Alison Elizabeth Craig

The applicant pleaded guilty to impaired driving and driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

At sentencing, the applicant sought a declaration that Ontario's failure to proclaim section 255(5) of the Criminal Code—which would allow for a curative discharge for those in need of treatment for alcohol or drug addiction—violated sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant argued that the unavailability of this provision in Ontario, while available in other provinces and territories, constituted discrimination and cruel and unusual punishment.

The court dismissed all constitutional challenges, finding itself bound by prior appellate authority and determining that the applicant's arguments amounted to indirect attacks on mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

The applicant, convicted of sixteen counts of fraud, brought an application for a mistrial alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in her representation.

The central issue was whether the applicant or his counsel made the decision that he would not testify in his own defence.

The court found that trial counsel made the decision contrary to the applicant's express wishes and without adequately informing him that the decision to testify was ultimately his to make.

The court declared a mistrial, finding that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempted robbery of a bank.

At age 55, with a criminal record including twelve prior bank robbery convictions and 32 years of cumulative sentences, the accused attempted to rob a Bank of Montreal branch on August 23, 2013.

The attempt was abandoned when the teller hesitated, and the accused left without obtaining any money.

The accused had been in custody for 11.5 months pre-trial.

The Crown sought 8-10 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 18 months plus probation.

The court imposed one year imprisonment followed by three years probation, considering the low-end nature of the attempted robbery, the accused's genuine remorse, guilty plea, and evidence of rehabilitation efforts during a three-year period of release prior to the offence, balanced against the serious criminal record and need for deterrence.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

The charges involved two counts of assault arising from incidents on October 3 and October 13, 2012.

The trial was scheduled for August 2, 2013, but was adjourned when the complainant failed to appear despite being subpoenaed.

A second trial date was set for December 4, 2013.

The total delay from the date of the alleged offences to the second trial date was 13¾ months.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the delay was substantial, it was not unreasonable when all factors were considered holistically.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for sexual assault involving alleged sexual touching of a 13‑year‑old complainant.

The trial judge had accepted the complainant’s evidence and rejected the accused’s testimony, relying heavily on inferences that the accused had consumed significant alcohol which undermined his reliability.

On appeal, the court held that these inferences were unsupported by the evidence and amounted to speculative reasoning affecting the credibility assessment.

Because the trial judge relied on those unsupported conclusions in rejecting the accused’s denial, the verdict could not stand.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.