Jim Coppolino

Wilchina Casseus pleaded guilty to attempted auto theft.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended a suspended sentence.

The court, concerned by the prevalence of auto theft in Halton Region, requested evidence on the matter.

Despite the joint recommendation and the offender being a first-time offender, the judge departed from the recommendation, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the aggravating factors (pre-planning, intrusion on private property, high-risk flight, lying to police) and the pressing local concern of auto theft.

An eight-month conditional sentence was imposed.

The Crown sought to introduce prior discreditable conduct, specifically youth sexual assault allegations, against the accused, J.M., at trial.

The application was based on the allegations being relevant to proving the actus reus by establishing motive and a pattern of behaviour, including "grooming." The court dismissed the application, finding that the prejudicial effect of the dated and inflammatory youth allegations, particularly given a ten-year break in contact between the parties, outweighed their probative value.

The court emphasized the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, including a "trial within a trial."

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought imprisonment of three to six months followed by probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of three months imprisonment to be served in the community, followed by three years probation.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the offence (premeditation, use of a weapon, stabbing the victim in the back) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, compliance with bail conditions, engagement in counselling, and the impact of COVID-19 on custodial conditions).

The court ordered restitution of $1,500 total, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant was charged with making an unsafe left turn contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant's vehicle collided with an eastbound motorcycle, resulting in the death of the motorcycle driver.

The court found that the defendant's vehicle crossed the centre line into the path of oncoming traffic without first ensuring the movement could be made safely.

The defendant did not testify and raised no defence.

The court convicted the defendant of the offence, finding that the prosecution proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence.

The accused was charged with seven offences arising from the discovery of a loaded prohibited handgun, two small bags of marijuana, $1,000 in cash, and three cell phones in a rental vehicle he was driving.

The Crown argued that the cumulative circumstances—including the pervasive smell of fresh marijuana, the identical packaging of two marijuana bags, the gun's positioning suggesting placement by a right-handed person, and the accused's rubber bands on his left wrist—demonstrated knowledge and possession of all items.

The defence argued that the vehicle was rented by another person, the gun was completely hidden, and there was no forensic evidence linking the accused to the firearm.

The trial judge found that the only rational inference from the totality of circumstances was that the accused knew about and possessed the gun and other items, and convicted on all counts.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for driving on the QEW Highway in Burlington on August 12, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court found that the accused engaged in a classic case of road rage, including passing vehicles using a merge lane at excessive speeds, tailgating, throwing a coffee cup at another vehicle, and deliberately swerving in front of the other vehicle and braking abruptly, causing a collision.

The court applied the modified objective test for mens rea and found that the accused's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a prudent driver.

The accused was found guilty.