Brady Elizabeth Donohue

This ruling addresses disputed facts for sentencing following a jury verdict where Andrew Mitchell was found guilty of break and enter with intent and assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought to include a black eye, hand injury, and concussion as bodily harm for the assault charge, while the defence argued only the black eye.

The court, applying principles from R. v. Ferguson, determined the factual basis for sentencing.

It found that the complainant suffered a black eye, hand injury, and concussion for the assault, and that the break and enter involved some level of violence and/or threats.

A young person was charged with second degree murder in connection with the death of S.K., who died from a single stab wound to the chest during a marijuana trafficking transaction that went wrong.

The accused admitted holding the knife that caused the fatal injury but claimed he was acting in self-defence and that the stabbing was accidental.

The Crown alleged intentional stabbing with either intent to kill or intent to cause bodily harm known to be likely to cause death.

The court found the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of unlawful act manslaughter, finding that while self-defence was not established, the accused did not have the specific intent required for murder.

Earl Hourihan was convicted of driving over 80 causing bodily harm, arising from a single motor vehicle accident where he struck a pedestrian on a push scooter.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9 to 15 months, while the defence proposed a 90-day intermittent sentence with probation.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior impaired driving conviction and the severity of the victim's injuries, and mitigating factors such as the offender's remorse, efforts to address alcohol problems, and community standing.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as predominant sentencing objectives for alcohol-related driving offences, particularly where bodily harm is involved.

A sentence of nine months imprisonment and a two-year driving prohibition was imposed, balancing rehabilitation with the need for strong public policy messaging.

The accused struck a person riding a push scooter with his motor vehicle, causing bodily harm.

He was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and driving 'over 80' causing bodily harm.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) due to alleged delays in taking breath samples and a failure to advise him of the potential for more serious charges.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding no breaches and concluding that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) regardless.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, as the Crown proved impairment, blood alcohol concentration over 80, and causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused faced 12 counts of historical sexual misconduct involving three complainants.

The court analyzed whether the accused were in a position of trust or authority towards the complainants under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused were not in a position of trust towards two of the complainants, resulting in the dismissal of several counts.

For the primary complainant, the court found a position of trust existed until she turned 16, but did not continue thereafter, leading to the dismissal of charges against the co-accused.

However, applying the W(D) framework, the court accepted the primary complainant's evidence regarding the principal accused and found him guilty of four counts of sexual misconduct.