David A. King

This is an application by the accused, Jermaine Chapman, under s.520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order.

The accused sought release based on a new bail plan with strong sureties and electronic monitoring, public interest concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and potential trial delays.

The court found no error in the original justice's decision to detain and determined that the health emergency did not outweigh other considerations for detention.

The court also noted that while trial delays might occur, detention remained necessary and could be reviewed in the future.

The application for review was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery using a firearm and discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle with recklessness as to life or safety.

The offences occurred on July 11, 2017, in Burlington, Ontario.

The accused responded to an online advertisement for sexual services, and after a dispute with the service provider, returned to the motel armed with a firearm.

He robbed the motel clerk at gunpoint and later returned to shoot at a vehicle carrying the service provider and her driver.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of eight years imprisonment, with credit for 735 days of pre-sentence custody at a 1.5:1 ratio.

The court rejected the defence submission for a provincial sentence at St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre, finding insufficient evidence that such placement would better serve the principles of sentencing.

The accused was convicted following trial of assault, mischief to property (two counts), and sexual assault against his domestic partner over a period spanning from January 2015 to January 2017.

The Crown sought imprisonment for two years less one day followed by probation.

The defence sought a shorter custodial sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by three years probation on the sexual assault charge, with concurrent one-day sentences on the remaining charges.

The court considered sentencing principles including proportionality, denunciation, and general deterrence, while also accounting for the accused's lack of prior criminal record, positive background, and difficult childhood.

The accused was charged with ten offences spanning from 2014 to 2017, including multiple assaults, sexual assault, mischief to property, threatening death, breaking and entering with intent, and criminal harassment against the same complainant.

The trial turned primarily on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence in its various forms: her statement to police, her testimony in court, her affidavit, and a 911 call recording.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding whether she had been threatened with a firearm and her claims of being under the influence of alcohol.

The court distinguished between credibility (sincerity) and reliability (accuracy) and emphasized that demeanor alone cannot support a conviction where significant inconsistencies exist.

The court convicted on counts 2 (assault), 3 (mischief), 4 (sexual assault), and 9 (mischief), and acquitted on the remaining counts.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, abduction, and breach of probation, all alleged to have occurred in Milton on August 25, 2017.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness identification by the victim's mother (KT) of the accused as the person who attempted to abduct her child.

Although the court found KT to be credible and sincere in her belief, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The identification suffered from significant frailties, including limited observation time, cross-racial identification, and inconsistencies between KT's description and the accused's appearance.

The court acquitted the accused on all charges.

This decision addresses a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment in default of payment of fines in lieu of forfeiture under s.462.37(4) of the Criminal Code.

The applicants, previously convicted of fraud, argued that these provisions violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mandatory minimum terms were not grossly disproportionate under s.12, considering the legislative purpose of disgorging ill-gotten gains and the availability of other Criminal Code provisions allowing for flexibility (e.g., time to pay, proportionate reduction for partial payment, inability to pay as a reasonable excuse).

The court also found no violation of s.7, as offenders have opportunities to make submissions at various stages of the process.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, mischief, criminal harassment, and breaking and entering against a domestic partner.

The Crown sought to introduce the complainant's audio-recorded statement to police as hearsay evidence for the truth of its contents after the complainant recanted or expressed uncertainty about portions of her original statement at trial.

The court ruled on the admissibility of the hearsay statement under the principled exception established in R. v. Khan, applying the twin criteria of necessity and reliability, and considering whether the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, abduction, and breach of probation.

The accused brought applications to exclude eyewitness identification evidence on three grounds: (1) to ensure a fair trial; (2) on the basis that probative value was outweighed by prejudicial effect; and (3) pursuant to section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on detention exceeding 24 hours.

The court found that while the photo lineup process had some deficiencies relative to the Sophonow Inquiry recommendations, these did not warrant exclusion but rather affected the weight to be given the evidence.

The court also found that although the accused's Charter rights were infringed by detention beyond 24 hours, the identification evidence was not obtained in a manner that infringed Charter rights and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

All applications were dismissed.

The appellant, Fritz Michael Stoeckler, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit ("over 80").

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings regarding reasonable suspicion for a breath demand and the dismissal of the mouth alcohol argument.

The court, applying a standard of palpable and overriding error for factual findings, dismissed the appeal.

It affirmed that the officer had reasonable grounds for the breath demand, as the smell of alcohol, consistent with prior consumption, did not provide a rational basis to suspect residual mouth alcohol that would invalidate the roadside screening device result.

Manuel Pereira appealed his sentence for dangerous driving and stunt driving, specifically challenging a 24-month driving prohibition.

The appellant argued that the sentencing Justice failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not adequately consider mitigating factors, rendering the driving ban demonstrably unfit.

The Crown sought dismissal of the appeal, asserting the sentence was fair.

The Superior Court of Justice, applying a standard of deference to the sentencing judge, dismissed the appeal, finding the driving ban was entirely fit given the appellant's egregious driving record and the severity of the current offences, distinguishing his case from those of first-time offenders.

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.

The accused was charged with committing an indecent act by exposing his genitals and masturbating in a public place on a highway in the presence of a minor, and with criminal harassment by repeatedly following the minor and causing her to fear for her safety.

The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence relating to a subsequent incident on Highway 401.

The court admitted the similar fact evidence and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused subsequently brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the total delay of 17 months and 5 days (after deducting defence delay) fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan for provincial court proceedings.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

She was found asleep in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition.

After failing a roadside screening device test, she was arrested and provided with duty counsel.

However, when asked by the breath technician if she was satisfied with the legal advice received, she indicated she was not satisfied and did not understand the advice.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) of the Charter because the accused was not informed of her right to a second consultation with counsel.

The breath readings and statements were excluded under section 24(2), resulting in a not guilty verdict.

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.

Allen Taylor appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's decision to exclude only the second breath sample under s. 24(2) of the Charter, following a s. 10(b) right to counsel breach.

The appellant argued both breath samples should have been excluded and that the remaining evidence was insufficient for conviction.

The Superior Court found the trial judge erred in not excluding both breath samples, applying the principles from R. v. Pino regarding evidence obtained prior to a Charter breach.

However, the court upheld the impaired driving conviction, finding that even without the breath samples, the remaining eyewitness and police observation evidence was compelling and sufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 79 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown conceded the delay but argued that significant portions were attributable to defence waiver or conduct, and that exceptional circumstances, including case complexity and transitional considerations, justified the remaining delay.

The court found that defence delay (waiver and conduct) accounted for 1017 days for Jun-Chul Chung and 938 days for Kathleen Chung.

Additionally, 347 days of delay were attributed to case complexity (voluminous disclosure, multiple co-accused, interpreter requirements, and time for submissions).

Considering these factors and the transitional exceptional circumstances for pre-Jordan cases, including the seriousness of the offences and institutional delay, the court concluded that the delay was justified.

The applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The accused was charged with five firearms-related offences following a search warrant executed at his residence.

He conceded guilt on three counts relating to careless storage and unlicensed possession of two long guns found under his mattress.

He denied knowledge of an SKS assault rifle and ammunition found hidden in his basement and a cache of 7.62mm ammunition found in his garage.

The court found that the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused had knowledge of and was in possession of all three firearms and the ammunition.

The court rejected the defence theories that someone else had stored or planted the weapons without the accused's knowledge, finding such scenarios contrary to common sense and logic.

The accused was convicted on all five counts.

The offender was convicted of intimidating a justice participant and breaching a recognizance following his conduct at a preliminary inquiry.

While testifying as a witness in domestic violence charges against the offender, the victim was subjected to a cut-throat gesture and threatening words by the offender.

The court imposed a sentence of eight months custody on the intimidation charge and two months concurrent on the breach charge, followed by 18 months probation with strict conditions including non-association with the victim.

DNA orders and a lifetime firearms prohibition were also imposed.

The court emphasized the seriousness of offences against the administration of justice and the need to protect witnesses and the integrity of the judicial process.

The accused, a Niagara Regional Police officer, was charged with assaulting his wife, also a police officer, on November 25, 2013.

The complainant alleged the accused was the aggressor who chased her through the house and assaulted her.

The accused claimed the complainant was the aggressor.

The trial examined credibility and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Despite finding the accused's evidence unreliable due to his manipulative and jealous behavior, and despite concerns about inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

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.