John William Macdonald Dibski

Donald Mackey appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal raised several Charter arguments, including whether the roadside screening device demand was made forthwith, the reasonableness of the breath sample seizure, the destruction of police scratch notes, and compliance with the right to counsel without delay.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions that the demand was made forthwith, the breath samples were reasonably taken, the destruction of notes caused no prejudice, and the three-minute delay in providing the right to counsel was justified by public safety concerns for a child passenger.

The conviction was upheld.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm following a trial.

The offence occurred when the accused, provoked by serious racial slurs directed at him by the victim and another individual, attended a restaurant with two other males and engaged in a violent altercation that resulted in significant injuries to the victim.

The court balanced competing sentencing objectives: general deterrence and denunciation against rehabilitation and restraint principles applicable to a youthful first offender.

The court imposed a conditional sentence rather than incarceration, finding that the provocation and the offender's positive background and prospects for rehabilitation warranted a community-based disposition with onerous conditions.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an incident on October 4, 2016, at a Kelsey's restaurant in Georgetown.

The Crown alleged that the defendant and two associates attacked the complainant after a series of racist messages and threats exchanged over social media.

The defendant claimed self-defence, arguing he reasonably believed he faced an imminent threat.

The trial court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the defendant lacked credibility and that his response was disproportionate.

The court also found that any consent to a fight was vitiated by the defendant's intent to cause bodily harm and the severity of injuries inflicted.

The defendant was convicted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL.

The central issue was whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample based on an approved screening device (ASD) test result, given that the officer was unaware of the effects of residual mouth alcohol on ASD accuracy and failed to inquire when the accused last consumed alcohol despite knowing he had just left a licensed establishment.

The court found a Charter breach under section 8 and excluded the breath test results, resulting in dismissal of the charge.

The Crown applied to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct or similar fact evidence in a sexual assault trial.

The accused was charged with sexual assault on July 24, 2015.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of a prior incident occurring seven years earlier.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the prejudicial effect was limited, the Crown failed to establish sufficient probative value to outweigh any prejudice.

The court noted that the single prior incident was temporally remote, the similarities between the incidents were limited, and the defence position was one of complete denial rather than consent or innocent association.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused sought to exclude evidence of Intoxilyzer test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the approved screening device demand was not made "forthwith" and that his right to counsel was infringed.

The court found no Charter violations and admitted the evidence.

The accused was convicted based on reliable breath test results showing 100 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

Jan Goro, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application to admit details of incidents involving a third-party suspect, Jack Laforge, where charges were initiated but no convictions resulted.

The Crown brought a similar cross-application to admit details of incidents involving Mr. Goro where police investigated but no charges were laid.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the unproven allegations had minimal probative value and significant prejudicial effect, especially given that both parties' criminal convictions would already be admitted.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit a statement made by the accused, Jan Goro, to police in 2003, in a second-degree murder case.

The statement was given after Goro was arrested on a foot impression warrant.

The court found that the police failed to inform Goro that he was free to leave after the warrant was executed, thereby undermining his free will and right to choose whether to speak to police.

Consequently, the statement was deemed involuntary and inadmissible at trial for any purpose, including cross-examination.

A youth was charged with aggravated assault by wounding contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code following a hip check delivered during a house league hockey game that resulted in a serious leg fracture to the victim.

The Crown alleged the defendant intentionally applied force without consent.

The defence argued the defendant momentarily forgot he was playing non-contact hockey and instinctively executed a properly-trained hip check from his years of rep hockey experience.

The court found the defendant not guilty, accepting that he was in early transition from contact to non-contact hockey, had just participated in contact high school tryouts two days prior, and that the hip check, while spectacular in result, was a properly executed check that would have been acceptable in contact hockey.

The court found the Crown failed to negate implied consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on an "over 80" charge.

The trial judge had found no reasonable and probable grounds for arrest or breath demand, leading to the exclusion of breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in law by not making a clear finding of fact regarding the respondent's slurred speech, which was a crucial factor in determining reasonable and probable grounds.

Without a definitive finding on this key indicium of impairment, the court could not determine with certainty if reasonable and probable grounds existed.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The defendant pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, having taken $16,800 from his elderly father while holding a Power of Attorney.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment; the defence sought an intermittent sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 45-day intermittent sentence with three years probation and restitution, balancing the seriousness of the breach of trust against the defendant's rehabilitative potential and ability to continue making restitution payments.

The defendant was convicted of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm to a correctional officer at Maplehurst Correctional Complex after the officer disposed of contraband food items from his cell.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment, while the defence sought a time-served disposition.

The court imposed a conditional sentence consisting of a $30 fine with victim surcharge, 12 months probation with conditions including anger management and grief counselling, a two-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court found unusual mitigating factors including the inappropriateness of house arrest bail conditions mirroring a more serious charge in another region, the defendant's physical and mental health disabilities, and the harsh effects of segregation on this particular offender.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling house in Burlington with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification by the homeowner's son, who observed the intruder inside his bedroom and later identified the accused's vehicle.

The defence argued the identification was unreliable, particularly given the witness's observation of an accent that the accused did not possess.

The court found the witness credible and concluded the accused was the intruder, determining that the accused had likely modulated his voice to disguise it.

The presence of power tools in the accused's vehicle corroborated the theft of tools from the property.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision on December 14, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the arrest, the admissibility of statements, and the right to counsel.

The court found no violation of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) regarding the arrest, as the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on civilian witness information and observations.

The court found no s. 7 violation regarding compelled statements, as the accused's statements to the officer were not compelled by a statutory duty to report.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation due to inadequate police note-taking regarding the accused's request to speak to counsel, resulting in exclusion of all statements made at the scene and en route to the detachment.

Under s. 24(2), the breath test results were admitted as the breach was minor and the public interest in highway safety favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving based on circumstantial evidence establishing he was the driver and that the driving occurred within the two-hour window required by statute.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation causing death following a fatal motor vehicle collision involving a tractor‑trailer.

He brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of several categories of evidence, including statements made at the collision scene, driving logs and related trucking documents seized from the vehicle, a videotaped police interview, and derivative evidence.

The court held that statements made to the first officer at the scene were compelled accident‑report statements under the Highway Traffic Act and therefore protected by use immunity pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter.

However, although police breached s. 8 by unlawfully searching the truck cab and seizing driving logs, the evidence was admitted after applying the Grant factors because the privacy interest was minimal and the evidence was reliable and important.

The court also rejected arguments that the logs engaged s. 7 self‑incrimination protections or that the later interview breached s. 10(b).

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of stolen mail contrary to s. 356(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on December 12, 2010.

The Crown withdrew count two as it was included in count one.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that a stolen Canada Post mailbox was in his vehicle.

The accused claimed he believed the item was a refrigerator that his co-accused asked him to transport.

The court found the accused guilty after rejecting his testimony as contrived and unbelievable, finding that the evidence established his knowledge of the stolen mailbox.

The applicant sought a bail review following his detention on charges of robbery and being masked with intent arising from November 2010 robberies at an Oakville Mac's Milk Store and a Mississauga Rabba Fine Foods Store.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant was ordered to stand trial on counts relating to the Mac's Milk robbery but was discharged on counts relating to the Rabba store robbery.

The applicant brought a bail review application arguing material change in circumstances, including the discharge on some counts, time served in pre-trial custody, and proposed sureties.

The Crown opposed the application, emphasizing the applicant's serious misconduct while in custody, including possession of cocaine and a homemade weapon concealed in his rectum, and subsequent drug-related incidents.

The court dismissed the bail review application, finding the applicant had not met the onus on a balance of probabilities to demonstrate cause for vacating the detention order.

The accused was charged with sexual interference involving a complainant under the age of consent and sexual assault involving a separate complainant.

The trial required the court to assess credibility where the accused denied any sexual conduct with the younger complainant and denied the alleged assault.

Applying the framework from R. v. W.(D.), the court assessed the evidence of multiple witnesses, including corroborative circumstantial evidence such as descriptions of the accused’s residence, tattoos, and the nature of the relationship between the accused and the younger complainant.

The court found the complainants’ evidence credible and rejected the accused’s explanations as implausible.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, an uncle by marriage and high school visual arts teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old niece who lived with him and his wife.

The Crown alleged that on February 15, 2010, the accused engaged in a pattern of grooming and sexual misconduct, including touching the complainant without consent in her bedroom.

The accused denied the allegations at trial but had made admissions to police.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's trial testimony as fabricated rationalizations, and accepted his police admissions as genuine confessions.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual exploitation and stayed the sexual assault charge at the Crown's request.