David A. King

The accused, a police officer, was committed to stand trial on charges of obstructing justice and fabricating evidence, but discharged on two other counts of fabricating evidence following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown subsequently added two counts of forgery to the indictment based on the same evidence, pursuant to section 574(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought an application to quash the two new counts.

The court dismissed the application regarding one count, finding sufficient evidence of a false notebook entry, but granted the application to quash the second count, concluding that the evidence regarding the condition of a Provincial Offence Notice was too speculative to support a forgery charge.

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 moving party, charged with historical sexual offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 34.5 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found that an 8.5-month delay caused by the complainant's unexpected pregnancy and resulting stress constituted a 'discrete event' and an exceptional circumstance under the Jordan framework.

Deducting this delay brought the remaining time below the presumptive ceiling.

The court concluded the moving party failed to show the remaining delay was markedly in excess of what was reasonably required.

The application for a stay was 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 applicants, charged with break and enter, were discharged at a preliminary inquiry, terminating their bail.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari, reviving the charges.

To address the outstanding issue of bail, the Crown sought and obtained arrest warrants for the applicants.

The applicants brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging the Crown's conduct in seeking the warrants was an abuse of process and breached their rights under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the Crown's conduct did not meet the high threshold for abuse of process and the arrests were lawful under section 507(8) of the Criminal Code.

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.

The accused, a pharmacist, pleaded guilty to defrauding the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan of $2.5 million over three years by knowingly overbilling for pharmaceuticals not purchased or dispensed.

The accused had repaid $2 million in restitution but $500,000 remained outstanding.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in custody, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence despite evidence of the accused's depression, drug addiction, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court emphasized that general deterrence is the paramount sentencing principle in large-scale fraud cases involving breach of trust.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, having stolen $86,234 from Grace United Church in Caledonia over a four-year period (2009-2012) while serving as Treasurer of Mission and Service Funds.

The Crown sought imprisonment of six to nine months, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding that denunciation and general deterrence were the primary sentencing principles applicable to this breach of trust involving repeated theft and fabricated financial reports.

The court imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation with conditions including financial counselling and restrictions on employment involving positions of trust with financial matters.

A stand-alone restitution order of $86,234 was made in favour of the Church.

The applicant sought a variation of a section 161 Criminal Code order imposed at sentencing for possession of child pornography and careless storage of ammunition.

The order prohibited him for 10 years from attending public parks, swimming areas, daycare centres, schools, playgrounds, and community centres where persons under 16 were present, except when accompanied by his wife; from seeking employment or volunteering with minors; and from using computer systems to communicate with persons under 16 other than his children.

The applicant requested three modifications: removal of the requirement to be accompanied by a named adult when attending children's activities, permission to attend an arena for adult hockey, and permission for other named individuals to accompany him to prohibited locations.

The court found limited changed circumstances and granted a partial variation, expanding the list of approved companions from his wife alone to 19 named family members and relatives, while maintaining the requirement for supervised attendance at locations where children are present.

The applicant sought a reference hearing under section 74 of the Firearms Act to challenge the Chief Firearms Officer's refusal to issue him a firearms licence.

The refusal was based on the applicant's membership in the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, deemed a criminal organization.

The applicant had no criminal record, no mental health issues, and no history of violence.

The court upheld the refusal, finding that membership in a criminal organization constitutes a legitimate public safety concern under section 5(1) of the Firearms Act, even absent specific enumeration in section 5(2).

The applicant sought disclosure of the identities of two confidential informants whose information formed the basis for a search warrant executed at his residence.

The applicant was charged with possessing a semi-automatic assault rifle and an illegal capacity magazine found in his basement.

He argued that his innocence was at stake and that disclosure was necessary to demonstrate that the items were planted or that one of the informants was a suspect with motive and opportunity to plant the items.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold test requiring him to establish that the information sought was not available from any other source and that he was otherwise unable to raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with assaulting Gary McHale with a plastic pipe and possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The assault occurred during a protest at Douglas Creek Estates (Kanonhstaton) on February 18, 2012, in the context of ongoing disputes over aboriginal land claims by the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations).

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused represented herself and pleaded not guilty.

Evidence from two Ontario Provincial Police officers and the victim, along with video evidence, established that the accused picked up a plastic pipe and attempted to strike the victim.

The accused raised arguments regarding the court's jurisdiction based on aboriginal sovereignty and attempted to invoke the defence of real property.

The court rejected both arguments and found the accused guilty of both charges.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision in which the Crown sought committal on seven counts arising from the theft of lottery tickets at a convenience store and the subsequent fraudulent claim of a $12.5 million lottery prize.

The accused were charged with theft of lottery tickets, possession of stolen property, fraud against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, possession of proceeds of crime, and money laundering.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence derived from lottery transaction records showing a pattern of "split ticket" thefts where free play tickets generated from original tickets were validated at different locations and times.

The defence argued the evidence was speculative and that alternative explanations existed.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on all seven counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a minor between October 28, 2010 and March 1, 2012, assault of the minor, assault of her new boyfriend, and threatening to kill the boyfriend.

The accused was 20-22 years old during the sexual relationship with the 13-15 year old complainant.

The court imposed a sentence of eight months imprisonment on the sexual interference count, with consecutive sentences of 10 days each on the assault and death threat counts, followed by 15 months probation.

The court applied principles of denunciation and general deterrence while considering the accused's youth, guilty plea, and rehabilitation prospects.