Alexandra Catherine Berg

The defendant pleaded guilty to failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving a death, contrary to section 320.16(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the defendant being a suspended driver, and being on probation at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included the early guilty plea, genuine remorse, no evidence of improper driving or impairment, and strong family support due to parental health issues.

The Crown sought a 6-month jail sentence and a 2-year driving prohibition, while the defence sought 90 days intermittent and an 18-month prohibition.

The court imposed a 90-day jail sentence (in addition to 8 days pre-sentence custody credit) and an 18-month driving prohibition, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation while acknowledging the absence of dangerous or impaired driving.

Saad Fouad was found guilty of robbery.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the premeditated nature of the robbery and the fear induced in the victims, and mitigating factors, including Fouad's youth, first-time offender status at the time of the offence, and expressed remorse.

Despite subsequent convictions, the court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, ultimately imposing a six-month imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

Saad Fouad was charged with robbery and using an imitation firearm.

The court found him guilty of robbery, determining that an implied threat of violence existed based on the totality of circumstances, including leading the victim to a dark, secluded area where a second individual brandished an object perceived as a gun.

However, he was found not guilty of using an imitation firearm because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the individual who brandished the object, as witness testimony indicated it was the second male, not Fouad.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg%.

The case was defended solely on Charter grounds, specifically alleging breaches of the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown alleged the defendant was found driving in a CN railroad yard at approximately 2:50 am and displayed signs of impairment.

The defendant requested counsel of choice but police were unable to reach the lawyer after leaving messages.

The court found no Charter breach and admitted the breath test results, finding the defendant guilty on both charges.

The accused was convicted of historical sexual assault against his stepson (A.B.) and assault against his biological son (C.D.).

The stepson was approximately 14 years old when he was anally penetrated by the accused while asleep in his own bedroom.

The biological son was approximately six years old when the accused forcefully removed his shirt in a closed washroom during a party.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years in penitentiary for the sexual assault and 30 days concurrent for the assault, rejecting the defence position for a conditional sentence and accepting the Crown's position that denunciation and deterrence must take precedence.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle with over 80 ml of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

A police officer responded to a radio call about a possibly impaired driver and found the accused sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle.

The accused failed a breath screening device and subsequently provided breath samples exceeding the legal limit.

The central issue was whether the accused occupied the driver's seat, which would engage the statutory presumption of care or control.

The court found the accused's evidence unreliable and internally inconsistent, while accepting the officer's credible testimony.

The court concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was seated in the driver's seat, engaged the presumption, and the accused failed to rebut it on a balance of probabilities.

Guilty verdict entered.

The defendant brought an application to stay proceedings for violation of his s.11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The defendant was arrested on September 8, 2014, charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The trial was originally scheduled for July 13-15, 2016, but was adjourned due to defence counsel illness, with an express s.11(b) waiver.

A new trial date was set for September 26-27, 2017.

The court found that the net delay under the Jordan framework was 585 days (approximately 19.2 months), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The court determined that the Crown failed to justify the delay under the transitional exceptional circumstance, particularly due to significant Crown delay caused by a missing Crown file for over four months.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The defendant was charged with exceeding 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (exceed 80) following a random sobriety checkpoint conducted by police at a strip mall parking lot.

The defendant advanced two Charter arguments: (1) arbitrary detention and unlawful search based on targeting a specific location, and (2) violation of the right to counsel due to failure to provide advice in Portuguese regarding the right to consult private counsel.

The court rejected both arguments and found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender was sentenced following convictions on two counts of sexual assault committed against a co-resident in a rooming house.

The assaults involved forced vaginal intercourse on two occasions in the early morning hours and caused ongoing psychological harm to the victim, including depression and post‑traumatic stress symptoms.

The court considered aggravating factors including the repeated assaults, the victim’s vulnerability in her own residence, and the continuing emotional trauma, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender’s youth, family responsibilities, and employment.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a custodial sentence exceeding two years to permit a probation order with rehabilitative conditions.

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling, long‑term sex offender registration, and a weapons prohibition.