Brent Knazan

The accused, George Giaouris, was charged with assaulting Ms. Cordero causing her bodily harm and threatening her with death.

The central issue was self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found a reasonable doubt that the complainant initiated the physical altercation, thus satisfying the first element of self-defence.

However, the court concluded that the force used by the accused, which resulted in severe injuries to the complainant, was excessive and disproportionate to the perceived threat, failing the reasonableness requirement of s. 34(1)(c).

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm but not guilty of threatening, as the threat was conditional and no force was used in uttering it.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement of the complainant.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the complainant's testimony regarding non-consensual sexual acts and confinement.

The accused moved to stay the charges, alleging that police failed to preserve video recordings from a doorbell security system that would have been exculpatory evidence.

The trial judge found that while evidence was lost due to a combination of police misunderstanding and the complainant's deletion of recordings, this did not constitute unacceptable negligence warranting a stay.

However, the trial judge found that the lost evidence, combined with frailties in the complainant's testimony and the accused's early and convincing denials, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the sexual assault and forcible confinement occurred.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused sought to exclude breath test results, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect he was the driver and had alcohol in his body without relying on compelled statements made under highway traffic legislation.

The court excluded the accused's statements regarding being the driver and consuming alcohol as compelled statements under the Charter.

However, the court found that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was the driver based on witness identification at the accident scene, independent of the excluded statements.

The court admitted the Intoxilyzer results into evidence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a minor cousin, invitation to sexual touching, and uttering threats.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony regarding an alleged assault occurring between November 17-21, 2016.

The accused provided an alibi defence, testifying he was at a friend's residence during the entire specified period.

The critical issue became the date of the alleged offence.

The complainant's evidence, while credible on the substance of the allegations, established that any assault could not have occurred on the dates specified in the information.

The court found that although the date of an offence is generally not material, it became critical when the accused raised an alibi defence.

The Crown failed to prove the offence occurred within the timeframe alleged, and no amendment to the information was sought.

The charges were dismissed.

The defendants were charged with five counts of importing engines without evidence of conformity as required by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Crown alleged importation of seven small spark-ignition engines and five diesel engines mounted in tractors.

The court found that while the Crown proved the importation of tractors and that the engines were of a prescribed class, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all engines had a model year of 2006 or later (for tractors) or 2005 or later (for small engines), which was an essential element of the offence.

The court convicted on one count relating to a tractor engine but acquitted on the remaining counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol on April 17, 2014.

The Crown's case relied on observations of poor driving on the Gardiner Expressway, evidence of alcohol consumption, and the smell of alcohol on the accused's breath.

The defence argued that the impaired driving could be explained by fatigue and distraction from cell phone use, rather than alcohol impairment.

The court found that while the driving was severely impaired, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the impairment was caused by alcohol rather than other factors.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant, a subcontractor specializing in underground construction and grouting, was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following the death of a worker and serious injury to another when a drill rig collapsed at a Toronto Transit Commission subway extension project at York University.

The charges alleged failures to provide an adequate work platform for the drill rig, to ensure the platform could support loads in accordance with good engineering practice, and to operate the machine in accordance with the manufacturer's manual.

The court found the defendant guilty of Count 5 (failure to design an adequate work platform by failing to identify soil bearing capacity as required by manufacturer specifications) but acquitted on Counts 6 and 7.

The court determined that while the defendant transmitted manufacturer specifications to the general contractor, it failed to follow up and verify that the soil's bearing capacity had been adequately assessed before operating the rig.

The defendant, Advanced Construction Techniques Ltd., was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act related to a drill rig collapse that resulted in a fatality.

The defendant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings and alternatively for a mistrial, alleging that the Crown breached its disclosure obligations by changing its position on whether it would call LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) evidence.

The Crown had initially advised that the LiDAR scan would not form part of its case, but later decided to call the evidence well into the trial.

The court found a Charter breach regarding the right to make full answer and defence but declined to grant a stay or mistrial.

Instead, the court excluded the LiDAR evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter as the appropriate remedy.

The applicants brought a motion under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence seized during environmental protection inspections and a search warrant executed by officers of the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency.

The applicants were charged with importing tractors and small engines without proof of conformity to Canadian emission standards.

The court found that the December 2009 seizure was unreasonable due to an improperly issued Environmental Protection Compliance Order, the June 2010 seizure was unreasonable as it relied on the prior unlawful seizure, and the September 2010 computer search was unreasonable as the Information to Obtain lacked any grounds to believe relevant documents would be found in a computer.

The court excluded the computer evidence but admitted the seized equipment and observations thereof.

The accused was charged with two counts of criminal harassment under section 264 of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with two women, Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly, via Twitter between August 1 and November 20, 2012.

The Crown alleged that the accused's tweets caused both complainants to reasonably fear for their safety.

The accused was also charged with violating a peace bond.

The court found that while the accused engaged in repeated communication and the complainants were harassed, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the complainants were harassed or that the complainants' fear for their safety was reasonable in all the circumstances.

All charges were dismissed.

An applicant sought a stay of proceedings on the grounds that he was ineligible for legal aid, indigent, and unable to retain private counsel, and that his right to a fair trial would be materially compromised without state-funded counsel.

The applicant was charged with break and enter under section 348 of the Criminal Code and was legally blind with only 7% vision in one eye.

The Crown's case relied on video identification evidence.

The court granted the stay, finding that the applicant's legal blindness presented a serious obstacle to self-representation in a case turning on video identification, and that counsel was essential to ensure a fair trial consistent with Charter values of equality and the right to a fair trial.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown relied on breath sample analysis results from an intoxilyzer device.

The central issue was whether the police's failure to perform annual recommended maintenance on the intoxilyzer constituted improper operation of the instrument under section 258(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the instrument had not been sent for annual maintenance for over 13 months at the time of testing, contrary to the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Alcohol Test Committee's recommendations.

The court determined that improper maintenance constitutes improper operation and therefore the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of accuracy of the breath test results.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant executed at his apartment in a trial for possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought to rely on an edited information-to-obtain that contained redactions to protect a confidential informant's identity.

The Crown proposed that portions of the information that could not be summarized without disclosing the informant's identity be excluded from consideration, while the Crown would rely on the remaining edited portions and judicial summaries.

The court was asked whether the sixth step of the Garofoli procedure permits the Crown to decline to rely on excised material that cannot be summarized without risking disclosure of the confidential informant's identity.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on observations by police officers, field sobriety tests, a drug evaluation officer's assessment, and toxicology evidence showing the presence of marijuana and prescription drugs in the accused's urine.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence and argued the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the drug evaluation officer's opinion was admissible as non-expert opinion evidence under R. v. Graat, it did not rise to the level of expert evidence and therefore did not carry special weight.

Considering all evidence, including the absence of impaired driving, the court found the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with obstructing a police constable by providing false information during a lawful police investigation at an airport.

The accused admitted to giving a false name to the officer but argued that no obstruction occurred because the officer quickly learned his correct identity from another officer within approximately two minutes.

The court found that the accused's false statement did in fact obstruct the officer in the execution of her duty, as the officer was diverted from her investigative duties to check the false name provided.

The court rejected the argument that only prolonged or significant obstruction constitutes the offence, holding that any lie that in fact obstructs police duties satisfies the actus reus requirement.