Esti Azizi

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing death after his vehicle struck a parked float trailer and a pedestrian, resulting in fatal injuries.

The court found that the collision caused the death, rejecting suggestions of pre-existing conditions.

Despite arguments regarding sun glare and the lack of traffic control measures, the court held that the defendant's failure to reduce his speed or adjust his driving in response to known hazards constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable driver, noting that other vehicles had safely navigated the scene.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with driving with excessive blood alcohol.

The defendant brought a Charter application arguing the police officer lacked reasonable grounds for an ASD demand and failed to make the demand immediately.

The court found the officer had objectively reasonable grounds based on the totality of circumstances, including a minor collision outside a bar and the defendant wearing sunglasses at 3 a.m.

The court also held the demand was made immediately once the officer formed reasonable suspicion.

The Charter application was dismissed and the defendant was found guilty.

The Crown requested that the time for filing a Form 2 response to the defence's Form 1 Charter application be shortened under Rule 3.1(3)(a) of the Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown counsel had inadvertently missed the filing deadline due to being on vacation.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the Crown should not be permitted to respond.

The court granted the Crown's motion, finding that the late filing was due to a mistake without bad faith, and that allowing the response would not unfairly prejudice the defendant, as the Charter issues raised were routine and the anticipated evidence was already known to the defence.

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation causing death and dangerous operation causing bodily harm after driving at high speed through a red light and striking another vehicle.

The court found that the offender's actions were directly caused by an active episode of bipolar disorder, which significantly diminished her moral culpability.

While the Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day with strict house arrest, followed by two years of probation.

To protect the public, the court also imposed a 12-year driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit after his truck was found in a ditch.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver, which relied on the admissibility of the accused's statements to police at the roadside and to the breath technician.

The court found that the accused was not detained at the roadside when he admitted to driving, and that police questioning prior to the breath test did not constitute trickery or oppression.

Both statements were ruled voluntary and admissible, establishing the accused's identity as the driver and resulting in a finding of guilt.

Martha Leibowitz was charged with breaching an undertaking condition that prohibited her from having contact with her condominium's property manager except through email.

The incident occurred on November 3, 2023, when she entered the property manager's office.

The Crown presented video evidence and the property manager's testimony.

Despite the defendant's submission that there was no sound recording and that she had to attend in person due to unanswered emails, the court found the Crown proved the breach beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilt.

The defendant, Martha Leibowitz, was sentenced for breaching an undertaking not to contact her building's property manager.

This breach was aggravated by being committed while on release for a similar prior breach, occurring less than two weeks after release, and involving biased statements about the property manager's ethnic origin (s. 718.2(a)(i) Criminal Code).

Despite these aggravating factors and the significant impact on the complainant, the court granted a conditional discharge, balancing them against the defendant's lack of criminal record, age (71), and lifetime of good conduct.

She was placed on 12 months probation with conditions.

The court rescinded a previously granted screen order for a complainant testifying virtually, finding it unnecessary given the virtual hearing format.

The ruling emphasized that the virtual setting inherently reduces direct confrontation concerns, and witnesses have personal options (like adjusting Zoom view or physically blocking the screen) if they prefer not to see the accused.

The Crown applied under s 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify from behind a one-way screen in a domestic violence case.

The complainant expressed fear of testifying while seeing the accused.

The defence opposed, arguing for face-to-face confrontation and questioning the genuineness of the fear, noting prior family court appearances.

The court granted the application, finding that the screen would facilitate a full and candid account by the witness without impairing the accused's right to cross-examination, especially given the nature of the domestic violence allegations.