Frank Giordano

The offender, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of failing to stop after an accident under s. 320.16(1) of the Criminal Code.

He had collided with a motorcyclist, causing the motorcyclist to suffer severe injuries resulting in the amputation of his leg.

The offender was acquitted of impaired and dangerous driving charges.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a non-custodial or conditional sentence.

The court found that the offender's status as a police officer and his failure to summon help were aggravating factors, but noted he was a first offender with strong community support who would likely lose his job.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, a 30-month driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a $200 victim surcharge.

The accused, an off-duty police officer, was involved in a motor vehicle collision where his SUV crossed the centre line and struck an oncoming motorcycle, causing the rider to lose his leg.

The accused drove nearly four kilometres away from the scene before stopping and did not call 911.

At trial, the court acquitted the accused of impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, finding the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to rule out a sudden tire blowout or mechanical failure.

However, the court convicted the accused of failing to stop after an accident, rejecting the defence that a concussion rendered his actions non-volitional or negated his intent to flee.

The accused was arrested for impaired driving after fleeing the scene of a serious motor vehicle collision.

The police failed to make a breath demand at the roadside and subsequently failed to advise the accused of his increased jeopardy when they learned the victim had suffered life-altering injuries.

The breath technician made a delayed breath demand at the station without providing the accused a further opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative impact of the breaches on the accused's protected interests warranted the exclusion of the breath test results under s. 24(2).

The accused was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and impaired operation of a vessel causing death following the death of an eight-year-old child during a canoeing incident on the Muskoka River during spring run-off.

The accused had consumed alcohol and cannabis before taking the child canoeing toward a waterfall to retrieve a barrel, resulting in the canoe capsizing and the child drowning.

The court imposed a six-year penitentiary sentence and a ten-year prohibition on operating a vessel, finding the accused's conduct demonstrated wanton and reckless disregard for the child's life and safety.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death, operating a vessel with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in blood causing death, dangerous operation of a vessel causing death, and criminal negligence causing death.

The charges arose from an incident on April 7, 2017, when the accused took an eight-year-old child canoeing on the Muskoka River during spring run-off with dangerous water conditions.

The canoe capsized, and the child drowned.

The court found the accused's blood alcohol concentration was between 128 to 170 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and he had recently consumed cannabis.

The court held that a canoe constitutes a "vessel" under the Criminal Code and convicted the accused on all charges, finding his decision to canoe to a yellow warning barrier to retrieve a blue barrel in dangerous conditions, while impaired, constituted a marked and substantial departure from reasonable conduct demonstrating wanton and reckless disregard for the child's safety.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death after a canoe capsized, resulting in the death of an eight-year-old boy.

The accused brought Charter applications seeking to exclude breath test results, blood sample analysis, and statements, alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that the accused was not detained when initially questioned at the hospital, the ASD demand was made forthwith, the right to counsel was properly implemented, hospital staff did not act as police agents in drawing blood, and the search warrant for medical records and the blood sample was valid.

During a trial for impaired operation of a vessel causing death, a voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness of statements the accused made to a breath technician at the hospital.

The accused argued that the lack of a secondary caution before questioning during the breath testing procedure rendered the statements involuntary, as he might have believed he was compelled to answer.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the statements were voluntary, spontaneous, and not the product of oppression or coercion.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death, operating a vessel with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, dangerous operation of a vessel, and criminal negligence causing death.

The central issue was whether a canoe constitutes a "vessel" under Part VIII of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the term "vessel" includes canoes and other vessels propelled exclusively by muscular power.

The decision considered statutory interpretation principles, legislative history, federal maritime legislation, and the purpose of the Criminal Code provisions protecting public safety on Canadian waterways.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded as a blended hearing addressing both the merits and a motion to exclude evidence based on alleged Charter violations.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath and blood samples on grounds of violations to sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court rejected all Charter claims except finding a minor breach regarding the timing of the approved screening device demand.

Despite this breach, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and found the defendant guilty as charged.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a demand for a breath sample.

He argued the trial judge failed to apply the proper legal test for determining whether he possessed the requisite mens rea, specifically regarding whether he should have been given another opportunity to provide a sample.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the relevant legal tests and that there was sufficient evidence to conclude the appellant wilfully refused to provide a breath sample by feigning his efforts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during alleged Charter breaches, including violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused was arbitrarily detained for approximately one hour without lawful authority, unlawfully arrested under section 200 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to remain at the scene of an accident, and denied her right to counsel.

The court concluded that the breath samples and related evidence were obtained as a result of these Charter violations and excluded all such evidence from trial, rendering the Crown's case fatal.

The accused was originally charged with second-degree murder in the death of his son but pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court found that the accused's wrongful conduct was in mixing alcohol with prescription sleeping pills, which he knew he should not do.

The court determined this was an exceptional case where denunciation and general deterrence could be achieved without further custody, given the accused's approximately one year of pre-trial credit, his lack of criminal record, his remorse, and the absence of any history of conflict with the victim.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with maximum probation and community service.

The applicant sought to exclude all evidence including breath sample results and oral utterances pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of his right to counsel under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, and a violation of his section 8 rights.

The court found a breach of the informational component of the applicant's section 10(b) Charter rights and a marginal breach of the applicant's section 9 right, but found no violation of section 8 rights regarding reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.