Brittany Danielle Sherwood

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of impaired driving (over 80 mg) after the trial judge excluded breathalyzer evidence due to a s. 10(b) Charter violation.

The trial judge found a breach because the breathalyzer technician failed to follow up on the respondent's "equivocal" non-verbal response (shrug and nod) when asked if he was satisfied with duty counsel.

The appeal court found the trial judge erred in law and fact, holding that an equivocal response, especially when the respondent himself testified he intended to convey satisfaction, does not constitute an "objectively observable indicator" requiring further police inquiry under s. 10(b).

Consequently, the s. 24(2) Charter exclusion of evidence was also found to be in error as the breach did not seriously impact the respondent's Charter-protected interests.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a verdict of guilty entered.

The defendant, Shamar Bowen Soares, was charged with six counts of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following his arrest and a strip search that revealed crack cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl.

The primary defence was a Charter challenge to the lawfulness of the arrest and search.

The court found that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for arrest based on surveillance and informant tips, thus no Charter breach occurred.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of possession of crack cocaine for trafficking and all fentanyl-related charges, due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of fentanyl in the mixture.

However, he was found guilty of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of crack cocaine.

W.E.G. was convicted by a jury of assault (x2), uttering a threat to cause death, and sexual assault against his common-law spouse, Ms. A. The court considered aggravating factors including the domestic nature of the offences, breach of trust, vulnerability of the complainant (a refugee), and the serious nature of the sexual assault and choking.

Mitigating factors included a dated criminal record and compliance with bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of 42 months imprisonment, allocated across the convictions, along with a mandatory weapons prohibition, DNA order, Sex Offender Registry registration for 20 years, and a non-communication order.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's lack of insight into his actions.

The accused was convicted after trial of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm following a stabbing incident at a bar.

The Crown sought 15-18 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence for assault with a weapon and a 15-month conditional sentence for assault causing bodily harm, to be served consecutively, along with a one-year probation term.

A weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

The conviction for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace was stayed.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace following an altercation at a bar.

The accused admitted to stabbing the complainant with a knife but claimed self-defense.

The court found that while force was being used against the accused and the stabbing may have been intended for self-defense, the stabbing was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was the aggressor, initiated physical contact, was the first to draw and unsheathe his knife, and had multiple opportunities to de-escalate the conflict.

The court convicted on all three counts.

The Crown applied for leave to cross-examine their own witness on two prior inconsistent statements made to police.

The witness, the wife of the accused, had made statements on the night of the incident and again three days later under solemn affirmation.

The defence opposed the application, citing concerns about the reliability of the statements due to the witness's emotional state, lack of sleep, language barriers, and alleged compulsion.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the statutory criteria under s.9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act were met and that the ends of justice were best served by permitting cross-examination.