M. Evans

The defendant, Kevin Lachnit, was tried on charges of impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit, following a collision involving a dirt bike and a parked Jeep.

The court excluded evidence related to the "over 80" charge due to a Charter violation (right to counsel).

The Crown proceeded solely on the impaired operation charge.

The court found that while alcohol consumption was evident, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to operate the conveyance was impaired by alcohol, given alternative explanations for the collision.

The charges were dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a 17-year-old victim who was his wife's sister.

The offences occurred over several months in 2018 and involved the defendant administering muscle relaxant in coffee without consent and engaging in non-consensual sexual contact while the victim was incapacitated or drowsy.

The defendant, aged 29 at the time of the offence, has significant cognitive and developmental disabilities, including Klinefelter Syndrome and an IQ in the first percentile.

The Crown sought six months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 15 months.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with electronic supervision, followed by two years probation, along with ancillary orders including SOIRA registration, DNA collection, weapons prohibition, and a section 161 order restricting contact with persons under 16.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography in the form of text messages sent on December 25, 2017, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The messages were sent to a woman with three pre-pubescent children, whom the accused had met online.

The accused explicitly described sexual acts he wished to perform on the children and attempted to persuade the recipient to allow him to babysit and engage in such conduct.

The Crown sought six months custody plus probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, an intermittent sentence.

The court imposed 90 days jail plus time served (23 days credited at 1.5:1), 36 months probation, and ancillary orders including a lifetime sex offender information registration order, a s. 161 order restricting access to children, and a s. 109 firearms prohibition order.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to robbery of two sex workers.

The defendants lured the victims to a hotel room under false pretenses and, following a planned and deliberate attack, robbed them of money and personal items while inflicting serious injuries including permanent scarring and internal damage requiring plastic surgery.

The Crown sought two years less one day in custody, while the defence sought 90 days intermittent.

The court imposed 9 months in custody followed by two years probation, balancing the serious nature of the planned robbery against the defendants' otherwise good character, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug.

The Crown alleged the offence occurred on June 19, 2016 in Niagara Falls.

The defendant was stopped by police after driving with a flat tire and exhibited signs of impairment.

Testing confirmed impairment from marijuana and alprazolam.

The defendant claimed involuntary intoxication, arguing he consumed only marijuana and did not intend to drive.

The court found the defendant guilty, holding that even where involuntary intoxication occurs, if an accused becomes aware of their impaired state before driving, they cannot escape liability if they choose to operate a motor vehicle while still impaired.

The video-recorded police station conversation established the defendant's awareness of his impaired condition and his decision to drive despite knowing he was impaired.

A receiver appointed at the instance of a secured creditor sought recovery of deferred management fees withdrawn before receivership and operating funds deposited into a new bank account shortly before the appointment.

The Court of Appeal held that both claims were subject to equitable setoff because the respondent's cross-obligations arose from the same management relationship and were closely connected to the receiver's claims.

The court rejected arguments that the new account involved conversion or that the management agreement created a trust excluding the respondent's claims.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.