David A. Harris

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.

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.

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 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 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 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.