Unlock 6 more sections of this judge’s background. Start your 7-day free trial.
7 total
Five-minute delay in approved screening device demand breached Charter, but evidence admitted under s. 24(2).
The accused was charged with impaired operation and excess blood alcohol following a single-vehicle collision.
The accused brought a Charter application arguing that the police breached his rights under sections 8 and 9 by failing to make an approved screening device demand immediately upon forming reasonable suspicion.
The Court found that a 5-minute delay in making the demand violated the immediacy requirement and breached the accused's Charter rights.
However, applying the Grant framework, the Court concluded that admitting the breath samples would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, as the breach was not wilful and the evidence was highly reliable.
The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.
Stay of proceedings granted for unreasonable delay; net delay of 19 months exceeded Jordan ceiling.
The accused, charged with distributing an intimate image, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.
The total delay was 762 days.
The Crown argued that 341 days were attributable to the defence.
The court analyzed five periods of delay, deducting 191 days for defence-caused delay, including failure to retain counsel promptly, failure to conduct a timely Crown pre-trial, and delay in scheduling the trial.
The court declined to deduct time for defence unavailability during a later scheduling recanvass due to an insufficient evidentiary record.
The net delay of 571 days (approximately 19 months) exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
As the Crown did not rely on exceptional circumstances, the application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.
Stay of proceedings granted for sexual assault charges due to 25-month net delay exceeding Jordan ceiling.
The accused, charged with sexual assault and pointing a firearm, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.
The total delay was 30.5 months.
The Crown argued that much of the delay was attributable to the defence and that the case was complex.
The court deducted 185 days of defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 25 months, which still exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.
The court found no exceptional circumstances or case complexity to justify the delay.
The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.
Accused found guilty of refusing breath demand; demand lawful under both reasonable suspicion and mandatory screening.
The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand.
The officer made the demand after observing abrupt lane changes and smelling a faint odour of alcohol from the vehicle, which contained three occupants.
The court found the demand was lawful on two independent bases: the officer had reasonable suspicion, and the statutory preconditions for a mandatory alcohol screening demand were met.
The accused, who was provided instructions in both English and Hindi, knowingly failed to provide a sample without reasonable excuse.
A finding of guilt was entered.
Global 5.5-year sentence imposed for CSAM and extensive voyeurism offences.
The sentencing court addressed guilty pleas to possessing child pornography, making child pornography available, and three voyeurism counts arising from prolonged covert recordings in private domestic, workplace, and public settings.
Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, the court gave primary weight to denunciation and deterrence, citing the scale of offending, serious and lasting victim harm, and significant aggravating features including sexualized degrading conduct and exploitation of highly private spaces.
The court also considered mitigation, including the guilty plea, remorse, expert evidence of rehabilitative potential and managed risk, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions including extensive lockdowns, triple-bunking, and an in-custody assault.
A global sentence of 5.5 years less 733 days of credit was imposed, with ancillary DNA, SOIRA, s. 161, forfeiture, and s. 743.21 non-communication orders.
Father sentenced to 60 days intermittent jail for assaulting his young daughter.
The offender was found guilty of assault and assault with a weapon against his 12- and 13-year-old daughter.
The Crown sought 3 to 6 months of jail, while the defence sought a conditional discharge to avoid the offender losing his employment.
The court declined to grant a discharge, emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence for child abuse by a parent.
The offender was sentenced to 60 days of jail to be served intermittently, followed by 18 months of probation.
Charter application failed; impaired driving and Over 80 convictions entered.
Following a motor vehicle collision, the accused was tried on impaired operation and Over 80 charges and brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).
The court held that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired operation and to make a breath demand based on red, glossy, bloodshot eyes, disorientation, odour of alcohol, and beer cans in the vehicle.
The court further held that an 11-minute delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel in Punjabi was justified by officer safety, pat-down, custody-transfer, and collision-scene management concerns, and that police did not breach the right to counsel of choice by failing to facilitate contact with the accused's brother where the reason for that request was not disclosed.
The application to exclude the breath samples was dismissed, and findings of guilt were entered on both counts.
