David A. Harris

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine in Milton on February 27, 2015.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty and sought to exclude evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court conducted a blended hearing on both the Charter application and the trial.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for marijuana possession based on the smell of burnt marijuana and visible flakes in the vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unbelievable and found that the accused's right to counsel was not infringed.

The court found the accused's statements to police were made voluntarily.

The court convicted the accused of possession of cocaine, finding all essential elements of possession established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from two separate incidents involving his wife: assault, unlawful confinement, choking, threatening death, and mischief on September 1, 2013, and three counts of mischief on November 3, 2013.

The accused pleaded guilty to some mischief charges but not guilty to the remaining charges.

The trial proceeded with testimony from the complainant and a corroborating witness, followed by the accused's testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's denials.

The court convicted the accused on all remaining charges based on the evidence that he was highly intoxicated and engaged in violent and threatening behaviour toward the complainant.

A youth charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and assault involving four complainants.

The court addressed preliminary applications regarding video-recorded statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code and similar fact evidence.

The trial judge found the defendant guilty of three counts of assault (one involving B.B.C., one involving N.C., and one involving M.S.) and one count of sexual assault (involving M.K.).

The defendant was acquitted of all sexual assault and sexual interference charges except for the one sexual assault conviction.

The judgment emphasizes the distinction between credibility and reliability of witness testimony, particularly regarding young witnesses, and addresses concerns about evidence tainting through rumour and collusion.

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

The Crown withdrew the over-80 charge prior to the close of its case.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving after the court rejected her defence of necessity, which was based on claims that she was experiencing suicidal ideation and drove to seek help.

The court found no evidence of imminent peril, reasonable legal alternatives existed, and the proportionality requirement was not satisfied.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to his three-year-old son, who sustained a non-displaced spiral fracture of the left arm.

The Crown sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment; defence sought a conditional discharge, suspended sentence, or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of six months in the community followed by two years probation, with strict conditions including home confinement for the first three months, anger management programming, and restrictions on contact with the victim.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence against the offender's lack of prior record, genuine remorse, mental health challenges, and rehabilitative potential.

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 challenged the admissibility of breath test results under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample and that the accused was properly informed of the reasons for detention and arrest.

However, the court found that the breath technician breached the accused's right to counsel under section 10(b) by withholding the first breath test result, thereby preventing the accused from making an informed decision about whether to seek legal advice.

The second breath test result was excluded.

The accused was convicted of impaired operation based on the totality of the evidence, including observations of poor driving, physical signs of impairment, and the first breath test result.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of children's clothing taken from unlocked lockers at a recreational centre in March and April 2015.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted for an 18-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.

The court accepted the joint submission, noting that while the offences appeared to be simple theft, the circumstances revealed concerning underlying issues.

The accused has a documented history of pedophilia, paraphilias, and sexual interest in young girls' underwear.

A psychiatric assessment recommended anti-libidinal medication, sexual offender treatment programming, and strict conditions regarding contact with minors.

The conditional sentence includes house arrest with limited exceptions, prohibition on contact with children under 12, and mandatory medical treatment for libido reduction.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a road rage incident on the Queen Elizabeth Way in Oakville.

The accused punched the victim in the face, fracturing a cheekbone and chipping a tooth.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, asserting the victim ran at him with intent to attack.

The court found the accused's evidence inconsistent with that of independent witnesses and internally implausible.

The court determined the Crown proved all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the self-defence provisions did not apply.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with theft over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and criminal breach of trust arising from her use of her father's funds while holding a power of attorney.

The accused used $4,000 of her father's money to pay personal bills while he was in long-term care, causing him to default on facility payments.

The accused claimed colour of right based on a clause in the power of attorney authorizing loans to relatives and her father's prior loans to her.

The court found that the circumstances were materially different from prior loans, as the father was now in care, the funds were insufficient to cover his care costs, and his default on obligations created risk.

The court rejected the colour of right defence and found the accused guilty of theft under $5,000, fraud under $5,000, and criminal breach of trust.

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 Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused applied to exclude the Intoxilyzer test results pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand, thereby violating rights under s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention).

The court found that while the officer subjectively believed reasonable and probable grounds existed, the belief was not objectively reasonable.

The court excluded the breath test evidence under s. 24(2), finding that the long-term interests of the administration of justice favoured exclusion.

Both charges were dismissed.

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

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test results under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device test.

The court found the police officer had objectively reasonable grounds to suspect impairment based on the totality of circumstances, including erratic driving, unusual vehicle placement, placement of air fresheners in unusual locations, and minimal responses to questioning.

The court also found the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable despite the two-hour-and-twenty-five-minute delay, which was attributable to unusual weather conditions, unavailability of a qualified technician in Burlington, and equipment issues.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application arguing the approved screening device demand was not made 'forthwith' due to a short delay while waiting for another officer to bring the device.

The court dismissed the application, finding the delay was objectively reasonable for officer safety.

The court also found the breath tests at the station were conducted 'as soon as practicable' despite minor delays.

The accused was found guilty.

A 17-year-old youth pleaded guilty to four counts of internet luring, one count of possession of child pornography, and eleven counts of extortion.

The offences occurred over a two-and-a-half-month period between May and August 2014, involving the solicitation of explicit images from minors via Facebook and subsequent threats to publish those images unless additional images were provided.

The youth targeted vulnerable victims, including a 12-year-old, a 13-year-old, and a 15-year-old autistic girl.

The court imposed a custodial sentence with conditions addressing the serious nature of the offences, the youth's lack of remorse and insight, and his pattern of breaching court orders.

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

The Crown withdrew the over-80 charge and did not introduce breath test results.

The defence initially pursued a Charter application but abandoned it after evidence was heard.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's poor driving was caused by alcohol impairment rather than a medical condition or language barrier.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on the totality of evidence, including aggressive driving patterns, inconsistent defence testimony, and the accused's behaviour following police intervention.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault, assault causing bodily harm, threatening death, threatening bodily harm, mischief, and breach of probation arising from a violent domestic incident.

The accused, subject to a probation order prohibiting contact with his common-law partner, entered her residence late at night while intoxicated, forced entry, and engaged in a prolonged physical and verbal assault against her and her father who intervened.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 341 days pre-sentence custody credited as 511 days plus 90 days additional imprisonment, followed by three years probation with strict conditions including no contact orders, substance abuse counselling, and anger management programming.

The court applied Gladue principles as the accused is of Métis heritage but found that denunciation and deterrence were the predominant sentencing objectives given the serious and violent nature of the offences.

Appeals by Richard Storey and Peter Cordeiro against convictions and sentences for offences under the Consumer Protection Act.

Both appellants were tried in absentia and convicted.

The original sentences imposed were significantly harsher than those sought by Crown counsel.

On judicial pretrial, the Crown and defence counsel agreed that the original sentences were unreasonable and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The convictions were upheld on consent, but the sentences were substantially varied to reflect more proportionate terms of imprisonment, with concurrent rather than consecutive service, and restitution orders were imposed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against Raymond King, his step-father.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment while defence counsel sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of nine months in the community followed by two years probation, with strict conditions including home confinement, no contact with the victim, and mandatory counselling for anger management and substance abuse.

The court applied Gladue principles recognizing the defendant's Aboriginal heritage and difficult background while balancing the serious nature of the assault and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

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 impaired driving charge was dismissed at the conclusion of the Crown's evidence.

At trial, the defence raised two issues: a Charter application to exclude breath test results based on an allegedly invalid approved screening device demand, and an argument that the presumption relating breath test readings to the time of driving did not apply because the tests were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found no Charter breach but determined that the Crown failed to prove the tests were taken as soon as practicable, thereby defeating the statutory presumption.

The over 80 charge was dismissed.

The defendant was initially charged with 120 offences contrary to the Income Tax Act.

After the Crown elected to proceed summarily and withdrew two counts, the defendant pleaded guilty to 78 counts involving false or deceptive statements in income tax returns and fraudulent claims for refunds.

The defendant had operated a side business preparing tax returns for clients, providing fraudulent charitable donation receipts and false employment expense claims, resulting in approximately $70,365.55 in unpaid federal taxes.

The court dismissed the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process and Charter violations.

The defendant was sentenced to concurrent conditional sentences of imprisonment for one year to be served in the community, plus fines totalling $70,365.55 (100% of taxes evaded).

Conditions included home confinement for the first eight months and prohibition from tax preparation work or church volunteer positions involving financial authority.

The defendant pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, having taken $16,800 from his elderly father while holding a Power of Attorney.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment; the defence sought an intermittent sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 45-day intermittent sentence with three years probation and restitution, balancing the seriousness of the breach of trust against the defendant's rehabilitative potential and ability to continue making restitution payments.