3 total
Offender sentenced to 16 years for criminal negligence causing death after fatal high-speed police pursuit.
Sentencing of two offenders following a fatal collision.
The first offender, Gregory, was convicted of possessing a stolen vehicle obtained through an insurance fraud scheme and was sentenced to 4 months' incarceration.
The second offender, Gamble, drove the stolen vehicle while disqualified, fled from police at high speeds, ran a red light, and caused a collision that killed an 18-year-old driver.
Gamble then fled the scene.
Given his extensive criminal record of 80 convictions, lack of remorse, and the extreme recklessness of his actions, Gamble was sentenced to a total of 16 years' incarceration (13 years net) and a 15-year driving prohibition.
Charter Accused acquitted
Richard Scott Gamble and David Paul Gregory were charged with multiple criminal offences, including possession of stolen property.
Gamble was additionally charged with criminal negligence causing death, driving while disqualified, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.
The trial proceeded by judge alone.
The court meticulously reviewed witness testimony, forensic evidence (DNA from airbag, hair, blood), and post-offence conduct to determine the driver of a fleeing vehicle involved in a fatal collision.
The court found Gamble to be the driver, rejecting his claim of being a passenger and the existence of a third driver.
Gamble was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death, driving while disqualified, and failing to stop.
Gregory was found guilty of possession of stolen property.
Gamble was found not guilty of possession of stolen property due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of the "burn and earn" scheme.
Board allows cross-examination question about witness's vacation companion to test credibility, balancing privacy concerns.
During a hearing for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, a dispute arose over a question posed during cross-examination.
Union counsel asked a witness, the employer's housekeeping supervisor, whether she went on vacation with the owner of the nursing home.
Employer counsel objected on the grounds of witness privacy.
The Board ruled that the question was permissible to test the credibility of the witness's evidence, as both the owner and the supervisor had testified they went their separate ways and did not discuss the dismissed employee.
However, the Board limited the cross-examination, ruling that union counsel must accept the witness's answer and could not pursue the issue further.
The Board also denied the employer's request for an adjournment to seek judicial review, directing counsel to move to another area of cross-examination for the remainder of the day.
