Frederick John Patrick Shanahan

This criminal trial involved three defendants charged with various offences, including break and enter and aggravated assault, stemming from an altercation with a tenant.

The court heard conflicting accounts from the Crown's witness and the defence witnesses.

Applying the rule in R. v. W.D., the judge assessed the credibility of all principal witnesses, noting inconsistencies and weaknesses in both narratives, particularly concerning 911 calls and witness actions.

Ultimately, the court found significant reasons to doubt the credibility of all parties, leading to a reasonable doubt as to the events of the altercation.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and all charges were dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of approximately six grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000.

The Crown sought 30 months' imprisonment while the defence sought 18 months.

The court imposed 25 months' imprisonment before credit for pre-sentence custody, with enhanced credit of 15 months for harsh pre-sentence conditions (including COVID-19 lockdowns), resulting in an additional 10 months to be served.

A mandatory weapons prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code and a DNA order were imposed.

The court considered the offender's difficult background, addiction, Aboriginal ancestry, and the impact of COVID-19 detention conditions as mitigating factors, balanced against the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking and the offender's extensive criminal record.

The court considered an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter of Rights to exclude evidence (drugs and proceeds of crime) seized from an apartment.

In a prior decision, the police were found to have breached the accused's s. 8 Charter rights by entering and searching the apartment without reasonable and probable grounds.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court found the state conduct to be careless and serious, the impact on the accused's privacy interests in their home to be significant, and that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the seized evidence was excluded from trial.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a collision on June 14, 2018, in Burlington, Ontario, in which a 94-year-old pedestrian on a mobility scooter was struck and fatally injured.

The prosecution bore the burden of proving the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the defendant failed to see the victim prior to impact, the evidence did not establish careless driving.

The court considered the brief timeframe involved (approximately one second for the scooter to reach the point of impact and three to four seconds for the defendant to execute his turn), the visibility conditions including shadows and bright sunlight, the victim's scooter traveling at maximum speed in a marked crosswalk, and the absence of aggravating factors such as speeding, impairment, or distraction.

The court concluded that the momentary inattention, if present, did not rise to the level of careless driving deserving of punishment under the circumstances.

The accused was charged with one count of assault and two counts of sexual assault against his spouse.

The prosecution relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony regarding three alleged incidents occurring between 2009 and 2010.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts across her police statement, preliminary inquiry testimony, and trial evidence, as well as contradictions when considered alongside surrounding circumstances and other witness testimony.

Applying the credibility analysis and the principles in W.(D.) v. The Queen, the court concluded that the accused’s evidence was believable and at minimum raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also noted the timing of the complaint in the context of marital breakdown and custody disputes as relevant to assessing credibility.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of break and enter with intent to commit theft and one count of robbery.

The offences occurred on March 28, 2011, when the accused and three accomplices broke into two residential apartments in Toronto.

In the first incident, they stole electronic equipment.

In the second incident, they forcibly entered an occupied apartment, assaulted the occupants with a knife, and stole cash, electronics, jewelry, and other valuables.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought twenty months.

The court imposed a sentence of twenty months for the robbery and ten months concurrent for the break and enter, taking into account the accused's youth, difficult background, rehabilitation potential, and the seriousness of home invasion offences.