Mr. McCallion

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of failing to comply with probation and a non-communication order by repeatedly contacting his former partner while in custody and on parole.

The court emphasized denunciation and specific deterrence given the offender's history of domestic violence and blatant disregard for court orders.

The offender was sentenced to one day in jail, after receiving 22 months of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdown conditions, followed by three years of probation with strict non-contact conditions.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by drug (cannabis) following a traffic stop for a defective tail light and mismatched license plate.

The Crown's case relied on observations by the arresting officer and a Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) examination.

The court found that while the officers had reasonable grounds for their investigative steps, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of six counts: criminal harassment, failure to comply with bail conditions (three counts), and disobey court order (two counts).

The offences arose from the accused's persistent attempts to contact his former partner following their separation, including threats of suicide and confrontation with police.

Despite police intervention, court orders, and incarceration, the accused continued to violate no-contact provisions through collect calls and letters.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 79 days (after credit for pre-trial custody) followed by two years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, a 200-metre exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, and mandatory counselling.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that during a domestic argument, the accused slapped her on the left side of the face after telling her to leave his apartment in the middle of the night.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the complainant made a false complaint as revenge for being asked to leave.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and consistent with her actions and the observations of the investigating officer.

The accused's evidence was contradicted by his own admissions, the circumstances of the incident, and the physical evidence observed by police.

The court found the Crown proved the assault beyond a reasonable doubt and entered a conviction.