David Moull

The defendant was convicted of defrauding the Ontario government social assistance plan of $18,636.00 over three years and pleaded guilty to defrauding a Visa cardholder of $7,944.75 while awaiting trial on the first offence.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-10) that removed the conditional sentence option for offences with a maximum term of 14 years or life imprisonment.

The defendant argued this violated sections 12 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that the removal of the conditional sentence option does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment and does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The Crown alleged that the accused's ability to operate his vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.

The accused testified that he consumed only one draft beer and that his loss of consciousness at the roadside was not due to alcohol.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and not credible, and accepted the evidence of the police officers regarding the accused's erratic driving, observations at the roadside, and subsequent conduct at the hospital.

The court concluded that the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt based on the pattern of impaired driving, the accused's blackout, and the receding of symptoms consistent with alcohol impairment over time.

The offender was convicted of fraud over $5,000, uttering a forged document, and defrauding the public after holding himself out as a lawyer and defrauding multiple victims, including his employer.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record for offences of dishonesty and committed the index offences while serving a conditional sentence.

The court sentenced the offender to 3 years in the penitentiary, less pre-sentence credit, and ordered restitution to the victims.

The accused, who allegedly posed as a lawyer and defrauded his employer and the public, brought a motion for a directed verdict on counts of fraud and uttering forged documents at the close of the Crown's case.

The court applied the Shephard test to determine if there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a guilty verdict.

The court found that while there was no direct evidence of the accused forging cheques or a power of attorney, there was ample circumstantial evidence to support the charges.

The motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, "over 80," and dangerous driving following a June 6, 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The trial was originally scheduled for July 28-29, 2016 but was not reached and rescheduled for January 16-17, 2017.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The parties agreed that the net delay was 18 months and 28 days, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan by 28 days.

The Crown argued a transitional exceptional circumstance applied, but the court found the Crown failed to establish this exception and granted the stay of proceedings.

The defendant was arrested for impaired driving and care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol reading of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

At the police detachment, the defendant was subjected to a search that resulted in the exposure of her breasts and buttocks.

The court found that the police conducted an unjustified strip search in breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court determined that the circumstances did not warrant such an invasive search and that the police failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy.

The applicant was charged with impaired care and control and care and control with excess alcohol on May 4, 2014.

She brought a motion under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging that her right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The total delay from charge to trial completion was 20 months.

After analyzing the delay using the framework established in R. v. Morin, the court found that 13 months of delay was attributable to Crown actions and institutional factors, exceeding the guideline period of 8-10 months.

The court concluded that the applicant's Charter rights had been infringed and granted a judicial stay of the charges.

A young person charged with robbery with a firearm, point firearm, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and conspiracy to commit robbery brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant alleged that Toronto Police Service Hold-up Squad officers used excessive force by beating him while he was detained in an interview room at 41 Division.

The applicant also alleged breaches of his rights under sections 7, 10(a), 10(b), and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was assaulted in the manner alleged.

The court rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable and found that the injuries observed were inconsistent with the alleged brutal assault.

The court concluded that the officers' actions were justified and proportional to the applicant's aggressive behaviour.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, a Canada Revenue Agency employee and audit team leader, pleaded guilty to breach of trust by a public officer, accepting secret commissions, and defrauding the Government of Canada.

Over a three-year period, the accused received approximately $1.1 million in secret commissions from businesses in exchange for using his position to manipulate tax audits and investigations.

Most egregiously, he created a false audit of the Mayor of Caledon at the request of a developer seeking to intimidate the elected official.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment; the accused sought two years less one day.

The court imposed a three-year concurrent penitentiary sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount given the breach of public trust, the sophistication and scope of the scheme, and the attempt to intimidate an elected official.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault for wounding the victim with a fractured skull resulting from two blows to the head.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification based primarily on clothing descriptions.

The defendant admitted being at the scene but claimed his companion, Jamie Woodrow-Skinner, was the sole assailant.

The court found the eyewitness evidence contradictory and unreliable, with most witnesses intoxicated.

The only sober witness identified the assailant as wearing dark clothing, inconsistent with the defendant's white shirt and plaid pants.

The defendant was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding identity.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial involved a combined Charter voir dire and trial.

The defence challenged whether the officer had reasonable grounds to demand breath samples under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code, arguing the approved screening device was not proven to be in proper working order.

The defence also challenged whether the breath samples were obtained as soon as practicable under section 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the officer was credible and experienced, the approved screening device was functioning properly, reasonable grounds existed for the breath demand, and the samples were obtained as soon as practicable given all the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty as charged.