K. Kennedy

The defendant pleaded guilty to careless driving causing death after crossing a double solid yellow line and striking an oncoming vehicle head-on, killing the other driver.

At the time of the collision, the defendant's driver's licence had been suspended for 20 years, and he had an extensive record of driving offences.

The court emphasized deterrence and proportionality, sentencing the defendant to 75 days of intermittent custody, two years of probation, and a five-year driver's licence suspension.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm contrary to section 270.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The assault occurred at the Oshawa Courthouse when the defendant, extremely intoxicated and angry, caused a disturbance and bit a court constable on the forearm, breaking the skin and causing a permanent scar.

The Crown sought a six-month custodial sentence emphasizing deterrence and denunciation.

The defence sought an intermittent sentence or conditional sentence, highlighting the defendant's serious alcohol addiction, childhood trauma, and post-arrest rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence with house arrest on the Electronic Supervision Program and community service, followed by two years of probation, finding that the principles of restraint, rehabilitation, and the defendant's status as a single mother supporting a teenage son favored a community-based sentence over incarceration.

The defendant was convicted after trial of criminal harassment contrary to section 264 of the Criminal Code and distribution of intimate images contrary to section 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant engaged in a pattern of electronic communications designed to harass the complainant, his former fiancée, including messages documenting what she wore at school.

He also distributed intimate photographs of the complainant without her consent to family and friends both within Canada and overseas, using an anonymizing email service on two separate occasions.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totalling approximately nine months in custody, along with extensive probation conditions and ancillary orders, emphasizing denunciation and specific deterrence given the defendant's complete absence of remorse and empathy.

The defendant was charged with criminal harassment contrary to s.264(1) of the Criminal Code and distribution of intimate images contrary to s.162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from a relationship that ended in September 2015.

The Crown alleged the defendant criminally harassed the complainant through persistent electronic communications after she made clear she did not wish further contact, and distributed intimate images to her family and friends without consent.

The defendant denied responsibility, claiming they agreed to remain friends and that many communications were not directed at the complainant.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts based on credibility assessments, circumstantial evidence, and objective documentary evidence including text messages and email distribution patterns.

The defendant was tried on five charges of assault and related offences against his domestic partner.

The charges included assault between January 1-25, 2015, and four counts arising from events on Christmas Eve 2015 (assault, assault with a weapon, weapons dangerous, and threat to cause death).

The defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of assault on December 24-25, 2015.

The court found the defendant guilty of two counts of assault (one in July 2015 and one on December 24, 2015) and acquitted him of the remaining three charges, particularly those involving the alleged use of a knife.

The accused was charged with possession of controlled substances, firearm offences, and possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana following his arrest and the execution of search warrants.

The defence challenged the validity of the search warrant and sought to exclude evidence obtained from an unlawful cell phone search.

The Crown conceded the cell phone search was unlawful but invoked the Step 6 Garofoli procedure to rely on unredacted information from a confidential human source.

The court found the search warrant was validly issued based on the credible and compelling information from the confidential informant, even without the cell phone evidence.

The court upheld the warrant and admitted the evidence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The trial proceeded over three dates spanning approximately 18.7 months from the date the information was sworn.

The accused brought an application alleging a breach of his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court found that institutional delay of approximately 11.5 months exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months for this level of court.

The court also found evidence of actual prejudice, including stress, financial burden, and impact on family relationships.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the minimum remedy for the constitutional violation.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown withdrew a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on civilian witness testimony and police observations.

While the court found a breach of section 8 regarding video surveillance of the accused using toilet facilities in police custody, it declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The court also dismissed allegations of breaches of sections 9 and 10(b).

The accused was convicted of impaired operation.

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting a 17-year-old complainant who worked as a dishwasher and cashier at a restaurant where the defendant was employed as a cook.

The alleged assault occurred on July 19, 2013, in the takeout counter area of the restaurant kitchen.

The complainant testified that the defendant engaged in unwanted touching of her buttocks and groin area over several weeks, culminating in a more serious incident on the date in question.

The defendant denied the allegations, claiming the physical contact was incidental to the tight working conditions in the kitchen.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was preferable to the defendant's, certain inconsistencies and improbabilities in her account, combined with the defendant's testimony that raised reasonable doubt, resulted in an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance: (1) being away from his place of residence without his surety, and (2) possessing cellular phones and other prohibited communication devices.

The trial examined surveillance evidence from police officers and testimony from the defendant's brother.

The court found the defendant not guilty on count 1 due to ambiguity in the written recognizance regarding whether the condition was actually imposed, and guilty on count 2 based on credible police observations of the defendant in possession of a cellular telephone.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder and assault causing bodily harm in relation to the death of his common-law partner's two-year-old son.

The child suffered extensive, repeated blunt force trauma while in the offender's care, culminating in fatal abdominal injuries.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for second-degree murder with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the brutal breach of trust against a vulnerable infant.

A concurrent sentence of five years was imposed for the assault causing bodily harm.

A young person was charged with robbery and assault causing bodily harm in relation to a deceased complainant.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The complainant, a 10-year-old boy with muscular dystrophy, was robbed of his father's iPhone by two youths.

The complainant identified the accused as the shorter of the two assailants, first at a chance encounter at school and subsequently in class photos.

The court found the identification spontaneous and immediate but concluded that eyewitness identification evidence alone, even when honest and certain, does not prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inherent frailties of human perception and memory.

The accused was acquitted.

A ruling on a voir dire regarding the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a deceased complainant in a youth criminal justice case.

The accused, a young person, was charged with robbery and assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought to admit four statements made by the deceased complainant describing the robbery and identifying the accused.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, finding that all four statements met the threshold test for reliability based on factors including spontaneity, contemporaneity, specificity, and the declarant's intelligence and motive.

The court rejected arguments that the statements should be excluded based on prejudicial effect or concerns about eyewitness identification reliability, finding that probative value outweighed prejudice and that identification concerns affected weight rather than admissibility.