Kathryn Jane Doyle

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving following a road rage incident.

He brought an application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

Although the net delay of 17.5 months fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts, the court found this was one of the clearest of cases warranting a stay.

The defence made sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings, but the trial took markedly longer than it reasonably should have due to systemic issues, specifically the stacking of trial lists and a chronic lack of judicial resources in the jurisdiction.

The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving and assault causing bodily harm following a highway incident and subsequent confrontation.

The Crown alleged the defendant engaged in aggressive road rage behavior by pursuing the victim's vehicle at high speed on a wet highway while flashing high beams for approximately 20 kilometres, followed by a physical altercation at a roadside intersection.

The defendant was found guilty of dangerous driving, as his conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

However, the defendant was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm due to insufficient evidence to establish that the injury was caused by any deliberate act or felonious intent, given the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the physical altercation.

The appellant, A.I.B., appealed his conviction for assault and sexual assault, and the dismissal of his application to re-open the trial.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's application of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis and the refusal to re-open the trial based on new legal developments and alleged inconsistencies in the victim impact statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's W.(D.) analysis or the application of the Palmer test for re-opening the trial.

The accused, Gregory Potter, was found guilty of Criminal Harassment.

Prior to conviction, the Crown requested an assessment of Mr. Potter's mental condition at the time of the offence, pursuant to s.672.11(b) of the Criminal Code, to determine if he was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.

The defence opposed, arguing Mr. Potter's mental status was not put into evidence and no medical reports were before the court.

The court found that there were reasonable grounds, based on Mr. Potter's delusional statements and behaviour during the trial and in his communications, to believe he may have been suffering from a mental disorder affecting his criminal responsibility.

The Crown's application for an NCR assessment was granted.

This case concerns a criminal harassment trial where the accused, Gregory Potter, was charged with repeatedly communicating with the complainant, Dr. Michael Bartucci, over an eight-year period, culminating in threatening voicemails.

The communications escalated from romantic overtures to defamatory and frightening allegations, causing the complainant to fear for his safety.

The court addressed whether two voicemails on a single day constituted "repeated communication" under the Criminal Code, considering the extensive history between the parties.

The court found that the Crown proved the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, but reserved a final verdict pending submissions on the issue of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR).