Jason Rabinovitch

A young person was charged with manslaughter in the death of a four-year-old child.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to his father, who was acting as a police agent without the accused's knowledge.

The accused had previously been interviewed by police and had retained counsel who advised him not to make statements.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the statements made during a hotel meeting between the accused and his father, where the father was instructed by police to attempt to elicit information about the child's death.

The central issue was whether the use of the accused's father as a police agent to obtain statements constituted an abuse of process that would render the evidence inadmissible.

A registered nurse was sentenced after being convicted of voyeurism and sexual assault committed against two hospital patients while they were receiving emergency medical treatment.

The offences involved photographing and recording a patient in various states of undress and taking a photograph of another unconscious patient without consent.

The court emphasized the profound breach of trust by a healthcare professional exploiting vulnerable patients.

After considering aggravating factors including multiple victims and abuse of a position of authority, as well as mitigating factors such as the offender’s lack of criminal record and professional consequences, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

Credit was granted for pre‑sentence custody and lengthy restrictive bail conditions.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown called three police officers and a qualified breath technician.

The defence did not call evidence but challenged the reliability of the breath test results, arguing that vomiting shortly before the breath samples were taken could have introduced mouth alcohol into the samples.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges, holding that the Crown had proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence, and that the defence had failed to raise a real doubt about the reliability of the breath test results.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault and sexual assault against his former romantic partner over a period of approximately one year ending in February 2013.

The Crown alleged that the defendant assaulted the complainant on several occasions, including breaking her nose, choking her, striking her with various objects, and sexually assaulting her.

The defendant testified in his own defence, denying all allegations and providing alternative explanations for the incidents.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, including multiple contradictions between her police statement and courtroom evidence, inconsistent accounts given to different people, and implausible details regarding the alleged incidents.

The court acquitted the defendant on all counts, finding that the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence agreed on a joint submission of four years' imprisonment but disagreed on whether the accused should receive pre-sentence custody credit for time spent in custody on separate, outstanding charges in another jurisdiction.

The court accepted the joint submission of four years but declined to grant credit for the time served on the outstanding charges, holding that such credit should be determined when those specific charges are resolved.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

On a blended voir dire, the accused alleged that his warrantless arrest and subsequent search violated his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking exclusion of the heroin under s. 24(2).

The court found that the arresting officer had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused based on surveillance observations of a suspected drug transaction.

Consequently, there were no Charter violations.

The court further held that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the officer acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and essential.

On a pre-trial Charter application arising from hospital-based sexual assault and voyeurism allegations, the accused sought to exclude iPhone evidence and quash the search warrant on the basis of alleged ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) breaches.

The court held the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds, but found that police violated s. 10(b) by questioning the accused about the location of his phone before advising him of his right to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court excluded the accused's oral utterance but admitted the contents of the iPhone, finding the device would inevitably have been discovered and its contents were highly reliable and central to adjudication on the merits.

The application to quash the warrant was dismissed.

The court sentenced the accused following jury convictions for robbery with a firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession of cocaine, with several overlapping firearm and ammunition counts treated under Kienapple.

Applying the principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, parity, and totality, the court held that the five-year mandatory minimum for robbery with a firearm remained fit notwithstanding aggravating factors including a planned daytime robbery in a residential building and public-safety risks from a loaded firearm.

Mitigating considerations included the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, compliance with strict bail, and caregiving responsibilities for his father.

Concurrent sentences were imposed on the remaining counts, together with a ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

The Crown presented evidence from a York Regional Police officer and a breath technician regarding the investigation and breath testing procedures.

The defence challenged whether the breath tests were administered as soon as practicable, arguing that the officer completed the roadside sample at 02:28 and then delayed, and that the officer should have arrested for impaired driving without conducting an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test.

The court found that the police acted reasonably throughout the investigation, that the total elapsed time of approximately 1 hour and 15 to 22 minutes was reasonable, and that the officer's decision to conduct an ASD was justified.

The court found the accused guilty based on the breath test readings of 140 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol following an incident in Mississauga on November 25, 2011.

The court examined five key issues: whether police had reasonable grounds to make a breath demand, whether the demand was made as soon as practicable, whether breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, whether the first breath test was taken within two hours of the alleged offence, and whether impairment was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable grounds existed for the breath demand and that the first breath test was taken within two hours.

However, the court found that the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable due to unreasonable delays caused by the investigating officer's decision to transfer the investigation to a RIDE officer without promptly calling for one.

Consequently, the breath test results were excluded as inadmissible.

Despite exclusion of the breath evidence, the court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of the evidence, including observations by multiple officers and an eyewitness of signs of impairment and erratic driving.

The accused was acquitted of the excess blood alcohol charge.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case relied on breath samples obtained pursuant to an Intoxilyzer demand, which was based on an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test result.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the seizure of the breath samples, arguing that the officer lacked an objective basis for believing the ASD was in proper working order, thereby breaching section 8 of the Charter.

The court found that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the device was operating properly based on his knowledge of the fail-safe feature, the device's successful activation and operation, and the reasonable assumption that his unit would provide a properly functioning device.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with trafficking in crack cocaine following an undercover purchase by a police officer.

The case turned primarily on identification evidence, as the undercover officer observed the seller for less than a minute and no photo line-up was conducted.

The court reviewed the recognized frailties of eyewitness identification and the investigative deficiencies, including the failure to verify phone records or conduct a formal identification procedure.

Nevertheless, the judge found the officer’s identification reliable, noting his detailed observations and immediate recognition of the accused after seeing a photograph at a police briefing.

The identification evidence was materially strengthened by circumstantial evidence showing that a cell phone seized from the accused upon arrest rang when police dialed the same number used to arrange the drug transaction.

Taken together, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the seller.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml.

At trial, the accused’s statements to police were ruled inadmissible due to Charter breaches, yet the trial judge relied on those statements and other improper inferences to conclude the accused was the driver.

On appeal, the Crown conceded error on the impaired driving conviction.

The court held the trial judge materially erred by relying on inadmissible evidence and by drawing unreasonable inferences from equivocal circumstantial evidence regarding the identity of the driver.

The convictions were therefore unreasonable and unsupported by sufficient admissible evidence.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

The central issue at trial was whether the officer's reliance on an approved screening device (ASD) test result was objectively reasonable, given the defence argument that the officer should have waited 15 minutes before conducting the test to rule out mouth alcohol.

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the ASD test and reasonable grounds for the approved instrument tests.

The defence failed to prove a breach of s. 8 Charter rights.

The breath tests confirmed blood alcohol levels over 80 milligrams, and the accused was found guilty.

A youth was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a younger relative occurring between 1997 and 2002.

The complainant, who was between six and eleven years old at the time of the alleged offences, testified that the accused engaged in repeated sexual abuse including kissing, touching, cunnilingus, analingus, and attempted penetration.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible despite inconsistencies on peripheral matters, accepted the mother's evidence of an incriminating phone call in which the accused admitted guilt, and convicted the accused on all three charges.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing child witness credibility in context of their age and circumstances, and the reliability of adult recollections of childhood trauma.

The accused was charged with indecent assault contrary to s. 156 of the Criminal Code for alleged sexual acts against a child occurring between 1973 and 1976.

The complainant testified that, when he was between five and seven years old, the accused forced him to perform oral sex on several occasions in the accused’s home.

The accused denied the allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, noting the significant passage of time and inconsistencies in the complainant’s recollection, including concerns about opportunity and inaccuracies regarding physical details.

The court concluded that, although it could not fully accept the accused’s denial, the Crown failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm and 'over 80' after a motor vehicle collision that resulted in serious, permanent injuries to his passenger.

The offender absconded prior to the sentencing hearing and was sentenced in absentia.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 18 months' imprisonment, a 10-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order, while staying the 'over 80' charge.

The defendant, a 19-year-old with a significant criminal record, pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm (a .38 calibre revolver) without ammunition.

The defendant had attempted to purchase the firearm for $1,800 through an undercover police operation.

The Crown sought a two-year sentence with 1:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, while the defence argued for 12-18 months with enhanced 1.5:1 credit.

The court imposed an 18-month sentence followed by three years of probation, with 1.25:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in approximately 172 days remaining to be served.

The court emphasized the seriousness of firearm offences while considering the defendant's youth, guilty plea, and rehabilitation potential.

The accused was charged with Blow Over 80 after being stopped for erratic driving.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the roadside breath demand and the subsequent Intoxilyzer tests, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, that the roadside instrument's calibration was uncertain, and that the tests were not taken as soon as practicable.

The trial judge found that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on observed driving behavior, smell of alcohol, and the accused's admission of consuming beer.

The judge found the officer's belief that the roadside instrument was properly calibrated and functioning was objectively reasonable.

The judge also found that the tests were taken as soon as practicable within 51 minutes of the initial stop.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's handling of a difficult situation would have led the jury to conclude his lawyer no longer believed in him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge handled the situation appropriately with a firm and fair instruction to the jury.

The court rejected the appellant's submission as speculative and contrary to the presumption that jurors follow a trial judge's directions.