J. Mahal

The offender, who suffers from schizophrenia, pleaded guilty to criminal harassment after leaving numerous threatening and delusional voicemails on a general line at the Ombudsman's Office while incarcerated.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation, arguing the offence was part of a persistent pattern of violence against women.

The court dismissed the application, finding no prior relationship with the recipient and that the conduct did not meet the criteria for a 'serious personal injury offence'.

Emphasizing the offender's treatability with medication and community supervision via a Community Treatment Order, the court imposed a sentence of time served (44.5 months) and a three-year probation order.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the defendant Robert Montet’s Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to breath sample evidence obtained following a roadside Approved Screening Device (ASD) failure.

The Court found no breach of section 7 regarding alleged failure to provide fresh clothing, no section 8 violation as the warrantless breath demands were reasonable, no section 9 violation for alleged arbitrary detention despite a 6.5-hour hold post-breath sample, and no section 10(b) violation for delays in providing rights to counsel.

The breath sample evidence was admitted, resulting in a finding of guilt for driving with blood alcohol content over 80 mg per 100 mL under section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

This decision addresses a Charter application in a drink-driving and resisting arrest case, focusing on alleged violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court analyzed whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand, the lawfulness of police presence on private property under the implied license doctrine, and the adequacy and timeliness of informing the accused of the reasons for detention.

The judge found no Charter breaches, concluding the police acted reasonably and lawfully, and dismissed the application to exclude breath evidence.