Sabrina Goldfarb

The accused, Alam Buoc, applied for a mistrial in his ongoing jury trial for two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder.

The trial, which began in February 2020, was adjourned in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Subsequent delays, juror discharges due to age and health concerns, a juror's injury, another juror's employment issues, and new government restrictions in Ottawa due to a second wave of COVID-19, cumulatively impacted the fairness of the trial process.

Despite the Crown's opposition, the court declared a mistrial, finding no other remedy for the fundamental flaws that had arisen.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a suitable sample of breath to enable a proper analysis by an approved screening device at the roadside, contrary to section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant did not contest the lawfulness of the demand but argued he lacked the necessary mens rea because he requested to speak to a lawyer before complying.

The court found that the Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's desire to consult counsel before providing a sample does not constitute a reasonable excuse for refusing an immediate demand.

The court convicted the defendant.

The accused, J.S., pleaded guilty to one count of sexual touching against his daughter (P.S.) and one count of sexual assault against a family friend (C.C.), both minors.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, the offender's background including mental health issues and military service, and victim impact statements.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and considering statutory aggravating factors (abuse of a person under 18, abuse of trust) and mitigating factors (no criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, mental health treatment), the court imposed a total custodial sentence of three and a half years' jail.

Ancillary orders included a weapons prohibition, DNA order, s. 161 order, s. 743.21 order, and a S.O.I.R.A. order.

The defendant, Brian Landry, was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court found the defendant's testimony not credible due to internal inconsistencies and implausibility.

The complainant's testimony was largely accepted, despite some minor inconsistencies.

The Crown proved that the defendant sexually assaulted the complainant by forcibly inserting fingers into her vagina and engaging in vaginal and anal intercourse without consent.

However, the Crown failed to prove bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no tangible physical or psychological injury established.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code, but acquitted of the bodily harm component.

The accused was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against young female adult voice students.

The assaults occurred under the guise of 'healing sessions' and involved significant intimate physical contact, including digital penetration and oral sex, exploiting a position of trust as a teacher and quasi-therapist.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years, while the defence proposed 2 years plus probation.

The court considered aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, the devastating impact on victims, and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's age (73 at sentencing) and lack of criminal record, though his age was given limited weight due to his vigor and the severity of the assaults.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment, along with DNA order, lifetime SOIRA registration, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant pleaded guilty to break and enter of a residential property, taking a motor vehicle without consent, and breach of recognizance.

The defendant, a 20-year-old with no criminal record, unlawfully entered a family home while the owners were on vacation, hosted parties over three days resulting in over $130,000 in property damage and theft, and subsequently breached his release conditions by consuming alcohol.

The Crown sought six months jail followed by probation, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence for the break and enter and a six-month conditional sentence for the other offences.

The court imposed six months jail followed by two years probation for the break and enter, with concurrent one-month sentences for the other offences, along with restitution, counselling conditions, and a firearms prohibition.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with care and control with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment by the arresting officer and breath analysis results.

The court found that the police failed to conduct the breath tests as soon as practicable, contrary to statutory requirements, thereby eliminating the presumption of identity for the blood alcohol readings.

Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment based on the totality of circumstances, including video evidence contradicting the officer's testimony regarding the defendant's physical coordination.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with driving with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and possession of cannabis resin contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Goods and Substances Act.

On the impaired driving charge, the Crown relied on breath samples showing readings of 149 and 120 mg/100ml, which after truncation became 140 and 120 mg/100ml.

The defence argued that the 29 milligram difference between the raw readings raised a reasonable doubt about the instrument's proper functioning and that a third test should have been administered.

The court found no evidence tending to show malfunction or improper operation and convicted on the impaired charge.

On the possession charge, the accused claimed innocent possession, asserting he took the cannabis to prevent his son from seeing it and intended to destroy it.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the accused's testimony regarding how he knew the person who brought the drugs and rejected the innocent possession defence, convicting on the possession charge.