James Anthony Gregory Vincelli

The accused was charged with assault, uttering a threat to cause death, and two counts of breach of probation arising from an incident on April 4, 2018.

The Crown alleged the accused head-butted the complainant and threatened to kill her if she called police.

The accused denied the assault and threat, claiming the complainant was the aggressor during an argument about his Facebook relationship status.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to material inconsistencies in her 911 call and credibility concerns.

While a physical altercation likely occurred, the court could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the assault and threat charges.

The accused was acquitted of assault, uttering a threat, and breach of the peace condition, but convicted of the breach of probation charge relating to contact with the complainant.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proceeded on the Over 80 charge after withdrawing the impaired operation charge.

The central issue was whether the Crown could rely on the statutory presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, which requires that breath samples be taken "as soon as practicable." The court found that a 39-minute gap between the accused's arrival at the police station and the initial call to duty counsel, combined with a 20-minute delay before a second call to duty counsel, was not adequately explained.

The Crown failed to establish that the breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable," and therefore could not rely on the statutory presumption.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following a complaint made by his former partner approximately one year after the alleged incident.

The complainant alleged that the accused forced anal intercourse upon her in their bedroom between January 1 and February 29, 2016.

The trial proceeded on the basis of the complainant's evidence alone, as the Crown did not proceed with related assault charges.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to significant credibility concerns, including prior false statements made under oath to police, material omissions from her initial police statement that were later added at trial, and a clear motive to fabricate the complaint in the context of a custody dispute over their child.

The court acquitted the accused.

The accused, Scott Reeves, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5000.00, involving a total loss of over $3.1 million from four victims (Donna Aiken, Rachel Reeves, Gayle Meehan, and Peter Vignjevic) over several years.

The fraud involved a significant breach of trust, as the victims were friends, relatives, or long-term clients who relied on the accused for financial advice.

The Crown sought a five-year incarceration, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day or 18 months jail.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the magnitude, complexity, and duration of the fraud, and its severe impact on the victims, as well as mitigating factors including the accused's lack of prior record, late guilty plea, and mental health issues.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, and sentenced the accused to four years' incarceration in a federal penitentiary, along with a lifetime prohibition order, a non-communication order, a DNA sample order, and a restitution order totaling $3,125,453.00, with a fine in lieu of forfeiture of the same amount.

The offender pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer of over $219,000 over a five-year period using three separate methods, including forging a colleague's signature on cheques.

The Crown sought an 18-23 month custodial sentence with restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a one-year custodial sentence, finding that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental purposes of sentencing, particularly denunciation and deterrence in cases involving breach of trust.

The court also imposed restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Hamilton Spectator applied to unseal production orders and Informations to Obtain (ITOs) that had been sealed in connection with a fraud investigation involving allegations that the accused defrauded Citizenship and Immigration Canada of over four million dollars.

The court dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding that because one accused was awaiting trial in Superior Court and the mode of trial for the other two accused had not been determined, the application should be brought before a Superior Court judge rather than the Ontario Court of Justice.