Andrew David Midwood

The defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault after choking his female friend in response to her throwing a dresser drawer down the stairs, which struck him on the head.

Both parties were intoxicated.

The Crown sought a 9-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence, citing four years of strict bail conditions and the victim's provocation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation, noting the provocation and the defendant's remorse, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his blood following a random sobriety check.

The defence challenged the arrest on grounds of Charter violations: alleged lack of reasonable grounds for arrest under s. 8, and alleged failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice under s. 10(b).

The Crown sought to admit breath sample analysis results.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest existed but found a breach of s. 10(b) rights when police failed to leave voicemail messages for chosen counsel and misrepresented the availability of those lawyers.

Under s. 24(2), the court admitted the breath sample evidence as the societal interest in adjudication on the merits outweighed the seriousness of the Charter breach.

The accused was convicted of the over-limit charge but acquitted of impaired driving due to reasonable doubt regarding functional impairment.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle under s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He had been found asleep in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle with the engine running while waiting for a designated driver.

The appeal court held the trial judge misapplied the legal test for care or control by treating the accused’s decision to sleep while waiting as undermining his safety plan.

Applying the principles in R. v. Boudreault and related authorities, the court found there was insufficient evidence of a realistic risk that the accused would set the vehicle in motion or change his intention to drive.

The trial judge’s reasoning improperly criminalized the use of the vehicle for a manifestly innocent purpose.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges involving two complainants who were his step-daughters.

The court reviewed the governing principles on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the W.(D.) framework, delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases, the assessment of evidence concerning childhood events, and the distinction between sincerity and reliability.

Although the court found the complainants and supporting witnesses sincere, it concluded that extensive inconsistencies, the frailties of memory concerning distant events, and collective post-disclosure discussions rendered the evidence unreliable.

Applying the second branch of W.(D.), the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.