David Marcel Robinson

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired driving and driving while prohibited.

He had an extensive criminal record, including ten prior convictions for driving while prohibited and two for impaired driving.

At the time of the offence, he was bound by a lifetime driving prohibition and provided a false name to police.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, rejecting the defence's argument that the offender's mental health and addiction issues significantly mitigated his moral blameworthiness.

The offender was sentenced to a total of two years' imprisonment, followed by two years of probation, and a lifetime driving prohibition.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against his daughter, brought an application seeking a declaration that a surreptitiously recorded phone call between himself and the complainant was not a 'record' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued the recording did not contain personal information as it related to family law proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication, which touched on her emotional well-being and dignity.

The court ordered that a hearing under s. 278.93 must be held to determine the admissibility of the recording.

The accused was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition after police executed a search warrant and found the contraband hidden in a basement where the accused was staying.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court found that while there was circumstantial evidence the accused had control of the basement, there was no evidence he had knowledge of the hidden firearm and ammunition.

The motion for a directed verdict was granted and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was 31.89 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The court analyzed periods of delay attributable to the defence (42 days for election of mode of trial, 70 days for counsel unavailability) and found that after deducting these, the net delay fell below the Jordan ceiling.

The court also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The application for a stay was dismissed as the net delay was not unreasonable.

The Applicant, M.C., charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement, brought a pre-trial motion to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity and discussions under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court conducted a two-stage hearing to determine admissibility.

Evidence directly related to the alleged incident (questions 12-21) was deemed permissible.

Evidence of general prior sexual activity and relationship context (questions 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11) was found inadmissible as it supported "twin myths" and lacked probative value.

However, specific discussions about planning bondage sex for the Niagara Falls trip (questions 4, 7, 8, and safe word discussions from 5) were deemed admissible, as they directly related to the accused's understanding of the interactions at the time of the alleged offence and were not unduly prejudicial.