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.

Sentencing for attempted obstruction of justice arising from the accused's efforts to confront and influence a child witness in the context of sexual assault allegations against her husband.

The court reviewed the sentencing range for obstruction-related offences, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and applied the conditional sentence framework under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.

Finding no danger to community safety and emphasizing rehabilitation, caregiving responsibilities, schooling, and lack of prior record, the court imposed a six-month conditional sentence to be served under house arrest.

A two-year probation order with non-communication terms and a ten-year weapons prohibition were also ordered.

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.

The accused was charged with two counts of obstruction of justice and two counts of intimidation of justice system participants after confronting individuals connected to sexual assault allegations against her spouse.

The Crown alleged the accused attempted to pressure witnesses to recant statements made to police.

The court found the accused engaged in aggressive conduct toward the father of one complainant, including repeated accusations of lying, threats of civil litigation, and emotionally charged statements intended to influence the complainant’s testimony.

The court concluded that this conduct constituted a wilful attempt to obstruct justice contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

However, the evidence relating to alleged intimidation and obstruction involving the accused’s daughter raised a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on those counts.

The offenders were convicted by a jury of aggravated assault arising from a two‑on‑one attack in a Toronto nightclub that resulted in serious facial injuries, including a broken jaw requiring surgery.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 18 months to two years less a day, while the defence proposed a 90‑day intermittent sentence.

The court considered the principles of proportionality and parity under ss. 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, noting the unprovoked nature of the assault and the significant injuries as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offenders’ youth, stable employment, community support, and minimal or non‑violent criminal histories.

Emphasizing rehabilitation and the limited risk of reoffending, the court imposed intermittent custodial sentences rather than lengthy incarceration.

The accused was charged with historical sexual assaults against a child alleged to have occurred during family visits to a residence between 1999 and 2002.

The complainant alleged repeated sexual touching and multiple incidents of rape when she was between nine and twelve years old.

The accused denied the allegations.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and assessed credibility, opportunity, and the reliability of delayed and incremental disclosure.

Considering inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, lack of corroborative evidence, and the surrounding circumstances affecting plausibility, the court held that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.