Upcoming Supreme Court decision looms over fitness hearing for accused in Vancouver festival killings
Lo is accused of intentionally driving his car through a crowd at the Lapu Lapu Day Festival in Vancouver on April 26.
At the fitness hearing initially scheduled for two days, Judge Reg Harris has agreed evidence and witnesses can be heard, but he has delayed Crown and defence arguments pending a potentially relevant Supreme Court of Canada decision expected Friday.
'Any kind of Supreme Court of Canada decision will be binding on all lower courts and so I'm sure that our courts are very cognizant of the fact that this decision is coming out,' said Vancouver criminal lawyer Sarah Leamon, who is not involved in either case. 'And thinking about how it could apply to the cases that are currently before it.'
The case in question revolves around the homicide of Nyumai Mkurazhizha in Toronto in February of 2013.
Then-18-year-old Mohamed Bharwani was charged in her death and a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder.
A different jury at a prior hearing had determined he was fit to stand trial.
Bharwani appealed his conviction and lost – and now the case is before the country's highest court.
Friday's decision in Ottawa could have a direct impact on how lawyers for the Crown and defence approach Lo's case because it could set new precedent around the test for fitness to stand trial.
'I'm sure there's a lot of working going on behind the scenes to prepare for any outcome that's possible,' Leamon said.
An accused person's fitness to stand trial, which is currently at issue in Lo's case, has to do with their mental health at the time of the hearing.
It differs from a defence of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, commonly referred to as NCR.
'NCR is a completely different thing because we're looking backwards,' Leamon explained. 'We're looking at the person's mental state at the time of the alleged offence, trying to determine whether or not they had moral culpability based on that, then.'
If applicable, the issue of NCR comes up at trial, not before.
It's not yet clear when Harris will rule on Lo's fitness to stand trial.
If he is determined to be unfit, he will be remanded to a secure mental health facility under the supervision of the British Columbia Review Board.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Ottawa Citizen
13 hours ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Judge revokes bail for former lawyer James Bowie at sentencing hearing
Article content She was 'vulnerable and desperate for guidance, for protection, and for someone to help me hold onto my future,' Aubin said Monday. Article content 'Mr. Bowie used his status, his experience and my desperation to try to turn me into something I never was: an object he could manipulate and abuse for his own gratification.' Article content She said Bowie's suggestion that she exchange sexual favours for legal services made her feel 'frozen in horror… I felt worthless, I felt dirty, I felt dehumanized.' Article content Bowie was ultimately acquitted of the extortion charge related to the sex-for-legal services allegations. The initial assault charge against Aubin was quickly withdrawn after she hired a new lawyer. Article content The fear and threats didn't end there, Aubin said Monday, but 'multiplied' when she learned he was trying to acquire a gun. Article content 'Mr. Bowie didn't just abuse his position, he weaponized it,' Aubin said. 'He didn't just break the rules, he preyed on the vulnerable — the very people the justice system is meant to protect.' Article content Article content After Aubin complained about his conduct to the Law Society of Ontario — resulting in an investigation and eventual suspension from practising law — Bowie 'spiralled into a campaign of threats and harassment,' according to the Crown. Article content He pressured his friend to obtain a gun and tracked her with GPS devices when the woman broke off contact. Article content 'What you did to me — harassing, manipulating, attempting to extort and coerce me into committing a crime to help you — isn't just morally bankrupt, it's reprehensible,' the woman said in court Monday. Article content 'To do that under the guise of friendship is a betrayal so vicious it's hard to fit into proper professional words.' Article content The woman said she suffered panic attacks and post-traumatic stress after Bowie 'invaded every corner of my privacy.' Article content Watson said Bowie's conduct demonstrated 'a deeply troubling pattern of predation of vulnerable women' and said 'that trust was used as a weapon.' Article content Article content Bowie spoke to the Ottawa Citizen after he was found guilty in March and denied he had ever threatened anyone and claimed there were 'a number of fabrications' in the testimony of both witnesses. Article content 'I never threatened to kill anyone, ever, or have anyone help having anyone killed on my behalf, nor would I ever do so,' Bowie said in the interview. Article content Both the Crown and defence said they struggled to find any similar cases in Canadian law to establish a precedent for an appropriate sentence. Article content Bowie launched his own legal practice in 2017 and 'undertook something of an educational campaign,' Granger said, by 'live-tweeting' the various court cases related to the 2022 convoy protests. He gained a large social media following during those contentious bail hearings, and Granger said he often encouraged his followers to donate to local charities.
Global News
3 days ago
- Global News
World juniors case raises consent questions, but appeal unlikely: experts
An appeal by Crown prosecutors of Thursday's acquittal of five hockey players in the high-profile world juniors sexual assault case is unlikely, legal experts say, despite questions about whether consent was properly considered. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote were found not guilty of all charges after a weeks-long court case that centred on an alleged group sexual encounter in London, Ont., in 2018, in which the players had been accused of non-consensual sex. The Crown has 30 days to decide whether to appeal the decision to a higher court. In her ruling, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said she did not find the female complainant, known as E.M. in court documents due to standard a publication ban, 'credible or reliable.' She also dismissed the Crown's argument that E.M. had only consented out of fear. Story continues below advertisement 'This case, on its facts, does not raise issues of the reformulation of the legal concept of consent,' she said in her decision. While those statements and others made by Carroccia have been criticized, even legal experts who take issue with them say they may not be sufficient grounds for an appeal. 'I don't agree with the way that the judge came to her decision, but the decision is really well-reasoned,' said Daphne Gilbert, a legal professor who teaches courses on sexual assault law at the University of Ottawa. 'Appeal standards aren't just that you disagree with the result. You have to to show an error in law. And I don't see an error in law in the decision itself.' 3:56 Why the judge acquitted all 5 former Hockey Canada players in sex assault trial How the legal definition of consent factors in Melanie Randall, a Western University law professor whose research includes women's autonomy rights, said Canada's 'extremely progressive statutory definition of consent' in criminal law means 'we're not looking for the 'no,' we're looking for the 'yes.'' Story continues below advertisement In other words, she said, a judge or jury must take into account the female complainant's own mindset behind her decision to consent to a sexual act, and determine if that consent is truly voluntary, which can be a subjective assessment. The court heard during the trial that E.M., who testified she was drunk and not of clear mind, was in the washroom after she had consensual sex with McLeod on the night in question and came out to a group of men in the room allegedly invited by McLeod in a group chat. It was then that the Crown alleged several sexual acts took place without E.M.'s consent. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Defence lawyers suggested E.M. wasn't as drunk as she said she was, wanted a 'wild night' with the players, was 'egging' them on to have sex with her and accused her of having a 'clear agenda' during the court process, which was a judge-only trial. E.M. pushed back against those claims and at points outright rejected them, saying she was coaxed into staying in the room and was disrespected and taken advantage of by the group, who she said 'could see I was out of my mind.' 'E.M. was unwavering in telling the court that she did not consent, she did not want this, she did not provide her voluntary agreement,' Randall said. Story continues below advertisement 'She explained in excruciating detail why it was complex for her to cope in that situation where she felt threatened and unsure of how to respond, and I think used a lot of strategies of appeasement and acquiescence.' 2:36 World junior trial: Players found not guilty in high-profile sex assault case Although Randall agreed that the decision itself was legally sound, she believes Carroccia 'went much further than she needed to' in the analysis of consent by ruling E.M.'s consent was voluntary. 'The judge basically said one of two things: either she knows better than E.M. does what her own subjective state was, or E.M. is a liar,' Randall said. 'I think those are two very unfortunate and damaging consequences of this decision.' Gilbert said a possible appeal could be launched on the allegation the judge was biased against E.M., but called that 'kind of a nuclear option.' Story continues below advertisement 'Usually you wouldn't accuse a judge of bias from what they write in a judgment, because they're actually making explicit the reasons upon which they made their decision,' she added. 'Bias arguments are more likely to come from attitudes in the courtroom or things that were said in the courtroom that then you felt contributed to a wrongful verdict.' She suggested the judge could have done more to rein in the defence lawyers in their cross-examination of E.M., which the complainant's lawyer Karen Bellehumeur said after the verdict Thursday was at times 'insulting, unfair, mocking and disrespectful.' 'A fair trial is one where decisions are made based on the evidence and the law, not on stereotypes and assumptions, and where the trial process respects the security, equality and privacy rights of the victim, as well as the accused persons,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham told reporters outside court Thursday. Toronto lawyer Lorne Honickman told Global News the Crown will likely look 'very, very closely' at the issue of consent in the judge's ruling as it determines its next steps. 'If they believe that there may have been an error there in law, they will take this 30-day appeal period or review period to determine whether or not they want to appeal,' he said. 'Perhaps — and I underline 'perhaps' a hundred times — a higher court will be looking at the issues here and making further determinations.' Story continues below advertisement 2:26 Protestors gather as judge gives ruling in World Junior hockey sexual assault trial Scientific context missing in consent argument In her ruling, Carroccia noted the Crown did not present any scientific evidence or testimony she could consider that would support its claims that E.M.'s had only consented under fear or duress — something scientific experts were also puzzled by. 'I think the complexity of how the complainant responded isn't well understood,' Dr. Lori Haskell, a Toronto-based clinical psychologist who specializes in trauma and abuse and has served as an expert witness in previous trials, told Global News. Story continues below advertisement Haskell cited neuroscientific research that has shown how the brain can shut down parts of the prefrontal cortex that affect decision-making, logic and reasoning in stressful or threatening scenarios. 'They're now in survival brain,' she said of people during situations of real or perceived threats. 'It's easy when you're not in that situation to assume you could (fight or run away), but I think we need to look at, what are similar situations? How do people respond?' She continued: 'I mean, how do men respond to hazing on sports teams? We know young men in universities have been quite traumatized with things done to them.' Without that further context, experts like Gilbert and Randall said the judge's ruling appeared to accept some of the most widely-held myths regarding sexual assault, including arguments made by the defence lawyers that E.M. had 'created a lie' out of regret and embarrassment. 'Although the slogan, 'Believe the victim,' has become popularized as of late, it has no place in a criminal trial,' Carroccia wrote at one point in her decision. 'To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing the burden on him to prove his innocence.' Story continues below advertisement 0:49 All 5 former World Junior players found not guilty in high-profile sex assault trial London, Ont., defence lawyer Phillip Millar told Global News he felt 'relief' to see that sentiment expressed in the decision. 'I was worried our judicial system has (been) going too far in terms of buying into the 'believe all victims' (idea) before the person has been determined to be a victim by the justice system,' he said. 'What was done is the law of consent was properly applied. You can't redefine consent because it's inconvenient to you, or because you want to retroactively retract it. Just because you're not proud of what you did on a day doesn't give you the ability to redefine what is consent.' Randall and Gilbert noted that acquittals mean the threshold of proving something beyond a reasonable doubt was not met by the Crown, but how Canadians and those in the public realm view the details laid out during the court process may be another question. Story continues below advertisement 'I don't think an appeal is the only strategy here,' Gilbert said. 'I think there's lots of things we can respond to this judgment with that are, you know, powerful things to respond with that aren't necessarily appealing.'
Vancouver Sun
3 days ago
- Vancouver Sun
Former City of Ottawa lawyer pleads guilty to vandalizing National Holocaust Monument
OTTAWA — A former City of Ottawa lawyer has pleaded guilty after defacing Canada's National Holocaust Monument. Iain Aspenlieder, 46, was charged last month with mischief to a war memorial, mischief exceeding $5,000 and harassment by threatening conduct. He appeared in court Friday. Aspenlieder's lawyer Michael Spratt said his client pleaded guilty to one count of mischief for defacing the Holocaust memorial and that the Crown has consented to his release on bail. Spratt said a sentencing hearing is expected sometime in the fall, with the date still to be determined. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The lawyer said it's expected that the other charges will be withdrawn at the request of the Crown at the conclusion of the sentencing process. On June 9, the words 'FEED ME' were found scrawled in red paint across the face of the monument in downtown Ottawa. Red paint was also found splashed on other portions of the structure. According to the agreed statement of facts, Aspenlieder was seen on surveillance recordings arriving at the monument just before 3 a.m. on a bicycle. He was carrying red bags and throwing paint on the monument. He left paint cans at the monument, which were collected as evidence. The statement says that when Aspenlieder was arrested at his home on June 27, he was wearing a shirt that had red paint on it and told police: 'I am wearing incriminating evidence.' The next day, Aspenlieder attended a bail hearing while participating in a hunger strike. Prime Minister Mark Carney said in June that he was 'appalled' by the vandalism and that the monument is a space for mourning and remembrance. Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe said on social media last month that the person charged was a city employee on leave and he asked city officials to take 'all appropriate action.' Interim city solicitor Stuart Huxley said in an email that the individual is no longer employed by the city. The Ontario Sunshine List says Aspenlieder was a legal counsel for the City of Ottawa making over $148,000 a year. The Law Society of Ontario website says Aspenlieder is 'suspended administratively.' Spratt said in an email that Aspenlieder has 'accepted responsibility for his actions.' 'When he is sentenced later this year, the court will hear that his conduct, while unlawful, was driven by a profound sense of compassion and moral urgency — not by hatred or prejudice,' Spratt said. 'He looks forward to demonstrating that his motivation was rooted in a desire to call attention to human suffering, not to cause harm or spread intolerance.' Spratt said the Crown likely will seek a penitentiary sentence. He said the defence likely will suggest that the time Aspenlieder spent in custody is 'punishment enough for his actions.' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
