Adrian Williams Touchette

This decision concerns the sentencing of Madison Sprayson following a fatal collision on Highway 407 in Pickering, Ontario, resulting in one death and serious injuries to others.

Sprayson was convicted of careless driving causing death and bodily harm under section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 18 months, a 5-year driving prohibition, 24 months probation, and community service, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection due to Sprayson's repeated driving infractions and denial of responsibility.

The Defence argued for a non-custodial sentence, highlighting Sprayson's personal circumstances, business responsibilities, and lack of criminal record.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence, a 4-year driving prohibition, and 24 months probation with statutory conditions, rejecting community service due to lack of consent.

The decision carefully balances principles of parity, specific and general deterrence, and proportionality, while acknowledging the profound impact on victims and the offender's potential for rehabilitation.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on charges of careless driving causing death and bodily harm.

The appeal focused on errors in the trial judge's application of the principled approach to hearsay admissibility, specifically regarding threshold reliability and the consideration of corroborative evidence.

The Crown also argued the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for not applying a relaxed standard of admissibility for exculpatory evidence and improperly used *voir dire* evidence to assess witness credibility.

The court found multiple legal errors, including the misapplication of hearsay rules and the failure to provide sufficient reasons, warranting a new trial.

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing death and bodily harm after her vehicle lost control on Highway 407, crossed the median, and collided with an oncoming vehicle.

The Crown alleged the defendant drove without due care and attention.

The defence argued the accident was caused by the front-seat passenger abruptly pulling the steering wheel during an argument, supported by hearsay statements the passenger made to a third party admitting he 'pulled the wheel'.

The court found the Crown failed to prove careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt, as the passenger interference theory raised a reasonable doubt and no other evidence of erratic driving or mechanical failure was established.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing bodily harm and death after a fatal motor vehicle accident.

During the trial, the defence sought to introduce hearsay statements made by a passenger to an acquaintance, in which the passenger admitted to pulling the steering wheel and causing the accident.

The Crown opposed the admission of the statements.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay and found that the statements met the threshold for necessity and reliability.

The court ruled the hearsay statements admissible for the truth of their contents.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought a determination on the primary residence and parenting time for their four-year-old child, who was about to commence school.

The parties lived four hours apart, making their previous week-about arrangement unworkable.

The court considered the factors under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, including the child's strong bonds with half-siblings in both households.

The court found that the father's plan better maintained the child's relationships with all siblings and provided more consistent daily care.

Primary residence was awarded to the father, with the mother receiving alternating weekends, holidays, and week-about parenting time during the summer.

The appellant appealed the removal of 11 dogs, one kitten, and one rabbit from her premises by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the statements of account for their care.

The animals were removed under a warrant after a veterinarian assessed them as being in distress due to poor living conditions, malnutrition, and physical abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found the testimony of the inspectors and veterinarians credible and concluded the animals were in distress at the time of removal.

The Board confirmed the removal, upheld the statements of account, and declined to order the return of the animals.