George Christakos

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of breath sample evidence, alleging breaches of her ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) Charter rights following a motor vehicle collision.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant for impaired driving, based on her admission of alcohol consumption, the smell of alcohol, and her attempt to flee the scene after making a suicidal statement.

The court also found no breach of the applicant's right to counsel, as a 9-minute delay was justified by safety concerns.

The application was dismissed.

John Kavinsky was found guilty of aggravated assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious and life-threatening injuries inflicted with a knife, the deliberate act of carrying a weapon to a social event, the motive of resisting efforts to prevent drunk driving, and attempts to conceal evidence.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of prior criminal record, genuine remorse, and positive prospects for rehabilitation.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, rejecting a suspended sentence or intermittent custody.

A custodial sentence of 21 months was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, forfeiture of the knife, and a victim surcharge.

The appellant, J.M., appealed convictions for sexual assault and assault.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred by reversing the burden of proof on consent, failing to consider evidence holistically before applying the R. v. W.(D.) analysis, and misapprehending evidence.

Specifically, the trial judge incorrectly placed the burden on the appellant to prove consent and failed to reconcile material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, such as her moaning during the alleged sexual assault and her actions following the incidents.

The appeal was allowed, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The accused attended a birthday party where the hosts enforced a strict rule against drinking and driving.

When the intoxicated accused attempted to leave in his vehicle, the host confronted him and a physical altercation ensued.

During the struggle, the accused repeatedly stabbed the host with a pocket knife, causing severe injuries.

The accused fled the scene and participated in hiding the weapon and his bloody clothes.

At trial, the accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the defence, finding that while the accused had a reasonable belief that force was being used against him to prevent him from driving, his response of repeatedly stabbing the host was unreasonable and excessive.

The accused was found guilty of aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence sought to exclude breathalyzer evidence on grounds of Charter violations under sections 10(b) and 24(2), arguing that the accused was denied a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel at the roadside during a 19-minute delay while awaiting a tow truck.

The court found a section 10(b) violation but ultimately admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the circumstances favoured inclusion despite the breach.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on March 9, 2014.

The court addressed multiple Charter issues including arbitrary stop, reasonable and probable grounds, and rights to counsel.

The court found no breach of section 9 (arbitrary stop), no breach of section 8 (reasonable and probable grounds), and a breach of section 10(b) (rights to counsel) but excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused raised a section 258(1)(d.1) defence (last drinks consumed) but the court rejected the accused's credibility and found the defence not established.

The court convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown alleged the accused drove while impaired after consuming alcohol and subsequently crashed her vehicle into a ditch.

The defence raised Charter violations regarding the right to counsel, arguing the accused did not understand her rights and that the police failed to adequately explain them or inform her of duty counsel availability.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and excluded the breath test evidence.

On the impairment charge, the court found the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the accused's cognitive disability from a prior head injury and alternative explanations for observed symptoms.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle and care and control with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused and his partner were found sleeping in a parked minivan in an underground parking garage.

The Crown alleged the accused had consumed alcohol and had care and control of the vehicle.

The defence argued the accused had no intention to drive and had taken steps to avoid driving.

The court found that while the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had care and control of the motor vehicle.

Both counts were dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of an accident under s. 252(1.2) of the Criminal Code after striking a pedestrian with his vehicle and leaving the scene.

The victim suffered severe injuries including multiple fractures, skull fracture, and upper vertebrae fracture.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 months imprisonment followed by 12 months probation and a 2-year driving prohibition, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized that principles of general deterrence and denunciation were paramount given the serious nature of the offence and the significant harm to the victim.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with blood-alcohol content exceeding eighty milligrams per one hundred millilitres of blood, contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused admitted guilt to both charges.

However, the court found that the police violated the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) by arbitrarily detaining him solely based on his residence in the Northwest Territories, conducting an unreasonable strip search, and failing to inform him of the reason for his continued detention or his right to counsel.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy, finding that the cumulative effect of the Charter breaches warranted this exceptional remedy despite the seriousness of the offence and the strength of the Crown's case.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over involving the theft of thirty-two Blackberry Smart Phones valued at approximately $14,368 from his employer, Research in Motion, over a seven-month period.

The accused, a 48-year-old first-time offender with no criminal record, was employed in a position of trust at RIM and sold the phones to a hairstylist for $2,000.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, including community service and restitution, finding that despite the breach of trust, the offender's personal circumstances, genuine remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and positive antecedents warranted a discharge rather than custody.