Heather Lamourie

Criminal trial for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was driving at speeds between 149 km/hr and 192 km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone on a major arterial roadway in Toronto when he failed to negotiate a bend, crossed into oncoming traffic, and struck and killed the victim.

The court rejected defence challenges to the credibility of Crown witnesses including the collision reconstructionist and vehicle examiner, found the accused's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care, and was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on all essential elements of the offence.

Finding of guilt entered.

The court acquitted Nicol Oliver White of sexual assault, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant, Z.E., did not consent to the sexual activity in question.

The decision turned on the credibility and reliability of the evidence provided by both the complainant and the accused, as well as corroborating evidence from a third party witness.

The court found material inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and accepted the accused’s version of events as raising a reasonable doubt.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought pretrial rulings on the admissibility of two pieces of evidence: photos of gas cans found on the respondent's phone and in his residence, and a text exchange between the respondent and an unidentified individual.

The respondent admitted to driving the vehicle involved in the shooting and the presence of his DNA on a glove near the later-burned vehicle.

The court ruled the gas can evidence moot for admissibility purposes after the respondent testified at trial that he urged the alleged shooter to destroy the vehicle.

The text exchange was deemed inadmissible as it was speculative and lacked sufficient context to establish that the ultimate victim was targeted.

All contentious evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained by police during a murder investigation, alleging breaches of various Charter rights, including those related to search and seizure and rights upon detention.

The court analyzed the validity of production orders for banking records, warrantless review of surveillance video, the lawfulness of detention and seizure of electronic devices, and the validity and execution of a search warrant for cellphones.

The decision outlines specific findings on each alleged breach, determining some police actions were lawful while others violated the accused's Charter rights.

This criminal trial in the Ontario Court of Justice addresses two assault allegations against the accused, James Alfred Doan, stemming from an incident in an apartment building elevator during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first allegation involved an intentional push of the complainant, Roxanne Wright, in the elevator, while the second concerned an alleged strike to her face.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) to assess credibility, particularly where video evidence was available for one allegation but not the other.

The defence argued the de minimis non curat lex principle, which the court rejected, distinguishing the intentional push from incidental contact.

The court found the accused guilty of the intentional push in the elevator, relying on clear video evidence and the complainant's corroborated testimony.

However, due to numerous inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony regarding the alleged face strike, for which no video evidence existed, the court found the accused not guilty of that charge, concluding that the Crown had not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found sleeping in a parked van and charged with impaired operation and having a blood alcohol content (BAC) over 80 mg.

The trial addressed three contested issues: reasonable grounds for arrest (s. 8 Charter), failure to provide a Prosper warning (s. 10(b) Charter), and proof beyond reasonable doubt for both charges.

The court found objectively reasonable grounds for arrest and dismissed the s. 8 application.

It determined that a Prosper warning was not legally required under the circumstances, or was functionally met, and the defendant's waiver of counsel was informed and unequivocal, leading to the admission of breath samples and a conviction for the over 80 BAC charge.

However, the court acquitted the defendant of impaired operation, finding reasonable doubt regarding actual impairment due to alternative explanations for roadside indicia and the absence of driving evidence.