John M. Ritchie

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while her blood-alcohol level exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proved that the accused collided with another vehicle on Highway 409, fled the scene at high speed, and was subsequently found with a damaged vehicle.

Breath tests revealed readings of 216 and 199 milligrams.

The defence raised Charter challenges regarding the right to counsel, search and seizure, and lost evidence, all of which were dismissed.

The court found the Crown proved impairment through the accused's dangerous driving, glassy eyes, odour of alcohol, and expert toxicology evidence.

The accused was convicted on both counts, with the impaired driving count stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, following a rear-end collision on October 31, 2015 in Toronto.

The trial addressed two main issues: whether the defendant's section 10(b) Charter rights were breached due to delay in breath testing, and whether the breath testing on an approved screening device was conducted "forthwith" as required by the Criminal Code.

The court found no Charter breach, finding that the defendant was adequately informed of her right to counsel despite the delay.

The court also found that the "forthwith" requirement was satisfied given the unusual circumstances, including the off-duty status of the initial officer and the heavy police workload on Halloween night.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device in compliance with a demand made by a police officer under subsection 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the demand for breath testing was valid, the testing was conducted forthwith despite a 30-minute delay caused by the unavailability of an approved screening device, and that a technical breach of Charter section 10(b) rights regarding the failure to communicate the free legal aid telephone number was admissible under subsection 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with assaulting a peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty.

Following a break and enter and theft of cigarettes, the defendant resisted arrest, struggled with police, and during the altercation at the scene, bit a police officer's hand.

The defendant claimed the officer's hand was cut by his broken tooth when the officer was punching him.

The court found the police officers' testimony credible and reliable, rejected the defendant's version as unreliable given his state of intoxication, and found the defendant guilty of assault on a peace officer based on both the biting incident and the overall violent and belligerent conduct during arrest.

The accused was charged with three counts of threatening death contrary to section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The threats were contained in a letter written to President Barack Obama on December 17, 2012, with copies sent to various recipients.

The letter expressed grievances against the Toronto Star, University of Toronto Law School, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and posed rhetorical questions about whether the accused should "pump bullets" into staff members of these organizations.

The accused argued the letter was purely rhetorical and not intended to threaten.

The court found that the language constituted threats of death on an objective standard and that the accused intended to intimidate.

The accused was convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to provide breath samples for analysis by an approved instrument contrary to subsection 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The defence raised two main issues: first, that the Crown failed to prove an unequivocal refusal, and second, that the breath technician violated the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights by denying a second consultation with Duty Counsel.

The court found that the accused's entire course of conduct constituted a failure or refusal, and that no Charter violation occurred as the accused did not clearly request a second consultation and the circumstances did not trigger the "changed circumstances" exception under R. v. Sinclair.

The court found the accused guilty.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of importing heroin into Canada and possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused received a package addressed to "John Henshaw" at his Toronto residence, which was later found to contain heroin.

The Crown withdrew two conspiracy counts after all evidence was heard.

The central issue was whether sufficient evidence existed to establish the accused's knowledge of the drugs to meet the Sheppard test for committal to trial.

The court found that the Crown had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a reasonable inference of knowledge, including the receipt of a similar package from Pakistan one month earlier, the false name on the package, and the implausibility of sending high-value drugs to a stranger's address.

The appellant appealed a conviction for speeding 62 kilometres per hour in a 40 kilometre zone under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The grounds of appeal concerned the alleged failure of the prosecution to disclose information respecting the testing of the laser speed-measuring device used by the police officer.

The appellant argued that the failure to disclose testing times and the officer's testimony about testing without corresponding notes in his notebook resulted in an unfair trial and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario applied under subsection 700(2) of the Criminal Code to be excused from attending trial as a witness pursuant to a subpoena issued by the defendant.

The defendant alleged that the former Lieutenant Governor had originated the criminal charges against him and possessed material evidence.

The court found that the defendant's assertions were entirely speculative and unsupported, contradicted by credible Crown evidence.

The former Lieutenant Governor's only involvement was appearing as a carbon copy recipient on the letters in question.

The application to be excused from the subpoena was granted.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking, possessing drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing the proceeds of crime (five counts total).

The accused brought a motion under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging unreasonable delay in bringing the charges to trial.

The court analyzed the entire timeframe from the laying of charges on September 22, 2015, to the trial date of October 24-25, 2016 (just over 13 months).

The court found that the initial seven-month period from charge to trial date setting constituted neutral time as inherent time requirements of the case.

The court identified approximately two months of institutional delay in the second timeframe, which fell well below the Moran guideline of eight to ten months.

The court found minimal prejudice to the accused and concluded that the serious nature of the charges warranted a trial on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought release from custody pending appeal of his convictions for engaging in an unfair practice contrary to the Consumer Protection Act and carrying on business as a motor vehicle dealer without registration contrary to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The applicant was sentenced to consecutive jail terms totalling approximately 15 months.

The court applied the three-pronged test for release pending appeal: whether the appeal is frivolous, whether the applicant would surrender into custody, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

The court found the grounds of appeal were not viable, the applicant presented a flight risk given his history of using aliases and false documents, and detention was necessary in the public interest given the applicant's pattern of repeated offences and lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal.

An appeal of two convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace fall.

The appellant corporation was convicted of failing to ensure a worker was protected by a guardrail system and failing to ensure a worker was protected by fall protection equipment.

The trial judge found the corporation guilty despite accepting evidence that it had installed compliant guardrails, provided appropriate safety equipment, implemented clear safety policies, conducted training, performed audits, and disciplined non-compliance.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misdirected herself on the law regarding the actus reus of the offences and the proper test for the due diligence defence.

Convictions were set aside and acquittals substituted.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of process under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused alleged that the Crown Attorney conspired with a court reporter to omit from the trial transcript a comment made by another Crown Attorney regarding the Crown's position on sentencing.

The court found no evidentiary basis for the allegations of misconduct, noting that even if an omission existed, there were innocent explanations and no motivation for the Crown to suppress the comment.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the trial to proceed as scheduled.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood-alcohol level exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on observations by a police officer at a RIDE spot-check, an approved screening device test showing a "fail" reading, and Intoxilyzer readings of 200 and 190 milligrams.

The defence raised eight major issues including challenges to reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the reliability of the approved screening device test, potential mouth alcohol issues, and alleged Charter violations.

The trial judge accepted the officer's testimony regarding observations of impairment and rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable.

The court found no Charter breaches and concluded the evidence proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Guilty verdicts were entered on both counts, with the impaired driving count stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.