Canada Case Law

R. v. K.J.K.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The presumption in s.348(2) was rebutted by accepted evidence that the accused had a non‑indictable purpose (to see C.D. and obtain a phone), but the Crown nevertheless proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of entry the accused intended to interfere with C.D.'s lawful use or enjoyment of the dwelling (mischief) and that he committed an assault by making a threatening gesture with a screwdriver while within present ability to apply force; accordingly the accused was convicted on both counts.

Source excerpt

• Breaking and entering
• Assault
• Mischief
• Possession of break‑in instruments
• Credibility assessment
• Section 348(2) presumption

Read case analysis

R. v. Bilusack

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Mr. Bilusack’s appeal, upholding convictions for mischief and breaching an undertaking, and rejecting his bias claim.

• Mischief s.430(4)
• Breach of undertaking s.145(4)(a)
• Theft s.334(b)
• Standard of review - palpable and overriding error
• Judicial bias
• Interpretation of undertakings

Read case analysis

R. v. Calderon

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Mr. Calderon guilty of arson, breaking and entering, and mischief after a Home Hardware fire, rejecting his intoxication defence on the occupied-property count.

• Arson s.433(a)
• Arson s.434
• Mischief s.430(3)
• Breaking and entering s.348(1)(b)
• Intoxication defence
• Mens rea

Read case analysis

R. v. Peti

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Because the sentencing judge ultimately imposed the exact sentence proposed by the Crown and gave appropriate presentence custody credit, and reasonably weighed the relevant factors including the appellant's record and the seriousness of the assault, there was no error in principle and the sentence of 18 months is fit and must be upheld.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Assault with a weapon
• Mischief
• Breach of undertaking
• Presentence custody credit
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

R. v. Gregg Keeney

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The court convicted because (1) verified expert friction-ridge analysis identified the unknown left-hand prints and a palm on the exterior window as deposited by Gregg Mitchell Keeney; (2) surveillance video fixed the timing and shows the prints being applied while the window was being forced open in immediate temporal connection with the entry; and (3) circumstantial evidence (conduct at scene, handling and transfer of items, knowledge from prior employment, coordinated actions of three individuals) eliminated reasonable innocent inferences so that guilt as a party to break and enter, theft…

Source excerpt

• Break and enter
• Theft
• Mischief
• Identification
• Fingerprint analysis
• Circumstantial evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Chapman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Mr. Chapman guilty of break and enter. It held his evidence did not rebut the presumption of intent and rejected necessity.

• Breaking and entering
• Mischief
• Theft
• Presumption of intent (s.348(2)(a))
• Defence of necessity
• Mens rea

Read case analysis

R. v. Conn

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentencing decision for assault with a weapon and mischief; the court imposed 30 months on Count 1 and 6 months concurrent on Count 5, with enhanced credit and probation.

• Assault with a weapon (s.267(a))
• Mischief to property (s.430)
• Pre-sentence custody credit
• Concurrent vs consecutive sentencing
• Gladue considerations
• Weapons prohibition (s.109)

Read case analysis

R. v. Soranno

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing analysis but varied the sentence, replacing 30-day intermittent jail terms with 120-day conditional sentence orders plus probation.

• Mischief
• Breaking and entering
• Allocution
• Aggravating factors
• Conditional sentence
• General and specific deterrence

Read case analysis

R. v. Morine

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the conviction appeal in part, applying Kienapple to set aside the convictions on Counts 1 and 6 and enter conditional stays.

• Multiple convictions
• Kienapple principle
• Weapons offences
• Mischief
• Conditional stay
• Conviction appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Chow

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed Mr. Chow’s sentence appeal, holding that the judge could consider road-rage prevalence from submissions and that the sentence was fit.

• Assault with a weapon
• Mischief
• Conditional discharge
• General deterrence
• Judicial notice
• Prevalence of crime

Read case analysis