Nick Cake

The accused, Raymond Rosettani, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against R.C., relating to incidents that occurred when R.C. was between 11 and 14 years old.

The trial involved testimony from both R.C. and Mr. Rosettani.

The court found R.C.'s evidence to be honest, straightforward, credible, and reliable, supported by specific details confirmed by the accused.

Despite the accused's categorical denials, the court rejected his evidence, finding that it did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The Crown met its burden, and convictions were registered on both counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of methamphetamine and cocaine, possession of property obtained by crime, and possession of prohibited weapons.

The police seized 156.7 grams of fentanyl, some mixed with carfentanil and heroin, along with tasers and cash in a residence where the offender's young children lived.

The court weighed the extreme danger of fentanyl and the presence of weapons against the offender's guilty plea, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 8 years was imposed, reduced by 740 days of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant brought a constitutional challenge to section 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code, which permits police officers to demand a breath sample from drivers of motor vehicles without any suspicion of alcohol consumption.

The applicant alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while section 320.27(2) engages section 8 protections, the search and seizure is reasonable and constitutional.

The court also found that any breach of section 9 rights is justified under section 1 of the Charter, and that section 10(b) rights are appropriately suspended during brief roadside sobriety investigations.

The applicant was found guilty as charged.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault following an altercation outside a pub where he repeatedly struck the complainant.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to properly consider self-defence and consent, and imposed an unfit sentence including a DNA order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, rejecting the availability of self-defence or consent on the facts, and upholding the sentence as fit and within the acceptable range.

The respondent sought access to a sealed youth criminal justice record under Section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The respondent claimed the record related to a conviction for making a false report of sexual assault and sought to use it to impeach the credibility of the complainant in a Section 810 peace bond application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the respondent had a valid and substantial interest in the record, disclosure was not necessary in the interests of justice.

The probative value of a nearly ten-year-old youth conviction was minimal, particularly given the principle of diminished responsibility inherent in the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the complainant's maturation into adulthood.

The privacy rights of the young person under the legislative scheme outweighed the probative value of the record.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test results under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device test.

The court found the police officer had objectively reasonable grounds to suspect impairment based on the totality of circumstances, including erratic driving, unusual vehicle placement, placement of air fresheners in unusual locations, and minimal responses to questioning.

The court also found the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable despite the two-hour-and-twenty-five-minute delay, which was attributable to unusual weather conditions, unavailability of a qualified technician in Burlington, and equipment issues.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, arising from an incident on February 5, 2012.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of section 8 rights, contending that the officer lacked a warrant to enter the accused's property and that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples.

The court rejected both Charter arguments, finding that the officer was lawfully present under the common law implied invitation to knock and that the officer had sufficient grounds for arrest based on observations of impairment.

The court admitted the breath sample evidence and convicted the accused on both charges.