Angela L. McLeod

The accused was charged with arson following the destruction of the Alliston Feed Mill by fire in August 2016.

The Crown's theory was that the accused started the fire to send a message to his ex-girlfriend, who was staying at an adjacent residence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's prior conduct of burning the ex-girlfriend's belongings, his presence near the mill at the time of the fire, and alleged knowledge that the ex-girlfriend would be at the adjacent residence.

At the preliminary inquiry, the justice found that the Crown failed to establish the essential facts necessary to support the inference of guilt, particularly that the accused knew the ex-girlfriend would be staying at the adjacent residence.

The accused was discharged and not committed to trial.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm to his former partner following an acrimonious breakup and child custody dispute.

The court applied the objective reasonable person test for the actus reus and found the words uttered clearly constituted a threat.

The court also found the subjective mens rea was met, as the accused intended his words to intimidate the complainant and be taken seriously.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellants were charged with selling tobacco to a person under 19 years of age contrary to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Both entered guilty pleas at their first appearance without legal representation.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the validity of their guilty pleas, arguing that the plea inquiry was inadequate, that language barriers compromised their understanding, and that the court failed to inform them of their right to trial or to assist them in obtaining representation.

The court found that the guilty pleas should be quashed because the defendant did not accept the facts underpinning the conviction, and because the plea inquiry was insufficiently detailed given the unsophisticated nature of provincial offences court participants.

The accused was tried on a single count of operating a motor vehicle with blood/alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown called two witnesses: a security guard and the arresting officer who was also a qualified breath technician.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 9 and 10(b), seeking remedies under section 24(2).

The court found that the accused was psychologically detained at her residential door without being advised of her rights to counsel, and that she was arbitrarily detained in a locked cell for 89 minutes after being determined releasable.

The court excluded the breath evidence due to the serious Charter breaches and the accused was acquitted.

A young person was tried on three counts: sexual assault and two counts of breaching probation conditions.

The complainant, a 17-year-old female, testified that she was sexually assaulted by the accused after consuming a significant quantity of alcohol at a party.

The accused was one of only two males present when the alleged assault occurred.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and her evidence reliable despite her extreme intoxication and poor lighting conditions in the bedroom.

The complainant's immediate disclosure to her boyfriend and her consistent account throughout the investigation and trial were found to be corroborating factors.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

A concerned citizen reported erratic driving, and the accused was arrested after failing a screening device test.

The Crown's case on the over 80 charge failed because the first breath sample was not taken as soon as practicable; the officer delayed the testing by 24 minutes to facilitate the accused's contact with duty counsel despite the accused's express declination of that right.

The impaired operation charge succeeded based on the constellation of observations by both the citizen witness and the arresting officer, establishing impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.