Jason Rabinovitch

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 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 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.