Henry Limheng

The appellant was involved in a single-vehicle accident and walked to a nearby restaurant to use a phone.

A police officer arrested him in the restaurant washroom for failing to remain at the scene under the Highway Traffic Act.

This arrest led to impaired driving and refuse breath sample charges.

At trial, the judge upheld the arrest as lawful.

On appeal, the Superior Court found the trial judge erred by failing to assess whether the officer's subjective belief that an offence occurred was objectively justifiable in the circumstances.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and operating a conveyance with blood alcohol exceeding 80mg after being observed acting bizarrely in a courthouse and driving erratically in the parking lot.

An Assistant Crown Attorney who witnessed the conduct in court reported his suspicions to police, who arrested the accused after observing slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and an improperly parked vehicle.

The accused advanced Charter applications under ss. 7, 8, and 9, arguing that his compelled courthouse attendance rendered his in-court conduct protected by the principle against self-incrimination, and that the police lacked reasonable grounds for detention and arrest.

All Charter applications were dismissed: the accused's conduct was not compelled, the police stop was connected to a highway safety purpose, and the arresting officer had objectively reasonable grounds.

As the merits of the charges were conceded if the Charter applications failed, findings of guilt were entered on both counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired operation causing death, impaired operation causing bodily harm, and failure to stop after an accident.

After consuming alcohol at a restaurant, the defendant struck two pedestrians, killing one and causing life-altering injuries to the other, before fleeing the scene and crashing into parked cars.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the statutory aggravating factors of multiple victims and high blood alcohol concentration.

The defendant, a first-time offender with strong community support, was sentenced to a global term of 8 years imprisonment and an 18-year driving prohibition.

The appellant, Loveneet Kaur, appealed her conviction for impaired operation and operation with blood-alcohol concentration over 80, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s findings, including the rejection of the appellant’s evidence and the application of the statutory and common law tests for care and control.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no error in the trial judge’s analysis or application of the law.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for a young person previously found unfit to stand trial on sexual assault charges.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties and the medical evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, though not permanently unfit.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the same terms as the previous year, noting the accused's significant progress and medication compliance.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Victoria Bakker, who pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and bodily harm after a tragic collision resulting in the death of Lucas Thomas and serious injury to his mother.

The Court balanced the gravity of the offence with the offender’s low moral blameworthiness, genuine remorse, and strong community support.

The judge imposed a conditional sentence order (CSO) of two years less one day house arrest, 240 hours of community service, and a seven-year driving prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence while recognizing the offender’s personal circumstances and the impact of the tragedy on all involved.

This is an appeal of a summary conviction where the appellant was convicted of failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand, having been acquitted of impaired operation.

The appellant challenged the conviction on two main grounds: an alleged violation of his section 10(b) Charter right to counsel and errors in the trial judge's analysis of the refusal offence, specifically regarding the unequivocal nature of the refusal and the onus of proof for reasonable excuse.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to dismiss the Charter application, as the appellant was not reasonably diligent in seeking a second consultation with counsel and no changed circumstances warranted it.

The court also found that the trial judge's finding of a "simple refusal" implicitly included a determination that the refusal was unequivocal, given the context of the Charter application findings.

An alleged error regarding the onus of proof for reasonable excuse was deemed immaterial as it was not a live issue at trial.

The accused, Dennis Frail and Ana Maglicic, were charged with aggravated assault.

The court assessed witness credibility, noting inconsistencies in the victim's and a key witness's testimony.

The Crown's first theory of liability for aggravated assault was dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding causation of the orbital bone injury and the victim's overall credibility.

Dennis Frail was acquitted of both aggravated assault and the included offense of simple assault, as the Crown failed to prove he applied force.

Ana Maglicic was found guilty of simple assault; her defence of another person under s. 34 of the Criminal Code failed as her actions were found to be motivated by aggression and vengeance, not solely for defensive purposes.

In a criminal trial for aggravated assault, the Crown sought to admit a witness's prior inconsistent statement for the truth of its contents.

The witness had recanted parts of her police statement given shortly after the incident, claiming intoxication at the time.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, assessing necessity and threshold reliability.

While necessity was met due to the witness's recantation, the court found insufficient indicia of procedural and substantive reliability.

Factors such as the witness's intoxication, absence of an oath or warning, lack of video/audio recording, and unclear circumstances of the statement's taking undermined its trustworthiness.

Despite the witness's availability for cross-examination, the court concluded that the statement's reliability was not sufficiently established to allow the trier of fact to rationally evaluate it.

The application to admit the statement was dismissed, as its low probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The Crown brought a motion to admit RBC and Tangerine banking records for the truth of their contents in a criminal proceeding involving charges of Fraud Over $5,000 and Uttering a Forged Document.

The respondent conceded the admissibility of the Tangerine records.

However, the court dismissed the Crown's motion to admit the RBC records, finding that the Crown failed to provide the necessary evidentiary foundation under section 29 of the Canada Evidence Act, the common law business records exception, or as real evidence.

The court rejected the Crown's request to take judicial notice of the required evidentiary facts for the RBC records, emphasizing that such facts were too close to the dispositive issues and that judicial notice would subvert the statutory requirements.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault against his ex-girlfriend.

At trial, the defence called a witness who testified that the complainant admitted to fabricating the assault to gain an advantage in a custody dispute.

Defence counsel inadvertently failed to put this statement to the complainant during cross-examination.

The Crown did not object until closing submissions, at which point defence counsel immediately requested to recall the complainant.

The trial judge refused the request and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in refusing to recall the witness, and that the Crown's untimely objection contributed to trial unfairness.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a 17-year-old victim who was his wife's sister.

The offences occurred over several months in 2018 and involved the defendant administering muscle relaxant in coffee without consent and engaging in non-consensual sexual contact while the victim was incapacitated or drowsy.

The defendant, aged 29 at the time of the offence, has significant cognitive and developmental disabilities, including Klinefelter Syndrome and an IQ in the first percentile.

The Crown sought six months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 15 months.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with electronic supervision, followed by two years probation, along with ancillary orders including SOIRA registration, DNA collection, weapons prohibition, and a section 161 order restricting contact with persons under 16.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography in the form of text messages sent on December 25, 2017, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The messages were sent to a woman with three pre-pubescent children, whom the accused had met online.

The accused explicitly described sexual acts he wished to perform on the children and attempted to persuade the recipient to allow him to babysit and engage in such conduct.

The Crown sought six months custody plus probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, an intermittent sentence.

The court imposed 90 days jail plus time served (23 days credited at 1.5:1), 36 months probation, and ancillary orders including a lifetime sex offender information registration order, a s. 161 order restricting access to children, and a s. 109 firearms prohibition order.

The defendant was found guilty of incest and sexual assault against his 18-year-old half-sister.

The victim awoke to find the defendant sexually assaulting her.

The court considered the defendant's difficult childhood and lack of a prior criminal record as mitigating factors, but noted the lack of remorse and the significant harm caused to the victim.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court sentenced the defendant to two years less one day in custody, followed by one year of probation.

The appellant, E.B., appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's credibility, specifically regarding her reaction to the allegations during a police interview and the interpretation of her testimony.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge erred in concluding that the appellant failed to provide an unequivocal denial and misapprehended her testimony.

These errors were crucial to the verdict, leading to the convictions being set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of his rights to counsel and privacy.

The court dismissed the s. 10(b) claims, finding the brief delay in providing rights to counsel was justified and the accused freely chose to speak to duty counsel.

However, the court found a s. 8 breach because the accused was video recorded urinating in his cell without reasonable privacy measures.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police's ongoing failure to address washroom privacy despite prior judicial pronouncements.

The charge was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for driving with excessive blood alcohol, possession of marijuana, and possession of cocaine, arguing Charter breaches related to arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and the right to counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the seizure of marijuana lawful as an incident of arrest for stunt driving, the detention not arbitrary, and no breach of the right to be informed of reasons for detention.

While there was a five-minute delay in informing the appellant of his right to counsel, no evidence was obtained as a result.

The court also found that roadside questioning about alcohol consumption, even after the appellant requested counsel, was permissible under the Orbansky doctrine as part of the impaired driving screening process, thus no breach of the right to counsel occurred in that regard.

The defendant was charged with incest and sexual assault involving his half-sister.

The Crown alleged that on July 30, 2017, the defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant while she was sleeping.

The defendant claimed the complainant was the aggressor and that he masturbated to end her advances.

The court found the defendant guilty of both offences based on the complainant's credible testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence showing the defendant's semen on and inside the complainant's body.

The defendant's explanation for the DNA evidence was rejected as implausible.

The defendant was charged with mischief for allegedly damaging a motor vehicle at an apartment building in Niagara Falls on June 20, 2017.

The Crown called witnesses who testified they observed the defendant throwing objects at vehicles in the parking lot.

The defence presented evidence regarding the lighting conditions at the building, establishing that the parking lot would have been in near-complete darkness at the time of the alleged incident due to non-functioning exterior lights.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt based on the reliability of the Crown's eyewitness evidence in light of the poor lighting conditions established by defence witnesses.

The accused, a fast-food restaurant operator, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against three young female employees.

He brought an application to stay the charges for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, which was dismissed because the delay was primarily caused by his decision to strike an earlier guilty plea.

At trial, the Crown relied on similar fact evidence across the three complainants.

While the court found the primary complainant's evidence compelling, the accused's testimony denying the allegations was also credible and raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.