D. Johnson

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, and driving while prohibited following a police chase of a silver Dodge Caravan on January 18, 2019.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the fact that the van was rented by the accused's spouse with whom he resided, that he was working at the building from which the van departed, and eyewitness descriptions from two police officers who had only brief glimpses of the driver during the chase.

The defence conceded that the driver committed the offences but argued the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

The court found that while the Crown proved the accused had access to and control over the van, the inconsistent and unreliable eyewitness descriptions, combined with the reasonable possibility that the accused could have given the keys to a co-worker, created a reasonable doubt as to the accused's identity as the driver.

All charges were dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two accused on multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences.

The accused Barker conceded committal on most counts except simple possession of fentanyl.

The accused Duncan challenged committal on all counts.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused on trafficking charges related to cocaine transactions with an undercover officer on December 19, 2018, and on possession for purpose of trafficking charges related to drugs found in a rental vehicle.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit Duncan on possession charges related to prescription pills found in his bedroom.

However, the court discharged Duncan on all firearms offences, finding insufficient evidence of his possession of a firearm found in the basement.

The court committed Barker on all firearms offences based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the shoebox where the firearm was found.

The offender was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, attempted murder, and forcible confinement against his intimate partner.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay convictions for uttering threats and assault, but declined to stay the forcible confinement conviction.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, the court sentenced the offender to a global term of 6 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

D.A. was convicted by a jury of human trafficking-related offences, specifically exercising control over K.L. for exploitation, receiving money from a Criminal Code offence, and compelling her to engage in prostitution.

The Crown sought a 6-year sentence, while the defence proposed 30 months.

The court considered aggravating factors, including physical violence, retention of earnings, and control over K.L.'s identification, and mitigating factors such as D.A.'s lack of criminal record and family support.

The sentencing judge independently found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that D.A. had assaulted K.L. The court applied sentencing principles from the Criminal Code and comparable case law, particularly R. v. Miller, to determine the appropriate range.

A global sentence of three and a half years imprisonment was imposed, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a s. 110 prohibition order.

The accused brought Charter applications seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence arising from police stops and searches following a 911 report of a domestic dispute and suspected drug trafficking.

Police stopped a vehicle containing approximately 32.5 pounds of marijuana and later stopped a second vehicle carrying cash.

The defence alleged breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter, including arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, loss of a 911 recording, degradation of evidence, and improper commingling of seized drugs.

The court held that the initial stop constituted a lawful investigative detention based on a detailed 911 call from an identified caller and that the officer’s observations and smell of marijuana provided reasonable grounds to arrest and search.

The loss of the 911 recording and evidence-handling issues did not prejudice the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.

The Charter applications were dismissed and the seized evidence ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of his daughter arising from repeated incidents of sexual touching occurring between 2008 and 2010 in the family home.

The case turned primarily on credibility between the complainant and the accused.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court assessed whether the accused’s testimony raised a reasonable doubt and whether the complainant’s evidence was reliable despite minor inconsistencies and youth at the time of the events.

The court found the accused’s evidence evasive and illogical and accepted the complainant’s account, which was corroborated in part by another household witness.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.