Daniel DeSantis

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 253 of the Criminal Code.

The sole issue at trial was whether the police violated the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The defendant claimed she was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to exercise her right to counsel and sought exclusion of the breath sample evidence under section 24(2).

The court found that the defendant was properly informed of her right to counsel, understood this right, but failed to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting to retain counsel.

The defendant repeatedly claimed to have a lawyer but could not identify one, refused to pursue duty counsel despite being informed of this option, and engaged in what appeared to be deliberate delay tactics.

The court dismissed the Charter motion and found the defendant guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a minor complainant.

The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence from two additional witnesses (sisters of the complainant) alleging similar sexual misconduct by the accused.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the similar fact evidence under the established legal framework.

The court found that while there were similarities in the conduct alleged by all three witnesses, the potential for collusion, combined with material inconsistencies in the evidence and credibility concerns, meant that the probative value of the similar fact evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The similar fact evidence was therefore excluded from trial.

This is a judicial interim release hearing for an accused charged with nine counts including attempt fraud, uttering forged documents, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The accused, a 42-year-old with a significant criminal history including prior fraud convictions and weapons offences, sought bail.

The Crown opposed release on primary and secondary grounds.

The court found the accused's testimony to be unreliable and lacking in credibility, with numerous inconsistencies regarding his family situation, financial circumstances, and criminal history.

An initial bail program proposal was deemed inadequate.

A subsequent plan involving a private surety collapsed when the proposed surety learned of the accused's background and outstanding warrants.

The court ordered detention, finding a substantial likelihood the accused would fail to appear and commit further offences.