John Ramsey

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault causing bodily harm.

This decision constitutes a Gardiner hearing to determine contested aggravating factors for sentencing.

The Crown alleged non-consensual penetration, threats, and a breach of trust, disputing the defendant's claim of a consensual BDSM scene.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the defendant's, establishing several aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, including non-consensual penetration and the defendant's manipulation.

The accused, charged with historical sexual offences including gross indecency and indecent assault, contested the voluntariness of a statement he made to police.

He argued that he was not properly informed of the reasons for his arrest or his right to counsel under s. 10(a) and (b) of the Charter, as the police initially only mentioned one complainant and used the term 'sexual assault' rather than the specific historical charges.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the accused, an intelligent man who was aware of the historical complaints, understood the extent of his jeopardy.

The court concluded that the Crown proved the voluntariness of the statement beyond a reasonable doubt and ruled the statement admissible.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in blood causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, arising from a fatal head-on collision on Highway 17.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from three Ontario Provincial Police collision reconstruction officers: Constable Kelly (Level 3 Technical Traffic Collision Investigator), Constable Hewitt (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist), and Constable Kern (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist and regional lead).

The defence objected on grounds of bias, lack of independence, partiality, and lack of competence.

The court conducted an extensive voir dire on the admissibility of expert evidence, examining the independence, objectivity, and qualifications of each officer.