Michael William Caroline

The accused was charged with human trafficking, child pornography, assault, and related offences involving two victims in the sex trade.

The Crown alleged that the accused recruited and exploited the victims, exercised control over their movements and finances, posted advertisements for their sexual services, and created and distributed child pornography involving a minor.

The accused was found guilty on 14 of 15 counts.

The court found that the accused knowingly recruited both victims for exploitation, exercised control through coercion and implied threats, withheld identification documents, assaulted one victim, received financial benefits from their sexual services, and created and distributed child pornography.

The court rejected the defence argument that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief regarding the minor's age, finding instead that he was wilfully blind to her age and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain it.

The accused was sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment for impaired driving causing death.

On November 19, 2016, the accused drove south on Highway 10 while intoxicated and fatigued, exhibiting dangerous driving behavior over an extended distance.

He collided head-on with the victim's vehicle, killing the 56-year-old victim instantly.

The accused's blood alcohol concentration was between 150 to 210 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood—approximately twice the legal limit.

After a seven-day trial, the accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death contrary to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court imposed the joint submission of 4.5 years, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence as paramount sentencing considerations in impaired driving cases.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The Crown alleged that the accused's ability to operate his vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.

The accused testified that he consumed only one draft beer and that his loss of consciousness at the roadside was not due to alcohol.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and not credible, and accepted the evidence of the police officers regarding the accused's erratic driving, observations at the roadside, and subsequent conduct at the hospital.

The court concluded that the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt based on the pattern of impaired driving, the accused's blackout, and the receding of symptoms consistent with alcohol impairment over time.

The offender, Narankar Dhillon, was convicted of trafficking 101 grams of heroin.

At the sentencing hearing, the court considered the severe impact of heroin trafficking, the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, his age (53), and 1200 days of pre-trial custody, including 309 days in lockdown.

The Crown sought an eight-year global sentence, while the defence proposed six years.

The court determined a global range of six to nine years for less than half a kilogram of heroin.

After applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody (1800 days) and an enhanced credit of 90 days for lockdown conditions, the offender was sentenced to a global term of seven years imprisonment, resulting in a further one year and ten months in custody.

Ancillary orders for a DNA sample, forfeiture, and a ten-year weapons prohibition were also issued.

The appellant, Mohamed El Boury, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood/alcohol level in excess of 80mg.

The primary ground of appeal was the admissibility of the certificate of a qualified technician, specifically whether a copy had been properly served on the appellant as required by s. 258(7) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge found that the certificate had been served on a balance of probabilities, a finding upheld on appeal.

The appeal court agreed with the Alberta Court of Appeal's reasoning in R. v. Redford that physical retention of the certificate is not required for valid service.

Additionally, the court found that even if the certificate was inadmissible, the Crown had proven the offence through viva voce evidence from the breath technician.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with driving with blood alcohol content over 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The Crown sought to introduce a Certificate of Analysis as evidence.

The sole issue was whether the Crown had proved compliance with section 258(7) of the Criminal Code, which requires that the accused be given a copy of the certificate prior to trial.

The investigating officer's evidence was contradictory and ultimately revealed that he did not provide the certificate to the accused.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused received a copy of the certificate and ruled the certificate inadmissible.

The accused was acquitted.

A ruling on the admissibility of data extracted from Blackberry devices seized from the accused during a drug importation investigation.

The Crown sought to introduce a DVD containing photographs, contact lists, call logs, SMS text messages, and Blackberry PIN messages extracted from two Blackberries in the possession of one accused.

The defence challenged admissibility on grounds that the Crown failed to authenticate the contents, failed to comply with the electronic documents provisions of the Canada Evidence Act, and that prejudicial value outweighed probative value.

The court found that the electronic documents provisions applied, that authentication was established through circumstantial evidence and chain of continuity, and that the presumption of integrity under the Act was satisfied.

The evidence was admitted as real evidence, documents in possession, circumstantial evidence of conspiracy, and admissions.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown called two witnesses: the arresting officer and the qualified breath technician.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence, including minimal and equivocal observations of driving conduct and inconsistent observations between officers regarding physical signs of impairment.

The court also found that the Crown failed to establish that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable due to an unexplained delay occasioned by a call to duty counsel that was neither clearly requested nor made with proper notice to the accused.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, care or control with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and wilfully failing to provide a suitable breath sample.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

At trial, the Crown conceded it had not proven the over 80 offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired care or control and wilfully failing to provide a suitable breath sample, applying the three-part test from R. v. Boudreault regarding care or control, and finding the accused's claimed asthma did not explain his inability to provide samples.

The accused, a vice-principal at a Toronto high school, was charged with obstructing a peace officer by allegedly counselling a student to leave the school and misleading police about the student's whereabouts when police were present to execute an arrest warrant.

The court found that while the accused failed to fully disclose to police that he had seen the student in the classroom, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to obstruct the officer or that his conduct was intended to make it more difficult for police to execute their duty.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of eighty milligrams percent contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging that his right to have a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The overall delay from the swearing of the information on September 5, 2013 to the second scheduled trial date on November 6, 2014 was approximately fourteen months.

The court found that institutional and Crown delay totaled approximately ten months and twenty-five days, with significant delay attributable to late disclosure.

The accused established actual prejudice, as he was caring for his wife who had been paralyzed in an accident on the same day he was charged.

The court found that the delay, exacerbated by the real prejudice, was excessive and offended section 11(b) of the Charter, and ordered a judicial stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

The Crown's case rested on the evidence of Provincial Constable Jason Mask, who conducted the breath tests and prepared a Certificate of Qualified Technician.

The defence objected to the admission of the certificate on the grounds that it was defective, missing the manufacturer's name of the alcohol standard solution.

The court ruled the certificate admissible, distinguishing the defence's reliance on R v. Pearce and finding that oral evidence from the qualified technician could cure the defect.

The accused was convicted and sentenced to the mandatory minimum: a $1,000 fine, a one-year driving prohibition, and victim fine surcharge.

The accused pleaded guilty to three drug trafficking offences involving the trafficking and possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The offences occurred in February 2012 while the accused was on bail for similar charges.

Police conducted surveillance and observed the accused selling cocaine to customers and subsequently seized approximately 1.04 kilograms of cocaine from two locations.

The accused was a commercial-grade trafficker operating a criminal enterprise.

The court imposed a sentence of 5.5 years consecutive to the sentence the accused was already serving, with concurrent sentences on the other two counts.

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mgs on May 24, 2012.

The trial was scheduled for September 3, 2013.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found that the total delay was approximately 15 months, with the Crown responsible for at least 2.5 months of delay due to delayed disclosure and institutional delay accounting for 11.5 months.

The court determined that the institutional and Crown delay was unreasonable and granted the application, imposing a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with procuring a person to become a prostitute, exercising control over a prostitute, living on the avails of prostitution, and extortion.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a young woman from Poland who came to Canada and engaged in sex work.

The accused testified that he provided logistical assistance to the complainant at her request, including renting hotel rooms and posting advertisements, but denied procuring her into prostitution, exercising control over her, or threatening her.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, including material contradictions with her grandfather's evidence and inconsistencies regarding her knowledge of certain premises.

The court acquitted the accused on all counts, finding that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, a 37-year-old woman with a lengthy criminal record related to drug addiction, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic 28.75 grams of crack cocaine.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of approximately 15 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with the first six months subject to electronic monitoring, followed by two years of probation.

The decision reflects a modern approach to sentencing addict-traffickers, emphasizing genuine rehabilitation efforts and the possibility of community-based sentences where appropriate.