John Renwick

The accused, a former elementary school teacher and vice-principal, pleaded guilty to nine counts of voyeurism under section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Between early 2015 and February 2017, he secretly recorded male staff members using the staff washroom at his school using hidden cameras.

The Crown sought 15 to 18 months custody, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 16 months, highlighting mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of prior record, remorse, and therapeutic progress.

The court imposed a 16-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for the first eight months, non-contact orders, and mandatory counselling, followed by two years probation.

Sentencing of two offenders following a fatal collision.

The first offender, Gregory, was convicted of possessing a stolen vehicle obtained through an insurance fraud scheme and was sentenced to 4 months' incarceration.

The second offender, Gamble, drove the stolen vehicle while disqualified, fled from police at high speeds, ran a red light, and caused a collision that killed an 18-year-old driver.

Gamble then fled the scene.

Given his extensive criminal record of 80 convictions, lack of remorse, and the extreme recklessness of his actions, Gamble was sentenced to a total of 16 years' incarceration (13 years net) and a 15-year driving prohibition.

Richard Scott Gamble and David Paul Gregory were charged with multiple criminal offences, including possession of stolen property.

Gamble was additionally charged with criminal negligence causing death, driving while disqualified, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

The trial proceeded by judge alone.

The court meticulously reviewed witness testimony, forensic evidence (DNA from airbag, hair, blood), and post-offence conduct to determine the driver of a fleeing vehicle involved in a fatal collision.

The court found Gamble to be the driver, rejecting his claim of being a passenger and the existence of a third driver.

Gamble was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death, driving while disqualified, and failing to stop.

Gregory was found guilty of possession of stolen property.

Gamble was found not guilty of possession of stolen property due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of the "burn and earn" scheme.

The defendant was convicted after entering guilty pleas to five counts under the Highway Traffic Act: driving while license suspended, owning and driving a motor vehicle without insurance, failing to notify the Ministry of Transportation of vehicle ownership, using an unauthorized license plate, and not having a validated permit.

The defendant had an extensive driving record including nine prior convictions for driving suspended and six for operating without insurance.

The prosecution sought custody on two counts and a substantial fine for the insurance offense.

The defense argued for concurrent sentencing given the defendant's concurrent criminal convictions totaling 43 months.

The court imposed four months custody consecutive to existing sentences for the drive suspended offense, 15 days concurrent for the plate infraction, a $10,000 fine for the insurance offense with a 60-month payment period, and suspended sentence on the remaining charges.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having an excessive concentration of alcohol in her blood while in care or control of a motor vehicle.

The accused did not dispute that her ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired and that her blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to prove the accused was in care or control of the vehicle at the time of observation.

The court applied the test from R. v. Boudreault and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused created a realistic risk of danger and was therefore in care or control of the vehicle.

The court convicted on both charges.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common-law spouse.

The Crown's case was straightforward: the accused punched and kicked the victim on the stairs and basement of their shared residence.

The accused admitted to the physical acts but raised a defence of non-insane automatism, claiming he was in a state of hypoglycaemic shock due to his diabetes and was therefore unaware of his actions and unable to form the requisite mens rea.

The court found that the accused had met the threshold for raising the defence and, on a balance of probabilities, had rebutted the presumption of voluntariness.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident knowing that bodily harm had been caused.

The incident occurred when the accused operated an ATV in a public park in a dangerous manner, performing donuts and driving at high speed through a skateboard park where members of the public were present.

The accused struck a person, causing a fractured femur.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm but not guilty of the aggravated failure to stop charge, instead finding him guilty of the lesser included offence of simple failure to stop.