Jonathan Melo

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and while possessing a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence based on alleged violations of Sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, arguing that the officer failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel before administering a roadside screening device test.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the "forthwith window" remained open and no realistic opportunity to consult counsel existed at the roadside.

At trial, the court found the accused not guilty of impaired operation but guilty of the over-80 charge, as the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt but successfully proved the blood-alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought release from custody pending trial.

The court assessed the proposed release plan, which included a surety (the accused's mother) and electronic monitoring, against the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

The court found the surety to be unreliable due to past inability to control the accused and a lack of understanding regarding previous bail conditions.

The electronic monitoring was deemed insufficient given the weak surety.

The court concluded that the accused failed to demonstrate that his detention was not necessary for public protection or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, particularly given the serious and violent nature of the alleged offence and the apparent strength of the prosecution's case.

Bail was denied.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including fraud over $5,000, conspiracy, and fraudulent use of credit card data, arising from a series of transactions at Home Depot stores.

The accused and another individual used a credit card and an illegitimate authorization code to force post transactions, resulting in a loss to the merchant.

The accused claimed he was merely an employee and unaware of the fraud.

The court rejected his testimony, finding him wilfully blind and actively engaged in aiding the fraud.

The accused was found guilty of aiding fraud under $5,000, fraudulent use of a computer password, fraudulent use of credit card data, and possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000, but acquitted of conspiracy.

L.C. was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference against his stepdaughter, S.B.M., who was between six and eight years old at the time of the offences.

The charge of sexual interference was conditionally stayed based on the Kineapple principle.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's age, abuse of trust, repeated acts of intercourse over 2.5 years, prior similar convictions, and the long-standing psychological impact on the child.

Mitigating factors included a positive pre-sentence report, steady employment, and family support.

The court sentenced L.C. to 6.5 years' incarceration for sexual assault, along with a DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, and a communication prohibition with the victim during the custodial period.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against two complainants, with allegations spanning 1980-1981.

The Crown proceeded with a joint trial on all counts.

The accused applied for severance of the counts by complainant.

The court granted the severance application, finding that the benefits to the administration of justice in trying the counts together were minimal and that the cumulative effect of relevant factors, particularly the possibility of the accused testifying on one set of counts but not the other, and the uncertain merit of a similar fact evidence application, favoured separate trials.