Jody Milstein

A young person was charged with impaired driving and driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision in Toronto.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the roadside breath demand, arguing that the demand was made in violation of section 8 of the Charter due to a failure to comply with the "forthwith" (immediacy) requirement.

The court found that the demand was unconstitutional and excluded all evidence obtained as a result, applying the section 24(2) framework from R. v. Grant.

The decision emphasizes the heightened protections afforded to young persons under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the obligation of law enforcement to jealously guard their rights.

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.

A young person was charged with seven offences related to the possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and ammunition seized from a hotel room during a police response to a noise complaint.

The central issue was credibility: whether the accused was in possession of the firearm when police entered the room.

The Crown alleged the accused had the gun in his hand and was attempting to conceal it.

The accused testified he never possessed the gun and only heard it being racked.

The court found the accused guilty of unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm with ammunition, possession of a prohibited firearm knowing it was not registered, and careless storage of firearm and ammunition.

The court acquitted the accused on the charge of possession of a prohibited device for a dangerous purpose due to insufficient evidence of the requisite mens rea.

This is a ruling on an application by the accused in a sexual assault trial for production of the complainant's school records pursuant to section 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with her without consent while she was in a paralytic state induced by alcohol consumption.

The trial had commenced and the Crown had concluded examination in chief.

The accused sought production of the complainant's Ontario Student Record, attendance records, and school social worker records.

The court applied the two-stage test under sections 278.3-278.5 of the Criminal Code, considering likely relevance and whether production was necessary in the interests of justice, while balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy and equality rights.