Deana Bronowicki

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference concerning his five-year-old granddaughter.

The allegations arose during an acrimonious family law dispute between the complainant's parents over custody, access, and support.

The complainant disclosed the allegations to her mother, who reported them to police.

Although the judge generally accepted the core allegations made by the complainant, the defendant was acquitted due to numerous factors that eroded the strength of the prosecution's case, including credibility concerns regarding both parents, material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, a surreptitious recording made by the complainant's father, and the complainant's challenging demeanor at trial.

Bradley Evaschuk was found guilty by a jury on nine counts, including fraud over $5,000, attempt fraud over $5,000, and uttering forged documents.

The fraudulent activities involved submitting 23 false health benefit claims with 300 forged invoices to the City of Toronto's employee benefit plan, resulting in a loss of $23,130.15.

The fraud occurred over several years, partly while Evaschuk was on bail for other charges.

The Crown sought a 16-month custodial sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 18-24 months.

The court considered the availability of a conditional sentence, noting the indictment straddled two sentencing regimes.

Emphasizing general and specific deterrence and denunciation due to the breach of trust, sophistication, and duration of the fraud, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of six months, followed by 36 months of probation with conditions, and a restitution order of $13,130.15.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood following a roadside R.I.D.E. stop.

The Crown conceded special circumstances existed.

The defendant brought a Charter application to exclude the certificate of analysis on the basis that his rights to counsel were not properly communicated due to incompetent interpretation services.

The court found that while the arresting officer acted in good faith and attempted to fulfill constitutional duties, the police-arranged Mandarin interpreter provided negligent translations of the rights to counsel, resulting in the defendant not being properly informed of his legal rights and the resources available to him.

The court concluded that the defendant's apparent waiver of counsel could not be considered an informed waiver given the poor quality of interpretation.

The breath readings were excluded and an acquittal was entered on the over 80 charge.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an alleged incident in a restaurant storage room.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's testimony, which was contradicted by the accused's denial.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies, omissions, and memory failures regarding significant details, including the appearance of the storage room door, the location of the light switch, and the sequence of events.

The accused's evidence was found credible.

The trial judge concluded that the complainant's evidence was too weak to meet the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the accused.

The defendant, G.S., was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference (touching for a sexual purpose a person under 16), and exposing genital organs to a person under 16.

The complainant, JH, a 7-year-old, provided conflicting accounts of the alleged events to her mother, police, and in court.

The court found that the mother's emotional reaction and police questioning techniques likely intimidated the child, making her testimony unreliable.

The defendant and his wife denied all allegations, and their testimony was believed.

Applying principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court found that the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and all counts were dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit three accused for trial on charges arising from the death of Dionecio Nelson on July 2, 2015.

Nathaniel Findley and Andrew Mitchell were charged with second degree murder in Nelson's death; Mitchell also faced two assault with a weapon charges.

Rayanne Mehdi was charged with accessory after the fact.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence establishing that Findley and Mitchell were the occupants of a vehicle that stopped after nearly hitting Nelson, leading to a violent altercation in which Nelson was fatally stabbed multiple times.

The preliminary inquiry judge found reasonable inferences available to a jury that Findley and Mitchell acted as co-perpetrators in a joint enterprise to assault Nelson, knowing that death was a probable consequence.

Findley was committed to stand trial on second degree murder; Mitchell and Mehdi conceded committal on their respective charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit on February 5, 2014.

The trial spanned multiple dates over approximately one year.

The defence raised a Charter application and argued that the defendant's regurgitation of stomach contents raised a reasonable doubt as to the reliability of the breath test results.

The court rejected the defence arguments, finding the breath test readings reliable based on expert evidence and the defendant's testimony to be unreliable due to numerous contradictions.

The accused was found guilty.

At sentencing, the court imposed a $1,400 fine (with a $420 victim surcharge), a 12-month driving prohibition, and a 12-month probation order with conditions to attend counselling for alcohol abuse and mental health challenges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after being observed driving erratically by a witness who called police.

A police officer attended the accused's residence and made observations of impairment including unsteadiness, glassy and watery eyes, slurred speech, and the odour of alcohol on the accused's breath.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the officer's observations on grounds of breaches of sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the observations admissible and convicted the accused on both charges.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop at an accident scene, being in care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired, and having a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The defendant collided with a parked vehicle in Oshawa and left the scene.

Police observed signs of impairment and arrested the defendant.

The defendant challenged the arrest on Charter grounds, arguing the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds and violated his right to counsel.

The court found the police had proper grounds for arrest and that the defendant's right to counsel was properly respected.

The defendant was found guilty on all charges.

The defendant was charged with driving while her driver's licence was suspended contrary to subsection 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution relied on certified documentation from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles showing the suspension was in effect on the date of the alleged offence, along with police officer testimony that the defendant was observed driving on that date.

The defence objected to the admissibility of the certified documentation on the grounds that it inferred a prior conviction without the defendant having put her character in issue, thereby contravening the Evidence Act.

The court found the documentation admissible, excluding only the phrases indicating the reason for suspension, and convicted the defendant on the basis that all elements of the offence had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.