David A. Harris

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference of a 13-year-old victim, sexual assault of a young female victim involving administration of a noxious substance, and multiple breaches of recognizance conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months plus 18 months imprisonment for sexual interference, 30 months consecutive for sexual assault, 18 months concurrent for administering noxious substance, and 3 months concurrent for each breach.

The court applied principles of denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives given the abuse of minors, breach of trust, and grooming conduct.

Ancillary orders included SOIRA registration for life, 20-year section 161 restrictions on contact with females under 16, 10-year weapons prohibition, and communication prohibition with victims during custody.

A senior police officer with the Halton Regional Police Service pleaded guilty to breach of trust under section 122 of the Criminal Code for stealing oxycodone pills from a police evidence locker between August 27, 2015 and April 30, 2016.

The officer had developed an addiction to prescription opioids following multiple knee surgeries and work-related injuries, compounded by untreated PTSD and workplace harassment.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, 240 hours of community service, and a victim fine surcharge, finding that exceptional circumstances—including the officer's addiction, mental health issues, early guilty plea, comprehensive rehabilitation efforts, and strong family and community support—justified a discharge despite the serious nature of the breach of trust offense.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to the complainant on October 5, 2016 in Oakville.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issues were whether the contact was intentional or accidental, and whether the accused was acting in lawful defence of his son.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to make physical contact with either the complainant or a third party.

The accused was acquitted.

The court also addressed the defence of third party and found it would not have applied on the facts, as the situation did not constitute a threat of force and any intervention was unreasonable.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault involving a vulnerable adult victim with mental health issues.

The first assault occurred on November 7, 2016, when the accused sexually penetrated the victim while she was unconscious and video-recorded the acts.

The second assault occurred on September 19, 2017, when the accused again sexually penetrated the victim while she was incapacitated by medication and alcohol.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 40 months, with ancillary orders including lifetime SOIRA registration, DNA order, weapons prohibition, and communication prohibition with the victim.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial judge found that while the police officer breached the accused's section 10(a) Charter rights by failing to promptly inform him that the nature of his detention had changed from a speeding investigation to an impaired driving investigation, the officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand and did not breach section 8 rights.

The trial judge excluded statements made by the accused at the roadside but admitted the breath test results under section 24(2) analysis.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed at a Toronto Dominion Bank in Oakville.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment followed by three years probation, while defence counsel sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment followed by two to three years probation.

The court imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation, finding this sentence necessary to denounce the offence and deter similar conduct while considering the accused's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.

The Crown appealed a conviction entered against the respondent for failing to signal a lane change under the Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent appeared twice requesting adjournments but failed to appear when the trial was called.

The Justice of the Peace entered a conviction pursuant to section 9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace erred in law.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that section 9.1(1) applied when the respondent failed to appear at the time and place appointed for trial, and that the respondent's conduct demonstrated he wished to defer the outcome rather than have his day in court.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused sought to exclude breath test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the breath demand and that section 10(b) rights were infringed due to incomplete disclosure regarding the counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant test, the court admitted the evidence as the long-term interests of justice favoured inclusion.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement committed against the same victim on December 26, 2016 and January 1, 2017.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court imposed a blended sentence combining 90 days of intermittent imprisonment with a one-year conditional sentence, along with three years of probation.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The sentencing decision balanced the serious nature of the offences against significant mitigating factors including the accused's youth, guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior record, mental health diagnosis and treatment, and rehabilitative potential.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm to his eight-year-old son.

The offence involved a single-vehicle collision on Highway 401 with a blood alcohol concentration of 195 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

The victim sustained severe injuries including a cervical spine fracture requiring surgical stabilization, resulting in permanent physical limitations and ongoing psychological trauma.

The accused had a prior impaired driving conviction in 2011.

The court imposed a sentence balancing denunciation and deterrence against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, genuine remorse, good character when not drinking, and significant collateral consequences including loss of employment and family breakdown.

During a trial for break and enter, assault, and threatening bodily harm, the complainant testified that he did not recall the events or being assaulted.

The Crown brought an application to adduce the complainant's 911 call into evidence.

The court ruled the 911 call admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, finding it was made contemporaneously with the events while the caller was under ongoing emotional stress.

Alternatively, the court found the call admissible for the threatening charge under the principled approach to hearsay, as it met the criteria for necessity and threshold reliability.

The offender was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm after striking her nephew in the head with a beer bottle in an unprovoked attack.

The Crown sought 21 to 30 days of imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing and the criteria for a conditional sentence, concluding that the seriousness of the unprovoked, weapon-based assault required actual incarceration to satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 21 days in jail followed by two years of probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for using a handheld device while driving, arguing that his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) had been infringed.

The appellant had brought a pre-trial application to stay the charge, which was dismissed by the Justice of the Peace.

The appeal court found that the presiding Justice of the Peace erred in law by failing to provide proper analysis of the Charter application.

However, the appellate judge conducted both a pre-Jordan and post-Jordan analysis and found that the application was properly dismissed.

The total delay of 10 months and 18 days fell within acceptable guidelines, and the appellant suffered no demonstrable prejudice from the delay.

The Crown applied to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct or similar fact evidence in a sexual assault trial.

The accused was charged with sexual assault on July 24, 2015.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of a prior incident occurring seven years earlier.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the prejudicial effect was limited, the Crown failed to establish sufficient probative value to outweigh any prejudice.

The court noted that the single prior incident was temporally remote, the similarities between the incidents were limited, and the defence position was one of complete denial rather than consent or innocent association.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and assault of a peace officer with intent to resist arrest.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial judge found that the accused operated his vehicle in a parking lot and was in care or control of the vehicle while impaired.

The accused's testimony was found unreliable due to his level of impairment and inconsistencies with police evidence.

The accused was convicted of impaired operation and assault of a peace officer.

The over 80 charge was conditionally stayed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug (marijuana/cannabis) in Halton Hills on March 20, 2015.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging the police stop violated his s. 9 rights through racial profiling.

The trial judge found the accused's allegations of racial profiling to be baseless and lacking credibility.

The police officer's observations of erratic driving (vehicle swaying within lane and crossing centre line three times) provided reasonable grounds for the stop.

Following the stop, an outstanding warrant was discovered, leading to arrest.

Subsequent observations by the drug recognition expert, including dilated pupils, balance issues, and poor performance on sobriety tests, combined with the accused's admission of marijuana use that evening, established impairment.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by marijuana.

The Crown brought an application for production of joint counselling records between the accused and the complainant in a sexual assault case.

The application proceeded under the statutory regime in sections 278.1-278.9 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that the records were likely relevant to the central issue at trial, as they allegedly contained an admission by the accused of engaging in non-consensual sexual activity.

The court ordered production of the records to the judge for in camera review, and subsequently ordered production of redacted portions to counsel, with conditions to protect the privacy interests of the complainant.

The accused, a primary grades music teacher, was charged with one count of assault and thirteen counts of sexual assault and sexual interference involving fourteen complainants.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all counts.

The trial judge found that the evidence of the complainants was tainted by collusion arising from widespread rumours at the school following the initial accusation.

The judge found that the complainants' evidence lacked reliability, noting that none had reported any misconduct prior to the rumours, many had recanted or changed their stories significantly, and the physical circumstances of the alleged touching were improbable.

The judge acquitted the accused on all charges, finding that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, an animal rights activist, was charged with mischief to property under section 430(1)(c) of the Criminal Code for giving water to pigs in a transport truck stopped at a traffic light in Burlington, Ontario.

The Crown alleged she gave an unknown substance that created a risk the slaughterhouse would refuse the load.

The court found the defendant gave water, not a contaminant, and that her actions did not obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.

The court also found no evidence of willfulness.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug on September 26, 2016 in Burlington.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug, specifically cannabis.

The accused testified that he was not impaired.

The court found the accused guilty based on a constellation of objectively discernible facts including speeding, poor performance on drug recognition evaluation tests, bloodshot eyes, droopy eyelids, confusion regarding time and date, and toxicological evidence of cannabis and other drugs in his system.