Christopher Uwagboe

Trevor Hosie pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death and failing to provide a sample after a collision resulted in the death of Rosemary Lopetrone.

The court considered aggravating factors including the loss of life, significant victim impact, the offender's reckless decisions, G2 license status, refusal to provide a sample, misleading statements in the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), and a criminal record with substance abuse history.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and genuine remorse.

The court imposed a sentence of six and a half years in the penitentiary, less pre-trial custody, and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The defendant, Theodorus Deboer, pleaded guilty to mischief after evidence was led at trial regarding his participation in the Ambassador Bridge blockade.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a conditional discharge, but the Court rejected this, finding it contrary to the public interest and that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Court emphasized the gravity of the offence, the significant disruption caused, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, particularly given the defendant's defiant conduct and the late plea.

The Court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and 20 hours of community service, including a term prohibiting impeding international border crossings.

This criminal trial concerned an assault charge against Tobias Bishop, accused of punching his brother, Shai Bishop.

The Crown presented direct evidence from the complainant and corroborating police testimony, detailing the incident, the complainant's injuries, and the disarray of the shared residence.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility and reliability, suggesting he was motivated to remove the accused from the home and that the accused was asleep during the alleged incident.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, supported by independent police observations, and rejected the accused's general denial as inconsistent with the overall evidence.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging an infringement of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the anticipated end of trial was 804 days (26 months, 13 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The court found that the Crown abdicated its responsibility to efficiently manage the prosecution, particularly regarding a co-accused whose charges were eventually stayed, and failed to diligently respond to disclosure requests.

Despite some defence delay (122 days), the net delay remained above the presumptive ceiling, and no exceptional circumstances were established by the Crown.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

This criminal trial involved multiple allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference against A.R., a substitute teacher.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of each child complainant's testimony, noting significant internal and external inconsistencies and pervasive evidence of collusion among the witnesses, particularly influenced by one central complainant.

The defence did not call evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt for all complainants, concluding that the evidence was unreliable and insufficient to support convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, or even simple assault.

A.R. was acquitted of all charges.

This is a preliminary hearing ruling on the committal of Hai Qin Liang, who is charged with failing to stop after a collision resulting in bodily harm, contrary to section 320.16(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the accused did not know she hit a person but argued for wilful blindness.

The court reviewed the evidence, including video and witness statements, focusing on the accused's actions post-collision, such as making U-turns to observe the scene, and her subsequent surrender to police.

The judge found insufficient evidence to establish that the accused either knew she struck a person or was wilfully blind to that fact, concluding that her actions were antithetical to a deliberate failure to inquire.

Consequently, the accused was discharged.

The Applicants sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of trial was 30 months and 30 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The court found that significant disclosure delays and the Crown's failure to manage the co-accused's matter contributed to the delay.

While a period of 41 days was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on initial court appearances, the Crown failed to demonstrate that the pandemic caused the overall protracted delay or that they took reasonable steps to mitigate it.

The court also deducted 52 days for defence-caused delay related to date setting.

Ultimately, the remaining delay of 27 months and 19 days was found to be presumptively unreasonable, and the Applicants' s. 11(b) rights were breached, leading to a stay of all charges.

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found the total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness by establishing exceptional circumstances, as the delay was primarily due to the Crown's failure to properly assess and streamline the co-accused prosecution, rather than case complexity or the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consequently, all charges against the applicants were stayed.