Justice F. Javed

The defendant was convicted after trial of five sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim: sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, indecent act, and child luring.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum penalties under section 12 of the Charter.

The court imposed an 8-month concurrent jail sentence followed by 18 months probation, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime SOIRA registration and a 5-year prohibition on employment or volunteering with persons under 16.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding his learning disability as a mitigating factor and declined to impose a conditional sentence.

A young person charged with sexual interference and sexual assault sought production of records held by the Durham Children's Aid Society pursuant to section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the two-stage Mills analysis to determine whether third-party records containing statements by the complainant and her mother regarding the criminal allegations and circumstances of disclosure should be produced.

The court found the records relevant to issues of credibility and narrative but balanced this against the high expectation of privacy attaching to child protection agency records.

The court ordered partial disclosure of specific portions of the records with strict conditions limiting further dissemination and use.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood and having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The trial proceeded following a successful Charter application under s.10(b) that resulted in the exclusion of breath samples.

The accused also brought a s.11(b) Charter motion alleging unreasonable delay, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle.

The statutory presumption of care or control was rebutted by evidence that the accused occupied the driver's seat solely to smoke a cigarette in cold weather after arriving home.

The court also found no realistic risk of danger to ground a conviction based on de facto care or control.

Both charges were dismissed.

The applicant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and exceeding the legal blood-alcohol concentration limit.

He brought Charter applications seeking to exclude evidence derived from roadside conversations with police and breath samples.

The applicant argued his section 7 rights were violated by being compelled to incriminate himself under the Highway Traffic Act, and his section 10(b) rights were violated by improper provision of rights to counsel and steering to duty counsel.

The court found the section 7 application succeeded, excluding all compelled utterances, but the section 10(b) application failed.

The applicant was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, two counts of assault resist arrest, and possession of cocaine following his arrest by Durham Regional Police Service officers.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging excessive use of force by police, including repeated tasering and punching to the face, claiming violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court found no Charter breaches, rejected the applicant's evidence of punching as implausible and internally inconsistent, and found the use of tasers was proportional and justified.

The applicant was convicted on the two assault resist arrest counts but acquitted on the impaired care or control and possession charges due to insufficient evidence.