Kevin K. McCallum

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to the complainant on October 5, 2016 in Oakville.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issues were whether the contact was intentional or accidental, and whether the accused was acting in lawful defence of his son.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to make physical contact with either the complainant or a third party.

The accused was acquitted.

The court also addressed the defence of third party and found it would not have applied on the facts, as the situation did not constitute a threat of force and any intervention was unreasonable.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving on the Queen Elizabeth Way on September 17, 2014.

A police officer observed the accused driving a silver Audi at 140 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, making multiple unsafe lane changes without signalling, causing other vehicles to brake, and accelerating to speeds exceeding 160 km/h while weaving between lanes and the HOV lane.

The accused fled when the officer activated emergency lights, cutting off a tractor-trailer in the process.

The court found both the actus reus and mens rea elements of dangerous driving established beyond a reasonable doubt, applying the marked departure standard from R. v. Roy.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine in Milton on February 27, 2015.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty and sought to exclude evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court conducted a blended hearing on both the Charter application and the trial.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for marijuana possession based on the smell of burnt marijuana and visible flakes in the vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unbelievable and found that the accused's right to counsel was not infringed.

The court found the accused's statements to police were made voluntarily.

The court convicted the accused of possession of cocaine, finding all essential elements of possession established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code for allegedly punching the complainant in the face on September 9, 2014, causing her to fall unconscious and sustain serious injuries including a fractured orbital bone.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony that she was struck by the accused while standing at his parents' patio door.

The defence argued that the complainant's injuries were consistent with a fall caused by tripping on the uneven patio surface while wearing spiked heels.

The trial judge found that while the complainant's evidence was preferred, the totality of the evidence, particularly the testimony of the accused's mother who was present at the patio door and did not observe the alleged punch, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused actually punched the complainant.

The charge was dismissed.