Lorna Muller

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences, including assault and assault with a weapon against his pregnant wife, and received a suspended sentence.

Facing certain deportation, he applied to extend the time to appeal his convictions and sentence, arguing his pleas were procedurally flawed and uninformed regarding immigration consequences, and alternatively sought a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the procedural irregularity caused no prejudice, the appellant was fully informed of the immigration consequences before pleading guilty, and a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious domestic violence involved.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to five months in custody, applied for bail pending his appeal.

The court found that the applicant posed a negligible risk to public safety and flight, and that his ground of appeal regarding uneven scrutiny of the evidence clearly surpassed the 'not frivolous' threshold.

The application for bail pending appeal was granted.

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 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 offender pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a former intimate partner on July 3, 2014, in Burlington.

The assault involved non-consensual oral sex after the complainant explicitly said no and the relationship was over.

The offender and complainant were both cognitively impaired individuals who had been in a three-year intimate relationship and were discussing reconciliation.

The Crown sought 9-12 months custody, while the defence sought a six-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, finding that separation from society was not necessary given the unique circumstances, including the prior intimate relationship, the complainant's pre-offence sexting, the offender's significant disabilities and exemplary character, and the isolated nature of the offence.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused was stopped for suspicious driving behaviour in the early morning hours.

Officers observed signs of alcohol consumption and administered an ASD demand.

After eight attempts over approximately thirteen minutes, the accused failed to provide a suitable breath sample.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove the required mens rea of wilful intentional refusal.

The court found the accused intentionally failed to provide a suitable sample, having engaged in a course of conduct designed to avoid police detection of drinking and driving, including using mouthwash to mask the odour of alcohol on his breath.

The defendant was charged with willfully obstructing a peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty by interfering with the lawful arrest of another person, and with assaulting a peace officer.

The defendant also brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings based on allegations of excessive use of police force.

The trial proceeded on a blended basis with the Charter applications.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts after rejecting the defendant's evidence as unreliable and inconsistent, and accepting the evidence of the police officers as accurate and reliable.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding no excessive use of force by police.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of gross indecency and one count of indecent assault involving two young male victims in the early 1980s.

The offences involved sexual exploitation of children aged 10 and 13 years old, including oral sex, anal intercourse, coercion, blackmail, and the provision of alcohol.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment concurrent on both counts, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence despite the offender's exemplary life over the intervening 30 years.

The court found that denunciation and general deterrence required incarceration in a traditional setting.

A DNA order, SOIRA compliance order, and 5-year weapons prohibition were imposed.

A section 161 order was refused on Charter grounds.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault level one (section 266 of the Criminal Code) arising from alleged incidents on July 30, 2010 and between October 1 and November 30, 2008.

The victim was the accused's former wife.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, police officers, and the accused and his adoptive father.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. analysis and found the accused guilty on both counts based on the credibility of the complainant's evidence, corroborating photographic evidence of injuries consistent with bite marks, and the lack of credibility in the accused's categorical denials.