Jason Gorda

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal challenged the dismissal of a Charter motion alleging a s. 7 breach arising from police failure to videotape the Intoxilyzer machine and related quality assurance checks during breath testing.

The court held that Charter applications require an adequate evidentiary foundation and that the record contained insufficient evidence about the breath testing process, videotaping practices, or potential prejudice to the defence.

In the absence of such evidence, the claim that the police deliberately failed to record potentially exculpatory evidence was speculative.

The court concluded that the trial judge made no error in dismissing the Charter motion.

The appellant appealed convictions and sentence for offences involving the killing and wounding of two dogs contrary to the Criminal Code.

The conviction appeal alleged errors in credibility assessment and sought admission of extensive fresh evidence, including veterinary expert evidence suggesting vasculopathy, accidental injuries from falls, and revised dating of rib fractures.

Applying the Palmer test, the court held the proposed evidence failed the due diligence, credibility, and impact requirements and was not admissible.

The conviction appeal was therefore dismissed.

However, the court found an error in principle in sentencing where denunciation and deterrence were overemphasized relative to rehabilitation for a first offender, and reduced the custodial sentence while adjusting ancillary orders.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed following a guilty plea to sexual interference involving a child under 16.

The trial judge had imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 14 days' imprisonment and probation.

The appeal court found multiple errors in principle, including misapprehension of a psychiatric report, failure to properly consider aggravating factors, and improper characterization of the offence as being at the low end of seriousness.

Although the appellate court concluded that the sentence was manifestly unfit and that a range of six to twelve months would ordinarily be appropriate, it declined to intervene due to significant delays and the respondent’s completion of the custodial portion of the sentence and substantial compliance with probation.

The Crown appeal was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous driving following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in concluding that a defence witness had adopted a prior out‑of‑court statement made to police and treating that statement as substantive evidence.

The court reviewed the legal principles governing adoption of prior statements, including the requirement that the witness both acknowledge making the statement and affirm its truth based on present memory.

The appellate court found that although the witness admitted making the statement, he did not clearly adopt its contents as true.

Because the trial judge relied heavily on the supposed adoption in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction could not stand.