David Holmes

Sentencing for summary conviction assault of offender's minor daughter in the family home, involving multiple applications of force causing visible injuries, committed to prevent the child from intervening in a spousal dispute.

Court rejected defence request for conditional discharge, finding it contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the assault, statutory aggravating factors including breach of trust and victim under 18, significant victim impact, and absence of remorse or acceptance of responsibility.

Court also declined conditional sentence as inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Intermittent jail sentence of 30 days imposed followed by 12 months probation, with DNA order.

The court sentenced K.P. to 16 years in custody for attempted murder and related offences arising from a pattern of intimate partner violence, including multiple attempts to poison the complainant with fentanyl and hiring a hitman to kill her.

The decision details the facts found by the jury, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the harsh pre-sentence custody conditions experienced by the offender.

The court considered the offender’s mental health and addictions, but found his moral blameworthiness to be high due to planning, deliberation, and lack of remorse.

The sentence was reduced from 21 to 16 years to account for the particularly harsh pre-trial detention conditions.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence of the respondent's prior U.S. bank fraud conviction at his trial for fraud, theft, and obtaining accounts by false pretences.

The court applied the R. v. Handy and R. v. L.B. tests, finding the evidence relevant to establish mens rea and negative innocent explanations.

Despite the time gap and some dissimilarities, the strong nexus between the schemes (circumventing high-risk business barriers in credit card processing) and the significant probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, which could be mitigated by jury instructions.

The application was granted.

Malcom Lee was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The defence filed Charter applications, primarily alleging breaches of section 10(b) rights regarding access to counsel.

The court found no breach of the informational or implementational components of the right to counsel, or if there was a minor breach, the evidence would still be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed both offences based on observations of impairment, the unexplained collision, and breath readings.

The accused, Carly Delorme, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood-alcohol concentration over 80 mg%.

The trial judge dismissed both charges.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in officer testimony and the accused's normal behaviour on video.

Regarding the "over 80" charge, while the Certificate of Analysis was admitted (the court held that virtual exhibits could be "duplicate originals" and satisfied legal requirements), the Crown failed to prove that the operation occurred within the two-hour timeframe preceding the officer's arrival, which is a necessary element of the re-worded offence.

The presumption of care and control was also rebutted as the vehicle was inoperable and the accused was trapped.

The applicant, Daniel Veldman, brought a motion for a stay of charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, calculating the total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion as 43 months, 18 days.

After subtracting defence delay and exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was found to be 29 months, 24.5 days, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have or that he took meaningful steps to expedite proceedings.

Furthermore, considering the seriousness of the charges (including sexual assault, extortion, and uttering threats) and the public interest, and applying a contextual analysis for this transitional case (charges laid pre-Jordan), the court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings.

The accused, Daniel Veldman, brought an application seeking a finding that the interviewing officer violated his s. 10(b) Charter rights by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to retain counsel of choice.

The Crown had initially sought a ruling on the voluntariness of Veldman's videotaped statement, but the defence conceded voluntariness.

The court dismissed Veldman's Charter application, finding that his preferred counsel was not a lawyer and that Veldman had unequivocally waived his right to counsel by insisting on giving a statement despite being offered duty counsel multiple times and advised not to speak by duty counsel.

The defendant was charged with one count of assault and one count of mischief under $5,000.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the defendant, as well as photographic evidence.

The central issues were whether the Crown proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, the credibility of the witnesses, and whether self-defence applied.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the defendant's account as implausible and inconsistent.

The court determined that the defendant unlawfully assaulted the complainant by grabbing her neck and subsequently damaged her cell phone.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content exceeding the legal limit and while impaired by alcohol, following incidents on October 11, 2015.

The central issues involved Charter violations regarding warrantless entry into an underground parking garage, reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, and the right to counsel.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to enter the garage based on hot pursuit and exigent circumstances, that the arrest was lawful, and that the right to counsel was not violated.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt both excess alcohol and impairment.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing 130 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged whether the breath tests were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The arresting officer transported the accused to a detachment in Port Credit rather than attempting to arrange testing at closer Halton Police Service stations.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tests were taken as soon as practicable and therefore could not rely on the presumption of identity.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was convicted after trial of two counts of assault and two counts of assault with a weapon arising from an incident where he approached two young women fundraising for charity, mistakenly believing one had stolen money from him.

He grabbed one by the wrist and brandished a knife.

Subsequently, while on bail pending sentencing, he was arrested carrying a concealed 12-inch knife and pleaded guilty to breaching a no-weapons recognizance and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The sentencing judge imposed a custodial sentence of six and a half months, taking into account the accused's paranoid schizophrenia and its causal connection to the offences, while balancing the need for denunciation and protection of the public.

Arthur John Blackwood was convicted of production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record for similar offences, and mitigating factors such as cooperation with police and remorse.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 402 days (after credit for pre-trial custody) and ordered forfeiture of offence-related property, including the net proceeds from the sale of his home, finding the forfeiture not disproportionate given the nature and gravity of the offences and his criminal record.

Arthur John Blackwood was charged with multiple offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code.

He pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (Count 3) and was deemed to have pleaded guilty to production of marijuana (Count 1).

The trial proceeded on charges of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking (Count 2), possession of ammunition while prohibited (Count 5), and possession of proceeds of crime (Count 6).

The court found Blackwood guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking based on his statements, lack of conventional income, and the large quantity of marijuana and plants.

He was found not guilty of possession of proceeds of crime due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was found guilty of possession of ammunition, as his ownership of the residence and knowledge of the ammunition constituted "control" despite his argument that he did not bring it into the house.

The accused, Devyn Barclay, was detained by police based on a confidential informant's tip after disembarking a train with two large black suitcases.

Despite officers not detecting a marijuana odour, a police dog later indicated positively on the suitcases, leading to Barclay's arrest and the discovery of 33 pounds of marijuana.

Barclay challenged his investigative detention, the warrantless search, and arrest as violations of his Charter rights (sections 7, 8, and 9).

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity based on the compelling, credible, and corroborated informant's tip, justifying the detention and canine search.

The subsequent arrest and search incidental to arrest were also deemed lawful.

Barclay was found guilty of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and breaching a probation order.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence obtained through a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant, alleging violations of s. 8 of the Charter.

The accused argued that information supporting subsequent warrants was derived from an improper earlier search and from unreliable confidential informants.

The court found the police observations of marijuana material inside an open shed were lawfully obtained and fell within the plain view doctrine, and that the accused had only a limited expectation of privacy in the shed.

Even if the disputed information were removed from the Informations to Obtain, sufficient remaining evidence supported reasonable and probable grounds for the subsequent warrants.

The court held the warrants were valid and the seized evidence admissible.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings pending the provision of state-funded counsel following the denial of legal aid, relying on ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and seeking a Rowbotham order.

The court accepted that legal aid had been finally refused but held the applicant failed to establish indigence due to incomplete and unreliable financial disclosure, unexplained deposits, asset ownership, and lack of corroborating evidence regarding claimed financial limitations.

The court also concluded that the fraud prosecution, involving cheque transactions and documentary evidence, was not legally complex and could proceed fairly with a self‑represented accused supported by interpretation and trial management by the court.

As the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a Rowbotham order, the application was dismissed.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to cross‑examine the affiant officer and to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant authorizing a search of his residence for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused argued that the warrant was issued without reasonable grounds because the Information to Obtain relied heavily on unproven confidential informants whose reliability had not been sufficiently established.

The court held that cross‑examination of the affiant was unnecessary because it would not assist in determining whether the authorizing justice could have granted the warrant.

Applying the totality of the circumstances approach from Debot, the court found that the informant information was compelling, credible, and corroborated by police investigation including background checks and electricity consumption data.

The search warrant was therefore valid and the Charter application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter motion under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a suspected cannabis grow operation.

They alleged the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements and inadequate disclosure and sought leave to cross-examine the affiant officer under the Garofoli framework.

The court held that the accused had standing to bring the application as residents of the searched property and permitted limited cross‑examination concerning alleged discrepancies in the officer’s description of another officer’s observations.

After reviewing the evidence and the affidavit supporting the warrant, the court concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrant.

The search warrant was found to be valid and the evidence admissible.

The applicants brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine evidence following a traffic stop and subsequent searches.

The court found that the passenger was psychologically detained when police requested identification and that using the passenger’s health card to conduct a CPIC check breached s. 8 of the Charter.

Although a protective pat‑down search was justified for officer safety, opening a cigarette package discovered during the search exceeded the lawful scope and constituted an unreasonable search.

The court also found there were no reasonable grounds to arrest the driver for possession based solely on cocaine found on the passenger.

However, the vehicle search that uncovered a larger quantity of cocaine was justified as a lawful inventory search following mandatory vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, and the evidence was therefore admissible.

The accused was charged with drug and firearm offences after police discovered a large-scale marihuana grow operation and a loaded rifle on his property.

The accused claimed he was held captive by two men who forced him to take responsibility for the drugs under threat of violence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, applying the W.(D.) framework, and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in sole control of the property, the drugs, and the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.