Mary E. Ward

This ruling concerns a Crown application under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for the complainant in a sexual assault trial to provide evidence via closed-circuit TV (CCTV).

The complainant, SS, an 18-year-old, expressed fear of testifying in the courtroom with the accused (M.Z.) due to anxiety and past anxiety attacks, believing it would inhibit her ability to provide a full and candid account.

The court found that credible hearsay evidence from a VWAP caseworker was admissible for this procedural motion.

Applying the "facilitate" standard, which is less stringent than "necessary" and considering factors like the nature of the offence (sexual assault), the relationship between the witness and accused (position of trust), and society's interest in encouraging reporting, the court granted the application for CCTV testimony.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, brought an application during trial requesting the court to call a witness that the Crown had decided not to call.

The defence argued this was necessary for the discovery of truth, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Finta.

The court dismissed the application, finding that unlike in Finta, it was not necessary for the court to call the witness because the defence was perfectly capable of doing so and could utilize the Canada Evidence Act if the witness resiled from her prior police statement.

The Crown applied for a ruling on a voir dire that the accused's formal statement to the police was voluntary and admissible at trial.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to meet its burden because it did not call every police officer who had contact with the accused at the police station.

The court found that there is no rule requiring the Crown to call every officer, and based on the evidence presented, the statement was given freely and voluntarily.

The statement was ruled admissible.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 committed between May 2, 2012 and March 1, 2016.

As Power of Attorney for her mother's personal care and property, the accused depleted her mother's bank accounts and investments by approximately $161,000, spending the money on gambling, living expenses, and overseas travel.

The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation with conditions prohibiting the accused from holding positions of trust and requiring counselling.

A stand-alone restitution order of $161,000 was made in favour of the estate.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm after running a red light and striking another vehicle, causing devastating injuries to two victims.

The offender had a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit and was severely sleep-deprived.

The court sentenced the 72-year-old offender to 3 years in the penitentiary, a 10-year driving prohibition, and a secondary DNA order, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The offender was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm after striking her nephew in the head with a beer bottle in an unprovoked attack.

The Crown sought 21 to 30 days of imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing and the criteria for a conditional sentence, concluding that the seriousness of the unprovoked, weapon-based assault required actual incarceration to satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 21 days in jail followed by two years of probation.

The defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and causing bodily harm to a passenger.

The collision resulted in serious injuries to the victim, including a fractured pelvis requiring surgery and a dislocated knee.

The defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 129 milligrams per 100 millilitres and also had amphetamine and methamphetamine in her system.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment followed by two years probation, a two-year driving prohibition, and ancillary orders including DNA collection and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences committed on July 2, 2015: assault with a weapon (metal pole), assault causing bodily harm, and threatening death.

The offences arose from a domestic violence incident involving the defendant and her former common-law partner.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought six to nine months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a blended sentence of one day imprisonment on the threatening death charge, combined with a six-month conditional sentence on the assault charges, followed by three years probation.

The sentence considered the defendant's lack of prior record, guilty plea, bail compliance, and rehabilitative efforts, balanced against the serious nature of the offences, their commission in the presence of children, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

Following a trial, the defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor victim.

The defendant also pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching his recognizance of bail.

The court imposed a sentence of 4½ years imprisonment for the sexual offences, followed by an additional 90 days imprisonment for the breaches, to be served consecutively.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, a 10-year prohibition on employment or volunteering with persons under 16, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a prohibition on communication with the victim during the custodial portion of the sentence.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault against his spouse.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The complainant testified at trial that she did not remember the assaultive behaviour, but the Crown was permitted to cross-examine her with her prior videotaped statement to police and to admit that statement into evidence.

The accused testified that he did not assault the complainant on any occasion.

The trial judge found the complainant's videotaped statement to be compelling and credible, noting the absence of motive to fabricate, the proximity in time to the events, the detailed and uninterrupted narrative, and the complainant's physical demeanour during the interview.

The trial judge found the accused's testimony to be unbelievable and internally inconsistent.

The trial judge convicted the accused on all three counts.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault involving the same complainant.

The Crown called the complainant as a witness, but she testified that she had no memory of the assaultive behaviour.

The Crown sought to introduce a videotaped statement made by the complainant to police, which contained detailed descriptions of the alleged assaults.

The Crown also sought to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, including prior assaults and property damage.

The trial judge admitted the videotaped statement as hearsay evidence based on necessity and reliability, but rejected the application to introduce evidence of prior conduct, finding insufficient probative value.

The defendant brought a motion for a judicial stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The defendant was charged on January 4, 2013, with impaired driving, possession of a controlled substance, and Highway Traffic Act offences.

Trial dates were not set until June 4, 2013, more than fifteen months after the charge.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that the total delay of fifteen months, with approximately twelve months attributable to institutional delay and Crown disclosure delays, constituted an unreasonable delay.

The defendant suffered significant actual prejudice, including two suicide attempts during the delay period.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm contrary to s. 255(2) of the Criminal Code.

On September 13, 2011, the offender's vehicle failed to stop at a red light and collided with a vehicle at an intersection in Oakville, causing a chain-reaction collision involving approximately four vehicles.

Three individuals suffered serious bodily harm, including broken bones, facial injuries, and persistent pain and psychological trauma.

The offender's blood alcohol level was 188 and 182 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, placing him in the statutorily aggravating range.

The offender was a 23-year-old first-time offender with no criminal record, strong family support, and demonstrated genuine remorse.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days, an 18-month driving prohibition, and 12 months probation with conditions including substance abuse counselling and an alcohol consumption prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg/100 mL following a motor vehicle collision on June 23, 2011.

The Crown relied on breath samples showing readings of 170 and 160 mg/100 mL, officer observations of impairment, and expert toxicology evidence.

The defence challenged the timing of the accident and the reliability of impairment indicators.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the exact time of the accident, preventing reliance on the statutory presumption.

The court also found conflicting evidence regarding impairment, with some officers and the victim not observing signs of impairment despite high blood alcohol readings.

The court rejected a purely scientific definition of impairment in favour of traditional legal indicators.

The accused was acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5).

The Crown proceeded summarily.

Three police officers testified regarding the traffic stop, observations of impairment, and the breath testing procedure.

The accused did not testify.

The trial judge found the officers credible and accepted their evidence.

The judge found that the accused deliberately obstructed the breath testing procedure through feigned stomach complaints, coughing, and repeated requests for counsel.

The judge viewed the breath room video multiple times and concluded the accused was attempting to delay or deflect his obligation to provide a proper breath sample.

The judge found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple charges arising from motor vehicle operations in Burlington on December 6, 2012, and Toronto on January 29, 2013.

The charges included operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police, and breach of probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 months custody (after crediting 6 months pretrial custody) and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The sentencing was influenced by the accused's pattern of non-compliance with court orders, his serious driving conduct endangering public safety, and credibility concerns regarding rehabilitation evidence presented by his family.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit, contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found sleeping in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle in a parking lot.

The Crown relied on the presumption in section 258(1)(a) that an accused found in the driver's seat is presumed to have care or control unless they satisfy the court they did not intend to drive.

The accused testified he deliberately pulled over after realizing he was too impaired and fatigued to continue driving, and intended to wait for his girlfriend to pick him up.

The trial judge found the accused credible and determined he had rebutted the presumption.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a realistic risk the accused would change his mind and drive.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code for delivering a single kick to the head of an already injured victim who was lying on the floor of a prisoner holding cell.

The assault occurred during an incident in the Milton Courthouse bullpen on April 8, 2011.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault but rejected the Crown's argument that he was acting as a party to the assault under section 21(2).

The sentencing decision addresses the appropriate quantum of sentence, the application of sentencing principles, and the controversial issue of enhanced pre-trial custody credit under section 719(3.1).

The accused was charged with two counts of assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and one count of attempting to disarm a police officer contrary to section 270.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident on December 15, 2010, at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, where the accused, who was admitted under the Mental Health Act, became agitated when informed he would receive injectable medication.

The trial proceeded over several days spanning approximately 15 months.

The court found the accused not guilty on all counts, determining that the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment is highly critical of both hospital staff and police conduct, finding serious credibility issues with key witnesses and evidence of excessive use of force by police.

The accused was charged with theft under $5,000 arising from an incident at a Walmart store where she allegedly left the store with unpaid merchandise.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of a loss prevention officer who observed the accused placing items into her shopping cart and then leaving without paying for them.

The accused testified that she was distracted by young children and urgent medical appointments, and that unpaid items had been placed in the cart by her children or had become concealed beneath a baby car seat.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's intent to steal and dismissed the charge.

A Charter application alleging breach of section 7 rights due to lost surveillance video was also dismissed.