James A. Nadel

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault against his teenage nieces and received a global sentence of eight years, which exceeded the Crown's proposed range of four to six years.

The majority held that the Anthony-Cook public interest test for joint submissions does not extend to contested sentencing hearings following a guilty plea, as contested sentencings do not offer the same degree of certainty and efficiency.

The majority further held that a sentencing judge's failure to provide notice and an opportunity for further submissions before exceeding the Crown's range is an error in principle, not a breach of procedural fairness, warranting appellate intervention only where the error had an impact on the sentence.

The majority dismissed the appeal, finding no demonstrated impact and no error in the sentencing judge's reasons.

Karakatsanis and Côté JJ. dissented, finding the failure to provide notice constituted a breach of procedural fairness, an independent right that does not require proof of actual prejudice, and would have allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for sentencing afresh.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the accused applied to introduce character evidence of the deceased to support a claim of self-defence.

The accused had shot the deceased, who was attempting to steal his truck, and claimed the deceased made a threatening gesture as if holding a gun.

The proposed evidence included the deceased's prior convictions for fleeing police, outstanding property charges, a withdrawn assault charge, and photographs of the deceased with weapons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence did not demonstrate a propensity for violence or the use of weapons, and its admission would not legitimately assist the jury while risking prejudice.

The Crown applied to admit statements made by the accused during a police interview following his arrest for murder.

The accused had shot a person attempting to steal his truck.

During the interview, the accused repeatedly asserted his right to remain silent based on legal advice.

The interviewing officer continued questioning, suggesting that explaining his actions could result in a lesser charge or support a claim of self-defence.

The court found that the officer's tactics constituted an implied inducement, overcoming the accused's will to remain silent.

The Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, and the statements were ruled inadmissible.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code and with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown alleged the defendant was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle with a beer can in hand.

The central issues were whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample, and whether the defendant was impaired.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances including a citizen report, admission of drinking, strong odour of alcohol, glossy eyes, and a stumble exiting the vehicle.

The defendant was convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample but acquitted of impaired care or control, as the court found insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of impairment.

The defendants were convicted after trial of assault with weapons for attacking the victim with knives in a parking lot on July 31, 2016.

The victim sustained a significant cut to his left arm requiring ten staples to close, leaving a permanent scar.

The court found both defendants equally culpable despite being unable to determine which defendant inflicted the wound.

The sentencing judge rejected both a suspended sentence and a conditional sentence, imposing four months custody followed by two years probation with strict conditions including anger management, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The defendant applied under sections 7 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence of his refusal to provide a breath sample.

The defendant claimed he was assaulted when police attempted to forcibly remove his wedding ring at the police station before the breathalyzer test.

The court found that while the attempt to remove the ring constituted an unreasonable assault, the use of force was minimal and momentary.

The court held that the words of the refusal constitute the actus reus of the offence and cannot be excluded under section 24(2).

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a three-vehicle collision.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood at the time of the collision, given that breath samples were taken more than two hours after the driving occurred.

The court considered whether it was appropriate for the trial judge to draw inferences from toxicology evidence regarding a readback calculation to an earlier time period.

The court found that on the specific facts of this case, with a narrow time gap between the proven time of driving and the toxicologist's opinion timeframe, and with no evidence of post-collision drinking or bolus consumption, it was appropriate to draw the inference that the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit at the time of driving.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and detention on Charter grounds, arguing that the officer violated his section 8 and 9 rights by entering his property without consent and by detaining him for an excessive period after breath testing.

The court found that the officer lawfully entered the property pursuant to an implied licence to investigate a report of impaired driving, and that the accused's statement that he did not wish to speak was not a clear withdrawal of that licence.

The court further found that the detention period was justified based on the accused's blood alcohol level and other relevant factors.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.