A. Sadler

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, asserting misapprehension of evidence on identity, error in finding reasonable suspicion for an ASD demand, and invalid issuance of a production order for hospital records.

The appeal court held the trial record supported the inference that the appellant was the driver and found no reversible error on that issue.

Applying the totality-of-circumstances approach, the court upheld the finding of reasonable suspicion under the Criminal Code for the roadside screening demand.

Although the court accepted a limited misapprehension regarding a hospital-staff statement, it held the production order nonetheless validly issued on the ITO and permissible inferences, and declined exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed and the prior stay of the driving prohibition was rescinded.

The accused was tried for second-degree murder after stabbing her son while under the influence of crack cocaine.

The defence sought to have the defence of non-mental disorder automatism left with the jury, arguing the accused was in a state of drug-induced psychosis.

The trial judge ruled there was no air of reality to the defence, as the defence's own psychiatric expert testified the accused likely had control over her actions and understood their lethality.

The defence was not put to the jury, and the accused was convicted.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking and a loaded handgun was found in his vehicle pursuant to a search warrant.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application to exclude the handgun, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights.

The court found no breaches of ss. 8 or 9, as there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the strip search was necessary.

However, the court found a breach of s. 10(b) because the police unreasonably delayed the accused's right to counsel for their own convenience prior to executing a search warrant.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breach was not causally connected to the discovery of the firearm and society has a heightened interest in adjudicating serious firearms offences on the merits.

The accused threw a heavy trailer hitch from a moving vehicle, striking the victim in the abdomen and rupturing her small bowel.

The victim, who suffered from advanced liver disease, underwent surgery but died five months later from complications including peritonitis and pneumonia.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault but contested the manslaughter charge, arguing his actions did not cause her death or that delayed medical treatment broke the chain of causation.

The court found that the blunt force trauma was a significant contributing cause that accelerated her death, and that no intervening act severed legal causation.

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping, applied for judicial interim release.

The accused surrendered to police and admitted to driving the vehicle involved but denied knowledge of the murder.

The court found that the primary and secondary grounds for detention were not met due to the accused's lack of a criminal record and the strength of the proposed sureties.

On the tertiary ground, the court held that a properly informed reasonable person would not lose confidence in the administration of justice if the accused were released on a strict plan.

Bail was granted with stringent conditions, including house arrest, GPS ankle monitoring, and significant financial pledges from three sureties.

The accused, charged with fraud and using forged documents, applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the Crown's conduct in adjourning a preliminary inquiry, the subsequent death of the complainant, and the Crown's decision to prefer a direct indictment constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown's decisions were reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the complainant's death and the need to address delay issues, and did not compromise trial fairness.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a young person charged with assault with a weapon.

At trial, the complainant failed to attend after being served substitutionally via a family member.

The trial judge refused the Crown's requests for a material witness warrant and an adjournment, leading to the dismissal of the charges.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing the warrant due to insufficient evidence that the complainant was aware of the subpoena, and in refusing the adjournment because the Crown failed to satisfy the conditions for an adjournment.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals for impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The accused had been found intoxicated in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle but stated she only entered to listen to music and smoke.

The summary conviction appeal judge found no error in the trial judge's refusal to allow a new question on re-examination regarding identity.

The appeal court also held that the trial judge's finding that the accused rebutted the presumption of care and control and posed no realistic risk of danger was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with break and enter, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, uttering threats, and breach of probation following a violent home invasion.

The accused claimed he was invited into the residence to discuss a drug debt and acted in self-defence after the victim pointed a shotgun at him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding he forced entry, initiated the assault, and acted in concert with a co-accused to steal property and confine the victim.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender was convicted of sexual interference against his stepdaughter, with offences occurring when she was between 8 and 12 years old.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of six to eight years, while the defence proposed three to four years.

Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the profound impact on the victim, the court sentenced the offender to six years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with mandatory and discretionary ancillary orders.

The accused applied under ss. 278.1–278.5 of the Criminal Code for production of third‑party records in a historical sexual assault prosecution.

The records sought included a school social worker’s notes of the complainant’s initial disclosure, records of counselling sessions with that social worker, and records from a children’s counselling centre.

The court applied the “likely relevance” and “interests of justice” test from the Criminal Code and relevant Supreme Court authorities, balancing the accused’s right to make full answer and defence against the complainant’s privacy interests.

The court ordered production to the court for review of the school social worker’s notes of the initial disclosure, limited counselling information (dates, duration, and type), and any counselling records containing a factual account of the allegations.

The request for broader counselling information from the Children’s Centre was denied.