M. De Rubeis

The accused was convicted of sexual assault following a trial.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9 to 12 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days to be served intermittently, followed by one year of probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, attendance at sexual offender treatment, and a 500-meter exclusion zone.

The court found that while the conditions for a conditional sentence were technically met, the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence required incarceration.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The Crown obtained a roadside breath sample via an Approved Screening Device following a traffic stop.

The defence challenged whether the demand was made "forthwith" as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and whether the accused's Charter rights to counsel were violated.

The trial judge found that an informal demand was made within seconds of the officer forming reasonable suspicion, followed by a formal demand minutes later.

The delay in administering the test was found to be reasonably necessary given the time required to obtain the screening device.

The accused's right to counsel was not violated as there was insufficient time to realistically consult counsel before the test.

The trial judge convicted the accused.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault following a violent altercation in which he struck the victim multiple times with a homemade axe, causing compound fractures to both arms and multiple lacerations.

The sentencing judge imposed a custodial sentence of 33 months after considering the severity of injuries, the nature of the attack, the accused's criminal history including prior alcohol-related offences, and mitigating factors including family support and work history.

The court rejected the Crown's submission for 4 years and the defence submission for 18 months to 2 years less a day, finding that a penitentiary-length sentence was necessary to adequately denounce the offender's moral blameworthiness and address principles of deterrence.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and "over 80" causing bodily harm following a serious motor vehicle accident.

Police obtained a search warrant to seize the accused's blood sample and medical records from the hospital.

However, police failed to report to a Justice of the Peace as required by the Criminal Code, instead waiting nearly four months before filing a report.

The court found that this failure constituted an unlawful detention of the seized items in breach of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework for section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the blood sample and medical records as evidence, finding that the seriousness of the Charter breach and the need to maintain judicial supervision of investigative steps outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.