Carla Andrea Agatiello

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment of his ex-wife after sending her over one hundred text messages, emails, and voicemails following the withdrawal of a previous criminal harassment charge.

The Crown sought a 60-day intermittent jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation for intimate partner violence but noted the defendant's lack of prior record and guilty plea.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of probation, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with the complainant on February 12, 2017.

The complainant alleged that she initially consented to protected sexual intercourse, but withdrew her consent when the condom slipped off.

She maintained that the defendant continued with unprotected intercourse without her consent.

The defendant claimed that the complainant consented to resuming unprotected intercourse after he reminded her that he had no protection.

The case turned entirely on credibility and the question of whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted without the complainant's consent.

The court found that while the complainant's account was coherent, the defendant's account, when combined with concerns about the complainant's narrative, left reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knowingly proceeded without consent.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while prohibited.

He carried the loaded gun in his waistband while selling drugs and pulled it out during an altercation on a public street.

The Crown sought 7-8 years, while the defence sought 3.5 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's extensive criminal record and repeated breaches of court orders.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years, but granted 40 months of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and an additional 9 months for harsh conditions (triple bunking, frequent lockdowns, lack of fresh air), leaving 23 months to serve.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and failing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples.

The Crown alleged the defendant was driving erratically and displayed signs of impairment including the odour of alcohol, glossy eyes, and a dazed appearance.

The defendant refused to provide breath samples when demanded by police.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was impaired, rendering the approved instrument demand unlawful.

The court also found insufficient evidence of impairment beyond reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The sole issue was whether the arresting officer had the required reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample into an approved screening device.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 8 rights.

The court found that despite credibility issues with the officer's testimony regarding the odour of alcohol on the accused's breath, the totality of circumstances—including the time of day, vehicle lighting issues, physical observations, and the presence of intoxicated passengers—provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the demand.

The court rejected the Charter application and found the accused guilty as charged.

The corporate defendant was convicted of undertaking development without a permit in a development control area under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, after constructing an armour stone wall.

The Crown sought a $4,000 fine, while the defence argued for a nominal $150 fine due to a history of compliance.

The court weighed the paramount goal of general deterrence for environmental regulatory offences against the defendant's prior compliance, ultimately imposing a $3,000 fine.