Bernard Cugelman

The defendant pleaded guilty to failing to stop after an accident causing death, contrary to section 320.16(3) of the Criminal Code.

The victim was struck and killed, and the defendant subsequently removed her purse from his vehicle and discarded it, delaying her identification and family notification.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and lack of criminal record, and aggravating factors including the disposal of the victim's purse, prior Highway Traffic Act convictions, and the substantial victim impact.

The court found that a conditional sentence would not meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence, imposing a 12-month custodial sentence, followed by 18 months probation, a 10-year section 109 order, a DNA order, and a 5-year driving prohibition.

This is a sentencing decision for an offender convicted of aggravated assault and breach of undertaking, stemming from a violent domestic incident.

The victim sustained severe facial injuries requiring multiple surgeries.

The Crown sought a 24-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, highlighting the offender's rehabilitation efforts.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, and aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability and the offender's prior domestic assault conviction.

Balancing these with the offender's rehabilitation, the court imposed a lengthy conditional sentence, emphasizing that such a sentence can still achieve punitive and denunciatory objectives.

August Greiner pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of dangerous operation of a conveyance, involving attacks on police officers and damage to property.

The incidents were linked to the accused's significant, largely untreated mental health issues, exacerbated by recent personal losses.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the accused's mental health and ongoing treatment.

The court imposed a 270-day conditional sentence, followed by 24 months probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence could be achieved through a conditional sentence, and that public protection was best served by the accused's continued mental health treatment, which was central to the offence.

The appellant appealed her convictions for impaired driving, failing to comply with a breath demand, and dangerous driving.

At trial, she argued that her drink had been spiked, leading to involuntary intoxication.

The trial judge rejected this defence and convicted her.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge had applied the wrong standard of proof, erroneously requiring the defence to establish a 'likelihood' of involuntary intoxication rather than merely raising a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant, S.Q., charged with serious domestic offences, sought to vary his bail conditions due to improved mental health and an impending return to work.

The Crown opposed significant variations, arguing S.Q. continued to pose a risk to the complainant.

The court found a material change in circumstances, triggering its jurisdiction to review the bail conditions.

Applying the Supreme Court's "ladder principle" from *R. v. Antic* and *R. v. Zora*, the court maintained a non-communication order, two sureties, and a residence condition requiring S.Q. to live with a surety (allowing him to reside at his own home with a new tenant surety).

However, the court removed the electronic monitoring and the requirement for constant supervision outside the residence, deeming them disproportionate and not the least onerous conditions necessary to attenuate the identified risk.

Additional conditions prohibiting weapons, alcohol, and non-prescription drugs were imposed.

This supplementary ruling on a bail application for Peter Vanderveen finalized the bail conditions and surety arrangements.

Bail was set at $100,000 with no deposit, supported by three sureties.

The conditions included strict residency requirements, restrictions on movement, prohibitions on firearms and ammunition, mandatory attendance at a Bail Compliance Program, geographical limitations to Ontario, no-contact orders with specified individuals, and continuous GPS monitoring by Recovery Science Corporation at the applicant's expense.

Peter Vanderveen, charged with first-degree murder, applied for bail pending trial.

The Crown opposed release solely on the tertiary ground (public confidence in the administration of justice), conceding no primary or secondary ground concerns due to a robust surety plan including electronic monitoring.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. St-Cloud and R. v. Antic, assessed the strength of the Crown's case (weak for first-degree murder, arguable for second-degree, strong for manslaughter), the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the commission, and the potential sentence.

Considering Vanderveen's age, community ties, minor criminal record, remorseful statement, and the comprehensive release plan, the court found that a reasonable, informed person would not lose confidence in the administration of justice by granting bail.

The application was granted, and Vanderveen was released on a $100,000 recognizance with three sureties and restrictive conditions.

The appellant, convicted of driving while disqualified, appealed a 30-day intermittent sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred by overemphasizing general deterrence and failing to adequately consider the appellant's unique medical challenges and potential for rehabilitation.

The appeal was allowed, the intermittent sentence was set aside, and a 30-day conditional sentence with house arrest was substituted, while maintaining the one-year driving prohibition.

The victim fine surcharge was also vacated.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and weapons dangerous following a late-night altercation outside a nightclub.

The victims, who were highly intoxicated, instigated the confrontation and chased the accused and his friend when they attempted to flee.

The accused, fearing for his life, used a pocket knife to stab at least one of the pursuers.

The court found the accused acted in lawful self-defence and that his possession of the knife was not for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The offender was convicted after trial of trafficking fentanyl and pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and two counts of unauthorized possession of firearms.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years.

The court found exceptional circumstances, including the offender's severe health issues, rehabilitation efforts, and the parity principle, given that the co-adjudicator received a significantly lighter sentence.

The court imposed a reformatory sentence of 15 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

The accused was tried on six charges including trafficking fentanyl and hydromorphone, simple possession of fentanyl, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of prohibited weapons.

The Crown alleged the accused supplied fentanyl to an intermediary who sold it to an undercover officer.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused of trafficking fentanyl.

However, the court acquitted the accused on the remaining charges, finding reasonable doubt regarding the source of the hydromorphone, the lawfulness of the excess fentanyl patches, the origin of the seized cash, and the accused's knowledge of the prohibited characteristics of the seized knives.

The Crown sought to change its position regarding the use of the accused's utterances and statement to police as part of its case at trial, contrary to a recorded pretrial conference position.

The accused opposed this change, arguing it would impair his right to a fair trial.

The court considered the Crown's non-compliance with the Criminal Proceedings Rules and the lack of a compelling explanation for the change.

The court ruled that the Crown must maintain its original position, disallowing the introduction of the utterances/statement as part of its case.

The Crown brought a pretrial application for a witness, Jesse Watson, to testify remotely via an audio-video link in a criminal trial.

The application was made under subsections 486.2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, with the Crown primarily relying on subsection (1) due to the witness's mental disability.

The Defence opposed the application.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the Crown had established the witness's ability to communicate evidence, potential difficulty in doing so due to mental disability, and that the Defence failed to rebut the presumption that the order would not interfere with the proper administration of justice.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of four Fentanyl patches, a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence based on the highly addictive nature of Fentanyl and principles of general and specific deterrence.

The defence sought a discharge to preserve the accused's employment as an aircraft maintenance engineer, which requires a security clearance and conviction-free status.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation, finding that rehabilitation was the primary concern and that the accused's documented efforts to address his addiction significantly reduced public risk.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess blood alcohol following an incident on December 23, 2011.

The Crown relied on observations of weaving and running a red light, along with physical indicators such as bloodshot eyes and alcohol odour, to establish impairment.

The defendant was acquitted of the impaired charge due to strong countervailing evidence of non-impairment, including coordination, clear speech, and controlled movements.

However, the defendant was convicted of the over 80 offence based on breath technician evidence of readings of 184 and 170 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, with the court finding the Intoxilyzer 8000C was properly functioning and the external printer accurately recorded the results.

During a criminal jury trial involving sexual offences, the defence sought to introduce several Facebook pages attributed to the complainant to support a theory regarding the complainant’s motivations and behaviour.

The court considered whether the pages were admissible in light of evidentiary rules and the restrictions imposed by s. 276 of the Criminal Code governing evidence of a complainant’s sexual activity.

The judge found that portions of the Facebook content were sexually suggestive and that admitting them would offend s. 276, while other portions lacked probative value or risked significant prejudice and diversion of the trial.

The court also raised concerns about authenticity, context, and the complexity of interpreting social media content.

The Facebook pages were ruled inadmissible.

The accused brought a third‑party records application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code seeking production of child protection and foster care agency records relating to the complainant in a prosecution for sexual offences.

The accused argued the records were necessary to support a defence theory that the complainant fabricated allegations to facilitate removal from the foster home and to challenge credibility.

Applying the two‑stage framework for production of third‑party records, the court found the records were likely relevant and reviewed them in camera.

After balancing the accused’s right to make full answer and defence against the complainant’s privacy and equality interests under s. 278.5(2), the court concluded the records had minimal or no probative value.

Production was therefore refused and the records remained sealed.