B. Cohen

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and operate over 80 following an incident on November 3, 2013.

The Crown established that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol and that his blood alcohol concentration substantially exceeded the legal limit of 80 mg/100mL.

The defence conceded these facts but argued the defendant lacked the necessary mens rea, claiming he was disabled through no fault of his own from appreciating that he was impaired or that his BAC exceeded the legal limit due to an interaction between Tylenol 3 medication and alcohol.

The court rejected this defence, finding that the defendant's impairment resulted from voluntary consumption of alcohol and that he knew or ought to have known of the risks.

The court convicted on both counts.

The accused brought a motion for severance of two break and enter charges.

The Crown's case relied solely on video surveillance evidence for identification purposes under the Nikolovski test.

The defence argued that a trial judge should not make more than one Nikolovski determination for the same accused, and that the interests of justice required severance.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while there was minimal factual nexus between the counts, there was a legal nexus, no prejudice to the accused, and the Crown's wide discretion under section 591(1) of the Criminal Code supported a joint trial.

The accused appeared before the court seeking judicial interim release (bail) on 27 charges, including break and enter, theft of motor vehicles, and offences committed in association with a criminal organization.

The Crown opposed release, citing concerns under the secondary ground (public safety).

The accused proposed his uncle and aunt as sureties with a $10,000 pledge and a release plan involving residence with the sureties and a curfew.

The court found that although the sureties were credible and willing, the accused's conduct following his previous release on bail in July 2014—during which he continued criminal activity and stored stolen goods in his home—demonstrated he would not comply with bail conditions.

The court denied bail and ordered detention.

The accused was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 Care or Control following a motor vehicle incident.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence based on alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's right to counsel under section 10(b) was violated when the officer detained him pending the arrival of an approved screening device but refused to allow him to contact counsel via his cellular telephone, despite knowing a significant delay would occur and that counsel would realistically be available during business hours on a Tuesday afternoon.

The court excluded the evidence and acquitted the accused on both counts.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, the court imposed sentence for an offence involving penetration and a breach of trust where the offender was the complainant’s stepfather.

The court considered the principles in s. 718.2(e) and the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Gladue and Ipeelee, including systemic factors affecting Indigenous offenders, based on a detailed Gladue report.

Aggravating factors included the breach of parental trust and the devastating psychological impact on the victim, including a suicide attempt shortly after the assault.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, expressed remorse, sobriety since arrest, and prospects for rehabilitation.

A penitentiary sentence at the low end of the range was imposed together with mandatory ancillary orders.

The accused brought a motion pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by section 11(b), had been infringed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80" contrary to section 253(1) of the Criminal Code.

The information was sworn on December 19, 2011, and the trial was scheduled for January 28, 2013, representing a delay of 13 months and 9 days.

The court applied the analytical framework from R. v. Morin and found that while there was Crown delay in providing visual disclosure (approximately one month and 13 days), the total institutional and Crown delay of nine months and 27 days fell within the Morin guideline of eight to ten months for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found minimal prejudice to the accused and balanced this against the serious nature of impaired driving offences and the public interest in a trial on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

The accused sought judicial interim release following his arrest on serious firearms-related charges, including carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm for committing an offence, pointing a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

The Crown opposed release.

The court found that while the Crown's case had some evidentiary weaknesses, the surveillance video evidence was strong and clear.

The proposed release plan was found to be inadequate because the financial and supervisory components did not co-exist: one surety pledged significant funds but could not supervise, while the residential surety could supervise but pledged virtually no funds.

The court held that the accused failed to meet the reverse onus on the secondary ground and ordered detention.

The accused was charged with theft of a motor vehicle over $5,000 after failing to return a rented vehicle.

The Crown argued that the accused’s explanation—that he asked an acquaintance to return the vehicle—was implausible and riddled with inconsistencies, including discrepancies about phone calls and the identity of the alleged intermediary.

The defence maintained the case amounted only to suspicion and highlighted evidence that a person identifying himself as the intermediary had spoken with the rental company.

The court held that the Crown failed to adequately investigate key leads, including telephone records linked to the alleged intermediary.

Given the evidentiary gaps and credibility issues, the court found that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.