Josef Neubauer

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, as well as criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, arising from a motor vehicle collision on June 18, 2017.

Following a confrontation at a quarry where the accused was threatened, he fled in a vehicle with three young women as passengers.

While driving at speeds up to 183 km/h on an 80 km/h rural highway, he ignored repeated pleas from his passengers to slow down.

The vehicle crashed 2.7 km from the quarry, killing two passengers and injuring a third.

The court found the accused guilty of all charges, rejecting his argument that his conduct was justified by a reasonable belief in imminent peril, as the threat had passed and he had been informed by his passengers that no one was following them.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm under s. 249(3) of the Criminal Code after colliding with another vehicle at a red light on Ogilvie Road in Ottawa.

The collision caused the victim to suffer a stroke requiring emergency neurosurgery.

The court applied the modified objective test from R. v. Beatty and R. v. Roy, finding that while the accused's failure to stop at the red light constituted civil negligence, it did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances.

The court found the accused not guilty, emphasizing that the momentary lapse of attention caused by an obstructed street sign, combined with the accused's unfamiliarity with the area, did not rise to the level of criminal culpability.

A young person charged with sexual interference and sexual assault brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The applicant was charged on October 20, 2016, with trial scheduled to conclude by August 8, 2018, representing a total delay of 21.5 months.

The court found that the Crown's inadvertent disclosure of over 1,500 pages of text messages without proper section 278 application, combined with the Crown's failure to recognize the section 278 implications for over 14 months, constituted the primary source of delay.

After deducting defence waiver and defence-caused delay, the court calculated net delay at 18.6 months (or 19.2 months including deliberation time), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court also established a 15-month presumptive ceiling for young persons, finding that the 18-month ceiling applicable to adults does not adequately account for the heightened prejudice experienced by youth.

The charges were stayed.

The defendant was charged with driving with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood and impaired driving.

The Crown conceded that the impaired driving charge could not be supported and it was dismissed.

The court considered three issues: whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device (ASD) sample; whether the ASD demand was made "forthwith"; and whether the Intoxilyzer samples were taken "as soon as reasonably practicable." The court found that while reasonable suspicion existed based on the odour of alcohol on the defendant's breath, the ASD demand was not made forthwith—there was at least a nine-minute delay between formation of suspicion and the demand.

Additionally, the Intoxilyzer tests were not taken as soon as practicable, as the officer believed he had three hours to conduct the tests rather than understanding the requirement for prompt administration.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the defendant on the remaining charge.

Three offenders were convicted following a lengthy trial of firearms trafficking offences arising from Project Lancaster, a two-year investigation into illegal firearms and drug trafficking.

All three were convicted of various firearms offences involving restricted or prohibited handguns.

Two offenders were also convicted of drug trafficking offences.

The court imposed sentences of 5 years for the firearms offences, with an additional 7 months consecutive for drug offences where applicable.

The court rejected constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum sentence under section 99 of the Criminal Code, finding that the appropriate sentences exceeded the three-year minimum.

Enhanced credit for pre-trial custody was granted, resulting in net sentences ranging from approximately 4.7 years to 5 years and 7 months.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm, failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm, obstructing a peace officer, and breaching probation.

The offences arose from a collision between the accused's vehicle and a snowmobile operated by a 16-year-old victim, resulting in life-threatening injuries including internal organ damage, brain bleed, and multiple fractures.

The accused fled the scene without rendering assistance and subsequently lied to police.

The court imposed a global sentence of 44 months, with credit for 428 days of pretrial custody at a 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in a remaining sentence of 22 months and 20 days.

The court also imposed a lifetime driving prohibition and DNA order.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a motor vehicle accident on February 9, 2013, in which his car struck a snowmobile operated by a 16-year-old, causing serious injuries.

The trial proceeded as a blended voir dire regarding alleged Charter breaches.

The court excluded evidence obtained through unconstitutional questioning and breath samples derived therefrom, but admitted evidence of alcohol odour.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, failing to remain at the scene with knowledge of bodily harm, breach of probation, and obstruction of justice, but acquitted on the impaired driving charge due to exclusion of breath samples.

The court found the accused was impaired by alcohol and that his impairment was a significant contributing cause of the collision.

At a preliminary inquiry, two accused were jointly charged with weapons offences, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of cannabis for trafficking purposes.

The Crown withdrew charges for trafficking and proceeds of crime.

The accused Lacroix conceded sufficient evidence for committal on remaining charges.

The accused Adatia challenged committal on all charges except possession of 26.3 grams of marijuana found in plain view.

The court found that circumstantial evidence regarding a firearm and brass knuckles found in a bedroom drawer and closet was insufficient to establish knowledge and control by Adatia.

The court held that mere proximity of her passport to the firearm did not reasonably support an inference of knowledge or control.

Adatia was committed only on the plain view marijuana possession charge.

The applicants brought applications pursuant to Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenging the validity of a production order directed to Telus, two Part VI wiretap authorizations, and search warrants executed in connection with Project Lancaster, an investigation into firearms trafficking and drug offences in Ottawa.

The applicants challenged the type of order used to obtain text messages, the sufficiency of grounds for the authorizations and warrants, and sought exclusion of evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that a production order was the appropriate mechanism for obtaining stored text messages, that the authorizing judges had sufficient grounds based on reliable and corroborated confidential informant information, and that the search warrants were properly issued.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order, arguing the trial judge relied on an erroneous income figure from a Support Mate calculation entered on consent.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the error patent on the face of the record, as the appellant's actual employment income was $10,026 per year, not $16,500.

The court varied the spousal support to $400 a month to equalize the parties' net disposable income, declining to depart from the equalization approach due to an inadequate evidentiary basis.