M.H. Bloomenfeld

The accused challenged the validity of a search warrant executed at their residence on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of sections 8, 7, and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Information to Obtain (ITO) was heavily redacted to protect informer privilege.

The court applied the Garofoli step six procedure to determine whether a judicial summary of the redacted portions was sufficient to allow the accused to challenge the warrant.

The court found no Charter breaches and dismissed the application, holding that the ITO contained sufficient reasonable grounds for the search warrant and that the judicial summary adequately protected the accused's right to make full answer and defence while preserving informer privilege.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a high-speed collision with a business sign and hydro pole.

The Crown's case relied on blood alcohol analysis, but the court found serious and material inconsistencies in the chain of custody evidence regarding the blood sample, rendering it impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the tested blood was the accused's blood.

Consequently, the over 80 charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence, including observations of alcohol odour on the accused's breath, slurred speech, false identification, and the violent nature of the collision in safe driving conditions.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80" following a traffic stop in the early morning hours.

The court found that while the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the impaired driving arrest, the breathalyzer evidence was admissible under the Charter s. 24(2) test.

The court also found breaches of the accused's s. 9 rights due to arbitrary detention both at the point of arrest and through "overholding" in police custody, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of "over 80."

The accused, a 19-year-old offender, pleaded guilty to attempted murder with a firearm after shooting the victim in the face with a sawed-off shotgun in the early morning hours of December 8, 2013.

The victim sustained only superficial lacerations and made a full recovery.

The Crown sought 10 years' imprisonment while defence counsel submitted 3-4 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment (equivalent to 7 years and 9 months after pre-sentence custody credit), finding that the offence required significant denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's youth, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

Three young women pleaded guilty to forcible confinement and assault causing bodily harm after luring their friend from her home, blindfolding her, forcing her into a vehicle, beating her, and abandoning her unconscious at the roadside.

The Crown sought nine months' imprisonment, while defence counsel argued for a conditional sentence.

The court imposed 195 days in custody followed by two years of probation, finding that while the offenders demonstrated strong rehabilitation potential and remorse, the gravity of the offences and egregious aggravating circumstances required actual imprisonment to satisfy denunciation and general deterrence objectives.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference against a four-year-old child and one count of breaching his recognizance.

The offence involved performing cunnilingus on the child and having her masturbate the accused.

The accused was released on bail with conditions prohibiting contact with children under 16, which he breached 19 days later by attempting to pick up another child from the same daycare.

The court sentenced the accused to 12½ months imprisonment followed by three years probation, with nine months pre-sentence custody credited, resulting in three months additional imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles while considering the accused's mental illness, intellectual deficits, guilty plea, and uncertain immigration status as mitigating factors.

A youth was tried for sexual assault of a young child occurring between 1994 and 1996.

The complainant, who was four or five years old at the time, testified that the accused forced her to perform fellatio on multiple occasions in the basement of their family home.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant to be truthful but harbored significant concerns about the reliability of her recollection given the passage of time, her very young age at the time of the incidents, inconsistencies in her account, and the vagueness of certain details.

The court acquitted the accused, finding that while abuse may have occurred, the evidence did not meet the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.