Ethan Garber

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the Crown's application for a mental health assessment under s. 16 of the Criminal Code for Lynda Newth, who pled guilty to assault and related offences.

Despite a history of mental health struggles and serious prior assaults, the court found no reasonable grounds to doubt her criminal responsibility at the time of the November 5, 2024 assault.

The decision emphasized the high threshold for ordering such assessments, the importance of evidence linking mental disorder to the offence, and the need for vigilance in cases involving Indigenous accused to avoid unfair disadvantage.

The accused, Travis Roopchand, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of 80 mg.

The court found that the Crown proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing Roopchand as the driver.

However, the court acquitted Roopchand of impaired operation, finding insufficient evidence of impairment beyond the accident and an odour of alcohol.

Regarding the "Over 80" charge, the defence argued for exclusion of breath test results due to alleged Charter breaches (sections 8, 9, and 10(a)).

The court found no Charter breaches, or in the alternative, that any minor breach was inadvertent and would not warrant exclusion under a s. 24(2) Grant analysis.

Consequently, the breath test results were admitted, and Roopchand was found guilty of the "Over 80" charge.

The accused, Enrique Martinez-Reynosa, was found guilty by a jury of two counts of sexual assault.

The court determined a fit sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the complainant's intoxication and sleep state, the breach of trust, and the unprotected nature of the assaults, as well as mitigating factors including the accused's lack of prior criminal record (save for one impaired driving conviction), family support, and compliance with bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years in custody, reduced to three years after applying Summers credit for pre-sentence custody and considering harsh detention conditions and restrictive bail.

The defendant, Minh Vu Nguyen Dao, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating with a blood alcohol concentration over .08.

He challenged the admissibility of the Certificate of a Qualified Technician, alleging breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found a one-minute delay in providing the informational component of the right to counsel, but deemed it not serious and without impact on the defendant's rights, thus not warranting exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

Regarding the implementational component, the court found that police provided a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel of choice, and the defendant's subsequent decision to speak with Duty Counsel was a valid choice.

Consequently, the Certificate was admitted, and the defendant was found guilty on both charges.

This ruling addresses the discharge of a juror during a sexual assault trial.

The trial judge received multiple notes from a single juror and the jury foreperson, indicating the juror was engaging in discriminatory thinking, speculating on matters not in evidence, misapprehending the law, and refusing to collaborate.

Despite the defence's request for a mistrial, the judge discharged the juror under section 644(1) of the Criminal Code, finding the juror's conduct prevented proper deliberation.

The remaining jury subsequently returned verdicts of not guilty on one count and guilty on two counts.

The defendant, Enrique Humberto Martinez-Reynosa, applied for a directed verdict of acquittal on a sexual assault count at the close of the Crown's case.

The defence argued insufficient circumstantial evidence of lack of consent or capacity to consent.

The Crown contended the evidence could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

Applying the test for a directed verdict, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the complainant's prior disinterest in the accused, her high level of intoxication leading to a blackout, her post-event confusion and distress, and the accused's own statements, to allow the jury to consider the count.

The application for a directed verdict was dismissed.