C. Michael Harpur

The accused was charged with criminal harassment and uttering threats to cause death or injury to children, arising from an incident on March 25, 2011 during a custody transfer.

The Crown alleged that the accused made threatening statements to the complainant regarding her children after she refused to allow him to pick up their daughter at her home.

The court found the accused not guilty on both charges.

While the court accepted the complainant's credible testimony that the accused made the alleged statement, it found that the threat did not constitute a threat of bodily harm as defined in the Criminal Code, as there was insufficient proof of substantial interference with the psychological integrity of the children.

Additionally, the harassment charge failed because it required proof of repeated following on more than one occasion, and only a single incident of following was established.

The accused was charged with forcible confinement, threatening bodily harm, assault, and criminal harassment arising from events on March 20, 2011, involving his former romantic partner.

The Crown's case consisted primarily of the victim's testimony.

The assault charge was dismissed at the conclusion of the Crown's case for lack of prima facie case.

Following trial, the accused was acquitted on all remaining charges.

The court found reasonable doubt on the confinement charge regarding whether the victim's presence in the vehicle was unwilling, on the threat charge regarding whether the words conveyed a genuine threat in context, and on the harassment charge regarding whether the conduct caused the victim to reasonably fear for her safety.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The trial proceeded with a blended Charter application challenging the validity of the breath sample evidence.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: (1) the demand under s. 254(2) Criminal Code was not made "forthwith" as required, with a 22-minute delay from formation of suspicion to commencement of testing; (2) the accused's s. 10(a)(b) Charter rights were not provided immediately after the roadside test failure.

Under s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the court excluded the Certificate of Analysis evidence as the breaches were multiple, protracted, and contrary to the officer's training, warranting disassociation by the justice system.

The accused was acquitted.