Caitlin Pakosh

Teanna May Young pleaded guilty to Fraud Over $5000 for her involvement in a staged car collision as part of a larger fraud investigation.

The Crown sought a 12-month conditional sentence and $10,900 in restitution, while the defence requested a suspended sentence.

The court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence (two months house arrest, two months curfew) followed by a 12-month probation order.

The court rejected the joint submission for a restitution order, finding it would perpetuate the offender's cycle of poverty and offend the totality principle, given her limited financial means and mental health challenges.

The defendants, F.I. and E.M., applied for a mistrial after being found guilty of sexual assault by a jury.

The application was based on the jury selection process, which did not allow peremptory challenges, following new procedures implemented on September 19, 2019.

This was argued to be contrary to the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Chouhan, which held that the abolition of peremptory challenges should not apply retrospectively to cases where the accused had a vested right to a trial by judge and jury under prior legislation.

The court dismissed the application, noting that counsel had not objected to the new jury selection process at the time of selection.

The judge adopted reasoning from R. v. Azzi, emphasizing the public interest in finality, the impact on the complainant, and the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada had granted leave to appeal the Chouhan decision, militating against a post-verdict mistrial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for stunt driving under section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, challenging the reliability of LIDAR speed measurement evidence.

The Crown's case rested solely on the testimony of OPP Constable Tihor, who used a LIDAR device to measure the appellant's vehicle speed at 180 km/h on a highway with a 100 km/h speed limit.

The appellant argued that the constable's qualifications to operate the LIDAR device and the device's proper functioning raised reasonable doubt.

The trial justice found the officer qualified and credible, and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the court upheld the conviction, finding that the officer's training, testing protocols, and device reliability were adequately established to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed her convictions on four offences relating to marijuana grow-operations and one count of breach of recognizance, as well as seeking leave to appeal her sentence.

She argued that her guilty pleas were invalid because she was uninformed of immigration consequences, that the facts did not support her pleas, that her counsel was in a conflict of interest, and that she was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.

She also challenged the sentence as unfit due to failure to consider immigration consequences and claimed the forfeiture orders were grossly disproportionate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and denied leave to appeal sentence, finding the guilty pleas were informed, no conflict of interest existed, the appellant received effective assistance of counsel, and the forfeiture orders were part of the accepted plea offer.