John Patrick Raftery

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drug and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown withdrew the over-80 charge prior to the close of its case.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving after the court rejected her defence of necessity, which was based on claims that she was experiencing suicidal ideation and drove to seek help.

The court found no evidence of imminent peril, reasonable legal alternatives existed, and the proportionality requirement was not satisfied.

Arthur John Blackwood was charged with multiple offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code.

He pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (Count 3) and was deemed to have pleaded guilty to production of marijuana (Count 1).

The trial proceeded on charges of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking (Count 2), possession of ammunition while prohibited (Count 5), and possession of proceeds of crime (Count 6).

The court found Blackwood guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking based on his statements, lack of conventional income, and the large quantity of marijuana and plants.

He was found not guilty of possession of proceeds of crime due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was found guilty of possession of ammunition, as his ownership of the residence and knowledge of the ammunition constituted "control" despite his argument that he did not bring it into the house.

The accused was charged with possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 after a stolen pick-up truck was found at a remote farm.

The accused's fingerprints were found on the exterior passenger door of the stolen vehicle.

Shortly after the vehicle was discovered, the accused and a companion were found walking nearby, dressed in feedbags to protect against the cold.

The court rejected the accused's exculpatory testimony that she had been abandoned by a designated driver, finding it implausible and inconsistent.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including the fingerprint evidence and the accused's suspicious conduct, the court found the accused guilty.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to cross‑examine the affiant officer and to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant authorizing a search of his residence for offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused argued that the warrant was issued without reasonable grounds because the Information to Obtain relied heavily on unproven confidential informants whose reliability had not been sufficiently established.

The court held that cross‑examination of the affiant was unnecessary because it would not assist in determining whether the authorizing justice could have granted the warrant.

Applying the totality of the circumstances approach from Debot, the court found that the informant information was compelling, credible, and corroborated by police investigation including background checks and electricity consumption data.

The search warrant was therefore valid and the Charter application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Sentencing decision arising from a planned group confrontation in a tunnel that led to robbery, assault, humiliation, and wounding of the victim.

The court found both offenders were youthful first offenders with strong rehabilitative progress and limited responsibility for the later escalation of violence, which neither was found to have caused or foreseen.

Applying the principles in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court declined to place primary weight on general deterrence and denunciation to the extent urged by the Crown.

One offender received a suspended sentence, 12 months' probation, and community service, while the other received 40 days intermittent custody followed by probation and community service, together with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.