Christopher C. Watkins

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon (a belt) contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code and uttering a threat to cause death contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a).

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the complainant (the accused's spouse), a belt seized at the scene, 911 recordings, and police observations of injuries.

The defence presented the accused's testimony that the complainant attacked him first and that a wrestling match ensued in which he used defensive tactics.

The court applied the W.(D.) test and found that while the accused's evidence was not believed, it raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The court also found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, including evasiveness on crucial matters and inconsistencies with police observations.

The court acquitted on both counts.

The accused was found guilty of possession and making child pornography available.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day concurrent for both counts, plus three years probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought the mandatory minimum of one year concurrent.

The court accepted the Crown's position, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, noting the offender's lack of genuine remorse and active distribution of child pornography.

The Crown sought a review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the accused on bail, arguing errors in law and that the decision was clearly inappropriate, primarily on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The reviewing judge found no error in law regarding the Justice of the Peace's handling of the surety's cash deposit or her application of bail principles.

The judge also determined that the decision to release the accused was not 'clearly inappropriate,' given the robust release plan and the Justice of the Peace's positive assessment of the surety.

Consequently, the Crown's application for review was dismissed, upholding the accused's pre-trial release.

The 65-year-old accused, a first-time offender with an otherwise exemplary background, was found guilty of possessing a large quantity of child pornography.

The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of six months.

The court weighed the significant mitigating factors, including the accused's low risk of reoffending and positive community history, against the aggravating factor of the large collection of images.

The court sentenced the accused to nine months' imprisonment followed by three years' probation, along with ancillary orders.

In a proposed national class action concerning alleged negligent packaging of the contraceptive drug Alysena 28, the plaintiffs brought a motion relating to the identity of class counsel and seeking injunctive relief against a former co-counsel.

The dispute arose following the breakdown of a professional relationship between two lawyers who had participated in advancing the proposed class proceeding, leading to competing communications with putative class members and the existence of a rival certified class action in Alberta.

The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over counsel and class proceedings under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Solicitors Act.

The court dismissed both the motion and cross-motion, disqualified the disputing lawyers from acting for any putative class members, rescinded existing retainer and contingency fee agreements, and ordered the proposed Ontario class action discontinued as a class proceeding subject to possible revival if the Alberta settlement was not approved.

The accused brought a constitutional application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter following a roadside stop, detention, arrest, and search that led to the discovery of marijuana in a vehicle.

Police stopped the vehicle while investigating a reported gasoline theft based on a vague suspect description and observations they considered suspicious.

The court found the officers lacked reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was connected to the reported offence, rendering the investigative detention arbitrary.

Because the detention and arrest were unlawful, the subsequent search of the vehicle and seizure of marijuana were also unlawful.

Applying the s. 24(2) test from Grant, the court excluded the seized marijuana and the accused’s statements as admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.