Lindsey Santerre

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and driving 'over 80' following a single-car collision.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding whether hospital staff acted as state agents when taking his blood samples, which would constitute a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

He also argued that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to obtain a search warrant for the blood samples.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual determination that the blood was taken for medical purposes was supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

Consequently, there was no Charter breach.

The court also found ample objective evidence to support the issuance of the warrant and noted the issue was not properly litigated at trial.

Sentencing decision arising from prolonged sexual abuse, luring, procuring, sexual exploitation, exposure, and invitation offences committed against numerous vulnerable adolescent boys over a seven-year period.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, parity, and totality, finding extreme aggravating features in the number of victims, their ages, the systematic grooming, the provision of drugs and alcohol, the use of fake online identities, the abuse of trust, and the recruitment of victims to bring in younger boys.

A 17-year global penitentiary sentence was imposed, with 25.5 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, together with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

Applying the s. 743.6(1) analysis, the court further delayed parole eligibility until one half of the sentence had been served.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder arising from a fatal stabbing, brought an application to admit evidence of the deceased’s bad character in support of a self-defence theory.

The proposed evidence included the deceased’s criminal record, reputation as a “tough guy”, prior drug use, and police occurrence reports.

The court held that evidence of bad character not known to the accused must still satisfy the requirements of relevance and admissibility, and that its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The court found the proposed evidence lacked sufficient probative value and risked inviting the jury to reason improperly about the deceased’s character.

The application was largely dismissed, though evidence of the deceased’s intention to confront and assault the accused on the night in question was permitted.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that on May 9, 2014, the accused drove while impaired.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the investigation, alleging Charter breaches under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand, that the drug evaluation demand was made as soon as practicable, and that the accused's Charter rights were not infringed.

The court found the accused guilty based on evidence of impairment by both alcohol and drugs.