C. Barry

The accused, a 25-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and failure to remain at the scene of an accident.

The accused struck and killed a 94-year-old pedestrian while speeding in a busy tourist area, then fled the scene in panic.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of the driving conduct and flight against the mitigating factors of the accused's youth, positive background, genuine remorse, and guilty pleas.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence while applying the principle of restraint for youthful first offenders, the court imposed a total sentence of 21 months in custody and a five-year driving prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm after striking a parked utility vehicle while driving with a blood alcohol concentration more than double the legal limit.

The collision caused severe, life-altering injuries to a worker and injured three of the offender's passengers.

The offender also suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in the crash.

The Crown sought 15 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence due to the offender's medical condition.

The court balanced the need for denunciation and general deterrence with the mitigating factor of the offender's own severe injuries, sentencing him to 11 months' imprisonment and a two-year driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample after a motor vehicle collision.

At the police station, the accused, who suffered from a panic disorder, was subjected to a routine level three strip search before being lodged in a cell.

The court found that the strip search violated section 8 of the Charter, as there were no reasonable and probable grounds to justify it and it was conducted merely as a matter of routine policy.

Concluding that the police conduct demonstrated a systemic disregard for established constitutional limits on strip searches, the court held that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter to preserve the integrity of the justice system.