Matthew Humphreys

The accused applied to exclude statements refusing to provide a breath sample following a fatal collision, arguing that his Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) were breached.

He contended that once the victim died, the legal jeopardy associated with refusal to provide a breath sample increased to life imprisonment and he should have been informed and given a further opportunity to consult counsel.

The Crown argued that the accused had already been advised of his right to counsel, had consulted a lawyer, and that the jeopardy had not meaningfully changed because he was already facing charges carrying life imprisonment.

The court held that the accused understood the general jeopardy he faced and that no discrete change in the investigation triggered a renewed right to counsel.

The application to exclude the refusal evidence was dismissed.

The accused brought a motion to sever one robbery count from a fourteen-count indictment alleging multiple robberies and attempted robberies of convenience stores over several months.

The defence argued that the later robbery count lacked a sufficient legal and factual nexus to the earlier incidents and that trying all counts together would cause unfair prejudice.

The Crown opposed severance, asserting substantial similarities between the incidents and indicating an intention to rely on similar fact evidence across the counts.

Applying the factors from R. v. Last, the court held that the Crown had a viable similar fact argument and that the similarities among the robberies established a sufficient nexus.

The court concluded that any risk of prejudice could be mitigated through appropriate jury instructions and dismissed the severance application.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal on charges of impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The appeal court held that the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard when assessing whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to demand a roadside screening test, requiring proof of probable impairment rather than a reasonable suspicion that alcohol was present in the accused’s body.

The court also found legal errors in the trial judge’s failure to provide reasons for excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and in dismissing the impaired driving charge without permitting Crown submissions.

Given that the trial judge had already made final determinations on key issues, the matter could not be meaningfully remitted to complete the trial.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused was detained outside a bar after police responded to a report of a firearm.

During a prolonged investigative detention and subsequent searches, including a strip search at the police station where an officer gratuitously stood on his ankles, police found significant quantities of cocaine and crack cocaine.

A handgun was later found nearby.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the accused's ss. 7, 8, and 10 Charter rights.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the drug evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of orders, but not guilty of the firearm and proceeds of crime charges due to reasonable doubt.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to multiple offences including possession of weapons, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a firearm while prohibited, resisting arrest, dangerous driving, impaired driving over 80, and possession of stolen property, along with a trial conviction for the lesser included offence of theft after an acquittal on robbery.

The offences involved the accused stealing property while armed with a loaded rifle, carrying additional weapons, and fleeing police on a stolen ATV while impaired.

The court emphasized aggravating factors including the possession of a loaded firearm while under a weapons prohibition order, dangerous driving toward a police officer, and a significant criminal record.

Limited mitigating factors included guilty pleas and some attempts at rehabilitation for substance abuse.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence and granted partial credit for time spent under strict bail conditions in a residential treatment program.

The Crown applied for certiorari to overturn a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the respondent on first degree murder and commit her to stand trial for second degree murder.

The respondent had struck and killed the victim with her vehicle following a prolonged period of criminal harassment.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by impermissibly weighing competing inferences regarding whether the murder occurred while the respondent was committing criminal harassment.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the preliminary inquiry judge properly conducted a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence and made no jurisdictional error in concluding there was insufficient evidence of criminal harassment at the exact time of the murder.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample under the Criminal Code.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting statements to persons in authority, misapprehended the medical evidence regarding a possible concussion, applied unequal scrutiny to defence and Crown evidence, assumed an adversarial role during questioning, and misapplied the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.).

The appeal judge held that the trial judge correctly applied the voluntariness test and reasonably rejected the medical evidence suggesting the accused’s mind was not operating.

The court further held that the trial judge properly assessed credibility and evidence and that appellate review of factual findings on summary conviction appeal is limited to unreasonable or unsupported findings.

Finding no reversible error, the court upheld the convictions.

Sentencing decision following a guilty plea to unlawful act manslaughter and failing to attend court.

The accused struck a stranger without provocation, knocking the victim from a bicycle and subsequently kicking and stomping him while he lay on the ground, resulting in fatal head injuries.

Aggravating factors included the vulnerability of the victim, gratuitous post‑assault violence, the offender’s conduct after the offence, and breaches of bail culminating in a failure to attend court.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth at the time of the offence, lack of prior record, and guilty plea.

The court imposed a custodial sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging the offender’s youth.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death while street racing after the other driver involved in the race lost control and died in a collision.

The court found that the accused and the deceased were engaged in a spontaneous street race at high speeds in a residential area.

The court held that the accused's participation in the race was a significant contributing cause of the deceased's death and constituted a marked departure from the standard of care, satisfying the elements of dangerous driving causing death.

However, the court found the conduct did not meet the higher standard of a marked and substantial departure required for criminal negligence.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death and not guilty of criminal negligence causing death.