H. Mattson

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving, dangerous operation, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended toxicology evidence by rejecting his claim that he only consumed over-the-counter pain medication, failing to recognize that codeine (and its metabolites hydrocodone and morphine) can be found in such medication.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error, as there was no evidence the specific medication ingested contained codeine, and the trial judge was not required to take judicial notice of that possibility.

The applicant sought access to manually manipulate her seized cell phone, arguing that the forensic extractions provided by the Crown might be incomplete.

The Crown had provided digital and forensic copies of the extraction but refused manual access without strict conditions, arguing that access is governed by s. 605 of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding that even if an independent right to access existed outside s. 605, the applicant failed to show an air of reality or provide evidence beyond mere speculation that the forensic extractions were deficient.

The accused was charged with assault for allegedly spanking his five-year-old daughter excessively on March 7, 2017, contrary to Section 43 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including medical evidence of severe bruising to the child's buttocks consistent with multiple forceful impacts by an adult hand, and the accused's proximity to the child during a stressful morning.

The defence challenged the Crown's burden of proof and the reliability of the accused's post-arrest statement.

The court found that while the accused was the most likely suspect, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's exculpatory statement, corroborated in part by the mother's testimony, created reasonable doubt that could not be dispelled by the circumstantial evidence alone.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop for speeding.

The defence alleged seven separate Charter breaches relating to arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.

The court found that only the arrest for driving with a suspended license constituted Charter breaches, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the inventory search of the vehicle and the subsequent arrest for marijuana possession.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Following a trial conducted over multiple days in May and June 2014, the accused was found guilty of attempted murder and criminal harassment against his former girlfriend and colleague.

The accused had engaged in a months-long campaign of harassment involving numerous emails attempting to coerce the victim into continuing their relationship.

On September 23, 2013, the accused stabbed and wounded the victim in a bush lot near her home in Waterloo.

The victim's injuries were superficial but potentially life-threatening.

The accused subsequently inflicted serious self-harm.

The sentencing decision addresses the principles of denunciation and general deterrence in the context of domestic violence, the significance of planning and deliberation, and the collateral consequences of deportation for a non-citizen offender.

The Crown applied for an order under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code permitting the alleged victim to testify via closed-circuit remote testimony outside the courtroom.

The accused faced charges of attempted murder and criminal harassment.

The court granted the application, finding that the threshold of necessity had been met based on evidence of the victim's severe trauma, anxiety, and fear resulting from the violent attack and preceding harassment.

The court considered the victim's age, the nature of the offences, the relationship between the parties, and the victim's emotional state as demonstrated through testimony from the investigating officer and a victim services counselor.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by a drug, contrary to section 253 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown established that the defendant drove erratically after voluntarily consuming Alprazolam (Xanax), a non-prescribed anti-anxiety drug obtained from a friend, in addition to his prescribed Clonazepam.

The defendant argued he had developed tolerance to his prescribed medication over several years and did not intend to drive while impaired.

The court found that the defendant's voluntary ingestion of the non-prescribed drug, combined with his prior knowledge of its effects and warnings against mixing drugs, established the requisite mens rea for the offence.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and criminal harassment following an incident on September 23, 2013, in Waterloo, Ontario.

The Crown alleged that the accused stabbed the victim with a knife, wounding her on the neck, with the specific intent to kill her.

The accused had previously engaged in a controlling relationship with the victim, using self-harm as a manipulation tactic.

After the victim ended the relationship, the accused sent numerous threatening emails from China detailing a plan to kill the victim and then commit suicide.

The accused was convicted of attempted murder after the court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted with the specific intent to kill the victim.

The criminal harassment charge was resolved by guilty plea.