F. Crewe

The offender pleaded guilty to break and enter a dwelling house and commit therein the indictable offence of assault with a weapon.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months with emphasis on denunciation and deterrence.

The defence sought a suspended sentence or intermittent custody of no more than 90 days.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, considering the offender's Aboriginal heritage, his status as a first-time offender, genuine remorse, significant rehabilitative efforts, and the relatively modest level of violence despite the serious nature of a home invasion.

The court balanced aggravating factors including planning, use of weapons, and violation of the victim's home against substantial mitigating factors including youth, no criminal record, guilty plea, and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation.

The accused, a 23-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death.

On August 16, 2015, after consuming alcohol at a party, he drove his vehicle at excessive speed through a red light, colliding with two other vehicles at an intersection in Toronto.

His passenger, a close friend, was not wearing a seatbelt and sustained catastrophic head and neck injuries, dying shortly after arrival at hospital.

Two other occupants in the struck vehicles sustained soft tissue injuries.

The sentencing court considered aggravating factors including the accused's prior traffic violations, high blood-alcohol level, and deliberate decision to drive while impaired, balanced against significant mitigating factors including his youth, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and strong community support.

The court imposed a sentence of four years and six months imprisonment, an eight-year driving prohibition, and ancillary orders for DNA sample and firearms prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol in blood following a motor vehicle accident on January 27, 2015.

The defence challenged the arrest on Charter grounds under section 8, arguing the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the impaired driving charge.

The defence also argued the toxicologist's opinion was inadmissible due to the Crown's failure to prove the absence of bolus drinking, and that symptoms of impairment could be attributed to head injuries from the accident.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, rejected the bolus drinking defence as lacking an air of reality, and found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

A 16-year-old youth pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death while street racing.

The offender was driving his mother's car at approximately 130 km/h in a 60 km/h zone while racing another vehicle when he struck and killed an 18-year-old cyclist.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 months open custody followed by 3.5 months community supervision and one year probation, for a total of 10.5 months custody.

The sentence included 100 hours of community service, with a significant portion to be spent speaking at schools about the dangers of street racing, and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The court applied principles of accountability and denunciation while recognizing the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

The accused was tried on a single count of breaching condition (iv) of his recognizance of bail, which required him not to be away from his place of residence except in the company of one of his sureties.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and released on bail with strict conditions including electronic monitoring.

The issue was whether the accused was in breach when he left his surety in a parked car outside a school and entered the building alone to speak with his former basketball coach for approximately 5-10 minutes.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting arguments that he was in compliance with the condition, that his misunderstanding constituted a mistake of fact rather than law, and that any breach was de minimis.

The accused was charged with carrying a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded on one count after acknowledging lack of proof on four counts.

The accused's stated purpose was to kill himself during an incident at his apartment.

The court applied the two-stage test from R. v. Kerr: first determining the accused's subjective purpose, then assessing objectively whether that purpose was dangerous to the public peace.

The court found that even if the accused's true intent was suicide, the fact that he communicated this intent to his common-law partner, who was present and reasonably expected to intervene, made the possession dangerous to the public peace.

The court convicted the accused.

The accused applied for relief under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The accused was arrested on October 18, 2014 for care and control over 80 and charged on November 19, 2014.

The trial was scheduled for March 15 and 16, 2016, resulting in a total delay of 17 months from arrest and 16 months from the swearing of the information.

The delay was primarily caused by both parties awaiting disclosure of an in-car camera video that did not exist, despite both parties having information indicating its non-existence as early as January 19, 2015.

The court found a breach of section 11(b) rights and stayed the proceedings.

The accused, a 42-year-old father of three with no prior record for drug offences, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cannabis on a mid-level scale.

Over an eight-month period, he retrieved quantities of marijuana from a stash house operated by a member of a criminal organization for resale purposes.

The Crown sought 12 months custody plus time served, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year probation, giving full credit for 4.5 months of pretrial custody on a 1.5:1 basis and substantial credit for 16.5 months of house arrest under strict bail conditions.

A 40-year-old offender was sentenced for serious sexual offences committed as a young person between ages 13 and 17.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault involving repeated non-consensual sexual intercourse with his step-sister, who was 8 years old at the onset of the abuse and 13 when she stopped it.

The defence sought a 6-month deferred custody sentence, emphasizing the offender's exemplary life since the offences and familial obligations.

The Crown sought 18 months to 2 years incarceration.

The court imposed 12 months total custody (8 months in custody followed by 4 months community supervision), finding that accountability required incarceration despite the significant passage of time and the offender's rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following an incident at a schoolyard where police responded to an assault complaint.

Officers observed the accused and another male quickly enter a vehicle and attempt to drive away.

The vehicle was stopped by police.

Breath samples taken approximately two and a half hours after the incident showed readings of 117 mg and 118 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The defence raised the issue of bolus drinking, arguing that an open bottle of Hennessy cognac found in the back seat of the vehicle provided an air of reality to the defence.

The Crown's toxicologist testified that the accused's blood-alcohol level at the time of care and control would have been between 115 and 165 mg per 100 ml of blood, based on standard elimination rates.

The court found no credible evidence of bolus drinking and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "drive over 80" following his arrest on January 20, 2014.

The accused brought an application for relief pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The trial proceeded on March 18-19, 2015, and continued on June 19, 2015.

The total delay from arrest to the continuation date was 17 months.

The court found that the Crown's failure to provide readily available disclosure, particularly the cell video, caused substantial delay.

The court granted the application and stayed the proceedings.

The accused was charged with care and control over 80 following an incident at a soccer field where he was identified as a suspect in an assault.

Police conducted an Approved Screening Device test and subsequently obtained breath samples at the police station.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breath evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while the "forthwith" requirement under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code was satisfied due to legitimate officer safety concerns, there was a breach of section 8 of the Charter because the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

However, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding that exclusion would not be necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of a 64-year-old woman.

The Crown sought committal on first-degree murder on two bases: (1) planning and deliberation, and (2) constructive first-degree murder under section 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code (murder during forcible confinement).

The accused conceded committal on second-degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation based on motive and concealment of identity, but rejected the constructive first-degree murder theory as the evidence did not establish that confinement was distinct from the act of killing.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control and care and control over 80 after being found asleep in a running motor vehicle.

The Crown conceded care and control.

The trial judge found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to retain and instruct counsel of choice when the arresting officer failed to facilitate the accused's apparent request to contact someone, instead only offering duty counsel.

The trial judge also found that the Crown failed to establish that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, with unexplained delays totalling over 25 minutes.

The evidence of impairment was found to be weak, with the accused appearing coherent and steady once fully awake.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

A young person was charged with repeated sexual assault against his step-sister over a five-year period from 1988 to 1993, when the complainant was between 8 and 13 years old.

The trial involved credibility assessments of the adult complainant testifying about childhood abuse, corroborating testimony from her step-brother regarding an admission by the accused, and the accused's denials.

The court found the complainant and her step-brother credible and rejected the accused's evidence as contrived and self-serving.

The court convicted the accused on all counts, finding the identity of the perpetrator established beyond a reasonable doubt.