G.R. Wakefield

The accused was charged with multiple counts of domestic violence, including assault, threats, and assault causing bodily harm against his wife and daughter.

The trial judge found the complainant subjectively persuasive but noted significant reliability concerns regarding unauthenticated digital photographs and a lack of corroborating investigation.

Applying the W.D. framework and the Aslami standard for digital evidence, the court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The police stopped the accused on the private driveway of his condominium after receiving a civilian complaint about his driving.

The court acquitted the accused of impaired driving due to reasonable doubt regarding the arresting officer's memory and observations, which were contradicted by video evidence.

However, the court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample, rejecting his Charter arguments under s. 10(b) and his reliance on R. v. McColman regarding the private driveway stop.

An application for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter was also dismissed, as the delay was attributed to both parties underestimating the required trial time.

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.

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.