waived — Statutory terms and abstention conditions imposed — Ancillary orders issued

• DCFS v K.L., 2026 NUCJ 16 (CanLII)

  August 7, 2026

  Child protection — Interim custody — Supervision order — Child placed in interim custody pending adjourned temporary custody motion — Best interest and safety considerations in urgent circumstances — Ongoing medical care in Ottawa, intoxication and threats, child’s stated wish to stay with foster parent — Interim placement maintained — Application dismissedProcedure — Jurisdiction — Same court review — Whether the judge has power to determine alleged loss of jurisdiction without sitting as an appellate judge — Prior orders made without the loss of jurisdiction issue being argued or considered — Review limited to determining loss of jurisdiction, not merits of prior orders — Application dismissedStatutory interpretation — Child and Family Services Act — Apprehension confirmation — Whether interim custody by a judge constitutes an “apprehension” engaging CFSA, ss. 24(1), 26(1), 26(3) — Plain reading of CFSA, ss. 10 and 11 limits apprehensions to child protection worker, peace officer, authorized person — Confirmation process not engaged — Application dismissedProcedure — Voidness — Want of jurisdiction — Whether alleged failure to comply with CFSA apprehension confirmation provisions voids subsequent temporary custody and adjournment orders ab initio — Director found not to have been required to file a declaration that the child is in need of protection after interim custody order — Jurisdiction not lost by Director or court — Application dismissed

• Alison Crowe v Legal Services Board of Nunavut, 2026 NUCJ 15 (CanLII)

  August 6, 2026

  Administrative law — Judicial review — Public decision making — Whether refusal to reinstate the Applicant to the criminal panel is amenable to judicial review — Wall and Khorsand applied to characterise decision — Air Canada factors considered, statutory mandate and public funding emphasised — Tarnow distinguished, panel appointments not akin to staff assignments — Decision subject to judicial reviewAdministrative law — Procedural fairness — Duty owed — Did the Legal Services Board owe the Applicant procedural fairness on reinstatement? — Public decision affecting rights, privileges and interests under Baker — Importance to livelihood and access to legal aid services in Nunavut weighed — Duty of procedural fairness owedAdministrative law — Procedural fairness — Content and breach — What level of fairness applied and was it breached? — Mid-range protections required, notice of concerns and chance to respond — Legitimate expectations and Nunavut context considered — Failure to disclose concerns before refusal — Breach of procedural fairness foundAdministrative law — Remedies — Judicial review relief — Appropriate remedy for breach of fairness — No order for reinstatement or damages absent bad faith — Matter remitted to Board to reconsider with Applicant’s responding materials considered — Costs to successful Applicant — Matter remitted for reconsideration

• R. v Issigaitok, 2026 NUCJ 19 (CanLII)

  August 4, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Sexual offences against children — Sexual interference, Criminal Code, s. 151 — Two guilty pleas and victim impact statement considered — Prior sexual offending history and breach of s. 161 condition treated as aggravating — Separation from society to protect children emphasised — Global penitentiary sentence imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing principles — Aggravating and mitigating factors — What is a fit global sentence for two convictions under Criminal Code, s. 151? — Mandatory minimum one year noted — Dangerous offender designation and ongoing risk assessed — Advanced age, health, remorse, and guilty pleas weighed — Crown and defence positions compared — Global sentence set at 4 and a half yearsIndigenous peoples — Gladue sentencing — Aboriginal offender circumstances — Criminal Code, s. 718.2(e) — Application of R. v. Gladue and R. v. Ipeelee on sentencing — Residential school attendance and reported sexual abuse treated as systemic or background factors — Whether those circumstances warrant a shorter sentence assessed — Mitigation recognised but denunciation and protection prioritised — Custodial sentence imposedEvidence — Sentencing hearing — Read-in facts — Stayed charge read in at sentencing hearing and admitted — Whether the second incident could serve as an aggravating factor — Read-in facts used to inform aggravation for the offence pleaded to — Video evidence of community hall incident considered — Aggravating factor accepted on sentenceProcedure — Sentencing orders — Credit and ancillary orders — Enhanced credit for 434 days in custody applied — Whether sentences should be consecutive and how to break down the global sentence — Mandatory lifetime orders under Criminal Code, ss. 110 and 161, Sex Offender Registry orders, and DNA order imposed — Victim fine surcharge waived — Sentence credit granted and orders made

• R. v Toonoo, 2026 NUCJ 14 (CanLII)

  June 11, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Manslaughter — Judge-alone trial — Whether the Crown proved manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt — Presumption of innocence and onus per Lifchus — Findings limited to proof of a brutally violent assault and subsequent death — Identity of assailant not established — Reasonable doubt persists — Not guilty of manslaughterEvidence — Circumstantial evidence — Villaroman standard — Whether circumstantial evidence excludes other reasonable alternatives — Consideration of other plausible theories based on logic and experience — Alternative perpetrator reasonably possible — Crown’s case did not meet proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Not guilty of manslaughterEvidence — Credibility and reliability — Intoxicated witnesses, inconsistent accounts — Whether uncorroborated account of S.T. should be given weight — Neighbour testimony accepted as reliable and preferred — Direct evidence of assault given little weight — Inconsistencies raise reasonable doubt — Not guilty of manslaughterCriminal and statutory offences — Manslaughter — Elements — Unlawful act, dangerousness and causation — Whether the accused committed the unlawful act causing death — Essential elements not all proved against the accused — Other reasonable possibilities not excluded — Crown failed to discharge onus — Not guilty of manslaughter

• R. v Kanayok, 2026 NUCJ 13 (CanLII)

  June 3, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual interference — Elements and proof — Whether the Crown proved touching for a sexual purpose beyond a reasonable doubt — Complainant under 16 established — Intentional touching outside clothing found — Application of W.(D.), J.H.S., Kruk — Proof beyond a reasonable doubt explained — Guilty of one count under s. 151(b) — Conviction enteredProcedure — Postponement — Adjournment of trial — Should the accused’s request for a postponement be granted — Repeated adjournments over years reviewed — Hearing impairment accommodated with court equipment — Jordan cited on unreasonable delay and public confidence — Further postponement found unreasonable — Trial proceeded — Postponement deniedEvidence — Assessment of credibility — Delayed disclosure and inconsistencies — How delayed disclosure and minor inconsistencies affect credibility of a complainant — Criminal Code, s. 275, and D.D., W.(R.), C.P., Takawgak applied — Core allegation consistent and reliable — No reasonable doubt arising — Complainant’s testimony acceptedProcedure — Amicus curiae — Fair trial — Whether appointing amicus curiae was warranted to ensure a fair trial for a self‑represented accused — Mandate to advise on procedure, challenge Crown’s case, cross‑examine, and make submissions — Assistance ensured fairness without acting as counsel — Trial proceeded with amicus — Appointment confirmed

• R. v A.A., 2026 NUCJ 10 (CanLII)

  April 30, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual assault — Elements of offence (s. 271) — Whether the Crown proved touching of a child for a sexual purpose — Consent unavailable under s. 150.1 — Evidence of hand under pull‑up diaper, back‑and‑forth caressing — W(D.) applied, accused’s account rejected — Touching for a sexual purpose established beyond a reasonable doubt — Conviction enteredCriminal and statutory offences — Sexual interference — Particularized manner of touching (s. 151) — Crown bound by particulars, Saunders applied — Circumstantial evidence assessed under Villaroman and Griffin — Erection noted but reasonable non‑guilty inference remained — Attempt under s. 24 not proved — Acquittal enteredEvidence — Credibility — Prior inconsistent statements and interpretation — Whether mother’s credibility and reliability supported findings — W(D.) framework and assessment in totality — Language limitations and lack of interpreter considered — Demonstrative aids clarified hand motions — Angle of sight and corroborative admissions by accused evaluated — Mother accepted as credible and reliable, accused not — Findings of credibility affirmed

• R. v Arreak, 2026 NUCJ 8 (CanLII)

  April 29, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Joint submission on sentence — Anthony-Cook public interest test — Whether proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute — Guidance from R. v. Anthony-Cook and R. v. Nakashook applied — Reasonable and informed public confidence assessed — Joint submission “markedly out of line” with circumstances — Joint submission rejectedEvidence — Victim impact statements — Criminal Code, s. 722 — How should the victim impact statement be considered in assessing a joint submission? — Actual harm and fear described by victim — Context for gravity and proportionality, not improper aggravation — Principles from R. v. Benjumea and R. v. Theriault endorsed — Statement considered as aggravating context — Use circumscribed, consideredCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Proportionality and objectives under s. 718 — What sentence is fit for intimate partner assault and repeated breaches? — Denunciation, deterrence, separation from society prioritized under ss. 718, 718.04, 718.2(a)(ii) — Repeated failures to comply weighed — Totality addressed — Global custodial term increased — Two-year sentence plus probation imposedIndigenous peoples — Sentencing — Gladue considerations — How do s. 718.2(e) and Gladue apply where the offender is Indigenous and the victim is an Indigenous intimate partner? — Systemic and background factors recognized — Tension with denunciation and deterrence for violence against Indigenous women noted, Cope referenced — Alternatives considered yet found insufficient — Fit sentence emphasising separation and denunciation imposed

• R. v Q.N., 2026 NUCJ 7 (CanLII)

  April 9, 2026

  Indigenous peoples — Sentencing — Application of s. 718.2(e) to Indigenous offender — Whether pregnancy and Indigenous status mitigate custodial term — Denunciation and deterrence given primacy under s. 718.04 — Parity principle and individualised sentencing considered in Nunavut — Serious sexual assault and harm acknowledged — Fit sentence balancing health considerations and denunciation — Six months’ custody imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional sentence orders — Whether a CSO is fit for s. 271 sexual assault — Forced penetrative assault requires sufficiently denunciatory sanction — Gardiner findings and party liability referenced — Crown proceeded summarily, maximum 18 months noted — House arrest and curfew insufficient to reflect gravity and deterrence — Conditional sentence refusedCriminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — SOIRA — Whether SOIRA presumption rebutted under s. 490.012(4) — Defence factors considered and presumption displaced — Mandatory order under s. 490.013(1) not applicable — DNA order under s. 487.051 issued and no‑contact under s. 743.2(1) — Victim fine surcharge waived for hardship — SOIRA order not imposed

• R. v McCarthy, 2026 NUCJ 6 (CanLII)

  April 9, 2026

  Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 10(b) — Mandatory alcohol screening — Interplay between Criminal Code s. 320.27(2) and immediacy of counsel — Does the immediacy requirement apply during a brief roadside ASD demand? — Suberu applied, Thomsen and Blysniuk discussed — Informational component delivered 31 seconds post‑arrest — Lawful traffic stop under Traffic Safety Act — No s. 10(b) breach — Application dismissedRights and freedoms — Charter s. 10(b) — Implementational duty — Immediacy of the call to counsel — Whether delay to facilitate access to legal advice was unreasonable — Practical impediments and privacy at roadside considered — Radwanski and Taylor principles applied — Childcare arrangements and transport to detachment — Private phone access at first reasonable opportunity — No breach foundEvidence — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Whether breath evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) as obtained in violation of s. 10(b) — Informational and implementational duties satisfied — Realistic opportunity to consult with counsel provided — No further investigative steps taken before access — ASD and breath samples admissible — Exclusion refusedCriminal and statutory offences — Impaired driving — Proof — Whether evidence establishes offences under s. 320.14(1)(a) and s. 320.14(1)(b) — ASD fail, odour of liquor, erratic driving, failure to stop, high breath readings — Breath samples of 180 mg and 190 mg within two hours — Kienapple precludes multiple convictions — Over 80 conviction entered, impaired conviction stayed

• R. v Crockatt, 2026 NUCJ 5 (CanLII)

  March 19, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Assault causing bodily harm (s. 267(b)) — What is a fit sentence given serious injuries and mitigating factors — Proportionality under s. 718 applied to gravity and responsibility — Nunavut range of three to six months considered — Self‑defence rejected — Higher range warranted due to fractures and pneumothorax — Six‑month sentence imposedCriminal and statutory offences — Consecutive sentences — Totality principle — Should the sentence be consecutive to an unrelated existing sentence — s. 718 and s. 718.2(c) considered — Distinct event and different victim require consecutivity — R. v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339, applied on tempered effect and overall harshness — Rehabilitation prospects weighed against denunciation and deterrence — Consecutive to existing sentenceCriminal and statutory offences — Sentencing principles — Rehabilitation and Indigenous status — How should rehabilitation and the offender’s Indigenous background inform sentence — Remorse, dated record, community support and counselling efforts recognised — Avoiding unduly long or harsh sentence to not discourage rehabilitation — Alcohol condition avoided to prevent setting up for failure — Alcohol prohibition declinedCriminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Probation and related orders — Are the probation conditions and ancillary orders appropriate — Probation for eighteen months with counselling and no contact — DNA order under s. 487.051(1) and weapons prohibition under s. 109 with s. 113 recommendation — Non‑communication while in custody under s. 743.21(1) — Surcharge waived for hardship — Probation and ancillary orders imposed

• R. v Tunnillie, 2026 NUCJ 4 (CanLII)

  March 4, 2026

  Criminal and statutory offences — Assault with a weapon, Assault causing bodily harm — Essential elements — Were ss. 267(a) and 267(b) proven beyond a reasonable doubt? — Medical and photographic evidence of cuts, burns, bruising, swollen eyes — Knife used during unlawful confinement under s. 279(2) — Elements of bodily harm exceeding trifling or transient established — Convictions on both counts initially enteredCriminal and statutory offences — Parties to offences — Criminal Code, s. 21(1) — Did the accused aid or abet assaults during confinement? — Legal indifference between principal and party confirmed per R. v. Thatcher — Active assistance by preventing escape and shaving eyebrow — Knowledge of LP’s assaults and intent to assist inferred — Party liability establishedEvidence — Credibility — R. v. W.(D.) — Did W.(D.) govern the outcome where both accused and complainant testified? — Differences about who committed specific acts immaterial given party liability — Guilty plea to unlawful confinement and admissions narrowed credibility issues — W.(D.) framework acknowledged but not determinative — Convictions supported without W.(D.) acquittal analysisProcedure — Multiple convictions — R. v. Kienapple — Should one of the assault convictions be stayed as arising from the same transaction? — Double conviction risk identified for s. 267(a) and s. 267(b) from same series of assaults — Court stayed the s. 267(a) count on Kienapple grounds — One conviction stayed