Jennifer Hue

The accused, a municipal bus driver, was charged with dangerous driving causing death after her bus rammed into a line of stopped cars at full speed, killing one driver.

The Crown relied on Engine Control Module (ECM) data showing the accelerator was fully depressed and brakes were not applied until seconds after impact.

The defence argued the brakes failed and challenged the ECM's reliability, pointing to a botched police inspection and the unexplained destruction of the bus before trial.

The court admitted the accused's spontaneous utterances at the scene that the brakes failed.

Finding that the Crown failed to exclude the reasonable possibility of mechanical failure, the court acquitted the accused.

The young person was charged with impaired operation causing death and criminal negligence causing death following a fatal single-vehicle accident.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights, including an officer surreptitiously listening to a medical assessment, making a breath demand without reasonable grounds, and providing misleading information to obtain a search warrant.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath and blood sample evidence under s. 24(2).

Without this evidence, the Crown could not prove the elements of the offences, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 7,007 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought six and one-half years imprisonment while defence sought five years.

The court imposed a sentence of five and one-half years, granting credit for pre-trial custody at 1.5 times (Summers credit) and an additional 1:1 Duncan credit for lockdown days.

The court considered the defendant's difficult personal circumstances, including an abusive relationship, mental health issues, and the collateral consequences of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic as factors warranting a reduction from the typical sentencing range of 6-8 years.

The accused, charged with multiple domestic violence offences including assault and forcible confinement, brought an O'Connor application seeking third-party records relating to the complainant.

The requested records included extensive banking, cell phone, and social media data.

The court found that the request was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

However, the court ordered a limited temporal scope of banking records to be produced for a stage two review, as they were potentially relevant to the complainant's credibility regarding text messages allegedly sent by the accused from her phone.

The offender was convicted after an eleven-day trial of multiple serious firearm offences arising from an incident on July 31, 2017, including discharging a firearm with intent to endanger, pointing a firearm, and possession of a firearm without a licence.

He also pleaded guilty to breaches of recognizance and probation from 2018.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years less 34½ months presentence custody credit, resulting in a net sentence of 61 months, with lifetime firearms prohibitions, DNA orders, and a forfeiture order.

The offender's extensive criminal history, pattern of recidivism, breaches of court orders, and the serious nature of the firearm offences were significant aggravating factors.

The accused, Omardeen and Jaggernauth, were charged with multiple offences following an altercation with two complainants.

Jaggernauth was found guilty of possessing an imitation firearm for a dangerous purpose and possession of marijuana.

Omardeen was acquitted of the joint weapons charge but found guilty of discharging a firearm at the complainants' vehicle, pointing a firearm, and related firearms and breach offences.

The court dismissed Omardeen's Charter applications, finding the warrantless entry into his home was justified by exigent circumstances and his subsequent statement to police was admissible despite an earlier breach of his right to counsel at the scene.

The accused was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance arising from an incident on February 11, 2017.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant, Angel Bryan.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony, admitted lies regarding the identity of a witness, and a prior conviction for attempted fraud.

Despite evidence of injuries and blood at the scene, the court concluded that the credibility problems and absence of corroborating evidence left reasonable doubt as to whether the assaults occurred.

All charges were dismissed.

The applicants, charged with importing cocaine, brought an application to stay the charges against them due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total time to the anticipated end of trial was over 43 months, exceeding the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

After deducting periods of defence delay and delay caused by exceptional circumstances (a change of counsel and a Crown medical emergency), the net delay remained above the ceiling at 35.67 months and 35 months for the respective applicants.

The court found the delay unreasonable and stayed the charges.

The applicant sought a bail review based on a claimed material change in circumstances, proposing new sureties and electronic monitoring.

The applicant faces serious firearms trafficking and drug charges, with trials scheduled imminently.

The court found the proposed supervision plan inadequate, noting the reluctance of a former surety and the new surety's reservations about bail conditions.

The court concluded that detention was necessary on both secondary (protection of the public due to substantial likelihood of committing further offences) and tertiary (maintain confidence in the administration of justice) grounds, considering the gravity of the offences, the apparent strength of the Crown's case, and the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The accused, O.K., was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, S.H., testified that the sexual contact (oral sex and vaginal penetration) occurred without her consent while she was heavily intoxicated.

The accused claimed consensual activity and honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court disbelieved the accused's testimony, finding his claims of consent and lack of awareness of intoxication to be untrue and lacking an air of reality.

The court accepted the complainant's account, finding her memory issues due to intoxication did not undermine her credibility regarding the assault itself.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was arrested following a police response to a call about an intoxicated passenger in a cab.

A search incident to arrest revealed the accused was in possession of 111 grams of Ketamine.

The Crown alleged possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused conceded possession of the substance but contested the trafficking allegation.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved the accused possessed the Ketamine for trafficking purposes.

The Crown relied on expert evidence regarding the quantity being consistent with trafficking.

The defence argued the absence of other indicia of trafficking left open the reasonable possibility of personal use.

The Crown sought to qualify a police officer to give opinion evidence regarding the methodology of drug trafficking, pricing, distribution, and street use of ketamine in a possession for trafficking case.

The defence challenged the officer's qualifications.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and White Burgess test for expert evidence admissibility, finding that the officer's training, experience with approximately 30 ketamine investigations, conversations with other officers and drug users, and prior testimony as a drug expert provided a sufficient foundation for the proposed opinion evidence.

The court admitted the evidence while excluding toxicology information regarding lethal dosing as beyond the officer's expertise.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 following a motor vehicle collision.

The trial involved a blended hearing on Charter issues and the merits.

The court found that while the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, the police breached the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights by failing to provide meaningful translation of his rights and the reason for arrest despite knowing he had severe language barriers and did not speak English.

A Cantonese-speaking officer was called but failed to properly communicate with the accused.

The blood samples obtained were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the serious nature of the breach.

Without the blood evidence, the Crown could not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the remaining evidence, and both charges were dismissed.

The accused applied for judicial interim release following a preliminary inquiry where he conceded orders to stand trial on serious charges including possession of prohibited firearms with ammunition, careless storage of weapons, possession of prohibited weapons and over-capacity magazines, possession of firearms obtained by commission of an offence, forcible confinement, kidnapping, pointing a firearm, and drug trafficking offences.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release on a substantial recognizance secured by his parents with electronic monitoring via ankle bracelet.

The court denied the application, finding that the accused had not shown cause for release on both secondary and tertiary grounds, citing concerns about the sureties' ability to supervise, the accused's demonstrated disrespect for court orders, and the serious nature of the offences.

The 22-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to breach of recognizance and assault of a peace officer with intent to resist arrest.

The offender pushed a police officer to facilitate his flight, resulting in the officer accidentally falling and breaking his fibula.

The Crown sought 60 days in jail, while the offender sought a conditional discharge to avoid travel restrictions that would impact his semi-professional soccer career.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation and 100 hours of community service, finding that the 72 days of credited pre-sentence custody adequately addressed the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision arising from Project Bermuda, a Durham Regional Police investigation into cocaine trafficking.

Four accused were charged with various drug trafficking, firearm, and proceeds of crime offences.

The Crown proceeded on numerous counts with some concessions by defence counsel.

The judge applied the Shephard test to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to commit each accused to trial.

The decision addresses key legal principles regarding possession, conspiracy, voice identification, and the scope of preliminary inquiries.

Multiple counts were dismissed for insufficient evidence, while others proceeded to trial.

The accused applied under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter to exclude a firearm discovered during a police encounter.

Police officers observed the accused walking in a neighbourhood where they were searching for armed robbery suspects and noted behaviours consistent with a person carrying a concealed weapon, including slowing his pace, performing a 'safety pat', and blading his body away from officers.

The court found the officers had reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was armed and therefore lawfully conducted an investigative detention and safety search.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence and accepted the officers’ testimony regarding the circumstances of the detention, arrest, and search.

No Charter breaches were established and the firearm was ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with robbery after allegedly stealing a rental vehicle, electronics, and a wallet from the complainant during a pre-arranged meeting.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including a fingerprint found on the stolen vehicle and cell phone records linked to a residence where the accused's identification was found.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and concluded that the combined circumstantial evidence, particularly the fingerprint on the passenger window, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was one of the robbers.