Graham R. Wakefield

The defendant was sentenced for multiple counts of residential break and enter.

The court imposed a 21-month custodial sentence (net 15 months and 10 days after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years probation.

The sentence balanced denunciation and public protection with the defendant's personal circumstances, including her late-onset criminal activity (beginning at age 49-50), underlying heroin addiction, and lack of prior record before 2007.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as inappropriate given the number of residences involved and the serious impact on victims.

Probation conditions included non-association orders, geographic restrictions, mandatory substance abuse and counselling programs, restitution obligations, weapons prohibition, and DNA sampling.

Victim surcharges of $1,000 were imposed with five years to pay.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit on February 5, 2014.

The trial spanned multiple dates over approximately one year.

The defence raised a Charter application and argued that the defendant's regurgitation of stomach contents raised a reasonable doubt as to the reliability of the breath test results.

The court rejected the defence arguments, finding the breath test readings reliable based on expert evidence and the defendant's testimony to be unreliable due to numerous contradictions.

The accused was found guilty.

At sentencing, the court imposed a $1,400 fine (with a $420 victim surcharge), a 12-month driving prohibition, and a 12-month probation order with conditions to attend counselling for alcohol abuse and mental health challenges.

The accused was convicted after trial on 16 counts of fraud arising from his involvement in billing practices at his employer, Attersley Tire, which fraudulently invoiced Highland Trucking for promotional gifts totaling $17,353.00.

The court found that while the accused participated in the scheme, the fraud was orchestrated and encouraged by Attersley Tire and its management.

The accused received only indirect benefits through job retention.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that general deterrence carried less weight than the accused's personal circumstances, positive pre-sentence report, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court rejected restitution as a probation term given that the victim company showed no interest in recovery and the funds remained with Attersley Tire.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood alcohol content was over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown withdrew the impairment count and proceeded on the over 80 charge.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that while the officer had subjective grounds for arrest, an objective person in the officer's position would not have concluded reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances.

The court excluded the Certificate of Analysis as evidence under the Charter exclusion remedy, resulting in acquittal.

The defendant was convicted of Public Mischief after falsely reporting to police that she was being extorted and threatened with death by the victim.

The defendant fabricated the allegations to explain missing casino funds.

Her false reports resulted in the victim's arrest and 42-day pre-trial detention, which caused significant harm to his business and livelihood.

At sentencing, the court balanced the defendant's difficult personal circumstances and lack of criminal history against the serious nature of the offence and its impact on the victim and the justice system.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days followed by two years' probation, rejecting a conditional sentence despite the defendant's mitigating factors due to the need for denunciation of conduct that undermines the integrity of the justice system.

The accused was charged with one count of over 80 (impaired driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood) arising from a motor vehicle accident on January 30, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of an overturned vehicle, police observations of alcohol odour, a failed approved screening device, and breath test readings of 190 and 180 milligrams.

The defence raised the issue of post-driving bolus drinking, arguing that the accused consumed alcohol after the accident while walking to seek assistance.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding post-driving consumption to be internally inconsistent and undermined by statements made to police.

However, the court ultimately found reasonable doubt based on the toxicologist's evidence that the accused's drinking pattern (one beer before driving, followed by post-driving consumption of mini bottles and a mickey of liquor) would be consistent with zero blood alcohol at the time of driving if the accident occurred at midnight.

The accused was acquitted.

An appeal of a Provincial Offences Act conviction where the appellant challenged the trial on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of a motor vehicle offense.

On appeal, the court found that the defence paralegal demonstrated incompetency through multiple procedural failures, including inadequate preparation on competing theories of causation, confusion regarding proper criminal procedure, failure to effectively cross-examine witnesses, and lack of understanding of quasi-criminal court practice.

The court found a miscarriage of justice and allowed the appeal.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL.

The trial focused on the identity of the driver and whether the evidence proved care and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown's case relied on a McDonald's employee's observations, the arresting officer's testimony, and Breathalyzer results.

The defence called the accused's brother and cousin who testified regarding the evening's events.

The court found the accused guilty of care and control over 80 but acquitted on the impaired charge and found insufficient evidence regarding the McDonald's incident.

The accused was sentenced to the minimum fine of $1,000 plus a $150 surcharge and a 12-month driving prohibition.

Three defendants were charged with robbery with a firearm, break and enter, disguise with intent, possession of restricted firearms, and related offences arising from a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on witness testimony, circumstantial evidence including proximity of time and place, vehicle identification, and the testimony of an accomplice.

The defence called a young person who had pleaded guilty to the same incident, whose testimony was found to be perjurious and unreliable.

The court convicted all three defendants on the remaining charges, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt their involvement in the robbery and their prior knowledge that firearms would be used.

The accused, an off-duty Peel Regional Police officer, was charged with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly possessed crack cocaine and powder cocaine found in his briefcase.

The accused testified that he had lawfully seized the drugs during a residential raid conducted in his capacity as a police officer, inadvertently failed to submit them at shift end, and subsequently retained them with the intent to submit them for lawful destruction.

The central legal issue was whether the accused's possession fell within the regulatory protection afforded to police officers under the Narcotic Control Regulations.

The accused brought a motion to amend his Charter Notice to add relief pursuant to sections 9 and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms after the Crown had closed its case at trial.

The motion was brought on the basis of simple oversight by defence counsel.

The court denied the application, finding that while the accused has a right to make full answer and defence, the late timing of the application, the prejudice to the Crown, the impact on judicial resources, and the availability of alternative remedies through section 24(2) analysis of the properly served section 8 claim warranted denial of the motion.

A youth charged with impaired care and control, over 80, possession of cannabis resin, and a Highway Traffic Act offence brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged breach of section 11(b) of the Charter (right to trial within a reasonable time).

The court examined the timeline from arrest in February 2012 to trial in April 2013, assessing delays attributable to the Crown, defence, and institutional factors.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that institutional guidelines for youth should mirror those for adults, holding that the shorter guidelines under the Youth Criminal Justice Act apply consistently.

The court found that while the delay exceeded the administrative guidelines of five to six months for youth, the modest specific prejudice adduced by the defendant, combined with the community's strong interest in adjudicating the matter on its merits, did not warrant a stay of proceedings.

The Crown sought a stay of proceedings under section 579(1) on the original charges against the defendant.

The Crown's position was that despite a guilty plea entered in October 2012, a Pre-Sentence report with Gladue factors had not been properly prepared by Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto as ordered by the court.

Rather than compel attendance of the report authors, the Crown elected to direct a stay of proceedings given the defendant's particular circumstances and the delay involved.

The court granted the Crown stay, which did not apply to new charges pending in another courtroom.