Don Clarke

The defendant was charged with multiple Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following a minor collision, flight from the scene, and discovery of a firearm and illicit drugs.

Key issues included identity, the admissibility of cell phone data under section 8 of the Charter due to alleged police non-compliance with reporting requirements, and proof of drug quantity for trafficking charges.

The court found the defendant guilty of most charges, including possession of the firearm and drugs, but acquitted him of possession for the purpose of trafficking due to insufficient evidence on drug quantity.

The Respondent mother brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior order for the children's primary residence, add a police enforcement clause, and vary the father's access to be supervised or suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father opposed, arguing the children wished to reside with him.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) also sought to admit fresh evidence (surreptitious recordings) which was dismissed by the court.

The court found the father in breach of prior orders and that his actions empowered the children to disregard court orders.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the children's return to her care, adding a police enforcement clause, and mandating supervised access for the father, giving little weight to the children's stated preferences due to parental influence.

The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk sought an order for extended society care for two children, C and D, without parental access, aiming for adoption.

The respondent mother sought the children's return under a supervision order, citing improvements in her life.

The respondent father did not participate.

The court, applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, found that despite the mother's progress, her inconsistent access, substance use, mental health struggles, and poor problem-solving skills meant the children remained in need of protection.

The court determined that extended society care was in the children's best interests, denying parental access but ordering access between the children and their three older siblings.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand made pursuant to section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

A civilian witness reported a possible impaired driver, and police conducted a traffic stop.

The officer made a demand for a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

The Crown alleged the accused failed to provide a suitable sample through feigned attempts and by verbal refusal.

The court found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally failed or refused to provide a sample, nor that the accused unequivocally expressed an intention to refuse.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of charges for impaired driving and exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit, alleging unreasonable delay in trial.

The defendant was charged on February 21, 2015, and the application was heard on November 2, 2016, representing a 16-month delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the delay was not unreasonable under both the pre-Jordan and post-Jordan frameworks.

The court attributed significant delay to the defendant's counsel's actions, including the decision to insist on a one-day trial slot rather than accepting a two-day slot or seeking an earlier date.

The court found no prejudice to the defendant and emphasized the societal interest in trying drinking and driving cases on their merits.

The accused was convicted after trial of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol causing death (two counts), operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol causing bodily harm (four counts), and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The offences arose from a motor vehicle accident on August 29, 2010, on Six Nations Territory near Brantford, Ontario, in which the accused's impaired driving resulted in the deaths of two passengers and serious injuries to three other passengers and the driver of the other vehicle.

The accused was sentenced to six years imprisonment (with five months pre-trial custody credited), with concurrent sentences on the bodily harm counts and a 15-year driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with seven offences arising from a motor vehicle collision on August 29, 2010, on Six Nations Territory.

The charges included failing to comply with a recognizance, operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol causing bodily harm (four counts), and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol causing death (two counts).

The court found that the accused was driving at excessive speed (100-120 kph in an 80 kph zone) while significantly impaired by alcohol (blood alcohol concentration between 66-144 mg/100mL), with defective vehicle brakes and tires, in foggy night conditions.

The other driver, who was also impaired, made a left turn into the accused's path.

The court convicted the accused on all counts, finding that his impaired driving was a significant contributing cause to the deaths of two passengers and injuries to three others.