G.F. Hearn

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

The Crown's case relied on breath test results obtained at the detachment following an approved screening device failure at a RIDE program.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence on grounds of breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the approved screening device used by the officer had not been subjected to the required accuracy testing within the timeframe mandated by Ontario Provincial Police policy, rendering the officer's grounds for arrest objectively unreasonable.

Additionally, the court found breaches of the accused's right to counsel, including inadequate opportunity to contact counsel of choice, interruption of the duty counsel call, and lack of privacy during the consultation.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the charge was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference with a 14-year-old victim.

The offence occurred between September 2015 and June 2016 while the accused was living with her father and stepmother.

The sexual activity included intercourse, oral sex, and masturbation occurring between three and six times.

The accused admitted to the conduct and provided an inculpatory statement to police.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 18 months' probation, along with ancillary orders including DNA sampling, SOIRA registration for 20 years, and a section 161 prohibition order for five years.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought an application seeking disclosure of records relating to the Intoxilyzer device used to test his breath samples, including maintenance logs, calibration data, and internal quality assurance records.

The Crown and police service opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the requested records were third-party records subject to the O'Connor regime and that the accused had failed to meet the "likely relevant" threshold required for production of such records.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown called two witnesses: the arresting officer and the qualified breath technician.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence, including minimal and equivocal observations of driving conduct and inconsistent observations between officers regarding physical signs of impairment.

The court also found that the Crown failed to establish that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable due to an unexplained delay occasioned by a call to duty counsel that was neither clearly requested nor made with proper notice to the accused.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle stop on November 3, 2013 in Cambridge, Ontario.

The defence brought Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 8 and 7 of the Charter based on: (1) the failure to conduct breath tests as soon as practicable; and (2) the failure to videotape the second breath sample.

The court dismissed both Charter applications, finding that the police acted reasonably in the circumstances and that any failure to preserve the video evidence did not constitute unacceptable negligence.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts based on the totality of evidence including civilian witness observations of impaired driving, police observations at the scene, and toxicology evidence.

The accused was convicted of preventing or endeavouring to prevent an elector from voting at the federal election held on May 2, 2011, contrary to the Canada Elections Act.

The accused, as communications director for the local Conservative candidate in Guelph, was a major and active participant in a scheme involving approximately 7,000 automated telephone calls directing targeted non-Conservative supporters to false polling locations.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months imprisonment followed by 12 months probation, emphasizing that general deterrence and denunciation were the primary sentencing principles given the serious nature of interference with the democratic electoral process.

During the 2011 federal election campaign in Guelph, Ontario, automated telephone calls were made to approximately 6,738 voters falsely indicating that their polling stations had been changed to another location.

The accused, Michael Sona, was the communications director for the Conservative Party candidate.

The Crown alleged that Sona was responsible for creating and placing these calls, or alternatively, that he was a party to the offence by aiding or abetting those who did.

The defence argued that while the circumstances raised suspicions, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found Sona guilty, determining that although the evidence did not establish he personally uploaded the messages to the automated calling service, he was actively involved in creating the scheme and was a party to the offence through aiding and abetting.

The accused was charged with perjury for making false statements during a bail hearing on April 5, 2013.

The accused testified that his twin brother and a friend, rather than himself, had been operating his motor vehicle on four separate dates in 2012 when he was under a driving suspension.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person operating the vehicle on all four dates through consistent and credible police officer testimony.

The court found that the accused knew the statements were false and intended them to mislead the court regarding his credibility and willingness to comply with court orders.

The accused was convicted of perjury.

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

The Crown relied on breath test results from an Intoxilyzer 8000C.

The trial judge addressed three key issues: (1) whether the Crown should be permitted to reopen its case to lead evidence that samples were provided directly into the approved instrument; (2) whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that samples were received directly into the approved instrument; and (3) whether the tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The Crown was denied leave to reopen.

However, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that samples were provided directly into the instrument and that the tests were conducted within a reasonably prompt timeframe.

The accused was convicted.

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

The defence brought an application alleging breaches of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 10(b).

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device test, constituting a violation of section 8.

Additionally, the court found a breach of section 10(b) rights to counsel, as the accused clearly expressed dissatisfaction with duty counsel but the officers failed to provide a meaningful opportunity to consult with alternative counsel.

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath test evidence due to the seriousness of the police conduct, the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests, and the minimal nature of the offence.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and making child pornography available.

The offences occurred between April 2011 and May 2011.

Police investigation identified the accused's computer sharing 105 suspected child pornography files on a peer-to-peer network.

Upon execution of a search warrant, two laptops belonging to the accused were seized containing a total of 404 child pornography videos and 40 child pornography images—the largest collection of child pornography videos ever seized by the Waterloo Regional Police.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months custody followed by 3 years probation, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a section 161 order for 5 years, and lifetime registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 involving the misappropriation of over $722,000 from her employer over a four-year period.

The theft was committed through multiple methods including ATM withdrawals, credit card payments, and cheques written to herself.

The accused was a trusted employee and secretary with signing authority on the company account.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment followed by three years probation, rejecting a conditional sentence despite significant mitigating factors including the accused's gambling addiction, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court found that denunciation and general deterrence required custodial time given the magnitude of the theft, duration of conduct, egregious breach of trust, and impact on the victim.

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 brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 8 rights (unreasonable search and seizure) arising from a police officer's entry into a detached garage to locate the accused following a report of an impaired driver leaving a bar.

The officer opened an unlocked garage door and briefly entered to order the accused out.

The court found no breach of section 8 rights, determining that the search was reasonable given the circumstances, including the minimal intrusion, the detached nature of the garage, the accused's apparent attempt to evade police, and the reduced expectation of privacy in the garage.

The court also found that even if a breach had occurred, evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.