David A. Harris

The accused pleaded guilty to theft under s. 322 of the Criminal Code, having misappropriated $14,200 from her elderly mother's bank account while acting as power of attorney.

The victim, an 83-year-old widow suffering from dementia, was residing in long-term care.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of one year to be served in the community, followed by three years of probation.

The sentence emphasized the aggravating factor of breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victim, while considering the accused's age, lack of prior criminal record, and character references.

Following a trial, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor victim.

The defendant also pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching his recognizance of bail.

The court imposed a sentence of 4½ years imprisonment for the sexual offences, followed by an additional 90 days imprisonment for the breaches, to be served consecutively.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, a 10-year prohibition on employment or volunteering with persons under 16, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a prohibition on communication with the victim during the custodial portion of the sentence.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of assault against the same victim.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with two years probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with six months or less probation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years probation, considering the accused's acquired brain injury, his youth, lack of prior criminal record, and compliance with bail conditions.

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

The sentencing emphasized the importance of medication compliance in managing the accused's condition.

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 on July 20, 2014 in Milton, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused sought to exclude evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and the breath demand.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on dispatch information regarding erratic driving, observations of the vehicle's conduct, and signs of impairment observed during the traffic stop.

The court also found the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The accused was convicted on both counts based on evidence of poor driving, observations of impairment indicators, and breath test results showing a blood alcohol concentration of 140 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

A youth charged with sexual assault (4 counts), sexual interference (3 counts), and assault (1 count) brought an application to stay the charges pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) had been infringed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that although the total delay was just over 13 months, the delay was reasonable when considered holistically in light of the complexity of the case, the inherent time requirements, institutional resource constraints, and the serious nature of the charges.

The court found that institutional delay of approximately 3.5 to 4.5 months was justified given the case complexity, and that up to nine months could have been reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was charged with one count of assault and one count of assault with a weapon (a water bottle) involving his wife.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The case turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the first assault compelling and corroborated by her injuries, resulting in a guilty verdict on the assault charge.

However, regarding the alleged assault with a water bottle on the following day, the court found insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the complainant expressed uncertainty about whether the accused deliberately threw the bottle at her, and the accused's version that he threw it onto the table raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also addressed the application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn regarding cross-examination and found that while there was a failure to cross-examine on certain matters relating to the first incident, this was not determinative.

Following conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor, the court imposed a sentence of 60 days imprisonment followed by three years probation.

The offender, a 52-year-old man, had provided alcohol to two 15-year-old girls employed to perform household work.

While intoxicated, the offender touched the victim's breasts and genitals without consent.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for offences involving abuse of minors, while considering the offender's lack of remorse, absence of prior imprisonment, and serious physical injuries as relevant factors.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking to stay impaired driving and over 80 charges on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was infringed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his right to a trial within a reasonable time was infringed.

The institutional delay of between 8 months 5 days and 10 months 11 days was found to be reasonable in all the circumstances.

The court found that the defendant declined multiple earlier trial dates offered by the Crown and failed to demonstrate genuine prejudice from the delay.

The appellants appealed sentences imposed for violations of the Town of Milton zoning bylaw, specifically for operating retail sales and outdoor storage in a rural A-1 zone, and for parking oversized motor vehicles on agricultural property.

The appellants raised two grounds of appeal: that comments by the Justice of the Peace raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the fines imposed were excessive.

The appeal court dismissed both grounds, finding that while certain comments were inappropriate, they did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed in context, and that the sentences were reasonable and within the appropriate range given the regulatory nature of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, care or control with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and wilfully failing to provide a suitable breath sample.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

At trial, the Crown conceded it had not proven the over 80 offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired care or control and wilfully failing to provide a suitable breath sample, applying the three-part test from R. v. Boudreault regarding care or control, and finding the accused's claimed asthma did not explain his inability to provide samples.

The accused was convicted after trial of three counts of assault against his common-law spouse.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 60 to 90 days, while defence counsel sought time served and/or a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of imprisonment of four months to be served in the community, with the first 60 days subject to house arrest, followed by three years of probation.

A firearms prohibition under section 110 of the Criminal Code was also imposed for five years.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender's lack of prior criminal record, good prospects for rehabilitation, and the circumstances of the offences, which occurred during a period of significant personal stress.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with refusing to provide a breath sample.

The defendant sought to exclude evidence of his refusal based on alleged Charter violations regarding the right to be informed of the reason for detention and the right to counsel.

The court found the defendant's evidence to be internally inconsistent and contradicted by multiple Crown witnesses.

The court rejected the Charter application and found the defendant guilty of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his step-daughter over a 38-month period prior to her 16th birthday, and with two forms of sexual exploitation during periods following her 16th birthday.

The Crown proceeded by indictment; the accused elected trial in Ontario Court of Justice and pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The case turned on credibility in a classic "she said/he said" scenario.

The court found the complainant credible and the accused's evidence riddled with material inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

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

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, the timing of breath tests, the privacy of counsel consultation, the failure to video-record breath tests, and the video surveillance of the holding cell.

The court found no Charter violations with respect to reasonable and probable grounds, reasons for arrest, timing of breath tests, or counsel consultation.

The court found that while video surveillance of the holding cell raised privacy concerns, there was no infringement of the accused's section 8 rights in the specific circumstances, as the accused had a reduced expectation of privacy while in custody and no part of his genitals was visible on the recording.

The court rejected applications for a stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence, finding that admission of the breath test results would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

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 proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected Charter applications challenging the arrest, breath demand, and video surveillance of the accused in the holding cell.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand, and determined that while video surveillance of the accused using the toilet infringed her section 8 rights, the infringement was not so serious as to warrant exclusion of evidence or a stay of proceedings.

The court found the accused guilty of both offences.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault against his spouse.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The complainant testified at trial that she did not remember the assaultive behaviour, but the Crown was permitted to cross-examine her with her prior videotaped statement to police and to admit that statement into evidence.

The accused testified that he did not assault the complainant on any occasion.

The trial judge found the complainant's videotaped statement to be compelling and credible, noting the absence of motive to fabricate, the proximity in time to the events, the detailed and uninterrupted narrative, and the complainant's physical demeanour during the interview.

The trial judge found the accused's testimony to be unbelievable and internally inconsistent.

The trial judge convicted the accused on all three counts.

The accused was charged with trafficking in a fentanyl patch contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

She attended a detention centre to deliver forms to an inmate.

A fentanyl patch was discovered attached to one of her personal documents by a correctional officer during inspection.

The accused denied knowledge of the patch.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework and found that while the Crown's evidence raised suspicions, it did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of or was complicit in the smuggling.

The charge was dismissed.

This is a retrial following a successful appeal in a criminal case involving six charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against the defendant MCJ.

The charges involved three complainants: LJ (alleged offences between December 5, 1987 and December 5, 1992), KJ (alleged offences between June 15 and September 10, 2007), and LH (alleged offences in 1998 and July 23, 2005).

The defendant was the uncle of two complainants and the uncle of the mother of the third complainant.

The trial judge found that while the complainants were credible in their sincerity, their evidence was not reliable to the requisite degree due to numerous material inconsistencies, evolving allegations, and implausibilities.

All charges were dismissed.

The offender was sentenced for breach of a conditional sentence order.

The offender failed to report to his supervisor as required by the terms of his conditional sentence.

The court found the breach was without reasonable excuse and imposed a custodial sentence of 20 days, with the conditional sentence order to resume upon release without modification.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with conditional sentence terms and the deterrent effect of potential incarceration.

The appellant appealed his conviction for careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant drove his vehicle through a clearly marked emergency scene on the Queen Elizabeth Way, squeezing between pylons and a fire truck to enter the restricted area where emergency services were attending to a motor vehicle collision.

The trial justice found the appellant drove without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.

On appeal, the court upheld the conviction, finding the trial justice's decision reasonable and that the appellant's conduct fell below the standard of what a reasonable person would do in those circumstances and was worthy of punishment.