Frederick Stephens

A preliminary inquiry into charges of human trafficking, forcible confinement, dangerous driving, and related offences.

The Crown sought committal on all counts.

The court committed the accused on counts relating to trafficking in persons, material benefit, dangerous driving (both counts), forcible confinement, and failure to comply with undertaking.

The court discharged the accused on counts of escape from lawful custody and failure to stop for police, finding insufficient evidence on the essential elements.

The court also granted bail with stringent conditions, finding that a suitable supervision plan could manage the risk of reoffending.

The defendant was charged with four counts of threatening to kill the complainant, his wife, and two children on March 18, 2013.

The complainant was the defendant's supervising professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT).

The defendant claimed the reverse was true—that the complainant had threatened him.

After hearing evidence from four witnesses and reviewing numerous exhibits, the court found the defendant guilty.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as inconsistent with his conduct and accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and corroborated by his actions.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit on December 1, 2013.

The Crown sought to prove the blood alcohol content through hospital records and expert evidence.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records under section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act and found the blood alcohol analysis reliable and admissible.

However, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle involved in the collision.

The accused was acquitted on the basis of identity despite the blood alcohol content being well over the legal limit.

The defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault causing bodily harm, and mischief under $5,000 following an incident on a farm.

The Crown alleged the defendant drove his vehicle into the complainant's truck, struck a hydro pole, and then assaulted the complainant.

The defendant claimed the complainant was intoxicated, responsible for hitting the pole, and that any physical contact was in self-defence.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to his state of intoxication and could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged offences.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) and operating a motor vehicle while over 80 contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle.

The accused argued she made a conscious decision to stop her vehicle on an on-ramp due to weather and alcohol consumption, with no intention to continue driving.

The court found the accused guilty of care or control while over 80 based on the rebuttable presumption in section 258(1)(a), and alternatively on de facto control.

The court rejected the accused's credibility regarding the timing and circumstances of her decision to stop, finding her conduct demonstrated bad judgment and created a realistic risk of danger.

The accused was acquitted of the operate while over 80 count due to insufficient evidence regarding the timing of operation.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and "over 80" following an investigation on February 2, 2014.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The Crown conceded a breach of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure).

The court found that the investigating officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, possessing only reasonable suspicion.

The officer should have conducted an approved screening device demand or physical sobriety tests before arresting.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court admitted breath sample evidence and inculpatory statements but excluded observations of indicia of impairment made at the police station.