H. Pringle

The applicant sought to exclude evidence seized during a residential search warrant, arguing a breach of her s. 8 Charter rights.

The warrant was based on an Information to Obtain relying heavily on a confidential informant who alleged purchasing crack cocaine from the applicant.

The court applied the Debot criteria and found the informant's information was credible, compelling, and sufficiently corroborated by police investigation.

The application was dismissed as there was a solid basis for the issuing justice to find reasonable and probable grounds.

The offender pled guilty to dangerous operation causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident after striking a pedestrian in an underground parking garage while driving unlicensed.

The victim suffered profound, life-altering physical and psychological injuries.

The Crown sought 18 to 22 months of actual incarceration, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or fine.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, comprising 9 months for dangerous driving and 3 months consecutive for failing to remain, along with a driving prohibition.

The accused, experiencing a severe mental health crisis and auditory hallucinations, called 911 to falsely report she had committed a murder.

When police arrived, she held a box-cutter to her own throat.

An officer reached in to prevent her suicide, and the accused slashed downwards to keep him away, severely cutting his hand.

The court acquitted her of public mischief and carrying a concealed weapon due to lack of requisite intent.

However, she was found guilty of the included offences of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, as the application of force was intentional and bodily harm was objectively foreseeable, though she lacked knowledge that the victim was a police officer.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving and failing to stop for police after a vehicle registered to him fled from officers following a nearby shooting.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage showing the accused driving a vehicle away from the shooting scene shortly before the police pursuit.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and found that the evidentiary gaps, including unknown timelines and the possibility of a driver switch, left room for reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown brought a pretrial motion to permit the complainant and a nurse to testify remotely by videoconference under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defence opposed the complainant testifying virtually, arguing it would impede cross-examination and the assessment of credibility.

The court granted the motion, finding that virtual testimony would reduce COVID-19 transmission risks and could actually enhance the assessment of demeanour compared to an in-person trial with masks and plexiglass.

The defence's subsequent application for an adjournment to allow for a future in-person trial was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment of his ex-wife after sending her over one hundred text messages, emails, and voicemails following the withdrawal of a previous criminal harassment charge.

The Crown sought a 60-day intermittent jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation for intimate partner violence but noted the defendant's lack of prior record and guilty plea.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of probation, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.