John Robert Saftic

This criminal trial addressed charges of public mischief and uttering threats.

The accused, Todd Ansell, was alleged to have made a false complaint against his neighbour and subsequently threatened an arresting officer.

The court found the accused not guilty of public mischief, determining that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the initial complaint was false, given inconsistencies in dating and the accused's context for his "prank call" comment.

However, the court found the accused guilty of uttering threats, concluding that the threats made to the officer, despite being uttered while in custody and under stress, demonstrated the requisite mens rea of intending to intimidate or be taken seriously, particularly given the explicit statement about carrying out the threat later.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg/100 mL.

Following a blended voir dire and trial, the court found that the officer administering the approved screening device (ASD) did not have objectively reasonable grounds to believe the device was in proper working order, as he failed to check the calibration and accuracy check dates despite knowing their importance.

This constituted a violation of the accused's section 8 Charter rights.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving by drug following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown's evidence established clear indicia of impairment through observations by witnesses and a Drug Recognition Evaluator.

Toxicological analysis detected multiple substances in the accused's urine, including prescribed medications (clonazepam, bupropion, quetiapine, venlafaxine) and an over-the-counter cough suppressant (dextromethorphan).

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea—specifically, whether she knew or was reckless to the fact that her medications alone or in combination could cause impairment.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's awareness of the impairing effects and acquitted her of the charge.

The accused was convicted of invitation to sexual touching under section 152 of the Criminal Code following a consensual romantic relationship with a 14-year-old complainant when the accused was 19 years old.

The age difference was five years and 35 days, placing the accused just outside the five-year close-in-age exception under section 150.1.

The sentencing court found that imposing the mandatory minimum 90-day custodial sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the circumstances, including the consensual and non-exploitative nature of the relationship, the complainant's lack of harm, the accused's excellent character and remorse, and the minimal difference from the statutory exception.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, 25 hours community service, DNA registration, and a 10-year SOIRA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault against a two‑year‑old child in his care, causing severe vaginal injuries resulting from repeated blunt force trauma and penetration.

The sentencing judge emphasized the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the breach of parental trust, and the gravity of the injuries.

While mitigating factors included the accused’s guilty plea, youth, difficult upbringing, Indigenous background, and limited adult criminal record, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount.

The court accepted the Crown’s proposed sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, subject to credit for pre‑trial custody.

Enhanced credit of 1.5:1 was granted for most remand time due to harsh conditions and protective custody, except for 60 days of misconduct credited at 1:1.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision that occurred on November 26, 2010, during a severe snowstorm.

The prosecution called three witnesses including the driver of the other vehicle, an independent witness, and the investigating officer.

The defence called the defendant and a passenger.

The court found that while the defendant's vehicle slid out of control on ice and collided with another vehicle, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was driving carelessly.

The defendant was driving 70-80 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, below the speed limit due to poor weather conditions.

The court found that the icy road conditions, rather than the defendant's driving, were the primary cause of the accident.

The defendant's inexperience in bad weather and panic-induced overcorrection did not constitute behaviour deserving of punishment.

The court also rejected the prosecution's argument that lesser included offences of "Change Lane Not in Safety" and "Fail to Drive in Marked Lane" could be applied, finding these were not necessarily included in the careless driving charge.