Justice J. De Filippis

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

Following the Crown's case, the defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence on the grounds of an alleged violation of her right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The defendant argued that police improperly steered her toward duty counsel rather than allowing her to consult with private counsel of her choice, and that police failed to confirm her satisfaction with duty counsel before conducting breath tests.

The court rejected the Charter challenge, finding that the defendant understood her rights, failed to assert a preference for private counsel, and bore responsibility for diligently exercising her right to counsel.

The defendant was found guilty.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown charged two defendants with human trafficking, obtaining material benefits from trafficking and sexual services of minors, procuring minors for sexual services, and permitting unlawful sexual activity by minors on premises they controlled.

The defendants' girlfriends, who were 16 and 17 years old at the time, initially provided detailed statements to police implicating the defendants but recanted at the preliminary hearing.

The central issue was whether the prior statements were admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the statements met the threshold reliability test based on procedural safeguards (video recording, formal setting) and substantive reliability (consistency between statements and corroboration by external evidence).

The court committed both defendants to trial on most counts, finding sufficient evidence that they exercised control over the young women for the purpose of exploitation.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault on Clayton Pye and assault with a weapon on Vladimir Kazbekov.

The defendant claimed she acted in lawful defence of Zachary Heyes during a physical altercation.

The court found that while the defendant's purpose in defending Heyes was clear and her belief that force was being used against him was reasonable, her response was wholly disproportionate to the threat faced.

The defendant used a knife to slash and stab the complainants when they were engaged in unarmed wrestling-style takedowns.

The court found the defendant's conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly given that no one was attempting to kill Heyes and that alternative means of intervention were available.

The defendant's intoxication from cocaine use was found to be the likely explanation for her over-reaction.

The defendant was found guilty of both charges.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit (over 80).

The Crown relied on breath test results obtained using an approved Intoxilyzer 8000C device.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the evidence, arguing that the Crown failed to establish the pre-conditions required under the transitional provisions of Bill C-46 amendments to the Criminal Code, specifically that the alcohol standard used in calibration was certified by an analyst.

The court rejected the defendant's argument and found that the Crown had established the presumption of accuracy through the qualified technician's testimony regarding the Certificate of Analyst and the calibration results.

Two defendants were convicted after trial of assault causing bodily harm.

One defendant was also convicted of uttering threats.

The assault arose from a business dispute over a hotel purchase and was unprovoked and violent, resulting in significant injuries to the victim and his spouse.

Despite the defendants' otherwise good character and community contributions, the court rejected a discharge as contrary to public interest.

The court imposed suspended sentences with 18-month probation, restitution orders, community service for the primary aggressor, DNA sampling, and a five-year weapons prohibition.