Julian Daller

The court allowed the Crown's appeal from an acquittal on an "over 80" charge under s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the objective element of the statutory defence in s. 320.14(5).

The trial judge had accepted the respondent's subjective belief that he would not be required to provide a breath sample after a car accident, but did not adequately consider whether that belief was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.

The court also dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's findings on state agency and Charter s. 24(2).

The appellant, Octavio Gomez, appealed his convictions for impaired operation and over 80 mg blood alcohol concentration.

The appeal raised two Charter issues: whether his s. 10(a) right to be informed of the reason for detention was breached when asked to exit his vehicle, and whether his s. 9 right against arbitrary detention was breached due to a 3.5-hour delay in release from custody.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that neither Charter right was breached.

The court also opined that even if breaches occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

An offender was found guilty of second-degree murder of an Indigenous victim.

The Crown sought a 13-year parole ineligibility period, citing the offender's extensive criminal record, history of violence, and non-compliance with court orders.

The defence requested the minimum 10-year parole ineligibility, emphasizing the impact of colonialism and intergenerational trauma on the offender, as detailed in a Gladue report, and his struggles with substance abuse and mental health.

The court considered the sentencing principles, including denunciation and deterrence, balanced against the Gladue factors, and the jury's recommendation.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for 10 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and a communication prohibition.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to adduce the video recorded police statement of a deceased witness in a second-degree murder trial.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the statement lacked threshold reliability and could not be cross-examined.

The court found the statement met the test for procedural reliability under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, noting adequate substitutes for cross-examination such as hallway video footage and the solemnity of the interview.

The application was granted and the statement was ruled admissible.

The accused pleaded guilty to arson and failing to comply with a probation order after setting fire to a garbage can at a hospital while experiencing a substance-induced psychotic episode.

The Crown sought a 15-month jail sentence, while the accused sought a sentence of time served.

The court considered the accused's mental health issues, his proactive steps toward rehabilitation, and the fact that he moved the burning garbage can outside to minimize damage.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of probation, emphasizing rehabilitation alongside denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was found guilty of obstructing a peace officer after concealing his involvement in a fatal collision between his pickup truck and a cyclist.

The accused repaired his vehicle and hid from police for several days out of fear.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victim's family against the accused's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and otherwise positive character.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, including a curfew and 100 hours of community service.

The accused, Deinsberg St. Hilaire, was charged with dangerous driving causing death, failure to stop at the scene of an accident causing death, and obstruction of a peace officer.

He pleaded guilty to obstruction but not guilty to the other two.

The charges arose from a collision where his pickup truck struck and killed a cyclist on the paved shoulder of Leitrim Road.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the *actus reus* and *mens rea* for dangerous driving, specifically that the driving constituted a 'marked departure' from the standard of care or that the accused knew or ought to have known he was too tired to drive.

For the failure to stop charge, the court found reasonable doubt as to whether the accused knew or was wilfully blind to having struck a person.

Consequently, St. Hilaire was found not guilty of dangerous driving causing death and failure to stop, but guilty of obstruction of a peace officer.

The accused, Marcus Gil, age 19, was arrested in January 2017 on serious charges including kidnapping, forcible confinement, robbery, break and enter, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm arising from a violent home invasion.

He was released on bail in April 2017 on strict conditions including house arrest, two sureties (his grandparents), and GPS monitoring.

While on release, he allegedly breached his conditions by meeting with a witness, dealing crack cocaine, and attempting to obstruct justice by trying to convince the witness to leave the city.

The Crown brought a s. 524(8) application to cancel his previous release, and the accused brought a bail application on the new charges.

The court found the accused had not met his onus to show cause for release and ordered him detained on both tertiary and secondary grounds.

The accused was charged with multiple Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences arising from a joint federal and provincial investigation.

The Crown alleged that the accused knowingly possessed and stored restricted and prohibited firearms, ammunition, crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia in a shared storage locker.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and testimony from the co-accused.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the contents of the bags he delivered to the storage facility, nor could willful blindness be established.

The accused was acquitted of counts 1-30 but found guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The offender, N.F., was found guilty of five counts of sexual offences against his granddaughter.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's young age, the breach of trust by the grandfather, and the long-term impact on the victim and family.

Mitigating factors such as the offender's age, health, and language difficulties were noted but not considered mitigating for the sentence itself.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of three years imprisonment for the sexual offences, with concurrent terms for related counts and a conditional stay for others under the Kienapple principle.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, SOIRA order for life, weapons prohibition, and non-contact/prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with weapons offences after checking a bag containing a loaded BB gun and a belt buckle shaped like brass knuckles onto a commercial flight.

The court found that checking baggage constitutes an attempt to 'take on board' an aircraft under section 78 of the Criminal Code.

The court also held that the BB gun met the definition of a firearm and thus an offensive weapon, and the belt buckle functioned as a prohibited weapon.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, with a Kienapple stay entered on the first count.

The accused, charged with second degree murder and attempted murder following a fatal stabbing over a drug dispute, applied for bail pending trial.

The court evaluated the proposed release plans, which included sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found the proposed sureties to be weak and unreliable, failing to satisfy the secondary ground that there was no substantial likelihood of further offences.

Furthermore, given the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and the violent circumstances, the court held that detention was necessary under the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was denied.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in blood causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, arising from a fatal head-on collision on Highway 17.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from three Ontario Provincial Police collision reconstruction officers: Constable Kelly (Level 3 Technical Traffic Collision Investigator), Constable Hewitt (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist), and Constable Kern (Level 4 Accident Reconstructionist and regional lead).

The defence objected on grounds of bias, lack of independence, partiality, and lack of competence.

The court conducted an extensive voir dire on the admissibility of expert evidence, examining the independence, objectivity, and qualifications of each officer.

Sentencing decision for an offender who pleaded guilty to multiple bank robberies, an attempted robbery, and disguising offences arising from a series of incidents committed to support a cocaine addiction.

The offender had an extensive criminal record including numerous prior robbery convictions and multiple federal penitentiary sentences, as well as repeated parole violations.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the seriousness of offences against vulnerable bank employees and the offender’s persistent recidivism, while also weighing mitigating factors including guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, traumatic upbringing, addiction, and Indigenous background assessed through a Gladue report.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and public safety, the court imposed a global six‑year sentence with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, arguing the officer unlawfully entered private property to make the demand and that the accused's section 10(b) rights were infringed.

The court denied the Charter application, finding the officer had express consent to enter the building and that section 10(b) rights were not violated given the brief timeframe before the approved screening device would be available.

At trial, the court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a sample but dismissed the impaired driving charge, finding reasonable doubt based on a possible medical explanation for balance issues and the unlikelihood the accused would have been sold alcohol if visibly intoxicated.

The applicant sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and to quash a search warrant obtained in a robbery investigation.

Police had obtained information from correctional officials and photographed a jacket stored with the applicant’s prison property prior to obtaining a warrant.

The court held the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in personal effects stored under the control of correctional authorities and that any privacy interest in the property record was minimal.

Even if a breach occurred, it was technical and minor and the Grant factors did not justify exclusion.

The warrant remained valid on the totality of the evidence and the Garofoli application failed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving by drug, dangerous driving, and breach of an undertaking.

The accused admitted to the actus reus of both impaired and dangerous driving but raised the defence of involuntary intoxication, claiming he did not knowingly consume Clonazepam.

The court found that while involuntary intoxication can undermine the mens rea for impaired driving and modify the objective standard for dangerous driving, the accused failed to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntary consumption.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to significant memory gaps and credibility concerns, and noted that evidence of powdery residue in the accused's nostrils was consistent with voluntary drug ingestion.

The court convicted on all three counts.

The accused, a Personal Support Worker (PSW) at the Perley-Rideau Hospital, was convicted of common assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code for bending back three fingers of an elderly 90-year-old patient suffering from advanced Alzheimer's disease.

The assault caused no physical injury.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to four months plus three years probation, emphasizing the breach of trust and need for general deterrence in elder abuse cases.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two to six months plus probation, highlighting the accused's clean record, positive character references, and mental health struggles.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 90 days to be served in the community, followed by one year of probation, finding that while a jail sentence was warranted due to the breach of trust, the specific circumstances and the accused's personal background supported a conditional approach that could adequately address denunciation and deterrence.