Katalin Kirec

The accused, a commercial truck driver, was convicted of four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after causing a catastrophic highway collision.

The court found the accused drove on insufficient sleep, falsified log books, and was distracted by his cell phone.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors, including the extraordinary harm caused, against mitigating factors such as the accused's lack of a prior criminal record and employer pressure.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 8 years imprisonment, a 10-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated as a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate term following his guilty plea to aggravated assault for an unprovoked stabbing of a stranger.

The court considered extensive psychiatric evidence and a Gladue report detailing the offender's traumatic childhood, substance abuse, and mental health issues.

The court found that while the offender posed a high risk of violent re-offending, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his violent conduct was intractable, noting his recent improvements and the impact of Gladue factors.

The court dismissed the dangerous offender application, designated the offender as a long term offender, and sentenced him to 7.5 years in prison followed by a 10-year Long Term Supervision Order.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to provide breath samples for analysis by an approved instrument contrary to subsection 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The defence raised two main issues: first, that the Crown failed to prove an unequivocal refusal, and second, that the breath technician violated the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights by denying a second consultation with Duty Counsel.

The court found that the accused's entire course of conduct constituted a failure or refusal, and that no Charter violation occurred as the accused did not clearly request a second consultation and the circumstances did not trigger the "changed circumstances" exception under R. v. Sinclair.

The court found the accused guilty.

The accused pleaded guilty to mischief and breach of probation arising from a disturbance at a Toronto Dominion Bank on April 30, 2012.

The Crown sought an assessment to determine whether the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

Following a psychiatric assessment by Dr. Angus McDonald and testimony, the court found that the accused was suffering from schizoaffective psychosis with paranoid features and was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions and unable to know that his conduct was wrong at the time of the offences.

The court made a finding of NCRMD and remitted the matter to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.