Joseph De Filippis

The defendant was charged with ten offences including multiple assaults and theft spanning from December 2011 to August 2013.

The Crown and Defence conceded to the dismissal of five counts.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault and theft on 5 August 2013, but not guilty of the remaining charges.

The court determined that while a violent altercation occurred, only the incident on 5 August 2013 was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by independent corroborating evidence including testimony from a neighbour, police observations, and photographs of injuries.

The defendant's self-defence claim was rejected as implausible given the circumstances.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 253 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant brought a Charter motion to exclude the breath test evidence, alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the officer's account of the traffic violation justifying the initial stop was unclear, inconsistent, and not supported by objective facts.

The officer's testimony regarding which stop signs were disobeyed was contradicted by a map and was not recorded in contemporaneous notes.

The court concluded that the defendant's detention was arbitrary and that his Charter rights were infringed.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court excluded the breath test evidence as admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault contrary to sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code, arising from an alleged incident on September 22, 2012, in Oshawa.

The complainant, then 13 years old, alleged that the defendant, a 27-year-old friend of her mother, touched her vaginal area over her underwear while she was in her bedroom during a party.

The defendant denied the allegations, initially claiming he had never entered the complainant's bedroom, later changing his account to state he had entered to apologize for noise at the request of the complainant's mother.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and honest, but determined that the identification evidence was weak and unreliable.

Despite suspicions regarding the defendant's guilt based on his inconsistent statements and consumption of alcohol and cocaine, the court found that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the charges.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop at an accident scene, being in care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired, and having a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The defendant collided with a parked vehicle in Oshawa and left the scene.

Police observed signs of impairment and arrested the defendant.

The defendant challenged the arrest on Charter grounds, arguing the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds and violated his right to counsel.

The court found the police had proper grounds for arrest and that the defendant's right to counsel was properly respected.

The defendant was found guilty on all charges.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown conceded that the defendant was impaired and over the legal limit.

The sole issue was whether the defendant was in care or control of the vehicle.

The defendant testified he had no intention to drive and was waiting for his partner to pick him up.

The court found that the defendant occupied the driver's seat with a contemporaneous intention to drive, or alternatively, that there was a realistic risk he would change his mind and drive home given the circumstances.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit of 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The Crown relied on breath test readings of 158 and 163 mg per 100 mL.

The defendant challenged the reliability of the test results, arguing that her gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) caused mouth alcohol that artificially elevated the readings.

The court found that the defendant failed to rebut the statutory presumptions of accuracy and identity of the breath test results.

The evidence did not establish that the approved instrument malfunctioned or was operated improperly.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for speeding.

The defendant applied to stay proceedings based on alleged Charter violations and sought to exclude evidence.

The court found no merit to the Charter claims.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as unreliable due to significant contradictions with audio and video evidence.

The court found the defendant understood the instructions but deliberately failed to comply with the breath sample demand due to his intoxicated state and defiant attitude.

Following a five-day trial, the defendant was convicted of public mischief, attempted fraud over $5,000, and perjury.

The defendant falsely reported the theft of a motor vehicle to defraud an insurance company, obtained a proof of loss statement by false pretence, and lied under oath regarding the number of keys he possessed.

The defendant, a 37-year-old engineer with no prior criminal record, was sentenced to 90 days in jail for perjury, with sentence suspended for the remaining counts and placed on probation for one year with conditions including no contact with specified individuals and a DNA sample order.

The defendant was convicted of being a party to three counts of trafficking in cocaine.

She served as a surety for a man charged with robbery who was under house arrest.

While the principal offender sold cocaine to an undercover police officer on three occasions in the defendant's motor vehicle, the defendant claimed she believed the meetings were about the principal offender's party promotion business.

The court rejected this evidence and found her guilty.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with the first six months under house arrest, the second six months under curfew, and the final six months on statutory terms, finding this exceptional case warranted a conditional sentence despite the serious nature of the offence and the defendant's breach of her duty as surety.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 16 years, and invitation to sexual touching involving a person under 16 years.

Following conviction, the Crown applied to have the defendant declared a dangerous offender.

The court found the defendant met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

Rather than imposing an indeterminate sentence, the court imposed a fixed sentence of six years imprisonment followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order, finding that with proper conditions and supervision, the risk of re-offending could be reduced to an acceptable level to protect the public.

The defendant was charged with public mischief, attempted fraud over $5,000, false pretence, and perjury arising from a false report of motor vehicle theft.

The Crown alleged the defendant falsely reported the theft of a 2004 Land Rover Range Rover to defraud his insurance company.

The evidence established that the defendant purchased the vehicle, ordered a second key nine days later, had the vehicle serviced, and then reported it stolen.

The defendant made false statements in his insurance claim and under oath regarding the number of keys he possessed.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts after analyzing the voluntariness of his police statement, the admissibility of his sworn examination, and the corroboration requirements for perjury.

The defendant pleaded guilty to multiple offences including possession of methamphetamine and hydromorphine, failure to comply with a recognizance, possession of stolen property, break and enter into a dwelling house, and various firearm offences.

The offences occurred over a three-week period in December 2013, culminating in a two-day crime spree during which the defendant stole from vehicles and committed a residential break and enter while in possession of an unloaded handgun with readily accessible ammunition.

The defendant was subject to three court orders at the time of the offences and exposed his nine-year-old son to the criminal activity.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years less six months presentence custody credit, with specific consecutive and concurrent terms for each offence.

The defendant was charged with committing an indecent act and criminal harassment.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the culprit.

The complainant, a 17-year-old retail worker, identified the defendant as the man who exposed himself to her in her store and subsequently appeared at the mall wearing glasses.

The complainant made a photo line-up identification with 85-90% certainty and testified she was 100% certain the defendant was the man captured on mall security camera footage.

The defendant denied the charges and testified he only wears glasses for reading purposes.

Three defence witnesses corroborated that the defendant does not wear glasses except when reading.

The court found that while the Crown's case would have resulted in conviction if unanswered, the defence evidence regarding the defendant's glasses-wearing habits raised sufficient reasonable doubt to warrant acquittal.

The defendant, a university student and single mother, was charged with aiding and abetting trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown alleged that the defendant knowingly allowed her vehicle to be used for three cocaine transactions between her intimate partner and an undercover police officer, and that cocaine was found in her home.

The defendant testified she believed the meetings were related to her partner's party promotion business and that she had no knowledge of the drug transactions.

The court found the defendant guilty of three counts of aiding and abetting trafficking in cocaine but acquitted her of possession for the purpose of trafficking, finding that the cocaine found in her home belonged to her partner and that she had no knowledge he would leave it there.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit (over 80), and stunt racing (exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 km/hr).

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence, claiming a violation of her right to counsel under the Charter.

The court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of over 80 and stunt racing.

The court rejected the Charter argument, finding the police made reasonable efforts to locate counsel of choice and that the defendant's testimony regarding denial of cell phone access was not credible.

The defendant was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit and possession of marijuana.

The defendant conceded guilt to the marijuana charge and did not challenge evidence supporting the impaired driving charge.

However, he sought a stay of proceedings, alleging he was subjected to an unlawful strip search incident to his arrest.

The Crown argued either that no strip search occurred or that a reduction in sentence was the appropriate remedy.

The court found that a strip search did occur without justification and granted a stay of proceedings on the impaired driving charge, citing a pattern of unlawful strip searches by the police service and the need to defend constitutional protections.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and with two related offences under the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended hearing incorporating a Charter motion to exclude breath test evidence.

The accused claimed his right to counsel was violated because police refused to allow him to speak to his father.

The court found that the accused did not express a desire to contact his father to facilitate contact with counsel, but rather sought his father's general advice about the situation.

The court rejected the Charter challenge, finding the police properly discharged their duties and the accused was not diligent in exercising his right to counsel.

The accused was found guilty of all three charges.

The defendant was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and failure to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample.

The Crown conceded the second charge and it was dismissed.

The court found the defendant guilty of the first charge.

The central issue was whether the defendant had care and control of the vehicle.

The court found that the defendant's actual operation of the vehicle—moving it from a gas pump to a parking spot—established care and control.

The defendant's intoxication was established through witness testimony and video evidence.

Following the defendant's conviction for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault, the Crown applied for a dangerous offender assessment under section 752.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court appointed a psychiatrist to prepare the assessment report.

The Crown sought the right to cross-examine the psychiatrist at the dangerous offender hearing, claiming the assessor was a court-appointed witness.

The defence objected, arguing that permitting Crown cross-examination would undermine the adversarial system and give the Crown an unfair advantage.

The court ruled that both Crown and defence had the right to cross-examine the assessor, distinguishing the nature of dangerous offender proceedings from traditional adversarial trials.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit (over 80) contrary to the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the approved screening device (ASD) test result, arguing that the demand for the breath sample was not made "forthwith" as required by law, thereby violating his Charter rights.

The Crown established that the defendant was stopped at 11:11 PM, the ASD demand was made at 11:12 PM, and the device was presented at 11:18 PM—a six-minute delay.

The court found no realistic opportunity for the defendant to consult with counsel within this timeframe and determined that the police complied with the statutory requirements.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed and the defendant was found guilty.