Graham R. Wakefield

The defendant was charged with two counts of breaching an Officer in Charge Undertaking by communicating with Maria Barakza in July 2018 and November 2018.

The defendant was self-represented with section 486 appointed counsel preventing direct cross-examination of the complainant.

The court found the defendant guilty of the July 2018 breach based on corroborating testimony from the defendant's brother, but acquitted on the November 2018 breach due to concerns regarding the ineffectual cross-examination of the complainant by appointed counsel and the resulting inability to properly assess the complainant's credibility and reliability.

The accused was charged with three counts: refuse roadside approved screening device, impaired care and control, and dangerous driving, all occurring on June 11, 2017.

The Crown relied on civilian witness testimony describing erratic driving and police observations at the accused's residence.

The defence argued the accused did not operate the vehicle and that the refusal charge was improper.

The court found reasonable doubt as to identity of the driver, acquitting on dangerous driving and impaired driving counts.

On the refusal charge, the court found the refusal was not unequivocal and that the officer failed to provide a final opportunity to comply, resulting in reasonable doubt as to mens rea.

The accused was acquitted on all three counts.

The accused was sentenced for possession of child pornography and making intimate recordings without consent.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 10 months and 17 days of incarceration, followed by two years of probation.

The sentencing considered the accused's medical condition (epilepsy), institutional treatment concerns, and the need for rehabilitation through counselling.

A 10-year section 161 order and 20-year SOIRA registration were imposed.

The defendant was sentenced following a guilty plea to a domestic violence offense.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, including terms requiring the defendant to keep the peace, complete the Partner Assault Response (PARS) program, attend counseling for psychiatric and psychological issues, maintain a 100-meter distance from the victim, and comply with a weapons prohibition under section 110 of the Criminal Code.

The court also ordered a DNA sample and waived the victim surcharge.

The sentencing emphasized the seriousness of domestic violence, the controlling behavior exhibited, and the importance of rehabilitation through counseling programs.

The defendant was charged with common assault and assault with a weapon (a clothes iron) against his spouse on August 29, 2018.

The Crown and defence presented conflicting accounts of a domestic altercation that occurred in the morning following an unresolved dispute the night before.

The complainant testified that the defendant strangled her and pressed a hot iron against her chest, causing injury.

The defendant testified that the complainant initiated physical contact, that he did not strangle her, and that she applied the iron to his chest first, which he then removed to prevent further burns.

The court found that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant evidentiary gaps and the irreconcilable nature of the two testimonial accounts.

The accused was sentenced for robbery of convenience stores.

The court imposed 12 months imprisonment on top of 123 days pre-sentence custody (credited as 185 days), for a total of 18 months, followed by three years probation.

The sentencing judge emphasized the need for rehabilitation given the accused's neurological challenges and substance abuse issues, and made a strong recommendation for placement in either OCI or St. Lawrence correctional facilities.

The court balanced the need for a strong community message regarding convenience store robberies with a measured increase in sentence length to facilitate rehabilitation.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including forcible confinement, robbery, assault with a weapon, trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of property, theft of motor vehicle, breach of probation, and unauthorized use of a credit card.

The court imposed a joint submission sentence of three years custody less 146 days of presentence custody credit, resulting in a remnant sentence of 949 days.

The court also imposed lifetime firearms prohibitions under Section 109 of the Criminal Code and a no-contact order under Section 743.21 with respect to specified individuals.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant, witnesses, and police officers documenting injuries to the complainant's eye and other abrasions.

The defence argued self-defence.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and reliable in his testimony, noting his emotional demeanor and consistency with observations by police.

The defendant's testimony was found less credible and appeared rehearsed.

However, the judge identified a critical contradiction: the defendant's post-incident statement that "no one talks about our family like that" suggested provocative words were spoken in the bedroom, contradicting the complainant's denial.

This contradiction created reasonable doubt as to what occurred in the bedroom.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused brought an application seeking increased legal aid funding for defence counsel to cover the full estimated budget for a constitutional challenge.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure fair trials for indigent accused, the accused's right to a fair trial (not a perfect trial) was not imperiled by the shortfall of approximately $3,000 between the legal aid budget and the defence budget.

The court acknowledged the financial burden on defence counsel accepting legal aid certificates but held that absent evidence that no competent counsel would accept the certificate, the application must fail.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control of an automobile and over 80 while having care and control of an automobile arising from an incident on February 16, 2018.

The Crown alleged the accused was observed driving erratically on Highway 401 during rush hour, leading to a traffic stop where the officer observed signs of impairment including the odour of alcohol, dilated pupils, and bloodshot eyes.

The accused was arrested and provided with Duty Counsel at the station.

The accused subsequently requested to call his own lawyer, which request was denied by the breath technician.

The court found no breach of Charter section 10(b) rights based on the accused's concession that he had no issue with the advice given by Duty Counsel, despite his discomfort speaking with a stranger.

The breath test readings were 152 and 149.

The court found the accused guilty of over 80 but not guilty of impaired driving, finding the indicia of impairment minimal and insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was sentenced to a $1,000 fine with one year to pay and a one-year driving prohibition.

The accused was sentenced following a guilty plea to charges involving violence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation, having credited four months of pre-sentence custody on each count concurrent.

A lifetime weapons prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code was imposed.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel and imposed conditions including a no-contact order with the victim, a one-time reporting requirement to probation, and a 100-metre radius restriction.

Other charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

The defendant brought a motion for a judicial stay of proceedings on the grounds that the Crown failed to comply with court orders for a Gladue Report, which is mandatory when sentencing an Indigenous offender.

The defendant had pleaded guilty to assault and mischief in July 2017.

Two separate court orders for a Gladue Report were issued but never fulfilled.

The defendant remained in custody for approximately two months longer than any anticipated custodial sentence while awaiting the report.

The court found that the failure to provide the ordered Gladue Report, combined with the defendant's prolonged incarceration and the state's non-compliance with judicial orders, constituted breaches of the defendant's Charter rights and state misconduct that undermined the integrity of the justice system.

The court granted the stay of all charges.

The accused was convicted following trial of possession for the purpose of trafficking in powdered cocaine and OxyContin, possession of a sawed-off rifle, possession of a restricted 9mm handgun, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, and possession of an over-capacity magazine.

The Crown sought three years on firearms offences and one year consecutive on drug offences.

The defence sought a total of three years less presentence custody and bail condition credits.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and one month on firearms offences concurrent to each other, and six months and 24 days on drug offences concurrent to each other but consecutive to the firearms offences, for a total of 31 months and 24 days, with credit for presentence custody and bail conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking fentanyl.

The charges arose after undercover purchases of heroin were analyzed and found to contain an unknown amount of fentanyl.

The court considered the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking, the lack of quantitative analysis of fentanyl concentration, and the accused's health challenges including Hepatitis C. The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day to be served at the Ontario Correctional Institute, followed by two years probation, balancing deterrence and denunciation with rehabilitative prospects.

The defendant brought a bail review application seeking release from custody on charges of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted handgun, possession of over-capacity magazines, and possession of ammunition.

The defendant had been in custody since August 17, 2018.

The Crown opposed release, emphasizing the serious nature of the firearm offences, the presence of ammunition, evidence of children in the home, and concerns about the sureties' ability to monitor.

The defence argued for release based on a material change in circumstances, including the withdrawal of a reverse-onus charge, the proposed supervision plan with three sureties, and concerns about pre-trial custody approaching sentence length.

The court found the defendant had not met the onus to demonstrate a substantial or material change in circumstances but left the door open for renewal in August after trial proceedings.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in fentanyl after selling what he believed was heroin to undercover officers.

The court considered the presence of fentanyl as an aggravating factor but noted the lack of quantitative analysis regarding its concentration.

After applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh lockdown conditions at the Central East Correctional Centre, the accused was sentenced to a further 9 months in custody followed by 2 years of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in fentanyl.

The fentanyl charges arose after undercover purchases of heroin were analyzed and found to contain unknown amounts of fentanyl.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and 230 days pre-sentence custody credit (enhanced), followed by nine months incarceration concurrent on each count, for a total remaining custodial sentence of nine months, followed by two years probation.

The court considered the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking, the accused's prior criminal record, his age, his guilty plea, and mitigating factors including his support network and employment prospects.

A lifetime firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code was imposed, along with a DNA databank order.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm, breach of recognizance, and related offences.

The court imposed a sentence of one year imprisonment on the firearm offence and a consecutive three months on the robbery offence, with a suspended sentence on the breach.

A three-year probation order was imposed with extensive conditions including curfew, non-association orders, weapons prohibition, community service, and mandatory counselling and rehabilitative programs.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence and general deterrence against the accused's vulnerabilities, youth, and supportive family circumstances.

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The main issues at trial were whether the accused was properly served with the certificate of a qualified technician and whether the evidence complied with the new retrospective impaired driving provisions under s. 320.31 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the arresting officer properly served the certificate, noting that the accused's refusal to sign effectively constituted a refusal of service.

The court also held that the accumulation of Crown evidence, including testimony from two breath technicians, satisfied the new statutory requirements.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with assault, mischief, and breach of probation following an altercation with his former mother-in-law during a child access exchange.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess conflicting testimony between the complainant, the accused, and the accused's eight-year-old daughter.

Finding the daughter's testimony compelling, the court concluded the complainant initiated the physical contact, raising a reasonable doubt on the assault charge.

The court acquitted the accused of breach of probation, finding his verbal tirade did not breach a legal obligation, and acquitted him of mischief due to insufficient evidence.