Joseph F. Kenkel

The accused was charged with extortion contrary to s. 346(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused, along with others, demanded $54,000 from the complainant by falsely claiming it was a legitimate business debt related to a shipping contract.

The accused denied direct involvement and claimed he was merely helping a friend.

The court found the complainant and his wife credible witnesses and accepted their testimony regarding the accused's involvement in making threats and demands for payment.

The court convicted the accused, finding that the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to s. 249(2) of the Criminal Code following an incident at MacKenzie Health hospital.

Security officers had asked the accused to move his taxi from a fire zone.

After refusing and being placed under arrest for trespass, the accused drove into a security guard multiple times, then reversed at high speed through a hospital crosswalk, narrowly missing a pedestrian.

The central issues were witness credibility and whether the Crown proved the driving was dangerous within the statutory meaning.

The court found the Crown witnesses credible and accepted their evidence that the accused deliberately struck the security officer and drove recklessly through the crosswalk.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and found the conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with 57 counts involving break and enter, theft, and assault.

Several counts were stayed or withdrawn by the Crown.

The justice found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on 25 counts, including break and enter, theft, assault causing bodily harm, and conspiracy.

The justice declined to commit on 23 counts due to insufficient evidence.

Additional counts were added for break and enter to Fincham Plaza mall, conspiracy to commit break and enter and theft, and counselling to commit theft in relation to stolen vehicles.

The accused applied to strike his guilty plea to impaired driving following an incident in which he drove through a red light at high speed and collided with a TTC bus.

The accused argued his plea was involuntary because he was unable to obtain an adjournment to secure a witness he believed would assist the defence.

The court found the plea was valid, informed, and voluntary.

The accused had received written instructions, conducted a proper plea inquiry on the record, and admitted the facts as alleged by the Crown.

The court dismissed the application and proceeded to sentencing.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code for allegedly throwing a block of hard cheese at his wife during a domestic dispute, causing bruising.

The complainant testified she felt a blow to her side while cooking and saw the cheese on the floor.

The accused claimed his wife fell backward into the island counter and the cheese fell to the floor.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and internally consistent, while the accused's account was illogical, internally contradictory, and inconsistent with the physical evidence.

The court rejected the defence assertion that the complainant fabricated the complaint for marital advantage.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He used his position as an investment advisor at a bank to steal approximately $9 million from the bank's clients over a six-year period.

He was sentenced to four years imprisonment.

The court issued a ruling on restitution, determining the appropriate amount to be ordered as part of the overall sentence.

The Crown sought restitution of $5,255,850, while the defence argued for a reduced amount of $4,695,871.39, accounting for recovered funds and the civil judgment against the accused.

The court ordered restitution in the amount of $4,695,871.39.

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

A witness observed the accused driving erratically, swerving into oncoming traffic, striking pylons, and eventually driving off the roadway into a ditch.

Police observed signs of impairment including the odour of alcohol, unsteadiness, and balance problems.

The accused testified that he drove off the road while reaching for a dropped cellphone.

The court found the accused not credible, accepted the evidence of the independent witness and police officers, and found the accused guilty based on the pattern of dangerous driving and physical signs of impairment.

The accused pleaded guilty to uttering threats to cause death contrary to section 264.1 of the Criminal Code.

The offence occurred when the heavily intoxicated accused threatened to kill his wife in the presence of police who had attended a mischief call.

The court considered a comprehensive Gladue report detailing the accused's background as an Inuit from a remote community, his attendance at residential school, his career as a nationally known artist, and his ongoing struggles with alcoholism.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, noting the accused's prior sobriety, personal insight into his difficulties, and current engagement in counselling for alcoholism and anger management.

The accused, a foster parent, was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code in relation to an alleged incident involving a complainant with severe cerebral palsy who had lived in his care from age three and a half to nineteen.

The complainant testified that the accused touched her inappropriately while assisting with her personal care.

However, during cross-examination and re-examination, the complainant significantly recanted and expressed doubt about her own recollection, suggesting the contact may have been incidental to her cleaning or care routine.

The court found the complainant was a credible witness despite contradictions in her evidence, but concluded that a reasonable doubt remained regarding the allegations.

The charge was dismissed.

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.

The defence raised seven Charter violations including arbitrary stop and detention, failure to inform of reasons for detention, failure to advise of right to counsel, illegal pat-down search, lack of reasonable suspicion for ASD demand, and denial of counsel of choice.

The court found no Charter breaches and admitted the breath test evidence.

The accused was found guilty.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether sufficient evidence existed to commit three accused to trial.

The primary accused was charged with first-degree murder in connection with the brutal torture and killing of an elderly victim.

The court found evidence supporting committal on first-degree murder based on forcible confinement and planning and deliberation.

The accused's mother was charged with being an accessory after the fact, and the court found evidence that she assisted in the cleanup and disposal of evidence.

A third accused conceded committal.

All three were committed to stand trial.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The Crown proved the accused had consumed seven beers and had a projected BAC of 160 mgs/100ml or higher.

The sole issue was whether the accused was in care or control when police found him parked in a lot by a baseball field with the engine running, keys in the ignition, and music playing.

The court found the accused occupied the driver's seat, the engine was running, and he failed to rebut the statutory presumption of care or control.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that he intended to walk home, finding his continued occupation of the driver's seat inconsistent with that claim.

Both counts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that during a domestic argument, the accused slapped her on the left side of the face after telling her to leave his apartment in the middle of the night.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the complainant made a false complaint as revenge for being asked to leave.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and consistent with her actions and the observations of the investigating officer.

The accused's evidence was contradicted by his own admissions, the circumstances of the incident, and the physical evidence observed by police.

The court found the Crown proved the assault beyond a reasonable doubt and entered a conviction.

The accused was charged with three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and three counts of operating a vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit where bodily harm was caused.

Two counts were dismissed at the close of the Crown's case due to lack of evidence of bodily harm.

The court found that the accused operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol concentration of approximately 180 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, more than twice the legal limit.

The collision was caused solely by the accused's impaired driving, including tailgating, failure to stop at a yellow light, and attempting to pass other vehicles at high speed through an intersection.

The accused was convicted on all remaining counts.

The accused was convicted after trial of two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The accused drove aggressively into an intersection while impaired, striking an oncoming vehicle and causing serious injury to both the driver of that vehicle and the accused's own passenger.

The accused had a prior record for impaired driving offences and was operating a vehicle in violation of an Interlock restriction on his license.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months followed by two years probation and a 10-year driving prohibition, emphasizing that general deterrence is paramount in impaired driving cases involving significant injury.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a bail condition prohibiting him from occupying the front seat of a motor vehicle, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was stopped for speeding while driving a red Ferrari.

The defence conceded that the bail term was in effect and that the driving breached that term, but argued the breach was not intentional.

The accused claimed that upon receiving his license back from the Ministry of Transportation following a 90-day suspension, he believed he was permitted to drive.

The court found that the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, holding that the offence requires proof of an intentional act and that the accused's mistake was one he deliberately created by failing to inquire with either the Ministry of Transportation or his lawyer about his bail condition.

The accused applied for an adjournment of a trial scheduled for February 26, 2013.

During a judicial pre-trial held in camera, defence counsel raised concerns about police and Crown conduct in relation to an unrelated matter involving the accused from January 2013.

The court found that the concerns about the separate matter did not provide grounds for adjournment of the current trial, which involved complaints by two civilian witnesses from an earlier date.

The court refused the adjournment application and ordered the trial to proceed as scheduled, with witnesses directed not to attend before 11:00 a.m. to accommodate counsel's scheduling conflict.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common law spouse contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that during an argument, the accused struck her repeatedly in the face and head.

The accused denied striking her, claiming she fell during a mutual physical struggle.

The central issue was credibility.

The court found the complainant's account credible and reliable, corroborated by police photographs showing swelling around her eyes and facial injuries, and by the accused's own admissions regarding his actions that evening.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as neither reliable nor credible and found him guilty.