Arvin Ross

The court granted the Crown's application under s. 475 of the Criminal Code, found the accused had absconded, and held it was necessary in the interests of justice to proceed with sentencing in absentia.

The court relied on the prolonged failure to appear, unsuccessful efforts to locate the accused, victim-impact timing concerns, and the public interest in timely sentencing for serious violence.

The court considered whether a justice of the peace erred by refusing to order an in-person trial for a defendant facing Highway Traffic Act charges, instead leaving the decision to the prosecution.

The court found that while the justice of the peace erred in law by not applying the correct statutory test, this was not a jurisdictional error and certiorari was not available.

The application was dismissed.

This decision addresses deficiencies in the defence final submissions in a criminal trial for Aggravated Assault.

The court found multiple errors in the defence's case citations, including fictitious cases, unrelated civil cases, and incorrect pinpoint references.

The judge ordered the defence counsel to personally prepare a new set of submissions with strict guidelines to ensure accuracy, proper numbering, and prohibition on the use of generative AI for legal research.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of reliable and precise legal submissions even when the case primarily turns on factual disputes.

This decision addresses a section 11(b) application concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The court analyzed the total delay from the information being sworn to the scheduled trial end, considering defence delay, COVID-related backlog, and a discrete event involving the cancellation of remote testimony arrangements by the Newcastle Crown Court in the UK.

The judge found that while the total delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R v Jordan, after subtracting defence delay and the discrete event delay, the remaining delay was below the ceiling and not unreasonable given the case complexity.

The application to stay the proceedings was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and driving over 80.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the breath samples were taken 'as soon as practicable' by making improper inferences about a 16-minute delay, and erred in finding his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol without expert correlation evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences regarding the delay were reasonable and grounded in common sense, and that the finding of impairment was supported by the evidence of bad driving, physical indicia of alcohol consumption, and breath test results.

The accused was charged with driving while over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood and impaired driving following an incident at a fire station parking lot.

The Crown's case relied on observations by firefighters and police officers, as well as breath sample analysis.

The central issue was whether the Crown could prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt given the "bolus drinking" defence—the possibility that the accused consumed large quantities of alcohol while driving rather than before.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest but acquitted the accused on both counts because the evidence established a reasonable inference of bolus drinking, which undermined a necessary precondition of the toxicology expert's opinion.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that quashed convictions for minor traffic offences on the ground that officers had amended certificates of offence after serving offence notices but before filing the certificates with the court.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Provincial Offences Act does not expressly authorize such amendments, nothing in the statute precludes officers from correcting information on certificates before filing.

The validity of proceedings is preserved under section 90 of the Provincial Offences Act where the defendant has not been misled or prejudiced by minor clerical corrections.

The convictions were restored.