Frank Pizzimenti

The defendant was convicted after a six-day trial of sexual assault and sexual interference with a child under fourteen years of age.

The abuse occurred over approximately three and one-half years, beginning when the defendant was fifteen years old and the victim was ten years old.

The defendant engaged in over one hundred meetings with the victim, including vaginal intercourse, oral sex, and fondling.

The Crown sought a three-year federal penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought five to eight months in provincial custody.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less two days in provincial custody, considering the defendant's youth at the time the abuse commenced, his lack of remorse, the severity of the victim's suffering, and his good prospects for rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop.

The Crown called evidence from the arresting sergeant and the qualified breath technician.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b).

The trial judge found no breach of sections 10(a) or 10(b), and no breach of section 8 regarding the sobriety tests or reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

However, the trial judge found a breach of section 9 (arbitrary detention) due to unexplained over-holding of approximately six hours after the breath samples were obtained.

The trial judge declined to exclude the breath samples or stay the over 80 charge.

On the impaired driving charge, the trial judge found the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, as the sobriety test results were inadmissible and the remaining evidence of impairment was insufficient.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and interference of a young girl between September 13, 2005 and June 30, 2006.

The complainant testified that she engaged in a prolonged sexual relationship with the defendant, who was approximately five years older, beginning when she was approximately 10 years old.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming he barely knew the complainant and only saw her occasionally on the street.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated by several key details, including her knowledge of the defendant's basement layout, the ring with inscription given by his girlfriend, and the nature of a telephone conversation between them in 2012.

The defendant was found guilty on all charges.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused's section 8 and 9 rights were violated when he was handcuffed in the parking lot before the roadside screening test was administered.

The court excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court also found a section 10(a) breach but noted it would not have excluded evidence on that basis alone.