Adam S. J. Campbell

The defendant, Jesse Bleck, was found guilty by a jury of failing to stop at an accident causing bodily harm and driving while prohibited.

The victim sustained catastrophic injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the defendant's prior driving record and defiance of court orders, and mitigating factors, such as his age, role as a primary caregiver, and pre-trial detention conditions.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the high moral blameworthiness and the legislative intent for harsher penalties for such offenses.

A global sentence of 54 months (4.5 years) imprisonment was imposed, along with driving prohibitions and other ancillary orders.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of impaired driving and exceeding the breathalyzer limit.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent, finding that impairment was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that breath samples were not taken within the two-hour period mandated by the Criminal Code, as the exact time of the accident could not be established.

The Crown argued the trial judge failed to consider witness evidence of impairment, erred in not convicting on the included offence of care and control, and failed to apply the presumption of identity.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, upholding the trial judge's findings on witness credibility, rejecting the attempt to change the particulars of the offence to a later time of care and control, and affirming the proper application of reasonable doubt arising from a lack of evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after driving at extreme speed, consuming alcohol, and texting, resulting in a fatal collision with a motorcycle.

The court considered mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea, genuine remorse, youth, and lack of prior record, alongside aggravating factors such as the "trifecta" of dangerous driving (drinking, excessive speed, distracted driving) and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Emphasizing general deterrence as the predominant sentencing objective, the court analogized distracted driving causing death to impaired driving causing death, highlighting the voluntary nature of the risks involved.

The accused was sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment, a 69-month driving prohibition, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The applicant, Anthony Edward Ringel, brought two pretrial applications: one challenging the constitutionality of section 579(2) of the Criminal Code, which deals with stays of proceedings, and another seeking to exclude inculpatory statements made to undercover officers in 2013 on the basis of "tainting" by previously excluded 2004 confessions.

The court dismissed both applications.

It found section 579(2) of the Criminal Code to be constitutional, reaffirming that a stay of proceedings does not equate to an acquittal and does not inherently violate Charter rights under sections 7, 11(b), or 11(h).

Regarding the tainting application, the court found no sufficient temporal, contextual, or strong causal connection between the 2004 excluded confessions and the 2013 admissions to undercover officers, thus ruling the 2013 statements admissible.