Annie Simitsis

Brenda Boutrous pleaded guilty to Dangerous Operation Causing Death after a collision where she was speeding at 151 km/hr, striking another vehicle and causing the death of Dennis Malone.

The court considered the victim's U-turn as a factual contributor but found Boutrous's excessive speed to be the significant cause.

The sentencing decision balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, considering Boutrous's youth, guilty plea, lack of prior record, and profound remorse.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation and a driving prohibition.

This is a sentencing decision for an accused who pleaded guilty to multiple criminal offences, including two counts of assault causing bodily harm by strangulation, uttering a threat to cause death, and breach of a probation order.

The offences involved brutal domestic violence against an intimate partner, with a history of unreported abuse and the accused's extensive criminal record.

The court considered a joint submission for a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment, followed by a three-year probation order, a DNA order, and a 20-year weapons prohibition.

A key issue was the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit, including additional credit for time served during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court accepted the joint submission, granting 1.5:1 credit for 161 days (242 days) plus an additional 0.25:1 COVID credit (40 days), totaling 282 days, resulting in a further 15 months of incarceration.

In a sexual assault trial, the Crown applied to admit two out-of-court statements by the complainant (A.M.) as hearsay evidence: a spontaneous utterance to a life skills coach and a videotaped statement to police.

The defence conceded necessity but disputed reliability.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, finding both substantive and procedural reliability for the videotaped statement, particularly due to DNA evidence and corroborating video/audio.

The spontaneous utterance was admitted under the res gestae exception, as it was made under the stress of a startling event (learning video evidence was deficient).

Both statements were admitted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident contrary to section 252(1.1) of the Criminal Code and public mischief contrary to section 140(1)(c).

The defendant struck and killed a pedestrian on November 30, 2018, and fled the scene without rendering assistance.

He subsequently fabricated an elaborate false narrative to police, claiming his vehicle had been stolen, and sustained these lies for months while police expended significant resources investigating.

The court imposed consecutive sentences of 6 months less a day on the failure to remain conviction and 3 months on the public mischief conviction, along with probation, community service, a DNA order, and a driving prohibition.

The court carefully considered collateral immigration consequences in arriving at the sentence.

A trial judge declared a mistrial during jury selection for a sexual assault and sexual interference case.

A prospective juror, during a *Parks* challenge, revealed a personal history of sexual assault and stated she could not be impartial.

Despite the triers finding her acceptable and Crown counsel being content, the judge intervened and deferred the juror.

Concerned about potential reversible error in the jury selection process, particularly regarding the court's jurisdiction to excuse the juror at that stage and the impact on already seated jurors, the judge invited submissions on a mistrial.

Defence counsel requested a mistrial, citing the risk to a fair trial.

The judge granted the mistrial, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial and avoiding a successful appeal based on procedural errors in jury selection.

A personal support worker employed at a long-term care facility was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after punching a 97-year-old resident in his care, causing severe bruising.

The offender, a 26-year-old first-time offender with no prior criminal record, was sentenced following a summary conviction trial.

The Crown sought four to six months imprisonment plus probation, while the defence sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of six months to be served in the community, balancing the objectives of denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation of a youthful first offender.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that a peace officer made a valid demand for a breath sample at a RIDE check, which the defendant refused.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish a valid demand because the officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the defendant had alcohol in her body.

The officer's evidence that he smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath was not credible, particularly given conflicting testimony about when he detected the odour, the defendant's clear denial of drinking, and the early morning hour (6:41 AM on a Sunday).

The court acquitted the defendant.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a collision in a parking lot.

The Crown brought a Charter application regarding the timing of the right to counsel notification.

The court found a technical breach of section 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding the breach was minor and the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests was minimal.

The court found the first breath sample was taken within the required two-hour period and that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol to at least a slight degree.

The accused was convicted on both counts, with the over 80 count conditionally stayed.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration (over 80 mgs per 100 mls of blood).

The Crown relied on civilian witness testimony, police evidence, and an agreed statement of fact.

The court acquitted the accused of dangerous operation due to reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the driver observed by the civilian witness, as the passenger's evidence contradicted the Crown's theory of the route taken.

The court convicted the accused of the over 80 charge, finding that the police complied with the statutory requirement that breath sample testing be carried out "as soon as practicable" despite language barriers requiring interpretation assistance.

The Crown charged the defendant with impaired driving and "Over 80" following a single-vehicle accident in a shopping plaza parking lot.

The central issue was whether the defendant or his partner was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

An independent eyewitness testified that she observed the defendant exit from the driver's side door and subsequently saw both occupants switch seats before police arrived.

The defendant's partner testified that she had been driving.

The court found the eyewitness credible and reliable, rejecting the partner's account as far-fetched and incredible.

The defendant was convicted as charged.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved a single forceful punch delivered without warning to the victim's face outside a bar, resulting in a fractured jaw in two places requiring surgery, a minor concussion, and significant physical, emotional, and financial harm.

The victim suffered two months with his jaw wired shut, was unable to speak or eat solid foods, lost employment, and required ongoing medical and dental treatment.

The accused was 19 years old at the time of the offence, had no prior criminal record, and demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation efforts post-arrest.

The court balanced aggravating factors (premeditated nature of the assault, severity of injuries) against mitigating factors (youth, clean record, genuine remorse, rehabilitation efforts) in determining an appropriate sentence.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction decision quashing an information charging the accused with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The trial judge had held that the information was a nullity due to deficiencies in the confirmation process under s. 508 of the Criminal Code.

Relying on the Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Ladouceur, the appeal court held that non-compliance with the confirmation process does not invalidate a properly laid information but only affects jurisdiction over the person.

Because the accused attended court on multiple occasions, any loss of jurisdiction over the person was cured.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice to set a trial date.