Michael W. Caroline

The appellant sought leave to appeal his convictions for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and having a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

He was found asleep in the driver's seat of an inoperable vehicle stopped in a driving lane.

The trial judge acquitted him, finding no realistic risk of danger, but the summary conviction appeal judge entered convictions.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by assuming an inoperable vehicle could not create a realistic risk of danger, entitling the appeal judge to intervene.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on charges of impaired driving and driving over the legal limit.

The trial judge had found that the accused was not in 'care or control' of his vehicle because it was mechanically inoperable after breaking down in a live lane of traffic.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to recognize the realistic risk of danger posed by an intoxicated person remaining in the driver's seat of a vehicle stranded in a live lane of traffic.

Findings of guilt were entered and the matter was remitted for sentencing.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's spontaneous complaint and in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the complaint was properly admitted as part of the narrative to provide context for assessing credibility, and that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence or unfairly scrutinize the defence evidence.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Convictions Appeal Court that had dismissed his appeal from conviction.

The Crown conceded the appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the concession, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial on both counts.

The respondents, a principal and vice-principals, were charged with failing to report forthwith a suspicion of harm to a child under the Child and Family Services Act after a student was sexually assaulted.

The charges were laid more than six months after the incident and were quashed as statute-barred under the Provincial Offences Act.

The Crown appealed, arguing the failure to report was a continuing offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the offence is a single offence completed when the failure to report forthwith occurs, meaning the charges were laid out of time.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles in R. v. W.D. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons did not reveal any such failure and were based on a review of the entirety of the evidence.

The appellant appealed an Order of Committal for Extradition.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no basis to interfere with the decision of the lower court judge and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed a sentence of 21 months' incarceration and a five-year driving prohibition imposed on the respondent for dangerous driving causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The respondent ran a red light at high speed, struck and killed a pedestrian, dragged her 190 meters, and fled the scene.

He had a lengthy record of driving offences.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and protection of the public.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was increased to four years and three months (after credit for pre-trial custody) along with a lifetime driving prohibition.