Mary E. Ward

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.

The applicant sought a bail review following his detention on charges of robbery and being masked with intent arising from November 2010 robberies at an Oakville Mac's Milk Store and a Mississauga Rabba Fine Foods Store.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant was ordered to stand trial on counts relating to the Mac's Milk robbery but was discharged on counts relating to the Rabba store robbery.

The applicant brought a bail review application arguing material change in circumstances, including the discharge on some counts, time served in pre-trial custody, and proposed sureties.

The Crown opposed the application, emphasizing the applicant's serious misconduct while in custody, including possession of cocaine and a homemade weapon concealed in his rectum, and subsequent drug-related incidents.

The court dismissed the bail review application, finding the applicant had not met the onus on a balance of probabilities to demonstrate cause for vacating the detention order.

The accused was charged with break and enter of a residential dwelling, theft, possession of stolen property (a vehicle and a safe), and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification evidence from two independent witnesses who identified the accused in photo line-ups, combined with the doctrine of recent possession.

The court found the identification evidence reliable and the photo line-up procedures fair, complying with Sophonow Inquiry recommendations.

The accused was convicted on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Count 5 was dismissed at the Crown's request.

The accused was charged with break and enter, possession of stolen property, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eye-witness identification from a photo line-up and the doctrine of recent possession.

Two independent witnesses identified the accused: the homeowner who saw him leaving her property, and a construction worker who saw him dumping the stolen safe in a ravine.

The court found the photo line-ups were fair and the identifications reliable.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.