K.L. Campbell

The accused was charged with criminal harassment and breach of probation after leaving a series of unwanted, obsessive voicemails for the complainant at her workplace in 2012.

The accused and the complainant had no contact for 12 years following a previous criminal harassment charge and peace bond in 2001.

The court found that the accused's conduct constituted repeated communication that caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety.

The court also found the accused possessed the requisite mens rea of recklessness, as he subjectively appreciated the risk his conduct posed but persisted anyway.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault with a weapon against his girlfriend.

At trial, the judge accepted the complainant's evidence that the appellant smashed a beer glass over her head, rejecting the appellant's denial.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge misapprehended evidence, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict reasonable, no misapprehension of evidence, no bias, and rejecting the fresh evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the four-month custodial sentence and probation as fit for an act of domestic violence.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and money laundering, sought an order under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code to access $271,100 in seized funds for living and legal expenses.

The court dismissed the request for living expenses, finding the applicant failed to prove he had no other means available.

However, the court granted access to the funds for reasonable legal expenses related to the preliminary inquiry, capping the amount at $60,000 and setting specific hourly rates for counsel.

The young person was found guilty of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearms offences arising from a drug transaction where the complainant was accidentally shot in the neck.

The Crown applied for an adult sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court granted the application, finding that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the accused accountable.

The court imposed an adult sentence with a starting point of five years imprisonment, but granted enhanced credit of 1.5 to 1 for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay impaired driving charges against the respondent due to an alleged violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was just over 15 months.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in characterizing the delay periods, particularly by failing to properly account for neutral intake time, inherent time requirements for pre-trial conferences, and the time needed for counsel to prepare.

The court concluded the systemic delay was within acceptable guidelines and the societal interest in prosecuting drinking and driving offences outweighed the minimal prejudice to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions and sentence for impaired driving, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, and refusing to provide breath samples following a multi-vehicle collision on the Gardiner Expressway.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on an out-of-court statement, and rendered unreasonable verdicts.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals for those offences, finding the verdicts reasonable and supported by evidence, including the appellant's feigned attempts to provide breath samples.

The court allowed the appeal solely to enter an acquittal on a stayed dangerous driving charge.

The appeal against the sentence of four months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine was dismissed as fit.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and causing someone to take a noxious thing against his former girlfriend.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of domestic violence and significant physical injuries against the mitigating factors of the accused being a first-time offender with good prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years less a day, credited the accused with 19.5 months for pre-sentence custody at a 1.5:1 ratio, and ordered him to serve the remaining 4.5 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

The accused, a repeat firearms offender subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition, was found guilty of possessing a loaded semi-automatic firearm hidden in a secret compartment of his vehicle.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay one of the overlapping firearms charges.

The court sentenced the accused to 6 years for the firearms offences and 1 year consecutive for breaching the prohibition order, for a total of 7 years.

After applying 16 months of credit for pre-sentence custody and strict house arrest bail conditions, the net sentence imposed was 5 years and 8 months imprisonment.

The United States of America sought the extradition of the respondent for the offence of child luring.

The perpetrator communicated with a 17-year-old female online and coerced her into engaging in sexual activity with her 13-year-old sister over a Skype video call.

The communications were traced to an IP address assigned to the respondent at the relevant time.

The court found that the IP subscriber information provided a sufficient foundation for a reliable inference that the respondent was the perpetrator, satisfying the test for committal under the Extradition Act.

The application for committal was granted.

The accused, charged with armed robberies, brought a pre-trial motion seeking disclosure of the Crown's prosecution file regarding a police officer's prior acquittal for manslaughter.

The accused alleged the officer was involved in beating him to extract a confession and sought the file to cross-examine the officer on his propensity for violence.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the requested information was clearly irrelevant, as an acquittal is a verdict of legal innocence and the facts underlying it cannot generally be used to establish propensity or credibility.