Michael Lunski

Following conviction on two counts of dangerous driving causing death and two counts of impaired driving/over 80 causing death arising from a motor vehicle collision that killed two young women, the court imposed a global sentence of six years custody on the impaired driving counts and five years custody on the dangerous driving counts, all running concurrently.

The court rejected both the Crown's submission for 7-8 years and the defence submission for 4 years, balancing denunciation and deterrence against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and strong rehabilitative prospects.

The court also imposed a 12-year driving prohibition and a non-communication order.

The court rejected the defence argument that the impaired driving counts should be stayed under the Kienapple principle, finding that impaired driving and dangerous driving address different aspects of road safety.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of expert evidence from Cara Shepard, a forensic toxicologist, in the trial of Aysar Younes for impaired and dangerous driving causing death.

The court found that while Ms. Shepard’s evidence regarding cocaine use was necessary and within her expertise, it lacked probative value on the issue of impairment or crash phase at the time of the collision and was therefore inadmissible for that purpose.

However, the court allowed the evidence for the limited purpose of establishing continuity of the blood sample.

This decision concerns the prosecution of Aysar Younes for two counts each of impaired driving/over 80 causing death and dangerous driving causing death, arising from a fatal collision on Highway 2 in Trenton, Ontario.

The court addresses the admissibility and reliability of blood alcohol evidence, the continuity of evidence, and the legal standards for impaired and dangerous driving causing death.

The court finds the evidence of blood alcohol concentration and impairment reliable and sufficient, and concludes that Younes' conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care, resulting in conviction on all counts.

The accused, Aysar Younes, faced charges of operating a conveyance causing death while impaired/over 80 and dangerous operation causing death.

This ruling addressed two Crown applications: to declare a statement made by Younes to police voluntary, and to determine the admissibility of evidence from a friend regarding the normality of cocaine use in their social group.

The court found the statement voluntary for cross-examination purposes, as conceded by the defence.

However, the court dismissed the Crown's application to admit evidence about the normality of cocaine use, finding its probative value low and the risk of moral prejudice high, particularly in a jury trial.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained by police following a fatal motor vehicle collision, alleging breaches of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the warrantless seizure of airbag control module (ACM) data was lawful under s. 489(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, as police had reasonable grounds to believe it would provide evidence of an offence.

Similarly, the production order for medical records and search warrant for blood vials were deemed valid, as reasonable grounds existed to suspect impairment.

However, the search warrant for the applicant's cell phone was found to be overly broad and the subsequent search unlawful, infringing s. 8.

Applying the Grant factors, the court admitted the ACM data, medical records, and toxicology reports, but excluded all evidence obtained from the cell phone search due to the seriousness and impact of the breach.

Ahmad Hasan was charged with two counts of criminal harassment and three counts of breach of probation stemming from his public Facebook postings targeting a detective and a lawyer involved in his previous criminal cases, and for breaching a publication ban.

The court found that Hasan's conduct, including seeking personal information about the complainants and making derogatory remarks, constituted threatening and harassing behaviour.

The complainants' fears for their safety were deemed objectively reasonable given the context of Hasan's prior convictions and obsessive conduct.

The court found Hasan guilty on all five charges.

The Crown brought pre-trial applications to establish the voluntariness of statements made by the accused persons to police.

One of the accused opposed the application, arguing his statement was involuntary and obtained in violation of his section 10 Charter rights because he was not informed of all the investigations for which he was a suspect.

The accused also challenged the admissibility of incriminating videos found on a co-accused's phone, alleging a section 8 Charter breach.

The court found the police questioning did not violate section 10 and the statement was voluntary.

Furthermore, the court held the accused lacked standing to challenge the search of the co-accused's phone as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the videos.

The Crown's applications were granted and the accused's applications to exclude evidence were dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended key evidence when concluding the appellant had denied all physical contact with the complainant.

The appellate court reviewed the trial record and noted that the appellant had admitted holding the complainant’s hands, a fact acknowledged earlier in the trial judge’s reasons.

The appellate court found that the trial judge’s later statement that the appellant denied “any and all physical contact” created a significant inconsistency that may have played a central role in the credibility assessment leading to conviction.

Because the misapprehension concerned material evidence and may have influenced the reasoning process, the conviction could not safely stand.

The court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.