Matthew Shumka

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent on the basis that a 'deficient sample' registered by the approved instrument constituted a 'sample' under s. 320.31(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, thereby requiring a new system calibration check before the next sample.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, holding that a deficient sample is not a 'sample' within the meaning of the provision and that there is no implied requirement for a calibration check immediately before each sample.

The court also rejected the respondent's argument that the certificate of qualified technician was inadmissible hearsay, finding itself bound by horizontal stare decisis.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault arising from an altercation on a public transit bus.

The appellant claimed he was making a citizen's arrest after the complainant inadvertently bumped him with her knapsack.

The trial judge rejected this defence, finding the appellant used grossly excessive force and had no reasonable grounds for an arrest.

On appeal, the appellant raised new arguments, including Charter violations and claims that the complainant committed mischief, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or sentence, and dismissed the motions to admit fresh evidence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and criminal harassment against his former intimate partner.

He was given a suspended sentence and 18 months of probation.

He appealed, seeking a conditional discharge and a reduction of the probation term to 12 months, which was the Crown's position at trial.

The Superior Court of Justice upheld the suspended sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the proportionality principle.

However, the court reduced the probation term to 12 months, holding that the trial judge erred by imposing a longer term than the Crown requested without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

The applicant sought bail pending his summary conviction appeal after being convicted of unlawfully entering a dwelling house, theft, possession of property obtained by crime, and threatening death.

The Crown conceded that the applicant would surrender into custody and that his detention was not required in the public interest, but argued the appeal was frivolous.

The court found that the applicant's proposed fresh evidence regarding his extreme intoxication on the day of the offences raised an arguable ground of appeal concerning his capacity to form specific intent.

The application for bail pending appeal was granted.

The applicants, a police constable and the Toronto Police Service, brought an application for certiorari to quash a trial judge's ruling issuing a subpoena to the constable to testify on a Charter application in a criminal trial.

The applicants argued that a draft statement of claim and information provided to the defence by another officer were protected by settlement privilege and unlawfully disclosed, triggering the third-party records regime.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record in the trial judge's conclusions that settlement privilege did not apply, the disclosure was not unlawful, and the test for issuing a subpoena was met.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing a man and his girlfriend on a public transit bus.

The victims had intervened to stop the accused from abusing his own girlfriend.

The Crown sought a sentence of 16 to 18 years, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the brutal nature of the unprovoked attack and the accused's criminal record, against mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 years for attempted murder and 3 years concurrent for aggravated assault, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with attempted murder after stabbing a fellow passenger 11 times on a public transit bus.

The victim had intervened in an aggressive argument between the accused and his girlfriend.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault but denied having the specific intent to kill.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's testimony that he only intended to hurt the victim, finding that the deliberate, forceful, and persistent nature of the attack on vital areas of the body proved a subjective intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder.

The accused was charged with manslaughter following a fatal shooting in a barbershop.

The Crown alleged the accused aided or abetted the deceased in confronting the shooter, relying entirely on circumstantial evidence of their interactions before the incident.

At the close of the Crown's case, the accused applied for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The court granted the application, finding no evidence beyond speculation that the accused knew the deceased had a loaded handgun or that he possessed the requisite knowledge and intent for the unlawful act.