Who is Danielle J. Vincent?

Danielle J. Vincent is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2012 to 2019.

What courts has Danielle J. Vincent appeared in?

Danielle J. Vincent has appeared in Superior Court of Justice, Court of Justice, with most appearances at the Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Danielle J. Vincent handled?

Danielle J. Vincent has 3 cases on record from 2012 to 2019.

What judges has Danielle J. Vincent appeared before?

Danielle J. Vincent has most frequently appeared before Justice R. Dan. Cornell, Justice Randall W. Lalande, Justice J.S. Poupore.

Danielle J. Vincent

3 total

R. v. A.S., 2019 ONSC 1729

The accused, A.S., brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of the complainant's sexual activity at trial.

The Crown largely agreed with the admissibility of communications containing explicit sexual references but objected to specific paragraphs referencing the complainant's sexual activity with her husband.

The court found that the evidence, including the contested paragraphs, was relevant to issues such as consent, the complainant's state of mind, motive to fabricate, and credibility, and was necessary for the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court concluded that the evidence had significant probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, and was not tendered to support the "twin myths." The application was granted in its entirety, allowing all requested evidence to be admitted without redaction.

SCJMar 20, 2019

Applicant Counsel

R. v. Seltzer, 2018 ONSC 3838

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel for his sexual assault trial.

The court found that while the accused was ineligible for Legal Aid and required counsel for complex pre-trial motions under ss. 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code, he failed to establish indigence.

The court noted the accused's high level of education and combined income with his common-law partner, concluding he could afford the estimated $3,000 fee for the pre-trial motions.

The application was denied.

SCJJun 21, 2018

Applicant Counsel

R. v. Willick, 2012 ONCJ 185

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a single motor vehicle accident on Highway 17 near Sudbury.

The Crown alleged that the accused's manner of driving—characterized by excessive speed, alcohol consumption, fatigue, and night driving—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

The defence argued that the accused had taken appropriate evasive action to avoid a collision with an oncoming vehicle, which resulted in the loss of control.

The court found that while the actus reus of dangerous driving was established, the Crown failed to prove the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

Respondent Counsel