Justice Stephen D. Brown

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code.

On April 21, 2018, the accused was operating a 2017 Toyota on the Queen Elizabeth Highway when his vehicle collided with the left centre concrete median, resulting in the death of his passenger.

The Crown relied on evidence of excessive speed (174 km/h in a 100 km/h zone), operation on a gravel shoulder with bald tires, and full acceleration while on the shoulder.

The defence argued the accused was cut off and that evidence of racing was unreliable.

The court found the accused guilty, determining his manner of driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

Two young persons, H.C. and I.S., were jointly charged with manslaughter by criminal negligence in the death of K.P., who was shot with a sawed-off shotgun on July 13, 2018, in Oakville.

H.C. was the owner of the prohibited firearm.

I.S. was charged with various firearm-related offences.

The Crown's theory was that I.S. pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without knowing it was loaded, and that H.C. had loaded it earlier without informing others.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the principal Crown witness, C.A., who was present at the scene.

The court found that while H.C. was guilty of manslaughter by criminal negligence based on his failure to safely store the firearm and ammunition, I.S. could not be convicted of the manslaughter charges due to reasonable doubt regarding who actually fired the weapon.

I.S. was convicted of unauthorized possession of a firearm and careless use of a firearm, and pled guilty to obstructing justice.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol content contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence argued that the accused's Charter rights under ss. 7, 8, and 9 were violated and sought exclusion of the Intoxilyzer results.

The court conducted a blended voir dire to determine whether the arresting officer was required to wait 15 minutes before administering the approved screening device due to the possibility of residual mouth alcohol, and whether the accused was required to speak to duty counsel when he had initially declined.

The court found no Charter violations and admitted the breath technician's certificate, finding the accused guilty as charged.