Mark Van Wallegham

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, both causing bodily harm.

The Crown and defence agreed that the only issue was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the motor vehicle.

The accused was found in the front seat of a vehicle that had collided with a tree.

Two other occupants were also in the vehicle.

The court found that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver and entered an acquittal on both charges.

Two defendants were charged with unlawful confinement under section 279(2) of the Criminal Code for apprehending a suspect in connection with a break-in at a video store and bringing him to the police station.

The Crown alleged the defendants made an unlawful citizen's arrest without reasonable grounds and without lawful authority.

The defendants argued they had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was the perpetrator and that the police were not investigating the matter.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove forcible confinement beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the lack of physical force or restraints, the complainant's ability to leave at any time, the inadequate police investigation, and the defendants' reasonable belief in the complainant's guilt.

A child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended on June 5, 2015 from the mother on grounds of risk of physical and emotional harm.

The Society sought a three-month wardship order.

The trial addressed whether the child was in need of protection at the time of apprehension, with the disposition already agreed upon.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the mother's untreated mental health concerns, paranoid ideation, lack of adequate supervision, and emotional instability.

The child has since been returned to the mother's care under a voluntary services agreement with conditions, and no further court order was required.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, failure to provide a breath sample, criminal harassment, breach of undertaking, and assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to failure to provide a breath sample and breach of undertaking.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge.

At trial, the court found the accused guilty of assault but acquitted on the criminal harassment charge.

The court found that while the accused threw a water bottle at the complainant during a custody dispute, the subsequent confrontation at a hotel parking lot did not constitute criminal harassment directed at the complainant, as the actions were directed at third parties and the complainant had no direct knowledge of the confrontation.

Application for custody, access, and child support involving parents of a child born in 2006 who separated in 2010.

The mother sought custody and proper child support calculations after the father failed to pay adequate support and retained the child during a scheduled access visit in July 2014.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, established a regular access schedule for the father, calculated child support arrears of $8,631.00, and ordered ongoing monthly child support of $469.00 with a support deduction order.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit and impaired driving contrary to sections 253(a) and 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved the actus reus of the offence through evidence of the accused's erratic driving, a roadside stop, and breathalyzer readings of 147 and 133 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

However, the defence raised evidence of dissociative fugue and dissociative amnesia, supported by expert psychiatric testimony.

The court found that while the accused committed the physical act of driving, a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether the accused possessed the mens rea required for conviction, as the evidence suggested the accused may have been in a dissociative fugue state during the incident and was unaware of his actions.