Joseph F. Kenkel

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

The trial addressed multiple Charter issues including identification of the vehicle, reasonable grounds for stop and arrest, right to counsel advice, and timing of breath demand and testing.

The court found the vehicle was properly identified, reasonable grounds existed for the stop and arrest, no Charter breaches occurred regarding right to counsel advice despite language difficulties, and the breath demand and testing complied with statutory requirements.

The Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt based on credible evidence of erratic driving, physical impairment indicators, and breath test results showing blood alcohol concentration well above the legal limit.

The applicant sought to vary an intermittent sentence of 81 days by reducing it to account for time served in custody on unrelated charges.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the power to vary intermittent sentences is limited to the circumstances set out in section 732 of the Criminal Code.

The court further held that even if such variation were possible, it would not grant the remedy because the applicant had made a tactical choice to remain eligible for release rather than converting the intermittent sentence to straight time when arrested on new charges.

The accused was charged with 23 counts of prohibited contact with his former spouse.

He pleaded guilty to 3 counts of failing to comply with probation and 1 count of criminal harassment.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record spanning 28 years, including 16 convictions involving violence and 17 breaches of court orders.

He violated probation orders prohibiting contact within hours of release from jail, engaging in repeated unwanted contact with the victim at multiple locations.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years less 1 day, with 414 days remaining to be served after crediting 315 days of pre-trial custody.

Post-release probation conditions included a 3-year term with strict no-contact provisions and geographic restrictions.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

A civilian witness observed the accused's truck swerving erratically across lanes and changing speed without apparent cause, prompting a 911 call.

Police officers observed similar driving patterns and stopped the vehicle.

The accused displayed signs consistent with impairment including red and watery eyes, slurred speech, and unsteadiness.

The court found the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the credible evidence of the civilian witness and police observations of the accused's inability to maintain a safe driving course.

The court rejected the accused's assertion that diabetes could account for the observed impairment and found a guilty verdict.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit.

The Crown relied on breath test readings and a toxicologist's report calculating the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of operation.

The defence presented evidence focused on bolus drinking, establishing that the accused consumed a large quantity of alcohol shortly before driving, within approximately 15 minutes of the stop.

The Crown failed to prove the foundational assumption in the toxicologist's report that there was no consumption of large quantities of alcohol within 15 minutes prior to the incident.

The court found insufficient evidence to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed both counts.

The accused, a youth, was charged with assault and uttering a death threat arising from an incident at his high school.

The Crown's case rested on the testimony of two student witnesses who provided consistent accounts of the accused threatening to stab the complainant and make his family watch his death, followed by a physical assault involving grabbing, pushing, and slapping.

The accused testified that the complainant was the aggressor and initiated the physical confrontation without provocation.

The court found the Crown witnesses credible and reliable, while finding the accused's testimony illogical, exaggerated, and contradicted by external evidence.

The court rejected the defence submissions that the incident was consensual and that the threat was not proven, finding both charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, a Canada Revenue Agency employee and audit team leader, pleaded guilty to breach of trust by a public officer, accepting secret commissions, and defrauding the Government of Canada.

Over a three-year period, the accused received approximately $1.1 million in secret commissions from businesses in exchange for using his position to manipulate tax audits and investigations.

Most egregiously, he created a false audit of the Mayor of Caledon at the request of a developer seeking to intimidate the elected official.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment; the accused sought two years less one day.

The court imposed a three-year concurrent penitentiary sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount given the breach of public trust, the sophistication and scope of the scheme, and the attempt to intimidate an elected official.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempt murder contrary to s. 239 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the victim's impact statement, the accused's prior criminal record (two robbery convictions), and mitigating factors including the guilty plea, early resolution, and personal circumstances involving substance abuse.

The court applied enhanced credit for pre-trial custody on a 1.5 to 1 basis and imposed a sentence within the range jointly submitted by counsel.

The accused was charged with driving while prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code.

A police officer observed a vehicle idling in the driveway of a residence on a list related to prohibited drivers.

The officer stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as the accused using an expired driver's license.

The accused had been prohibited from operating a motor vehicle for three years following a 2010 sentencing.

The accused raised Charter challenges regarding arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and right to counsel.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the Crown had proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a conviction.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to cause death to persons within the Chabad-Lubavitch Community Centre Synagogue contrary to s. 264.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issue was witness credibility.

The accused made statements to a rabbi about bringing a machine gun and shooting members of the Lubavitch community, accompanied by gestures simulating firing a weapon.

The accused's own testimony was inconsistent with his agitated demeanor and unusual conduct observed by multiple witnesses at the time of the incident.

The court found the Crown had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused.

The applicant sought to vary his sentence for being a party to child abduction in violation of a court order.

He requested deletion of house arrest conditions, travel restrictions outside the province, and contact restrictions with his daughter and grandchildren in Poland.

The court found that the house arrest conditions had already been served.

However, the court dismissed the application to remove travel and contact restrictions, finding that granting such variation would aid in the continuation of the abduction offence and continue the risk to the children.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial for armed home invasion robbery, kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom, and related offences.

The evidence included direct testimony from the complainant, extensive video surveillance from the complainant's home security system, CTV news helicopter footage of the police takedown, and mall security video.

The court found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably find guilt on charges of armed robbery, kidnapping with use of firearms, masked commission of indictable offences, and escape from lawful custody.

All four accused were committed to stand trial in Superior Court before a judge and jury.

The accused was convicted at trial of extortion contrary to s. 346(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused attended the victim's home, left a phone number, and threatened the victim's wife, stating that if her husband did not call back they should "watch out." This initiated an escalating series of intimidation and threats designed to extort $54,000 from the victim.

The Crown sought a one-year custodial sentence.

The court appointed an amicus to assist the unrepresented accused in identifying mitigating factors and reviewing relevant sentencing precedents.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months in custody less credit for 79 days time served, followed by three years of probation with conditions including a prohibition on contact with the victim and a lifetime firearms prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

A young person was charged with invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and failing to comply with a youth court sentence.

The Crown's case rested on eyewitness testimony from a six-year-old witness and DNA evidence showing the alleged victim's saliva on the accused's underwear.

The accused testified that the DNA presence was explained by his use of a bloody tissue to clean himself after the alleged victim injured himself.

The court found the eyewitness credible and rejected the accused's explanation as illogical and contradicted by forensic evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to five counts involving the sexual exploitation of a minor: invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, possession of child pornography, making available sexually explicit material to a child, and luring a child.

Over a three-week period, the 30-year-old accused engaged in online contact with a 15-year-old victim, misrepresenting his age, coercing her to create explicit images and videos, and ultimately forcing her to perform oral sex.

A search of his electronic devices revealed 76 images of child pornography and 26 images of child nudity.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment with enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, along with DNA, SOIRA, and prohibition orders.

The appellant was convicted at trial of speeding contrary to s. 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

On appeal, the appellant raised seven grounds of error, including allegations that the Justice of the Peace erred in proceeding without counsel, failed to inform the appellant of his right to an adjournment, erred in granting an amendment to the charge, applied the wrong legal standard, and failed to adequately explain the rejection of the appellant's evidence.

The appeal court found that while the Justice of the Peace applied an incorrect legal standard (strict liability instead of absolute liability), this error benefited the appellant and did not affect the verdict.

The court upheld the conviction, finding no reversible error.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after being stopped by police following a report from two civilian witnesses who observed the accused's vehicle being driven in an erratic manner.

The Crown called evidence from the two civilian witnesses and two police officers.

The accused pleaded not guilty and challenged the credibility of the civilian witnesses.

The court found the civilian witnesses to be credible and reliable, and determined that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.

The court found guilt on the impaired driving charge.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings as a remedy for an alleged breach of his Section 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time.

The court found that over twelve months had elapsed since arrest, with the matter scheduled for a third trial date.

The court attributed approximately eleven months and twenty-two days of delay to institutional causes, including the court's failure to prioritize the matter on the second trial date.

The court also found that the applicant had suffered prejudice by being unable to afford expert toxicology evidence due to financial hardship caused by the delays.

The court granted a stay of proceedings under Section 24(1) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with theft and possession of stolen property in relation to items taken from a Walmart store.

The Crown alleged that the accused aided and abetted a young person in stealing eyeliner, a watch, and infant clothing pursuant to a common intention.

The accused testified she was unaware of the theft plan and did not know the young person was stealing.

The young person, who had already pled guilty, testified the accused took no part in the theft.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts based on direct and circumstantial evidence, including video evidence and the accused's conduct before, during, and after the theft.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a disturbance call, police observed the accused drinking in public and warned him not to drive.

Approximately 36 minutes later, an officer observed the accused operating a vehicle and followed him to a residence.

The accused failed an approved screening device test and provided two breath samples showing readings of 112 and 113 mgs of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, both exceeding the legal limit of 80 mgs.

The accused claimed he was not driving and alleged police harassment and arbitrary detention.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as internally contradictory and found it contradicted by the credible evidence of the arresting officer.

The court found no evidence of arbitrary detention or Charter breach and convicted the accused.