George J. Brophy

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood, contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on expert evidence from the Centre of Forensic Sciences establishing a projected blood alcohol concentration of 187 to 262 mg per 100 mL at the time of the incident.

The defence challenged the continuity of the blood samples from collection at the hospital through seizure by police to analysis by the CFS.

The court found sufficient continuity through cross-referencing of the accused's name, OPP incident number, and vial identification across all stages of handling.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent following the dismissal of a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The original order from 2008 granted sole custody to the applicant with supervised access for the respondent.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking unsupervised access in 2010.

After an interim settlement in 2012 that the respondent failed to comply with, the matter proceeded to trial where the motion to change was dismissed for lack of material change in circumstances.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence raised two issues: first, that the breath demand used the singular "sample" rather than the plural "samples," and therefore only one sample could be obtained; and second, that an initial calibration check on the Intoxilyzer showed a reading outside the approved tolerance, indicating machine malfunction or operator error.

The court rejected both arguments, finding that the demand was substantially compliant with statutory requirements and that the anomalous calibration reading did not tend to show malfunction given multiple satisfactory calibration checks before, during, and after the breath tests.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with assaulting a police officer engaged in the execution of his duty, assaulting three police officers with intent to resist lawful arrest, and causing a disturbance by being drunk in a public place.

The incident occurred outside a bar in Port Elgin after the accused approached police who were processing the arrest of his intoxicated co-worker.

The accused refused police requests to step back and was pushed by Sergeant Evans.

The accused then responded by pushing the officer away.

A physical altercation ensued, during which the accused resisted arrest and was tasered.

The court found the accused guilty of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, and causing a disturbance, but acquitted him of assaulting three officers with intent to resist arrest.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving a motor vehicle without a license and without a valid validation sticker on the license plate.

The appellant raised arguments based on religious freedom, freedom of movement and association, and various constitutional and international human rights instruments.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the appellant lacked sincere religious belief and convicted him.

On appeal, the court found the Justice of the Peace erred in law by applying an incorrect three-part test for assessing sincerity of religious belief and by failing to provide meaningful reasons addressing the appellant's Charter arguments.

However, the court upheld the conviction, finding that even if the appellant had sincere religious beliefs, regulation of highway driving is a justifiable limit on Charter rights under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to change a custody and access order made by Justice MacKenzie on July 15, 2011, seeking joint custody, increased access, and reconsideration of a costs award.

The applicant responded with a motion for summary judgment.

The respondent withdrew his joint custody claim at the hearing, acknowledging his pending criminal harassment charges.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the costs order, which had been addressed on appeal and was res judicata.

On the access issue, the court found no material change in circumstances meeting the threshold under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent's retirement from the military had been contemplated at the original trial.

The court dismissed the motion to change in its entirety, finding that any expansion of access would generate further disputes and would not be in the child's best interests given the high-conflict nature of the relationship and the respondent's pattern of aggressive conduct.

The Crown brought an application to have the accused found not criminally responsible (NCR) on the basis of mental disorder following her conviction for two counts of criminal harassment.

The accused had been found guilty of changing her surname to that of a man she had been obsessed with for approximately fourteen years.

Expert psychiatric evidence established that the accused suffered from Delusional Disorder, Erotomanic Type, a chronic psychotic disorder characterized by the false belief that another person is in love with the individual.

The court found that the accused's mental disorder rendered her incapable of knowing that her actions were morally wrong, despite her general understanding that the act was legally permissible.

An NCR verdict was recorded.

The accused was charged with eight counts of animal cruelty involving three domestic cats.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial involved evidence from veterinarians, an OSPCA agent, and the apartment owner regarding injuries to the animals and their deaths.

The accused testified that he did not harm any of the animals.

The court found the Crown proved all charges beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including the animals' presence in the accused's room when they died, the severity of injuries consistent with blunt force trauma, and the lack of any other reasonable explanation for the injuries.

The accused was charged with unlawfully being in a dwelling house contrary to section 349(1) of the Criminal Code and sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The case turned on the identification evidence of two eyewitnesses: the complainant, who was awoken while being touched inappropriately, and her mother, who observed the intruder leaving the trailer.

The court found the identification evidence to be unreliable and fraught with contradictions, including inconsistencies between the witnesses' statements to police and their trial testimony, poor lighting conditions, brief observation opportunities, and the complainant's intoxicated state.

The court also noted the presence of an alternative suspect, Ted MacQuarrie, who had assisted the complainant earlier that evening and bore a physical resemblance to the accused.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with six counts of criminal harassment under Section 264 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown withdrew the sixth count at trial.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the remaining five counts.

The Crown signaled its intention to seek a finding of not criminally responsible following trial.

The trial focused on the accused's conduct toward the complainants, Mark and Donna McBride, spanning from 2000 to 2012.

Key evidence included the accused's name change to McBride in January 2012, surveillance of the complainants' residence, and extensive journals documenting the accused's obsessive interest in Mark McBride.

The court found the accused guilty on counts four and five (threatening conduct causing fear for safety) but dismissed counts one, two, and three (following and repeated communication).

The court did not enter convictions but made findings of guilt only.

A costs ruling in a custody and access dispute that was settled by Minutes of Settlement on February 9, 2012.

The applicant sought custody of the couple's nine-year-old son but abandoned his claim for outright custody during the litigation, eventually settling with only a marginal increase in summer vacation access.

The respondent was successful in defending the existing custody arrangement and was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

An interim motion for child support for an adult child attending community college.

The applicant sought ongoing child support and contributions to post-secondary education expenses for the respondent's daughter who had graduated high school and was attending Durham College.

The respondent sought termination or reduction of support.

The court found entitlement to support was not in dispute and determined the appropriate education expenses, income levels of both parents, and the child's contribution.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support during summer months and monthly contributions toward education expenses.

The accused pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft under $5,000, committed through shoplifting to finance an Oxycontin addiction.

Following his initial release and subsequent bail violation, he pleaded guilty to additional charges including failing to attend court and breach of recognizance.

The central issue at sentencing was the quantum of jail time and the credit to be granted for pre-sentence custody, particularly regarding enhanced credit under section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

The court imposed a sentence permitting the accused to access drug treatment at Westover Treatment Centre.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to change child support obligations.

The applicant brought a motion to terminate child support payments for a child who had reached age 18 and was not in school, pursuant to a separation agreement dated September 24, 1999.

The respondent initially filed a response seeking disclosure of financial information and prospective and retroactive child support, arguing the child intended to pursue post-secondary education.

The parties subsequently consented to an interim order suspending child support payments, and the respondent withdrew her response.

A final order terminating child support was made by consent.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant on a partial indemnity basis, finding the applicant was entitled to costs under the Family Law Rules despite the matter proceeding largely by consent.

The accused pleaded guilty to five offences: assault causing bodily harm (July 9, 2011), breach of undertaking (December 1, 2011), uttering threats (January 6, 2012), assault on a peace officer (January 7, 2012), and breach of recognizance (January 6, 2012).

The assault on the victim resulted in serious injuries including spinal cord syndrome, chronic pain, and permanent disability.

The accused has a significant criminal record including six prior assault convictions.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 months and 4 days imprisonment (after crediting 61 days presentence custody) with concurrent sentences on the remaining charges, followed by 24 months probation with strict conditions including abstinence from alcohol, participation in treatment programs, and no contact with victims.

A child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two children who had been in the care of their paternal grandparents pursuant to a section 57.1 custody order.

The children were apprehended due to concerns about physical harm.

The paternal grandparents agreed they could no longer care for the children.

The biological parents each sought placement of the children with them, alternatively seeking access.

The court found the children were in need of protection and made a crown wardship order, granting access to the paternal grandparents but denying access to the biological parents.