Betty Chow

The offender was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault.

The sentencing judge found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender administered THC to the victim to render her compliant.

After weighing the aggravating factors, including the presence of the victim's young child, against the offender's positive rehabilitation prospects, the court rejected a conditional sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 18 months' incarceration along with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after stabbing a stranger who was trying to help him.

The accused conceded he caused the death but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the psychotic episode was solely substance-induced due to the accused's heavy drug use.

The court applied the holistic approach, considering the internal cause and continuing danger factors, and found the accused suffered from a pre-existing delusional disorder that was operative at the time of the offence.

The court concluded the accused lacked the capacity to know his act was morally wrong and rendered a verdict of not criminally responsible.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after he and a co-accused provided alcohol and drugs to two underage girls and took them to a hotel.

The complainant was highly intoxicated and incapacitated.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that the complainant was fine and consented.

Applying the test for capacity to consent, the court found the complainant was incapable of consenting due to intoxication.

The court also found no air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, as the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug, brought a motion for disclosure of the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) rolling log.

The Crown argued that recent amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-46) repealed the provision relied upon in previous case law to permit disclosure, creating an absolute prohibition under the new section 320.36.

The court conducted a statutory interpretation analysis and concluded that section 320.36 does not create an absolute prohibition, as it contains an exception for the enforcement of the Act.

The court held that the appellate precedent mandating disclosure of DRE rolling logs remains applicable under the new legislative regime.

The disclosure application was granted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and possession of cocaine after police investigated a minor collision in a parking lot.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging unlawful arrest and search, which the court dismissed, finding the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest for impaired driving and the search was a valid incident to arrest.

At trial, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or drugs, resulting in an acquittal on that charge.

However, the court rejected the accused's testimony that he was unaware of the cocaine found in his sweatpants, finding him guilty of possession of cocaine.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding impairment by alcohol, relying on the toxicologist's evidence, and dismissing his Charter applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or her Charter rulings, concluding that the appellant was not detained prior to arrest and that the breath demand was made as soon as practicable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, a mother and her boyfriend, were charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life after the mother's 20-month-old child died from severe scald burns.

The child was accidentally burned by hot coffee, suffering third-degree burns to 25 percent of his body.

Neither accused sought medical attention for the child over the three days leading to his death, despite the obvious severity of the injuries.

The mother claimed she delegated care to her boyfriend and was unaware of the child's deteriorating condition, while the boyfriend argued he had no legal duty of care as he was not the child's parent.

The court rejected both defences, finding the mother's testimony implausible and establishing that the boyfriend acted as a guardian with a legal duty of care.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts, as their failure to seek medical treatment constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent or guardian.

The Crown prosecuted three accused on sexual assault charges arising from sexual activity in a hotel room after a night of drinking among off-duty colleagues.

The central issues were whether the complainant consented and whether she was incapable of consenting because of alcohol, an unknown drug, or both.

The court applied the reasonable doubt framework and the W.(D.) approach, finding serious reliability and credibility problems in the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies with prior statements, video footage, text messages, and toxicology evidence.

Although sexual activity was established, the Crown failed to prove non-consent or incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt.

All three accused were acquitted.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death, following a single-vehicle collision that resulted in the death of one passenger and injuries to another.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver.

The court analyzed extensive civilian and expert evidence, including accident reconstruction, occupant kinematics, and medical records.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the collision and entered findings of guilt on all counts.

The accused struck and killed a highly intoxicated pedestrian who was wandering on Highway 401 after being abandoned by a taxi driver.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and 'over 80' causing death.

While the Crown proved the accused was impaired and had a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit, the court found the accused was not the legal cause of the death.

The pedestrian's unpredictable presence on the live lanes of the highway created an unavoidable hazard.

The accused was acquitted of the 'causing death' offences but convicted of the included offences of impaired driving and operating a vehicle while 'over 80'.