Kyle Frederic James Hetherington

The Crown sought committal to trial of the accused on 17 charges, including dangerous driving causing bodily harm and attempted murder, following an incident where the accused repeatedly rammed his vehicle into a car driven by his sister-in-law.

The accused conceded committal on most charges but contested one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and four counts of attempted murder.

The preliminary inquiry judge discharged the accused on the dangerous driving count relating to his wife, finding no evidence her injuries resulted from the collision.

The judge committed the accused to trial for the attempted murder of his sister-in-law, finding sufficient evidence of specific intent to kill, but discharged him on the attempted murder counts relating to the other three passengers due to a lack of evidence of concurrent intent.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act arising from the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of the search warrant, alleging that the information to obtain (ITO) was deficient in reasonable grounds and violated his Charter s. 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant and found that multiple passages in the ITO were materially misleading, including misrepresentations regarding outstanding charges, the alleged discarding of heroin upon arrest, and the inference that the accused walked to the drug transaction from his home.

After excising these passages, the court found that no reasonable grounds remained to support the issuance of the warrant.

The evidence was excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the accused ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

In this joint trial, the Crown charged two defendants with assault causing bodily harm to a third party.

The victim was assaulted in the foyer of her residence in the early morning hours of August 2, 2017.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and determine guilt separately for each accused.

The evidence established that one defendant delivered the blows causing bodily harm (two broken front teeth and a laceration), while the other defendant engaged in a single punch exchange with the victim that caused no significant injury.

The court found that the defendant who delivered the serious blows was guilty as a principal to assault causing bodily harm and also guilty of breaching four probation orders.

The other defendant was found guilty of simple assault only, as the Crown failed to prove she was a party to the more serious assault.

The accused brought an application to strike his guilty plea, arguing it was not fully informed and voluntary because he did not believe he had any other option but to plead guilty.

The Crown consented to the application.

After hearing brief testimony from the accused, the court found that the accused did not subjectively fully understand his options.

The court struck the guilty plea and adjourned the matter to set a trial date, noting the accused's waiver of his section 11(b) Charter rights for the period from the plea to the conclusion of the trial.