Adrienne Samberg

The applicant sought a stay of charges due to a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating total delay, subtracting defence delay (including prolonged non-attendance, inefficient re-tracing of procedural steps, time pursuing resolution, and defence counsel unavailability), and accounting for the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

Despite significant Crown efforts, the net delay still exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases by 22 days.

The court found the s. 11(b) right was breached and stayed the charges.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his estranged wife.

The defendant admitted striking his wife three to four times in the face, causing significant injuries including two black eyes and broken nasal bones.

The defendant raised a self-defence claim under Criminal Code section 34, arguing he acted to protect his three-year-old son from imminent harm.

The Crown conceded there was an air of reality to the defence.

The court found that the defendant subjectively believed his son's safety was at risk and that this belief was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, including the complainant's prior threat of self-harm, her volatile behavior that evening, and her deliberate destruction of his clothing.

The court concluded the force used was reasonable in the circumstances and acquitted the defendant.

P.B. was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference, two counts of sexual assault, and incest against his daughter.

The court considered the statutory purpose and principles of sentencing, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse.

Aggravating factors included a gross breach of parental trust, prolonged and escalating abuse, grooming, and the devastating impact on the victim, including an alleged pregnancy and abortion.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and credit for stringent bail conditions.

The court applied case law regarding sentencing ranges for such offences and the totality principle for consecutive sentences.

A total sentence of 8 years was imposed, reduced by 6 months for pre-sentence bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 7.5 years.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration for life, and a communication ban with the victim.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant did not dispute the breath test readings of 110 and 90 mgs. percent but argued that bolus alcohol consumption—the rapid ingestion of a large quantity of alcohol shortly before driving—created a reasonable doubt as to his blood-alcohol level at the time of driving.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's evidence regarding the timing and quantity of alcohol consumed was found to be manifestly unreliable and inconsistent.

The court rejected the bolus drinking defence and convicted the defendant.

The Crown applied under section 117.05 of the Criminal Code for an order forfeiting firearms and ammunition seized from the respondent and prohibiting him from possessing firearms.

The respondent, who had been apprehended under a Form 1 psychiatric assessment in September 2008 following concerning behaviour at a functional restoration program, opposed the application.

The court found that while the respondent's conduct on September 11, 2008 raised clinical concerns, the assessment must be made at the time of the hearing.

Considering the respondent's lack of criminal record, absence of violence, proper storage of weapons, and his family physician's opinion that he poses no danger to himself or others, the court declined the Crown's application for forfeiture and prohibition orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault with a weapon, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and flight from police arising from a road rage incident.

The Crown sought 18 months custody (12 months concurrent for the primary offences and 6 months consecutive for flight from police).

The defence sought 6 to 9 months.

The court conducted a Gardiner hearing to determine whether the accused intentionally struck the victim with his vehicle.

The court found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to strike the victim, though he recklessly drove toward the van and used it as a weapon to threaten.

The court imposed 9 months total custody (7 months concurrent for the primary offences and 2 months consecutive for flight from police), followed by 18 months probation, a 3-year driving prohibition, DNA order, and a section 109 weapons prohibition order.