Lesley M. Baldwin

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of a child under sixteen years of age.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the video-taped statement and trial testimony of the nine-year-old complainant, who alleged multiple incidents of inappropriate touching over a six-month period.

The accused denied the allegations, acknowledging only accidental contact during tickling games and one inadvertent kiss during horseplay.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including numerous inconsistencies regarding the timing and nature of the alleged incidents, poor quality of the video-taped statement with 123 indiscernible passages, and concerns about potential parental influence on the child's perception of the accused.

The court acquitted the accused on both counts, finding the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code, arising from a single motor vehicle collision on October 26, 2016 in Milton, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial addressed two main issues: whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the Crown proved the requisite mens rea for the failure to provide a breath sample charge.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove both charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL.

The Crown relied on observations of erratic driving by civilian witnesses and breath sample analysis.

The accused claimed his poor driving was due to unfamiliarity with his new vehicle's technology and fear of being robbed.

The court rejected the accused's explanations as internally and externally inconsistent, finding them incapable of raising reasonable doubt.

The court also found that the 22-minute delay in obtaining breath samples, which resulted from facilitating the accused's right to counsel, was reasonable and did not violate the "as soon as practicable" requirement.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

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

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including: (1) the officer's failure to properly identify the approved screening device used; (2) the officer's failure to inform the accused of the reason for detention; (3) the officer's failure to provide the right to counsel during the detention period while awaiting the arrival of the screening device; and (4) procedural deficiencies in the investigation.

The court excluded the breath test evidence and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with two counts: (1) failing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code, and (2) breaching a probation order by failing to provide a breath sample when requested by a police officer.

The accused refused to provide a roadside breath sample, stating he wished to consult with counsel first and believed he could provide the sample at the police station.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, holding that the accused cannot rely on a mistaken belief regarding the right to counsel before complying with a roadside breath demand, and that such a stated intention constitutes an unequivocal refusal.

A 17-year-old youth pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and two counts of breaching a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order.

The first robbery occurred on August 24, 2017, when the youth and an unknown accomplice robbed an escort of approximately $1,000 using violence.

The second robbery occurred on August 25, 2017, when the youth attempted to rob another escort using a knife, choking her and threatening her with a firearm.

The youth had been on a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order for a prior robbery of an 81-year-old woman committed on June 30, 2016.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 11 months less 4 months pre-trial custody (7 months remaining), with consecutive sentences on the two robbery counts and concurrent sentences on the breach counts.

A 2-year probation order with strict conditions followed release from custody.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL.

The central issue was whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breath sample based on an approved screening device (ASD) test result, given that the officer was unaware of the effects of residual mouth alcohol on ASD accuracy and failed to inquire when the accused last consumed alcohol despite knowing he had just left a licensed establishment.

The court found a Charter breach under section 8 and excluded the breath test results, resulting in dismissal of the charge.

The accused was charged with two counts of break and enter with sexual assault.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification evidence from the first complainant and DNA evidence from a discarded cigarette butt found near the second residence.

The accused denied the allegations and testified that he was at home sleeping at the time of the offences.

The court found that while the first complainant made a positive identification, there were significant frailties in the identification evidence and alternative suspects with stronger circumstantial connections to the crimes.

The DNA evidence, while probative, could not establish when the cigarette butt was smoked.

The court concluded that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation (alcohol and/or drug) and Over 80 following a single vehicle rollover on the QEW in Burlington on February 27, 2015.

The court found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel when police failed to make reasonable efforts to contact the accused's counsel of choice before proceeding with breath testing.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence and dismissed the Over 80 charge.

On the impaired operation charge, the court found the evidence of impairment insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused, noting that a dangerous operation charge would have been more appropriate.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drug contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The charge was amended to include impairment by drug and/or alcohol.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired primarily by a combination of central nervous system depressant drugs and alcohol.

The accused had consumed beer and was taking multiple prescription medications including benzodiazepines.

The accused displayed clear signs of impairment at the scene and during police testing, including poor motor coordination, slurred speech, and inability to maintain balance.

A Drug Recognition Expert evaluated the accused and formed the opinion of impairment by central nervous system depressants and alcohol.

Toxicology analysis confirmed the presence of multiple benzodiazepines and other central nervous system depressants in the accused's urine sample.

The defence argued alternative explanations including tiredness, a previous back injury, and depression/suicidal state, but the court found these explanations did not create reasonable doubt.

A finding of guilt was registered.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether statements made by the accused to the breath technician during breath testing were voluntary.

The Crown bore the burden of proving voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although there was no coercion, oppression, threats, inducements, or promises, the court found that the breath technician failed to provide a primary caution before asking questions and engaged in trickery to induce statements.

The technician asked the accused to jump on a scale, which is not part of the breath testing procedure, and falsely represented that information about the collision was needed for an insurance report.

The court excluded all statements made to the breath technician as involuntary.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and having a blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood following a single motor vehicle collision on February 29, 2015.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused brought multiple Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(d), arguing that statements made to police prior to arrest were compelled under the Highway Traffic Act and that he was detained without being informed of his rights.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the accused was not detained during the initial police encounter, which was a preliminary investigation of the accident scene.

The court found the accused's statements were voluntary and not compelled.

The breath samples were properly obtained and admissible.

The court convicted the accused on the impaired driving charge and entered a conditional stay on the over 80 charge.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The incident occurred on January 10, 2011, in a parking lot in Oakville when the accused struck the complainant with her vehicle.

The Crown presented evidence from four independent eyewitnesses, the complainant, and a police officer.

The accused testified that the complainant jumped on the hood of her vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as incredible and inconsistent with the testimony of all Crown witnesses.

The court found that the accused deliberately drove onto a median where the complainant was standing, struck her, and then fled the scene without providing her name, address, or assistance.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code for punching the complainant twice in the face at a private birthday party on October 25, 2013.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the complainant punched him first.

The trial judge found the Crown's witnesses credible and reliable, rejecting the defence witnesses' testimony as fabricated and internally inconsistent.

The court concluded the complainant did not apply any force or pose any threat to the accused, and therefore the self-defence claim failed.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The offender was convicted after trial of sexually exploiting a 16-year-old complainant by violating his position of trust as a coach at a cheerleading gym.

The sexual relationship began when the complainant was 15 years old with explicit sexting and escalated to multiple acts of sexual intercourse and fellatio after she turned 16.

The offender was a 25-year-old employed full-time and working as a coach at the gym where he met the complainant.

The complainant was highly vulnerable, dealing with parental conflict, self-harm, depression, anxiety, and her mother's terminal cancer diagnosis.

The court found the offender deliberately exploited these vulnerabilities and kept the relationship secret, knowing it was wrong.

A separate charge of sexual assault was conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offender received a six-month jail sentence followed by three years of probation with conditions including a mandatory 10-year SOIRA order and DNA order.

The accused were charged with assault arising from an incident at a wedding reception and subsequent altercation in a hotel room.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The complainant, the fiancée of one accused and sister of the other, testified that she was assaulted by both defendants.

The trial judge found the defendants guilty of assault on count one (assault in the hotel room), found the male defendant not guilty of assault on count two (assault at the reception), and found the female defendant guilty of resisting arrest.

The judgment turned on credibility assessments and the distinction between verbal abuse and physical assault.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code for an altercation with another inmate at Maplehurst Correction Centre.

The defence argued the fight was consensual and that any injuries sustained by the complainant were unintended and unforeseeable.

The Crown argued the accused was the aggressor and that the complainant did not consent to the fight.

The court found that the accused was the physical aggressor throughout, struck the complainant multiple times, placed him in a chokehold causing unconsciousness, and that the complainant fell face-first onto a concrete floor resulting in serious facial fractures.

The court rejected the defence of consent and found the accused guilty of aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with impaired driving by drug on October 20, 2013, in Milton, Ontario, contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused admitted to being prescribed methadone since 2011 or 2012 and was using this drug at the time of the offence.

Two civilian witnesses observed the accused's vehicle exhibiting extremely erratic and dangerous driving patterns for approximately 10 to 15 minutes, including running red lights, mounting curbs, swerving abruptly, and driving into oncoming traffic.

Police located the accused shortly thereafter under her vehicle attempting to replace a flat tire.

A Standard Field Sobriety Test was conducted, followed by a Drug Recognition Evaluation, which concluded the accused was impaired by a narcotic analgesic.

A urine sample detected methadone, diazepam, nordiazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, carboxytetrahydrocannabinol, and mirtazapine.

The accused testified that her impairment was attributable to sleep deprivation, assault by her boyfriend earlier that day, and side effects of prescribed medications.

The defence called Dr. David Rosenbloom to provide alternative explanations for the signs of impairment.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and found the defence expert's evidence to be biased and of no weight.

The court convicted the accused based on the totality of the evidence, including the dangerous driving observations, the DRE evaluation, and the medical evidence.

The defendant was charged with Over 80 following a traffic stop at a pub parking lot.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging violations of section 8 (unreasonable search) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The Crown sought to uphold the breath readings.

The court found that the delay in administering the approved screening device test was reasonable to allow for dissipation of residual mouth alcohol, and that the defendant's Charter rights were not violated.

The defendant was afforded access to counsel through an unrestricted cell phone and was read his rights.

A finding of guilt was registered.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a severe single-vehicle collision in Burlington on April 23, 2013.

The accused brought multiple Charter applications challenging the validity of the arrest, the breath demand, and the procedures followed at the hospital.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest based on a constellation of factors including the unexplained severe collision, observations of disorientation and unsteadiness, odour of alcohol, admission of alcohol consumption, and physical indicators consistent with impairment.

The court found the accused's rights to counsel were properly respected and that the hospital setting did not prevent adequate privacy for consultation with counsel.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving.