Michael Johnston

The appellant appealed his sentence for mischief under $5000 after pleading guilty to vandalizing an 87-year-old woman's vehicle.

The sentencing judge imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation, rejecting the appellant's request for a conditional discharge.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judge failed to apply the principle of restraint.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the sentence was fit and within the judge's discretion given the need for denunciation.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences, brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter challenging tracking warrants and telewarrants executed on a vehicle and his temporary residence.

The court found the tracking warrants and the telewarrant for the vehicle were validly issued, and a minor post-seizure reporting breach did not warrant exclusion of the evidence found in the vehicle under s. 24(2).

However, the court found there were insufficient grounds to issue the telewarrant for the residence, constituting a serious Charter breach, and excluded the evidence seized from the residence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from a stabbing at a wedding reception.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in applying the law of self-defence.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge correctly applied the three-part test for self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code and reasonably concluded the appellant's response was disproportionate and not a justified act of self-defence.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, though the victim fine surcharge was set aside.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence in a pre-trial motion that the accused failed to report an altercation to the police, arguing it was relevant to rebut their anticipated claim of self-defence.

The accused argued that admitting such evidence would violate their common law and constitutional right to silence, which arises the moment events occur that could give rise to a criminal charge.

The court agreed with the accused, holding that the right to silence precedes any interaction with police and that the accused, being both suspects and victims, were entitled to remain silent.

The Crown's motion to lead the evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and assault against his former spouse, alleged to have occurred in 2008 while both were stationed at a military base.

The allegations were not reported until 2014, following a contentious family law dispute over child support and daycare expenses.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess credibility and found the accused's evidence to be generally responsive and not materially impeached.

Conversely, the court found the complainant's evidence lacked reliability due to memory issues, internal inconsistencies, and evidence of animus related to the family law proceedings.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault following a horrific, drug-fueled home invasion.

The court accepted a joint submission for a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 18 years for the murder, along with concurrent sentences of 14 years for attempted murder and 6 years for aggravated assault.

The court weighed the extreme violence and premeditation against the offender's early guilty pleas, deep remorse, and lack of prior criminal record.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing Charter challenges related to arbitrary detention, failure to promptly inform of the reasons for detention, and admission of breath test evidence.

The appellant contended that the police officer lacked reasonable grounds for the initial traffic stop and that questioning about alcohol consumption occurred without proper notice of a change in the purpose of detention.

The court held that the trial judge’s factual findings were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference, including the finding that the officer had grounds to conduct a Highway Traffic Act stop and that the appellant had been informed of the reason for the stop.

The court also found no legal requirement that the officer explicitly advise that the investigation had shifted to a criminal matter before asking about alcohol consumption.

The trial judge’s analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter was upheld and the breathalyzer evidence was properly admitted.

Following a jury conviction on six counts including sexual exploitation of a young person, sexual assault, and assault involving members of the offender’s family, the court imposed sentence.

The offender repeatedly sexually abused his step‑daughter over several years and sexually assaulted his spouse, while also exercising coercive and violent control over the household.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, the victim’s age, repeated conduct, grooming, and significant psychological harm to family members.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence and the range identified in comparable appellate authorities, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

The Kienapple principle required a conditional stay of one sexual assault conviction as duplicative of the sexual exploitation count.

The accused brought pre‑trial motions seeking severance of a count alleging sexual assault against a spouse from other counts involving alleged assaults against children, an order under s. 276 of the Criminal Code permitting questioning about the complainant’s prior sexual history with the accused, and production of Children’s Aid Society records.

The court held that severance was not warranted because any risk of reasoning prejudice could be addressed through proper jury instructions and the counts were connected by the family context and overlapping time periods.

The court granted the s. 276 application in part, permitting limited questioning about the general sexual relationship and certain activities relevant to the accused’s defence of consent or honest but mistaken belief in consent, while excluding evidence that would invite prohibited sexual history inferences.

Redacted CAS records were reviewed and ordered disclosed to both parties as they were relevant and privacy concerns had been addressed.