Jon Fuller

The applicant brought a Charter s. 11(b) application alleging his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The trial commenced on January 19, 2012, but was not completed until July 25-27, 2012, with further adjournment to February 28 and March 1, 2013.

The total delay from charge to projected trial completion was approximately 27 months.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin and R. v. Godin, analyzing the length of delay, reasons for delay (inherent, Crown actions, accused actions, and institutional factors), and prejudice to the accused.

The court found approximately 10 months of institutional delay, which fell within the Morin guideline of 8-10 months.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b).

The trial proceeded as a blended Charter application and trial.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath readings on grounds of alleged violations of s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found no Charter violations.

On the substantive charges, the court accepted the defence evidence regarding the accused's alcohol consumption pattern and found that the defence had raised a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the breath readings on the over 80 count.

On the impaired operation count, the court found the evidence equivocal and that the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and refusal to provide a breath sample.

Police found the defendant sleeping in his vehicle with the engine running in a parking lot.

The Crown called an arresting officer and a qualified technician.

The defendant testified that he consumed three beers, received a call from his wife advising against driving, and decided to sleep in his vehicle until he felt better.

The court found the defendant was in care or control of the vehicle but acquitted on both charges due to reasonable doubt regarding impairment and the refusal charge.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment, threatening to cause death, and breaches of probation arising from allegations made by his ex-wife during access visits to their daughter in January and February 2011.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the ex-wife, who alleged the accused damaged her vehicle, followed her, and made threatening statements.

The accused's daughter testified that the alleged threatening phone conversation did not occur as described.

The court granted a directed verdict on the harassment charge due to lack of evidence and acquitted the accused on all remaining counts, finding the complainant's credibility undermined by her emotional state regarding custody issues and her admission that she had not actually witnessed the alleged following.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five bank robberies committed by handing notes to bank tellers demanding money while falsely claiming to have a gun.

The Crown sought a concurrent sentence of six years in federal penitentiary with one-for-one pre-sentence credit for a net sentence of five years.

The defence sought a net sentence of three to four years.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of six years less enhanced credit of 1.5 to one for approximately 1.5 years of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of four years and six months in federal penitentiary.

The court also imposed a lifetime firearms prohibition and ordered a DNA sample.