Matthew Moser

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance and failure to stop after an accident.

He drove into a parked vehicle, fled at high speed while weaving dangerously through traffic, and struck a second parked vehicle.

The Crown sought jail time followed by probation and a driving prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, finding that the gravity of the offences, the intentional and cavalier nature of the driving conduct, the offender's criminal and driving record, and the prevalence of dangerous driving incidents in the community warranted incarceration rather than a conditional sentence, despite the offender's youth and rehabilitative potential.

The accused was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle and five firearms-related offences after police discovered a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition in a minivan he was driving.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty of possession of stolen property but guilty of all firearms offences.

The key issues were whether the minivan was stolen (turning on the credibility of the registered owner whose testimony contained numerous inconsistencies) and whether the sawed-off shotgun constituted a "firearm" under the Criminal Code despite having a detached forearm and being in poor condition.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a ruling by a Justice of the Peace that committed the applicant to trial in the Superior Court without a preliminary inquiry.

The applicant was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm, an indictable offence eligible for a preliminary inquiry.

Due to miscommunication between Crown counsel and defence counsel, both parties mistakenly believed the charge was ineligible for a preliminary inquiry.

The Justice of the Peace, relying on this misinformation, transferred the matter to Superior Court without affording the applicant the statutory right to a preliminary inquiry.

The Superior Court found this constituted a breach of natural justice and jurisdictional error, granted the certiorari application, and ordered the matter returned to the Ontario Court of Justice for a preliminary inquiry.

Kyle Ellis applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time due to an 18-month and 14-day delay exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R v Jordan.

The Crown argued for deductions of pre-arrest delay and defence delay, and exceptional circumstances due to joint trials.

The court found the 11(b) clock began at the swearing of the information, rejecting deduction of pre-arrest delay due to lack of police diligence.

The 36-day delay was not attributed to the defence as it was caused by co-accused counsel unavailability.

The joint trial complexity did not justify the delay, and the Crown and court failed to mitigate delay caused by the self-represented co-accused.

The court granted the stay, finding a Charter breach.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to comply with an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand under the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed or refused to provide the required breath sample.

The court found that the 37-second period given to the defendant to provide a sample, under challenging conditions (rain, night, highway, recent accident, language barrier, new officer), was insufficient.

Furthermore, the lack of audio on police dash cam video and inadequate officer notes created a vacuum of evidence regarding the defendant's statements during the critical period.

The court was not satisfied that the defendant explicitly refused or failed to comply.

The defendant was acquitted.

Jordan Romaker was sentenced for possession of child pornography and voyeurism after pleading guilty to both charges.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 4.5 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment or 2.5 to 3 years jail.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen and R. v. Pike, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences.

Aggravating factors included the large and sophisticated collection of child pornography depicting various forms of abuse, and the voyeurism offence committed while on release.

Mitigating factors included guilty pleas, no prior criminal record (for sentencing purposes), mental health challenges, and expressed remorse.

Collateral consequences related to the offender's mother's care were considered but did not outweigh the need for a proportionate sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment (3.5 years for child pornography and 6 months consecutive for voyeurism), along with ancillary orders including DNA, a s. 161 prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

Corey Parnell was found guilty of dangerous driving and flight from police.

The court addressed the appropriate sentence and a Charter remedy for a two-day overhold in custody.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to four months and a driving prohibition, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court imposed a global custodial term of 120 days, reduced to 60 days as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter for the overhold, and a two-year driving prohibition in addition to the custodial term.

This decision concerns a judicial interim release hearing for Christopher Manning, 19, who faces charges of assault with a weapon, assault, and obstruct police.

These alleged offences occurred while he was on release for two prior sets of charges, placing the burden on him to show cause for release under s. 515(6)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The defence proposed release with conditions, arguing that further detention was contrary to the interests of justice given the likelihood of a time-served sentence upon conviction and highlighting the accused's status as a member of a visible minority and potential mental health challenges under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code.

The court, while acknowledging the importance of considering systemic factors for vulnerable populations, found the proposed release plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of re-offence, particularly due to a history of non-compliance and a lack of detailed information regarding the accused's background and effective community supports.

Consequently, the accused failed to meet the burden for release and was detained.

This decision addresses the Crown's application to adjourn the trial of an in-custody accused, Daniel May, charged with violent home invasion robbery.

The Crown sought the adjournment to facilitate a joint trial with two newly arrested co-accused.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown failed to demonstrate that a joint trial was in the interests of justice, particularly given the accused's expeditious efforts to proceed to trial, his in-custody status, and the speculative nature of the proposed joint trial.

The court emphasized the accused's s. 11(b) Charter rights and the right to counsel of choice.

Corey Parnell was charged with dangerous driving and flight from police.

He argued non-culpability due to police conduct and sought a stay of proceedings for unlawful pre-trial detention.

The court found him guilty of both charges, rejecting his defences of reasonable excuse and necessity.

While acknowledging a Charter breach for two days of unlawful pre-trial custody, the court declined to stay proceedings, finding an alternative remedy (sentence reduction) more appropriate and that the integrity of the justice system would not be harmed by continuing the trial, partly due to defence counsel's role in the communication breakdown.

This ruling provides the judge's full reasons for citing defence counsel, Ms. Eliany, in contempt.

The contempt arose from Ms. Eliany's refusal to provide a requested memorandum outlining her position on a s. 276 application during a judicial pre-trial conference.

The court affirmed its authority under s. 625 of the Criminal Code to order such a memo, emphasizing the importance of meaningful participation in pre-trials to promote fair and expeditious hearings and efficient case management.

The judge found that Ms. Eliany's refusal to comply with the order constituted a failure to effectively participate in the pre-trial process.