Leslie Pringle

This is a ruling on a challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence provisions of the Criminal Code for a drinking and driving offence.

The applicant, Ali Haider Cheema, was found guilty of having care or control of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol and challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence (conviction and $1500 fine) under s.12 of the Charter, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment due to the risk of removal from Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

The court found that a conditional discharge was not a fit sentence for the offence, considering the gravity of drinking and driving offences and the public interest in deterrence and denunciation, even with the sympathetic personal circumstances and serious immigration consequences.

The application was dismissed, and the mandatory minimum sentence was imposed.

The Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, through Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan, brought the fifth application to unseal search warrants, production orders, and Informations to Obtain (ITOs) in the ongoing investigation into the double murder of Honey and Barry Sherman.

The police agreed to unseal the first four ITOs with redactions, citing that they were at an early stage and of a more general nature.

The applicant challenged the redactions as overly cautious.

The court partially granted the application, unsealing certain medical and background information while maintaining redactions for holdback and hallmark information, potential persons of interest, motive, Apotex business information, and estate information.

The remaining eight ITOs were kept fully sealed as they were of a more focused nature and disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having excess alcohol in his system.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of his vehicle, intoxicated, with the vehicle stopped in the middle lane of eastbound traffic on Sheppard Avenue East at Don Mills Road at approximately 2:00 a.m.

The Crown's case was that the accused had care or control of the vehicle.

The defence argued that the accused's girlfriend had been driving and that the accused was placed in the driver's seat by his girlfriend while she cleaned up vomit, and that he was waiting for his father to pick them up.

The trial judge found that although the accused did not drive the vehicle to the location, he engaged in a course of conduct associated with the motor vehicle that posed a realistic risk of danger to persons or property, thereby establishing care or control under the third route identified in case law.

The accused was found guilty on both counts, with the impaired care or control charge stayed to avoid double punishment.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood within two hours of operating a motor vehicle, arising from erratic driving on Bathurst Street.

The Crown called civilian witnesses and police officers.

The accused challenged identification as the driver, the sufficiency of evidence of impairment, and raised multiple Charter violations.

The court found the accused was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt and that his breath readings exceeded the legal limit.

However, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment without expert evidence relating breath readings to impairment.

All Charter applications were dismissed.

The accused was convicted on the over-80 count and acquitted on the impaired count.

The accused was convicted of sexual interference with a 14-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days in jail.

The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under section 12 of the Charter, arguing it would be grossly disproportionate.

The court found that while 90 days was not grossly disproportionate for the particular offender, the mandatory minimum violated section 12 as applied to reasonably foreseeable hypothetical offenders.

The violation could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 45 days to be served in the community, followed by 3 years of probation, along with DNA and SOIRA orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, failing to stop for police, refusing to provide a breath sample, and driving while disqualified.

The victim, a 44-year-old cyclist, was struck and killed by the accused who was driving at approximately 110 km/h in a 60 km/h zone while impaired.

The accused had a prior drinking and driving conviction from one month earlier and fled the scene at high speed, eventually reaching 200 km/h while evading police.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years less pre-trial custody credit, resulting in 4½ years additional custody, plus a 10-year driving prohibition.

The defendant brought a motion to stay charges of impaired driving and "over 80" pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of trial was 19 months and 25 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which sets an 18-month presumptive ceiling for constitutionally tolerable delay.

After calculating defence delay at 2 months and 21 days, the net delay was 17 months and 4 days, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found that the defence met the onus of demonstrating that the delay markedly exceeded the reasonable time requirements for a simple impaired driving case, considering the substantial state delay and the court's earlier admonitions that went unheeded.

The motion was allowed and the charges were stayed.

The accused was charged with driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop on March 26, 2015.

The Crown presented evidence of the accused's dangerous driving, a failed approved screening device test, and breath samples exceeding the legal limit.

The defence raised eight Charter and procedural issues, including questions regarding reasonable suspicion, the "forthwith" requirement, the validity of the approved instrument demand, and the right to counsel.

While the court found a breach of the right to counsel due to inadequate police documentation regarding the implementation of the accused's request to contact counsel of choice, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraudulent activity carried out between July 1, 2012 and January 7, 2015, resulting in over $2.4 million in funds received.

The majority of monies were obtained through a large and sophisticated fraud involving the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program affecting over 900 victims, with additional funds obtained through cheque cashing fraud.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years less credit for pre-sentence custody, with a restitution order of $1.5 million.

The court found numerous aggravating factors including the accused's prior criminal record for fraud, the long duration of the fraud, the devastating impact on victims, and the damage to the integrity of the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

The court rejected gambling addiction as a mitigating factor given the accused's minimal rehabilitation efforts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol in his system following a motor vehicle collision on October 3, 2014.

The Crown relied on breath sample readings from an Intoxilyzer 8000C device taken outside the two-hour presumption window, supported by expert toxicology evidence projecting the accused's blood alcohol content at the time of driving.

The defence argued the accused had consumed less alcohol than the Crown's hypothetical suggested and attributed observed symptoms to fatigue and an acid reflux condition.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt both impairment and a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

A stay was entered on the impaired driving count to avoid double punishment.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol in his system after police responded to a trouble call at a restaurant.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated through unlawful detention and search.

The initial detention by the first officer lacked lawful justification, being based on a vague safety concern rather than investigative grounds.

The subsequent detention and search by two other officers, who stopped and searched all vehicles leaving the scene, was excessive and unjustified given the nature of the incident (a fight with a bottle, not a weapons offense).

The accused was not informed of his right to counsel during the detention related to the fight investigation.

The breath samples were obtained as a direct result of these unlawful detentions and were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without the breath evidence, the Crown could not prove the charge.

The accused, a lawful gun owner and security company operator, was charged with two counts: careless transportation of a firearm on June 21, 2012 (Count 2) and careless storage of a firearm on June 27, 2012 (Count 3).

On Count 2, police observed a shotgun mounted visibly in the accused's unattended vehicle for over an hour, contrary to transportation regulations.

On Count 3, police found a shotgun stored in an unlocked bedroom with ammunition readily accessible in a side saddle attached to the gun and additional ammunition on a dresser.

The trial court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the defence arguments regarding admissibility of photographs, reliability of officer testimony, proof that the item was a firearm, and proof that the vehicle was unattended.

The court also rejected the defence submission that a trigger lock alone satisfied storage requirements when ammunition remained readily accessible.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol in her system and impaired driving following a motor vehicle collision on the Don Valley Parkway on February 20, 2013.

The trial raised significant Charter issues regarding the accused's right to counsel.

The court found that the accused did not receive a reasonable opportunity to consult with duty counsel due to the duty counsel's unprofessional and rude conduct, combined with the police's failure to provide a Prosper warning or explore alternative options for legal consultation.

The court excluded the breath readings as evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Without the breath readings, the Crown could not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, forcible confinement, and possession of proceeds of crime arising from an armed robbery of an armoured car service.

The robbery was carefully planned and executed by four accomplices, including the accused who provided inside information and access credentials.

The accused was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $175,000, and a restitution order of $175,000.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing principles given the gravity and planning involved in the crime.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of gross indecency and admitted facts relating to a fourth incident involving sexual abuse of young boys in his position as a choir master in the 1970s and 1980s.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12-15 months.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with 12 months of house arrest and 6 months of curfew, followed by 18 months of probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence could be achieved through a conditional sentence given the defendant's lack of prior record, genuine remorse, low risk of reoffending, and rehabilitation over 30+ years.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was arrested on December 16, 2012 for impaired driving and care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg/100 mL.

The trial was scheduled for March 13-14, 2014, approximately 15 months after the incident.

The court found that the Crown's disclosure was incomplete and late, with essential police notes not provided until after the second court appearance.

The court calculated state-attributable delay as 1 month and 4 days for late disclosure and 10 months and 3 days for institutional delay, totaling approximately 11¼ months.

The court found this exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8-10 months and that the accused suffered real prejudice.

The motion was granted and the charges were stayed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether two accused had committed offences related to possession and storage of a firearm and ammunition found during a police response to a break and enter in progress.

The accused Robinson was the former tenant of the apartment who had been evicted that morning.

The accused Williams was not present at the scene.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit Robinson to trial on charges of unlawfully being in a dwelling and possession of the firearm and ammunition, but discharged Williams on all counts due to insufficient evidence of knowledge or control.

This is a preliminary inquiry into charges of indecent assault and gross indecency arising from alleged sexual conduct between the accused, a 27-year-old adult, and the complainant, a 15-year-old boy, in the summer of 1970.

The Crown sought committal on two counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency.

The court found insufficient evidence of non-consent for indecent assault, as the complainant's participation, though hesitant and reluctant, was voluntary with no threats, coercion, or abuse of authority.

However, the court found evidence sufficient for committal on gross indecency charges, considering the acts themselves (anal intercourse and fondling between males) were per se grossly indecent under 1970 law, and the significant age difference and power imbalance between the parties constituted additional relevant circumstances.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and possession of a weapon (a coffee mug) for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, arising from an incident at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation on November 2, 2012.

The central issue was self-defence.

The court determined that the old self-defence provisions under the Criminal Code (sections 34 and 37) applied rather than the new provisions introduced by Bill C-26 on March 11, 2013, finding that the new law was substantive and therefore prospective only.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding self-defence and acquitted the accused.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against a highly intoxicated woman.

The court found the accused was wilfully blind to the victim's inability to consent due to extreme intoxication.

Although the victim had initially consented to sexual activity and suggested going to a hotel, once at the scene the accused proceeded with intercourse despite the victim's obvious irrational and intoxicated state.

The victim passed out during the act and was unconscious when police arrived.

The court imposed a sentence of 90 days intermittent imprisonment plus three years probation, considering aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability and humiliating circumstances, balanced against mitigating factors including the accused's remorse, rehabilitation potential, and stable employment.