Heather Pringle

The accused was arrested following a motor vehicle collision on Highway 400.

During the accident investigation, he provided false identification to police.

A search of his vehicle revealed a loaded handgun with an overcapacity magazine containing 13 rounds of ammunition, which had been stolen in the United States.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code and possession of a firearm knowing its serial number was defaced contrary to s. 92.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months incarceration (reduced from 18 months to account for COVID-19 collateral consequences), plus three years probation, with credit for presentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching the conditions of his Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) by consuming prohibited substances.

The first breach involved alcohol consumption in January 2019, and the second involved smoking a joint laced with crystal methamphetamine in October 2019.

A third alleged breach involving incidental contact with crystal methamphetamine was found not proven beyond reasonable doubt following a Gardiner hearing.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months less presentence custody, with enhanced credit for the harsh conditions of presentence detention and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to import cocaine.

The conspiracy involved the importation of approximately 40 kilograms of cocaine (28 kilograms pure) into Australia with a street value of approximately $20 million.

The accused, a 23-year-old journalist at the time of the offence, recruited and directed multiple couriers to transport the drugs.

The court determined the accused was a middle-man in the conspiracy rather than a principal or leader, and imposed a sentence of nine years imprisonment, less presentence custody credit of 113 days.

The accused was charged with driving while over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood and impaired driving following an incident at a fire station parking lot.

The Crown's case relied on observations by firefighters and police officers, as well as breath sample analysis.

The central issue was whether the Crown could prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt given the "bolus drinking" defence—the possibility that the accused consumed large quantities of alcohol while driving rather than before.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest but acquitted the accused on both counts because the evidence established a reasonable inference of bolus drinking, which undermined a necessary precondition of the toxicology expert's opinion.

The Crown brought a motion to vacate a preliminary inquiry scheduled for October 1, 2019, and to require the defendant to re-elect pursuant to amended Criminal Code provisions that came into force on September 19, 2019.

Bill C-75 fundamentally changed the preliminary inquiry regime by restricting preliminary inquiries to offences punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment.

The defendant's offences did not meet this threshold.

The central issue was whether the new amendments applied retrospectively to cases already in progress or only prospectively to future cases.

The court held that the presumption against retrospective application applies, that the amendments affect substantive rights (the right to a preliminary inquiry and the right to elect), and that there was no clear legislative intent to rebut this presumption.

The Crown's motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on delay.

The applicant was arrested on August 28, 2018, and his trial was scheduled to conclude on February 24, 2020, just four days before the Jordan 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The applicant was in custody awaiting trial.

The court found that while the applicant demonstrated no defence delay and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, the applicant failed to establish that he took meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.

Specifically, the applicant did not bring a severance application after learning that co-counsel scheduling issues would delay trial by almost one year, and took no proactive steps after trial dates were set.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving on March 3, 2018, after police responded to a report of an unconscious driver on Spadina Avenue in Toronto.

The defendant was found asleep at the wheel in a live lane of traffic with the engine running.

Police observed signs consistent with impairment including the smell of alcohol and bloodshot eyes.

The defendant was arrested and advised of his rights to counsel.

The Crown did not rely on breath sample results due to an error in the demand read by police.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest and no Charter breaches regarding arrest or rights to counsel.

However, on the merits of the impairment charge, the court found a reasonable doubt existed and acquitted the defendant.

A 19-year-old first-time offender with no criminal record pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to s. 244(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offender arrived at a confrontation armed with a loaded handgun and fired at a group of men near a vehicle.

He was shot in the arm during the exchange of gunfire.

His bullets struck no one, though innocent bystanders in nearby vehicles were endangered.

The offender subsequently passed the firearm to an associate who fired additional shots.

The court imposed a sentence of five years and six months in custody, with enhanced presentence custody credit of one year to account for a jailhouse beating and gunshot wound suffered while in custody.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography between May 9, 2017 and November 29, 2017.

Following the abolition of the mandatory minimum sentence under R. v. John, the court imposed a sentence of 90 days intermittent jail and probation.

The defendant, a 66-year-old educator with no prior criminal record, possessed 65 unique images and 4 duplicate images of child pornography depicting children aged approximately 5 to early teenage years.

The court balanced significant aggravating factors (the nature and number of images, extreme close-ups of genitals, one image depicting a child performing fellatio) against substantial mitigating factors (early guilty plea, genuine remorse, successful completion of residential sexual addiction treatment, strong community support, low risk of reoffending, and no evidence of production or distribution).

The accused was convicted of unlawful possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant execution.

Although a Charter breach was established, evidence was admitted under s. 24(2).

The Crown sought six years incarceration and argued gang membership as an aggravating factor.

The court rejected the gang membership finding due to insufficient evidence and unreliable police synopses and occurrence reports.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years less three months as remedy for the Charter breach, with the firearm offense receiving two years nine months and one year consecutive for fentanyl trafficking.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Over a three-year period, the accused developed a serious cocaine addiction that led him to sell cocaine to an undercover officer on four separate occasions, totalling approximately 30 grams, with additional cocaine found in his residence.

The accused successfully completed a residential addictions treatment program prior to sentencing and demonstrated genuine rehabilitation.

The court imposed a sentence of 90 days incarceration to be served intermittently, along with one year of probation, finding that while incarceration was necessary, the accused's exceptional rehabilitative efforts and demonstrated sobriety warranted a departure from the standard sentencing range for cocaine trafficking.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by drug following observations of erratic driving, two motor vehicle accidents, and physical indicia of impairment.

The trial judge found Charter breaches regarding the suspension of the right to counsel at the roadside and the failure to obtain an informed and unequivocal waiver of counsel at the police station.

Evidence obtained following these breaches was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the trial judge found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence including civilian witness testimony of erratic driving, police observations of physical impairment indicators, and expert evidence regarding the effects of drugs on driving ability.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case rested entirely on breath test results obtained following the accused's arrest.

The defence raised three Charter applications: (1) a section 8 breach based on the arresting officer's chemically impossible articulation of the legal BAC limit; (2) a section 8 breach for failure to "transfer grounds" to the breath technician; and (3) a section 10(b) breach regarding the implementation of the right to counsel of choice.

The court found a section 10(b) breach but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding the breach fell on the lower end of the seriousness spectrum despite its significant impact on the accused's protected interests.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment of his ex-wife after sending her over one hundred text messages, emails, and voicemails following the withdrawal of a previous criminal harassment charge.

The Crown sought a 60-day intermittent jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation for intimate partner violence but noted the defendant's lack of prior record and guilty plea.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of probation, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana under 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking.

He operated an illegal marijuana dispensary in Toronto that he claimed was intended to serve only medical users.

The Crown sought a $25,000 fine and two-year probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with one year of probation and 100 hours of community service, finding that while the operation posed risks of community harm, no actual harm occurred, the accused's motivation was primarily to help medical users, and he had ceased operations and demonstrated rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for an illegal left turn.

The Crown alleged the accused refused to comply with a breath demand made by police.

The trial judge found that although the accused initially refused the demand, he subsequently changed his mind and offered to provide a sample while still at the scene, approximately 36 seconds after his arrest.

The court determined that this change of heart fell within a single transaction of response to the demand and therefore the Crown failed to prove the essential element of intentional refusal beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of Fraud Over $5,000 for stealing approximately $162,480.29 from his employer over a period of 5½ years by making unauthorized technology purchases and reselling the equipment online.

The Crown sought 8-10 months in jail followed by two years of probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12-18 months plus three years of probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years of probation, finding exceptional mitigating circumstances including the accused's status as a first offender, guilty plea, genuine remorse, addiction-driven offending, community support, and two years of abstinence from gambling and drugs.

The court addressed whether a mandatory minimum sentence of three years imprisonment for trafficking a firearm remained operative following Superior Court decisions declaring the provision unconstitutional.

The court held that a declaration of invalidity made by the Superior Court of Justice binds the Ontario Court of Justice and that the Crown must either appeal such a declaration or accept its effect.

The court concluded that the mandatory minimum sentence for conspiracy to traffic a firearm no longer applies.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing a breach of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

Although the total net delay, including retrial time, exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months, the court found the transitional exceptional circumstance applied.

The parties had relied on the prior Morin framework when the case was proceeding, and the operative delay under Morin guidelines, while exceeding them slightly, was not so egregious as to warrant a stay.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial.

Following a finding of a section 8 Charter breach in a prior decision (R. v. Muhammad, 2018 ONCJ 468), the court addressed whether evidence seized pursuant to a defective search warrant should be admitted or excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The affiant's Information to Obtain contained misstatements regarding surveillance that had not been conducted and omissions regarding the accused's lack of criminal record, despite references to a "lengthy criminal past" involving weapons.

The court applied the Grant test, examining the seriousness of the breach, the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court concluded that while the breach was serious, it did not rise to the level of egregious conduct, and the reliable evidence (drugs and firearm) was necessary for trial.

The evidence was admitted.