Graham R. Wakefield

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation in a domestic violence context.

The court noted the accused's lengthy history of non-compliance and high risk of violent recidivism.

The court sentenced the accused to 36 months of custody in addition to 99 days of pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

A 16-year-old youth was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching two individuals during a basketball game at a school.

The youth intervened to protect his cousin and struck one victim in the face, causing a broken jaw requiring surgery, and struck another victim in the teeth.

The youth pleaded guilty to the charge.

The Crown sought two years' probation with conditions, 120 hours of community service, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The defence sought a conditional discharge to preserve scholarship opportunities.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with terms of discharge including reporting to a youth worker, no contact with victims, anger management counselling, 120 hours of community service, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, balancing rehabilitation principles with accountability.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device (ASD) following a traffic stop in Pickering.

The Crown alleged the defendant made multiple attempts to blow into the ASD but failed to provide a satisfactory sample.

The defendant claimed he was only given three attempts without warning.

The court found the defendant's testimony neither credible nor reliable, accepted the corroborated testimony of the two police officers, and determined that the ASD demand was made forthwith as required by law.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The defendant brought an application to quash a replacement information for alleged non-compliance with section 504 of the Criminal Code, specifically challenging the sufficiency of information provided to the intake Justice of the Peace and the failure to verbally administer an oath when laying the information.

The defendant was originally charged with one count of "Over 80" but the Crown sought replacement charges of Impaired Causing Bodily Harm and Exceed Causing Bodily Harm.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the presumption of regularity applied and that the defendant failed to establish an evidentiary attack on the validity of the information on a balance of probabilities.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control and refusing to provide breath samples.

The impaired count was withdrawn on the first day of trial.

The Crown proceeded on the refusal charge.

The central issue was whether a police officer lawfully entered the accused's residence to conduct an impaired investigation.

The officer attended the accused's residence after receiving a dispatch regarding a possible drunk driver.

Upon arrival, the officer observed the accused at the front door and testified that the accused invited him inside.

The accused denied issuing an invitation.

The court found that while the officer's documentation was deficient, his testimony regarding the invitation was credible and unrebutted by the accused's discredited testimony.

The court held that the entry was lawful based on the accused's invitation and that the Crown met its burden on a balance of probabilities.

The conviction for refusing to provide breath samples was entered.

The accused was charged with two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and two counts of over 80 causing bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown and defence presented an agreed statement of facts.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath samples on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of Sections 8, 9, and 10.

The court found that while the arresting officer failed to make a formal breath demand (breaching Section 9), the evidence was admissible under the Grant analysis.

The court convicted on both counts of over 80 causing bodily harm but acquitted on the impaired causing bodily harm counts, finding insufficient evidence of impairment beyond the BAC reading.

The accused pleaded guilty to luring contrary to s. 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily, invoking a mandatory six-month minimum sentence.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the minimum sentence provision under s. 7 and s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it was grossly disproportionate.

The court found a s. 12 breach that was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, and imposed a sentence of 90 days intermittent incarceration with a three-year probationary period, rather than the mandatory minimum of six months.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and mischief.

The court accepted a joint submission and sentenced the accused to four months imprisonment on the assault charge (with credit for one and a half days of presentence custody), with the mischief charge resulting in a suspended sentence.

The accused was placed on a two-year probation with conditions including a no-contact order with the victim (with limited exceptions for family court proceedings and contact arrangements regarding their child), a 200-metre non-association order, mandatory counselling and rehabilitation programs, DNA order, and a ten-year firearms prohibition under section 110 of the Criminal Code.

Two summary conviction surcharges of $100 each were imposed.

The accused, a truck driver with a clean driving record and no prior criminal history, was convicted of an offense related to impaired or dangerous driving.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite acknowledging the significant collateral consequences to the accused's employment and financial situation.

The court imposed a conviction, finding that denunciation and general deterrence principles were paramount given the accused's specialized commercial driving license.

A fine of $2,000 plus a victim surcharge of $600 was imposed, with 28 days imprisonment as the default term if unpaid.

The defendant was convicted after trial of sexual assault and sexual interference against a 15-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a sentence of 12 months jail followed by two years probation, while the defence urged the mandatory minimum of 90 days intermittent.

The court dismissed an adjournment application seeking to introduce fresh evidence and proceeded to sentencing.

The defendant was sentenced to 90 days incarceration served intermittently on weekends, three years probation with strict conditions including a 200-metre no-contact order, DNA order, 10-year weapons prohibition, 10-year SOIRA order, and s. 161 order prohibiting contact with persons under 14 years of age.

The accused was sentenced following conviction for assault causing bodily harm in a domestic violence context.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment (credited as seven months and eight days with pre-sentence custody), followed by three years of probation.

The sentence took into account the accused's extensive criminal history involving violent offences dating back to 2007, the domestic nature of the assault, and the demeaning and violent manner in which the assault was perpetrated.

The court credited the accused minimally for time spent on bail release conditions.

The probation order included conditions requiring the accused to keep the peace, report to a probation officer, attend domestic violence counselling programs, maintain no contact with the victim, and remain at least 100 metres from places the victim frequents.

A lifetime weapons prohibition was imposed under section 109 of the Criminal Code, and a DNA order was made.

A $200 victim fine surcharge was imposed with one year to pay.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood following a roadside R.I.D.E. stop.

The Crown conceded special circumstances existed.

The defendant brought a Charter application to exclude the certificate of analysis on the basis that his rights to counsel were not properly communicated due to incompetent interpretation services.

The court found that while the arresting officer acted in good faith and attempted to fulfill constitutional duties, the police-arranged Mandarin interpreter provided negligent translations of the rights to counsel, resulting in the defendant not being properly informed of his legal rights and the resources available to him.

The court concluded that the defendant's apparent waiver of counsel could not be considered an informed waiver given the poor quality of interpretation.

The breath readings were excluded and an acquittal was entered on the over 80 charge.

A youth was convicted of sexual assault and forcible confinement of a victim that occurred on March 6, 2016, when the youth was 17¾ years old.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 9 to 12 months open custody followed by 12 to 18 months probation.

The defence sought a deferred custody and supervision order (DCSO) of 4 to 6 months followed by probation, or alternatively, 3 to 4 months open custody.

The court found that the offence caused serious bodily harm to the victim, rendering a DCSO unavailable under section 42(5) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court imposed 8 months custody followed by 4 months community supervision, with a 12-month probationary period.

A sentence review was ordered for December 1, 2017, to assess the youth's progress and potential amelioration of the sentence.

The accused, a youth, was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement of a complainant following an incident at a residential party.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual intercourse occurred and that the complainant did not consent.

The court found the complainant credible despite minor inconsistencies in her testimony, noting that sexual assault victims do not react uniformly.

The defence witnesses lacked credibility and reliability.

The court found the accused guilty of both sexual assault and forcible confinement, finding that blocking the doorway followed by a forceful push constituted confinement.

Sentencing was adjourned.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion seeking an order to permit the complainant to testify by video conference from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, rather than attend trial in person in Oshawa, Ontario.

The defendant opposed the motion.

The court applied the test under Section 714.1 of the Criminal Code, which permits video testimony where appropriate in all the circumstances, considering the witness's location and personal circumstances, costs of physical attendance, and the nature of the anticipated evidence.

The court rejected the Crown's application, finding insufficient evidentiary foundation regarding the complainant's inconvenience and the quality of video technology, and noting that the complainant's testimony was central to the case and her credibility was crucial to the truth-seeking function of the trial.

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

The Crown's case relied on breath sample readings of 260 and 240 milligrams, approximately three times the legal limit.

The central issue was whether the accused's Charter rights under sections 7 and 9 were breached when police held him for a show cause bail hearing without reasonable grounds, contrary to the presumption of release.

The court found an arbitrary detention breach based on the accused's status as a resident alien with property in Florida, coupled with insufficient police investigation into his Ontario roots.

The breath sample readings were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was acquitted of the criminal charges but subject to a common law peace bond.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

On January 31, 2015, between 5 and 6 a.m., the accused drove his vehicle while impaired with a blood alcohol concentration between 189 and 214 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood (nearly triple the legal limit), causing a head-on collision with another vehicle.

The accused's passenger suffered a fractured right hand with ongoing complications.

The other driver suffered catastrophic injuries including shattered ankles, broken femur, pelvis, arm and neck, torn intestines, lacerated spleen, 26 fractures requiring metal plates and rods, and extensive scarring.

The court imposed a sentence of three-and-one-half years incarceration on the first count and 18 months concurrent on the second count, along with a three-year driving prohibition, DNA order, and weapons prohibition.

The defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The Crown sought to rely on three prior pardoned convictions for drinking and driving spanning 1982, 1989, and 1996 in sentencing.

The central issue was whether pardoned convictions, disclosed with ministerial consent, could be considered at sentencing.

The court held that pardoned convictions should not be considered as aggravating factors at sentencing, treating the defendant as a first offender.

The court imposed the minimum fine with a one-year payment period and a 12-month driving prohibition under the Criminal Code, with a concurrent two-year licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act subject to the Interlock Program.

The accused pleaded guilty to Over 80 (impaired driving), Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm, Fail to Stop, and Drive Suspended.

The accused, a transport truck driver, drove while impaired by alcohol on one occasion and subsequently drove while extremely fatigued, fell asleep at the wheel, and struck a victim's vehicle, causing life-altering injuries.

The accused fled the scene and provided a false account to her employer.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 23.5 months, probation, driving prohibitions, DNA order, and victim surcharge, emphasizing the enhanced duty of care owed by commercial truck drivers and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

The offender was acquitted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle but found guilty of criminal harassment by indictment.

The court imposed a 15-month custodial sentence with credit for 438 days of pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation.

The sentence addressed the offender's recidivist history of criminal harassment, particularly involving domestic partners, his lack of impulse control, and the ongoing impact on the victim.

The court balanced denunciation and specific deterrence with rehabilitation, emphasizing the offender's need to engage with probationary resources and psychological programming.