Maureen McGuigan

The accused was tried before a judge alone on a charge of aggravated assault arising from a single punch delivered to a fellow inmate in a correctional cell.

The court held that the resulting facial injuries, including lasting impairment affecting vision and the victim's ability to defend himself, constituted maiming within s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the air of reality test, the court found both consent and self-defence were raised but disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected the accused's account that he acted defensively during a consensual confrontation and found instead that he struck to teach the complainant a lesson.

A finding of guilt was entered.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected Charter applications challenging the arrest, breath demand, and video surveillance of the accused in the holding cell.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand, and determined that while video surveillance of the accused using the toilet infringed her section 8 rights, the infringement was not so serious as to warrant exclusion of evidence or a stay of proceedings.

The court found the accused guilty of both offences.

The accused was charged with two counts of historical sexual assault and sexual interference against his daughter spanning from 1996 to 2003.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of similar acts from four other complainants to establish a pattern of predatory behavior.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this similar fact evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to meet its burden of proof regarding collusion and that the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value.

The similar fact application was dismissed due to lack of temporal proximity, insufficient similarity of circumstances, different relationships between the accused and the various complainants, and concerns about potential collusion among witnesses.

The defendant was charged with five counts of fraud under $5,000 arising from fraudulent credit card transactions at a Telus retail store.

The Crown alleged the defendant, a sales representative, knowingly processed fraudulent transactions with the defendant's high school acquaintance.

The defendant claimed she was merely providing customer service and did not know the credit cards were fraudulent until a phone call on August 28, 2011.

The court found the defendant's written statement to the loss prevention officer was voluntary and reliable, rejected her trial testimony as fabrication, and found she had actual knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the transactions based on incriminating text messages, the circumstances of the purchases, and her own confession.

The defendant was convicted on all counts.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for assault on a bar patron.

The incident occurred inside the Less Than Level bar in Oakville on March 16, 2013.

The defendants were charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, with one defendant also charged with breach of probation.

The Crown relied on testimony from two sober witnesses: the bouncer and the bar manager, who observed the defendants repeatedly kicking the victim while he lay defenseless on the ground.

The defendants presented no evidence.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault and one guilty of breach of probation based on the credible testimony of the sober witnesses.

The accused, a newly trained police officer with Peel Regional Police, was charged with impaired operation and over 80 following a single-vehicle collision on the QEW in Burlington on August 3, 2011.

The trial involved three Charter applications: one alleging violation of s. 7 (right to remain silent), one alleging violation of s. 10(b) (right to counsel), and one alleging violation of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure).

The court found a s. 10(b) breach due to inadequate facilitation of access to counsel of choice and poor note-taking by the arresting officer.

However, the court excluded the breath test results and statements made after rights were read, but found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on the erratic driving observed by an independent witness and the accused's conduct at the scene.

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 operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results taken outside the two-hour statutory presumption period, requiring expert toxicological evidence to establish the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

The central issue was whether the accused engaged in "bolus drinking" (rapid consumption of large quantities of alcohol shortly before driving), which would render the expert's extrapolation unreliable.

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding his drinking pattern as incredible and evasive, finding no credible evidence of bolus drinking.

The court convicted the accused based on the toxicologist's expert opinion that the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was between 130 and 175 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to accepting and offering secret commissions (bribes) in relation to driving examinations at a DriveTest Centre in Oakville, Ontario.

The driving examiner accepted bribes from a driving school instructor to ensure that the instructor's students passed their Ministry of Transportation road examinations.

The scheme involved five prior corrupt transactions before discovery.

The court imposed custodial sentences, finding that the breach of public trust and risk to public safety necessitated imprisonment rather than conditional sentences, despite the offenders' lack of prior criminal records and expressions of remorse.