M. Goldenberg

The offender was convicted by a jury of one count of dangerous driving causing death and five counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after speeding through a downtown intersection and colliding with a vehicle making an illegal left turn, causing his vehicle to strike a crowd of pedestrians.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought three years.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victims, the offender's prior record, and the aggravating factors of multiple victims and driving for remuneration against mitigating factors including the offender's tragic background, the impact of anti-Black racism, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of four years in custody, reduced by three years of pre-sentence custody credit, leaving one year to serve, along with a ten-year driving prohibition.

The offender, a 32-year-old Black man with no prior criminal record, was found guilty of possessing a loaded handgun in his vehicle.

The firearm was discovered during a vehicle search for cannabis.

The court considered an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the offender's background of poverty, systemic racism, and trauma, which mitigated his moral blameworthiness.

Finding that the offender possessed the gun for personal protection rather than criminal enterprise, and emphasizing his rehabilitative potential, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by 18 months of probation.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while her blood-alcohol level exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proved that the accused collided with another vehicle on Highway 409, fled the scene at high speed, and was subsequently found with a damaged vehicle.

Breath tests revealed readings of 216 and 199 milligrams.

The defence raised Charter challenges regarding the right to counsel, search and seizure, and lost evidence, all of which were dismissed.

The court found the Crown proved impairment through the accused's dangerous driving, glassy eyes, odour of alcohol, and expert toxicology evidence.

The accused was convicted on both counts, with the impaired driving count stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs on February 3, 2012.

The Crown relied on evidence from a standardized field sobriety test (SFST), a drug recognition evaluation (DRE), and urine analysis showing multiple substances.

The defence challenged the validity of the DRE demand and alleged Charter violations under sections 8, 9, and 10(a).

The court found the DRE demand was unlawful due to insufficient reasonable grounds, constituting a breach of section 8.

The court also found violations of section 10(a) as the accused was not informed of the reasons for detention.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence obtained from the DRE and urine sample.

On the merits, the court found the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence and dismissed the charge.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol concentration (BAC) after registering a "Fail" on a roadside screening device at a RIDE stop and subsequently providing "over 80" Breathalyzer readings.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the Breathalyzer evidence on Charter grounds, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol in the defendant's body when making the initial roadside screening device demand, thereby violating section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the odour of alcohol emanating from the vehicle combined with observations of nervousness and slurred speech, satisfying the statutory standard under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court also found that even if a Charter breach had occurred, exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) was not warranted.

The defendant was convicted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood-alcohol level exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on observations by a police officer at a RIDE spot-check, an approved screening device test showing a "fail" reading, and Intoxilyzer readings of 200 and 190 milligrams.

The defence raised eight major issues including challenges to reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the reliability of the approved screening device test, potential mouth alcohol issues, and alleged Charter violations.

The trial judge accepted the officer's testimony regarding observations of impairment and rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable.

The court found no Charter breaches and concluded the evidence proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Guilty verdicts were entered on both counts, with the impaired driving count stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with driving with an excessive proportion of alcohol in his system (over 80 offence).

Following conviction and successful appeal, the matter proceeded to retrial.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the approved screening device test was administered in violation of section 8 of the Charter due to the officer's failure to comply with mandatory police procedures and guidelines regarding device calibration, self-testing, location of testing, and in-car camera system activation.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) and dismissed the charge.