David Lakie

The accused was tried on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on civilian and police observations, a standard field sobriety test, a drug influence evaluation, and toxicology evidence showing cocaine, benzoylecgonine, and buprenorphine in the accused's blood.

The court accepted that any degree of drug impairment would suffice, but found the driving evidence minimal, the drug recognition conclusion inconsistent with the toxicology findings, and the defence explanation of exhaustion reasonably possible.

Taken as a whole, the evidence left a reasonable doubt whether the accused was impaired by drugs or simply fatigued.

The accused was charged with assault and breach of probation following an alleged domestic incident at a hotel.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the evidence of the complainant, who alleged the accused punched her in the face and head.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including her denial of interactions with the accused's mother shortly after the incident, her fabricated claim that the accused barricaded himself in the room, and her denial of telling a witness she fell on the stairs.

Due to these inconsistencies and concerns about her level of intoxication, the court found her evidence unreliable.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drugs (cocaine) and possession of cocaine.

The accused, who is blind in one eye and suffers from other physical and cognitive disabilities due to a prior accident, performed poorly on a Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE).

However, there was no evidence of bad driving, and a toxicologist testified that the presence of cocaine in the accused's urine could not confirm impairment at the time of driving.

Applying the W.(D). framework, the court accepted the accused's testimony that he had consumed cocaine the day before and that his poor performance on the DIE was due to his disabilities and nervousness.

The court found the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the impaired driving charge, while entering a finding of guilt for the possession charge.

The accused were charged with multiple offences arising from a domestic disturbance.

Police responded to a 911 call reporting loud arguing and breaking glass.

The responding officer observed the male accused slam a door and, after the accused refused to exit and locked the door, the officer forced entry without a warrant, citing exigent circumstances.

A physical altercation ensued involving both accused and two officers.

The court applied the W.(D). test to assess credibility and found the officer had reasonable grounds to believe exigent circumstances existed under s. 529.3 of the Criminal Code, making the entry lawful.

The male accused was found guilty of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, and breaching a peace bond, but acquitted of mischief.

The female accused was found guilty of attempting to disarm a police officer and resisting arrest, but acquitted of possession of a weapon and assaulting a police officer with a weapon.

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily injury after his vehicle drifted into oncoming traffic.

He also pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine.

The jury acquitted him of impaired driving charges.

The sentencing judge applied the Ferguson principles to determine the facts consistent with the jury's verdict, rejecting the defence theory of syncope and finding the accused's decision to drive with methamphetamine in his system to be an aggravating factor.

The accused was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment, a $650 fine, and a 3-year driving prohibition.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision finding that the accused's Charter rights were violated due to an unlawful traffic stop and detention.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

The evidence showed the police merely followed the accused to his destination without stopping him, and the accused was not detained until the police smelled alcohol and formed grounds for a roadside screening demand.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.

The accused was charged with assaulting his young daughter, causing her bodily harm, and breaching a probation order.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on evidence that the child was uninjured when placed in her crib but bore significant bruising when arriving at hospital approximately three hours later.

The Crown argued the accused was the only person with opportunity to cause the injuries.

The defence argued the Crown had not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found significant credibility issues with both the Crown's primary witness and the accused's testimony, and admitted hearsay evidence from the accused's older son suggesting the mother may have caused the injuries.

The court concluded that while the mother's involvement could not be eliminated as a possibility, and a remote possibility of self-injury existed, the Crown had not proven the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both charges.

The defendant was charged with possession of 5 oxycodone pills and two counts of possession of prohibited weapons (a lighter with a spring-loaded blade and nunchaku sticks) found during a search warrant execution at his residence.

The Crown bore the burden of proving possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant testified that he was unaware of the weapons and that the pills belonged to a plumber friend who had lost them while working at the home.

The friend testified and confirmed the pills were his prescription medication.

The court found the defendant's evidence credible and accepted that the pills were not in his possession.

Regarding the weapons, the court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as the items could have belonged to any of the numerous people who had lived in or visited the home over the years.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with production of marihuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of hydro after police discovered a large grow operation in the basement of a dog kennel on a rural property.

The co-accused, who had previously pled guilty, testified that the accused was his partner in the operation.

The accused testified that he was hired to oversee the construction of the kennel and only discovered the grow operation later, denying any involvement.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's evidence could reasonably be true and raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.