I. Sunderland

Sentencing on a guilty plea to careless driving causing death contrary to s. 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant drove a van at high speed toward a boat launch ramp in a parking lot adjacent to Ashbridges Bay, mistaking it for an exit road.

The vehicle entered the icy waters of Lake Ontario and sank, resulting in the death of the front-seat passenger who was trapped by an interior security cage.

The original charge of dangerous driving causing death under the Criminal Code was withdrawn after the Crown determined insufficient evidence of a marked departure from the standard of care.

A joint submission was accepted pursuant to R. v. Anthony-Cook.

Sentence comprised time served of four months actual custody with enhanced credit of six months less a day, twelve months probation with counselling conditions, a five-year driving suspension, and a victim fine surcharge.

The accused was charged with public mischief and criminal harassment arising from her interactions with police regarding concerns about her son being abused by his father.

At the conclusion of the Crown's case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence on the essential elements of both offences.

Specifically, the Crown provided no clear evidence of the specific false allegation constituting the actus reus of mischief, no proof of falsity, and no evidence of the accused's knowledge that her allegations were false.

Regarding criminal harassment, the court found that the accused's lawful calls to police did not constitute prohibited conduct under section 264 of the Criminal Code, and that the accused's conduct did not cause the complainant to reasonably fear for his safety within the meaning of the statute.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 committed between March and September 2015 while employed at a dental office.

She defrauded her employer of $63,000 through fraudulent transactions and casino cash advances.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment; the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence with three years probation.

The court imposed a three-year custodial sentence, finding that the breach of trust, significant financial loss, extensive criminal history involving similar offences, and post-employment campaign of harassment and intimidation against the victim constituted aggravating circumstances that outweighed mitigating factors including guilty plea, mental health treatment, and partial restitution efforts.

The accused was charged with break and enter, child abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference arising from the nighttime abduction of a child from a residence.

On a voir dire, the defence challenged the admissibility of DNA samples and two police statements, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter and arguing the statements were involuntary.

The court found the accused was not psychologically detained during the initial police interview and that his statement and consent DNA sample were voluntary and informed.

The court also held there were no Charter breaches in relation to counsel rights or the right to silence during the later custodial interview.

Both the statements and DNA evidence were ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering, abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference after a five-year-old child was taken from her grandparents' home in the middle of the night and assaulted in a nearby backyard.

The case was entirely circumstantial, relying heavily on DNA evidence found on the child's pyjama top and the flight path of the suspect.

The defence argued that the child's father or a neighbour committed the offences, pointing to the child's out-of-court statements implicating her father.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles, rejected the alternative suspect theories, and found that the DNA and circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with Drive Over 80mg, Fail to Stop, and Fail to Remain contrary to the Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the total delay of 16 months and 17 days, comprising 13 months and 16 days of institutional and crown delay, substantially exceeded the Morin guidelines.

The primary cause of delay was the crown's failure to provide a working copy of the in-car camera video, which was essential disclosure.

The court found that the applicant acted diligently throughout and that the crown's inaction and poor communication regarding the video constituted unreasonable delay.

The court inferred prejudice based on the length and nature of the delay and granted the application for a stay of proceedings.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three fraud-related charges arising from her employment as a supervisor at a non-profit daycare centre.

Over approximately 3.5 years, she fraudulently established credit accounts in the centre's name, forged board members' signatures on cheques, and doctored petty cash claims, defrauding the centre of approximately $300,000.

The court imposed a blended sentence consisting of 90 days intermittent imprisonment followed by 639 days conditional sentence (totalling two years less a day), with three years probation.

The sentence balanced the serious nature of the breach of trust fraud against the defendant's significant health challenges (multiple sclerosis), first offender status, guilty plea, and genuine remorse.