Michael Pasquale

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal by Sally Darosa from her sentence for criminal negligence causing death, specifically challenging the seven-year custodial sentence and the imposition of a lifetime driver’s licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court upheld the custodial sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit given the egregious facts and Darosa’s record.

However, the court set aside the lifetime licence suspension, holding that the trial judge did not have a full understanding of the legal consequences of such an order, and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

The accused was charged with three offences: recruiting, holding, concealing, harbouring or exercising control over a person under 18 years of age to offer or provide sexual services for consideration contrary to section 286.3(2) of the Criminal Code; receiving a financial or material benefit from the commission of an offence under section 286.1(2) contrary to section 286.2(2); and knowingly advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration contrary to section 286.4.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a vulnerable 17-year-old who was homeless, drug-addicted, and desperate for money when she met the accused through Instagram.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, and determined that the accused recruited her into sex work, controlled her movements, plied her with drugs, created a Backpage advertisement using her photographs, and took money from her after she engaged with a client.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol concentration (over 80).

The defendant brought a Charter application to exclude breath readings based on alleged violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a blended voir dire.

The defendant also argued that the evidence of impairment was insufficient.

The court found no Charter violations, admitted the breath sample evidence, and found the defendant guilty of both offences based on the officer's observations of poor driving, physical indicators of impairment, and the breath test results showing blood alcohol concentration more than twice the legal limit.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

The Crown and defence agreed that the accused was in care or control and that his blood alcohol level exceeded 80 mg/100 mL.

The remaining issues were whether the Crown proved alcohol impairment, whether the demand for breath samples was made without reasonable grounds contrary to s. 8 of the Charter, and whether any breath test readings should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court found that the officer had reasonable grounds for the demand based on observations of impairment and erratic driving.

The court found the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was significantly impaired by alcohol based on observed signs including slurred speech, unsteadiness, poor motor skills, and inability to remain conscious.

The court convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop on Highway 401.

The defence challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and whether the evidence established impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the officer possessed reasonable and probable grounds based on the accused's erratic driving behaviour, odour of alcohol, admission of consumption, and physical signs of impairment.

The court convicted the accused of impaired operation and stayed the over 80 charge pursuant to the Keinapple principle.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging that the actions of PC Cooper were excessive and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The incident occurred in the cell area of a police station when the officer was removing the defendant's handcuffs.

The defendant tensed and pulled his arm, which the officer interpreted as a precursor to aggressive movement.

The officer then took the defendant to the ground using a choke hold.

The court found that the defendant's section 7 Charter rights were infringed, as the officer's use of force was excessive in the circumstances.

Evidence obtained as a result was excluded.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

On June 5, 2012, police observed the defendant's vehicle exhibiting inaccurate driving.

After stopping the vehicle, officers detected alcohol on the defendant's breath and administered an approved screening device (ASD) test at roadside, which resulted in a Fail.

The defendant was arrested and transported to the detachment where breath samples were provided to a qualified technician using an Intoxilyzer 8000C, resulting in a reading of 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the validity of the roadside ASD procedure, arguing there was doubt as to whether an approved device was used and that the meaning of the Fail result was ambiguous.

The court rejected these arguments and found the Crown had proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.