D. Burke

The accused, owner of a payroll services company, was charged with fraud, theft, and uttering forged documents.

She was alleged to have over-deducted Employer Health Tax from clients and failed to remit funds to the Canada Revenue Agency, keeping the excess funds in her trust account for personal use.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as improbable and contradictory to documentary evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding she intentionally defrauded clients of approximately $366,000 and forged bank documents to conceal the missing remittances.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault after shoving a stranger to the ground in an unprovoked, alcohol-fuelled attack.

The victim hit his head on the curb and suffered catastrophic, life-altering brain injuries.

The Crown sought 18 months' incarceration while the defence sought a suspended sentence, emphasizing the offender's lack of prior record and lack of intent to cause such severe harm.

The court balanced the catastrophic consequences and need for denunciation against the offender's positive background and the unintended extent of the harm, imposing a sentence of 4 months' incarceration and 2 years' probation.

The accused was tried for aggravated assault arising from a late-night incident in downtown Toronto in which the victim was struck and fell, suffering catastrophic head injuries.

The victim had no recollection of the attack, and the central issue at trial was whether the accused or a companion committed the assault.

The accused testified that his friend struck the victim while he merely witnessed the event.

The court rejected the accused’s account as self‑serving and inconsistent with the surrounding evidence, including eyewitness testimony from a taxi driver who observed the assault and identified the attacker as the person wearing a red T‑shirt.

Relying particularly on that independent eyewitness evidence, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused pushed or struck the victim, causing the severe injuries.

The Crown brought a summary conviction appeal from a trial decision finding a breach of the accused’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter and excluding breath sample evidence.

The trial judge had concluded that police failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate contact with the accused’s preferred lawyer before administering breath tests.

The appellate judge found that the officer had taken reasonable steps, including attempting to contact the lawyer and arranging for duty counsel while awaiting a callback.

The accused agreed to speak with whichever lawyer returned the call first and did not diligently pursue counsel of choice.

The appeal court concluded there was no s. 10(b) breach and further held that, even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would have been admissible under s. 24(2) applying the framework in Grant.