Hans John Kalina

The court sentenced Cyrus Jaison, a youthful first offender, for causing bodily harm while driving with excess blood-alcohol and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The decision details the facts of the offence, the profound impact on the victim, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

After reviewing the applicable sentencing principles and ranges, the court concluded that a conditional sentence would be inadequate to achieve denunciation and deterrence, imposing a 16-month custodial sentence on each count, to be served concurrently, along with a five-year driving prohibition and victim surcharges.

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his credibility assessment by impermissibly using the absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate as proof of no motive, and by making blanket credibility findings without sufficient analysis of individual counts or conflicting evidence.

The court applied the curative proviso to one count (Count 6) but not others.

The appeal was allowed for four counts, with a new trial ordered for three and an acquittal entered for one.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class A commercial driver's licence to a Class G non-commercial licence.

The downgrade was prompted by a medical report indicating the appellant's implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) had delivered an appropriate shock to treat ventricular tachycardia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and that the recent ICD shock, in accordance with the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, poses a significant risk to public safety.

The Tribunal confirmed the Ministry's decision to downgrade the licence.

Two defendants were jointly charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a street race on May 11, 2015, that resulted in a collision with an innocent third party.

The Crown alleged the defendants engaged in street racing along Mavis Road in Mississauga, which caused one defendant's vehicle to lose control and collide with the victim's Honda Civic, causing serious injuries.

The trial focused on whether both defendants were driving dangerously and whether the second defendant's manner of driving significantly contributed to the victim's bodily harm despite not being physically involved in the collision.

The court found the first defendant guilty as charged and the second defendant guilty of dangerous driving simpliciter, finding insufficient evidence that the second defendant's driving significantly contributed to the victim's injuries.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past criminal convictions for tax evasion, unregistered trading in motor vehicles, bankruptcy, and a previous revocation of his motor vehicle salesperson registration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's financial position and past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The offender was convicted of trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of cocaine.

The offences occurred while the offender was on bail for a previous trafficking charge.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years, while the defence sought two to two and a half years.

The court balanced the aggravating factors, including the nature and quantity of the drugs and the offender's related criminal record, against mitigating factors such as a positive pre-sentence report, family support, and efforts to upgrade his education.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court sentenced the offender to a global sentence of 24 months in custody, after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to quash a residential search warrant and exclude the resulting evidence in a cocaine trafficking prosecution.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the governing search warrant authorities, including the totality-of-the-circumstances assessment for confidential informant information and the compelling-credible-corroborated framework.

The informant's recent first-hand tip was found sufficiently detailed, credible, and corroborated by police database checks and surveillance.

The court held that the issuing justice could reasonably have authorized the warrant and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, sexual assault, and uttering death threats, as well as his four-year sentence.

He argued his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to oppose the admission of the deceased complainant's preliminary inquiry evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the appellant had declined the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant at the preliminary inquiry and had agreed with his counsel's advice at trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentencing judge properly considered all principles, and rehabilitation played no significant role given the appellant's lack of remorse and prior record.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for smuggling under s. 159 of the Customs Act arising from the attempted importation of a vehicle purchased in the United States.

The appellant argued that he could not be guilty of smuggling or evading duties because legal title to the vehicle was in another person’s name, making it impossible for him to pay duties at the time of entry.

The court held that the appellant had actual possession and physical control of the vehicle and therefore was responsible for declaring it upon importation.

His misleading statements to border officials supported the inference that he intended to avoid paying duties.

The court concluded that the trial judge applied the correct legal test and that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his 9-month sentence for three counts of break and enter of private dwellings, arguing that the immigration consequences justified a reduction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the trial judge was aware of mitigating factors and could not avoid immigration consequences given the maximum penalty for the offence.

The court did, however, order a correction to the warrant of committal to accurately reflect the trial judge's intended credit for pre-trial custody.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault level one (section 266 of the Criminal Code) arising from alleged incidents on July 30, 2010 and between October 1 and November 30, 2008.

The victim was the accused's former wife.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, police officers, and the accused and his adoptive father.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. analysis and found the accused guilty on both counts based on the credibility of the complainant's evidence, corroborating photographic evidence of injuries consistent with bite marks, and the lack of credibility in the accused's categorical denials.