Lesley M. Baldwin

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor.

The Crown presented evidence from two complainants and an undercover police officer, all of whom described similar patterns of sexually inappropriate conduct during taxi rides.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming intoxication on the part of the complainants and accidental contact.

The court found the complainants and undercover officer credible and rejected the accused's testimony as inconsistent and evasive.

The court convicted on two counts: sexual interference with a minor and sexual assault.

A stay was entered on the third count (sexual assault of the minor) pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts arising from a home invasion: break and enter with intent to commit robbery, forcible confinement of an 86-year-old victim, and assault of a police officer resisting arrest.

The offender also acknowledged four additional counts.

The victim was confined for 4-5 hours, threatened with a knife held to her throat, physically assaulted, and suffered lasting psychological trauma.

The offender had a history of mental health issues, substance abuse, and prior criminal convictions.

A forensic psychiatric assessment found the offender to be at high risk to re-offend.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary sentence on top of 9 months pre-trial custody, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were imposed.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to accepting and offering secret commissions (bribes) in relation to driving examinations at a DriveTest Centre in Oakville, Ontario.

The driving examiner accepted bribes from a driving school instructor to ensure that the instructor's students passed their Ministry of Transportation road examinations.

The scheme involved five prior corrupt transactions before discovery.

The court imposed custodial sentences, finding that the breach of public trust and risk to public safety necessitated imprisonment rather than conditional sentences, despite the offenders' lack of prior criminal records and expressions of remorse.

An appeal of a careless driving conviction under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged after a motor vehicle collision that resulted in a pedestrian fatality.

The appellant claimed he suffered an involuntary coughing/choking episode that caused his eyes to close for several seconds, during which he lost control of his vehicle.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty, rejecting his due diligence defence.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by inferring the appellant had "chosen" to close his eyes and by characterizing several seconds of driving as an "extended period."

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to yield to a pedestrian under section 140(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant argued that the offence should have been charged under section 144(7) of the Highway Traffic Act because the pedestrian was struck at a signalized intersection (crosswalk) rather than at a pedestrian crossover as defined in the regulations.

The court held that the substance of the offence—failing to yield to a pedestrian with the legal right of way—is the same under both sections, and that form does not trump substance.

The court found no prejudice to the appellant and upheld the conviction.

The accused was convicted of assault and sexual assault against his employee at a retail franchise workplace.

The assault occurred between April and June 2010, involving the accused grabbing and dragging the victim toward a stockroom.

The sexual assault occurred on August 26, 2010, when the accused locked the victim in a stockroom and attempted to put his hands down her pants.

The accused maintained a delusional fantasy of a consensual affair throughout trial and sentencing.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 30 days for assault and 90 days consecutive for sexual assault, followed by two years probation with strict conditions including no contact, a 500-metre exclusion zone, and mandatory counselling for sexual offenders.

The accused pleaded guilty to two robberies and related offences committed in July and September 2011 at pharmacies in Hamilton and Burlington, Ontario.

The robberies involved the use of imitation firearms, threats to kill, and the theft of cash and prescription narcotics.

The accused had no prior criminal record but suffered from untreated schizophrenia and oxycontin addiction at the time of the offences.

The court imposed a 23-month custodial sentence with mandatory DNA orders and weapons prohibition, balanced against significant mitigating factors including the accused's rehabilitation efforts, remorse, compliance with bail conditions, and engagement with mental health and addiction treatment programs.

The accused was charged with unsafe storage of firearms (12 counts) and assault.

The Crown alleged that the accused stored shotguns and rifles in an unsafe manner contrary to section 86(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused raised Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the warrantless seizure of firearms pursuant to section 117.04(2) of the Criminal Code was justified based on reasonable grounds to believe that unsafely stored, potentially loaded firearms were present in a residence with two toddlers.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that he possessed a secure gun vault and found him guilty on nine counts of unsafe storage.

The accused was acquitted on three counts where the firearms did not meet the definition of a firearm under the Criminal Code.

The accused was acquitted of assault due to reasonable doubt regarding the exact nature of the physical contact.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault of a 19-year-old passenger.

The Crown alleged that after dropping off the passenger's friend, the accused rubbed the complainant's thigh, undid her belt, and placed his hand inside her shorts without consent.

The accused claimed there was a consensual arrangement whereby the complainant agreed to expose her breasts in exchange for a free cab ride, and that he therefore had consent to touch her.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as fabricated and inconsistent, finding that the complainant's silence and fear did not constitute consent.

The judge convicted the accused, finding no air of reality to the defence of mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was charged with uttering threats, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon against his estranged wife, as well as breaching probation orders.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's testimony as fabrication.

The court found that the accused physically assaulted the complainant, threatened her and her friend with a knife, and subsequently sexually assaulted her.

The accused was found guilty of uttering threats, assault, and the lesser included offence of sexual assault, as the knife was not used during the sexual assault itself.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon following an incident on March 6, 2011.

The accused pled guilty to two counts of breach of probation and not guilty to the remaining four counts.

After a trial spanning multiple dates, the court found the accused guilty of uttering threats to cause death to the complainant and a third party, assault, and sexual assault (as a lesser included offence, not sexual assault with a weapon).

The decision reflects a pattern of domestic violence within a long-term relationship marked by substance abuse and repeated breaches of court orders.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, arising from a single-vehicle collision on the QEW highway.

The trial addressed two key issues: whether the lab technician had lawful authorization to take a blood sample, and whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The court found that the accused's job description, stored electronically, constituted valid written authorization under the Criminal Code.

The blood sample analysis revealed a BAC of 258 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was found guilty on both counts, with a stay entered on the impaired driving count at the Crown's request.

The accused, an uncle by marriage and high school visual arts teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old niece who lived with him and his wife.

The Crown alleged that on February 15, 2010, the accused engaged in a pattern of grooming and sexual misconduct, including touching the complainant without consent in her bedroom.

The accused denied the allegations at trial but had made admissions to police.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's trial testimony as fabricated rationalizations, and accepted his police admissions as genuine confessions.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual exploitation and stayed the sexual assault charge at the Crown's request.

The accused was charged with break and enter of a residential dwelling, theft, possession of stolen property (a vehicle and a safe), and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification evidence from two independent witnesses who identified the accused in photo line-ups, combined with the doctrine of recent possession.

The court found the identification evidence reliable and the photo line-up procedures fair, complying with Sophonow Inquiry recommendations.

The accused was convicted on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Count 5 was dismissed at the Crown's request.

The accused was charged with break and enter, possession of stolen property, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eye-witness identification from a photo line-up and the doctrine of recent possession.

Two independent witnesses identified the accused: the homeowner who saw him leaving her property, and a construction worker who saw him dumping the stolen safe in a ravine.

The court found the photo line-ups were fair and the identifications reliable.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The offender was convicted of theft over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000 for using a Power of Attorney to place unauthorized mortgages on his 86-year-old mother's properties, resulting in her eviction and homelessness.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the offender's extensive criminal record of 69 prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty, his lack of remorse, and additional uncharged frauds against his mother and his lawyer.

Finding the offender to be a psychopath incapable of rehabilitation, the court imposed the maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment for theft, to be served consecutively to his current sentence, and a concurrent 10-year sentence for fraud.