Karryn Wall

The defendant was charged with criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, and impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, following a horrific motor vehicle collision.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver, as the defendant claimed his friend was driving the vehicle.

The court applied the W.D. analysis and relied on circumstantial evidence, including mirror-image seatbelt injuries sustained by the occupants, to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver.

The court also found that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol and that his driving at excessive speeds constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable person.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a social gathering.

The complainant testified that the accused forced himself upon her and penetrated her despite her repeated refusals.

The accused claimed the sexual activity was consensual.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, rejected the accused's evidence, and found the complainant's testimony compelling and corroborated by DNA evidence, physical injuries, and post-offence conduct.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle.

At trial, the judge found that the police had violated the appellant's Charter rights by arbitrarily detaining him for 32 hours, but declined to order a stay of proceedings, instead imposing a lenient sentence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in dismissing the stay request.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the proper test and fashioned an adequate Charter remedy.

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

Due to late disclosure of police communications by the Crown, the initial trial dates were adjourned, resulting in a total delay of 15.75 months.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused took meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings and that the delay was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been for a routine drinking and driving case.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.