Michael Frank Fair

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to bomb Gilly's Pubhouse, mischief, breach of probation, and public mischief.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused made the bomb threat call.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including testimony from the doorman who heard the accused threaten to call in a bomb threat, and voice identification evidence from police officers.

The court found the voice identification evidence unreliable and placed no weight on it.

However, based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence—including the accused's explicit threat, his agitation, the timing and location of the 911 call, and his presence at the scene—the court found the accused guilty of all four charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference of a child under 16 years of age.

The offence involved systematic sexual abuse of an 11-year-old victim over a one-year period from January 2017 to January 2018.

The accused, a 43-year-old family friend residing in the victim's home, engaged in repeated vaginal and anal intercourse, penetration with various objects, and exposure to pornography.

The victim was discovered by a sibling on January 14, 2018.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years imprisonment, considering the serious aggravating factors balanced against the mitigating factor of an early guilty plea.

The accused parents were charged with abducting their child from the care of the Children's Aid Society during a supervised access visit.

Prior to trial, the accused brought an application seeking to challenge the validity of the initial apprehension warrant issued under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court dismissed the application, holding that challenging the warrant at the criminal trial would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on a judicial order.

The court found that the statutory scheme provided an adequate remedial mechanism to challenge the apprehension, and allowing a collateral attack would jeopardize the orderly administration of child protection matters.

The defendant, Theda Cook, was charged with two offences under the Dog Owners' Liability Act: failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from biting a person, and failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from attacking a person.

The incident occurred on October 15, 2012, when the defendant's dog attacked a neighbour who came to the door to request that a vehicle be moved from the shared driveway.

The victim sustained multiple bite marks and bruising through her winter clothing.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts and ordered the dog to be euthanized, based on the dog's history of aggression, prior biting incidents, and the defendant's failure to implement adequate preventative measures despite knowledge of the dog's dangerous temperament.