David A. Harris

A young adult offender pled guilty to dangerous driving arising from a prearranged street racing incident that resulted in the deaths of two of his friends.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of four months, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with a two-year probation order, finding that specific deterrence and rehabilitation were the paramount sentencing objectives for a first-time young offender.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and strong family support, balanced against the serious and planned nature of the dangerous driving conduct.

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

The accused sought to exclude evidence of Intoxilyzer test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the approved screening device demand was not made "forthwith" and that his right to counsel was infringed.

The court found no Charter violations and admitted the evidence.

The accused was convicted based on reliable breath test results showing 100 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of a minor victim.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence while defence counsel sought two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a three-year concurrent sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the abuse of a child under eighteen years of age.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, lifetime sex offender registration, a twenty-year section 161 order restricting contact with children, and a communication prohibition with the victim during incarceration.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of assault against her minor daughter.

The assaults occurred over a two-year period from May 2014 to February 2016, involving repeated beatings with household objects including a toilet plunger handle, rolling pin, and broom handle.

The final assault in March 2016 resulted in visible bruising and abrasions.

The court imposed a sentence of 135 days imprisonment (90 days on count 1, 45 days consecutive on count 2) followed by 18 months probation, a weapons prohibition under Section 110, and a DNA order.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives while considering the accused's remorse, guilty plea, lack of prior record, and the risk of deportation as a permanent resident.

The defendant pleaded guilty to distributing intimate images without consent and breaching an undertaking.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of six months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with nine months probation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, including home confinement for three months, a curfew for three months thereafter, community service, and restrictions on internet use and possession of intimate images.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and restorative justice principles, considering the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and strong family support against the serious harm caused to the victim.

The accused pleaded guilty to indecent assault on a female victim occurring between 1969 and 1976 when the victim was between 7 and 9 years old, and sexual assault on his biological daughter occurring between 1983 and 1988 when she was between 3 and 9 years old.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment followed by probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of up to two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a blended sentence of six months imprisonment combined with a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years probation, with ancillary orders including DNA order, SOIRA registration for life, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The court found that while denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the abuse of trust and young age of victims, the offender's low risk of reoffending, 28-year absence of further offences, and age and health considerations warranted a sentence less severe than might otherwise be imposed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to mischief, assault, threatening bodily harm, criminal harassment, and breaching a Youth Justice Court probation order, all committed against a minor victim between September 2013 and February 2014.

The offences involved a pattern of controlling and abusive behaviour in a dating relationship, including physical assault, property damage, threats, and distribution of intimate images.

The court imposed a blended sentence consisting of time served (59 days credited), one day of imprisonment, a six-month conditional sentence, and three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and a 20-metre exclusion zone.

A DNA order and ten-year firearms prohibition were also imposed.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of charges for impaired driving and exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit, alleging unreasonable delay in trial.

The defendant was charged on February 21, 2015, and the application was heard on November 2, 2016, representing a 16-month delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the delay was not unreasonable under both the pre-Jordan and post-Jordan frameworks.

The court attributed significant delay to the defendant's counsel's actions, including the decision to insist on a one-day trial slot rather than accepting a two-day slot or seeking an earlier date.

The court found no prejudice to the defendant and emphasized the societal interest in trying drinking and driving cases on their merits.

The accused was charged with four offences arising from an incident on March 3, 2014 in Oakville: assault on Ashley Prosser, confinement of Ashley Prosser, assault on a peace officer (Constable Bayliss) in the execution of his duties, and assault with a weapon (steel-toed shoe) on Special Constable Colling.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty and a trial was held.

The court found the accused's testimony highly unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies with witness evidence, video recordings, 911 recordings, and medical records.

The court accepted the evidence of the Crown witnesses and found the accused guilty of assault on Prosser, confinement of Prosser, and assault on Constable Bayliss.

The charge of assault with a weapon was dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the contact was deliberate.

The accused's application for a stay of proceedings based on Charter violations (sections 7 and 9) was dismissed, as the court found no serious state misconduct undermining trial fairness or judicial integrity.

The defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and causing bodily harm to a passenger.

The collision resulted in serious injuries to the victim, including a fractured pelvis requiring surgery and a dislocated knee.

The defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 129 milligrams per 100 millilitres and also had amphetamine and methamphetamine in her system.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment followed by two years probation, a two-year driving prohibition, and ancillary orders including DNA collection and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with 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 that the police officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to demand an approved instrument test.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances, including the vehicle's location on the highway shoulder at 3:13 a.m., the accused urinating behind the vehicle, the odour of alcohol, red and watery eyes, and the accused's admission of consuming two beers.

The court also found that the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable within 65 minutes of the stop.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused pleaded guilty to defrauding a non-profit minor baseball association of $468,166.66 over a six-year period while serving as Treasurer.

The Crown sought imprisonment for two to three years, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day in the community followed by three years probation, along with restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The court balanced the serious aggravating factors (breach of trust, large amount, extended period) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, family support, and rehabilitation potential) and found that a conditional sentence could achieve denunciation and deterrence while promoting restorative justice.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences committed on July 2, 2015: assault with a weapon (metal pole), assault causing bodily harm, and threatening death.

The offences arose from a domestic violence incident involving the defendant and her former common-law partner.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought six to nine months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a blended sentence of one day imprisonment on the threatening death charge, combined with a six-month conditional sentence on the assault charges, followed by three years probation.

The sentence considered the defendant's lack of prior record, guilty plea, bail compliance, and rehabilitative efforts, balanced against the serious nature of the offences, their commission in the presence of children, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor (JH), sexual interference with a minor (BM), and invitation to sexual touching of a minor (MV).

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing considered the serious nature of the offences, including grooming behaviour, breach of trust, multiple victims, and significant harm to the victims, balanced against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of prior record, and potential for rehabilitation through treatment programs.

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

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused applied to exclude breath test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device sample and reasonable and probable grounds to demand an Intoxilyzer breath sample.

The trial judge found that the officer infringed the accused's section 8 Charter rights by making both demands without the requisite legal grounds.

The trial judge excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2), finding that the seriousness of the Charter breach and the impact on the accused's liberty interests outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Both charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with theft over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and criminal breach of trust arising from her misappropriation of $4,000 belonging to her elderly father, for whom she held a Power of Attorney.

She was found guilty of theft under $5,000, fraud under $5,000, and criminal breach of trust.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of six months, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months probation, finding that neither a conditional discharge nor a conditional sentence was appropriate given the aggravating factor of breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant's lack of remorse, and the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of assault and one count of mischief, all involving the same intimate partner victim over a 15-month period.

The Crown sought four months imprisonment followed by three years probation, while defence counsel sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of four months to be served in the community followed by three years probation, with strict conditions including home confinement for the first two months, a curfew thereafter, no-contact provisions, and mandatory participation in anger management and domestic violence counselling programs.

The court also imposed a firearms prohibition for five years and authorized a DNA order.

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision on Highway 403.

The defendant, who was impaired with a blood alcohol concentration of 110 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, drove westbound in the eastbound lanes on two 400-series highways for several kilometres before colliding head-on with the victim's vehicle.

One person was killed and another seriously injured.

The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment for the death charge and two years concurrent for the bodily harm charge, along with an eight-year driving prohibition and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common-law partner and assaulting her daughter with a wine bottle.

The court first addressed a Charter application seeking to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay under section 11(b), which was dismissed for non-compliance with Criminal Rules.

On the merits, the court found the accused guilty of assaulting the common-law partner but acquitted him of assaulting the daughter with a weapon.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies, while accepting the complainant's evidence as credible and coherent.

The accused was charged with invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference against his daughter between July 10, 2014 and December 23, 2014.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial turned on the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's testimony.

The court found the complainant to be both credible and reliable despite certain inconsistencies in her evidence, which were assessed in light of her age and the distinction between credibility and reliability.

The court rejected the defence argument that the complainant had fabricated the allegations or learned about sexual acts from other sources.

The court found the Crown had proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all charges.