Natasha Michelle Engineer

The defendant was charged with one count of criminal harassment for repeatedly communicating with the complainant, causing her to reasonably fear for her safety.

The Crown called several witnesses, including the complainant.

The defendant testified on his own behalf.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and truthful, while rejecting the defendant's testimony as incredible and unsupported.

The defendant made unwanted sexual remarks, insisted on providing contact information despite being asked not to, and returned to the complainant's workplace multiple times without legitimate commercial purpose.

The court found that the defendant recklessly persisted in his conduct without regard for the complainant's obvious rejection and distress.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The defendant was charged with Over 80 contrary to s. 254(1)(b) of the Criminal Code following a roadside stop and breath demand.

All issues were conceded except for a s. 9 Charter application alleging arbitrary detention.

The court found that the defendant was arbitrarily detained and imprisoned for over six hours after the investigation was complete, as the officers in charge failed to release her despite having no reasonable grounds to continue detention.

The court excluded the breath readings as evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was acquitted.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The applicant was charged with two drunk driving offences on May 18, 2015, with trial scheduled for October 24-26, 2016, resulting in a total delay of 17 months and 8 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which sets an 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice matters.

The court found that while the delay fell below the ceiling, the applicant failed to meet the onus of establishing that the case took markedly longer than reasonable.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not take meaningful steps to expedite proceedings, particularly by failing to pursue Crown pre-trials or judicial pre-trials, and that both parties had limited availability for trial dates.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol content (Over 80).

Following her arrest and breath testing, which revealed readings of 145 mg/100 ml and 135 mg/100 ml, she was detained at the police station.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging a breach of Section 9 (arbitrary detention).

The court found that while the initial detention was lawful, the defendant was unlawfully held for approximately six hours beyond the point at which she should have been released.

The officers in charge failed to establish reasonable grounds under Section 498(1.1) of the Criminal Code to justify the continued detention.

The court found a Section 9 Charter breach and adjourned the matter for submissions on remedy.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The central issue was whether the approved screening device demand was made "forthwith" as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found a nine-minute delay between the formation of suspicion and the ASD demand, during which the accused was detained without being informed of his rights to counsel or the reason for detention.

The court determined that multiple Charter violations occurred and excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal on the over 80 charge.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, having stolen $86,234 from Grace United Church in Caledonia over a four-year period (2009-2012) while serving as Treasurer of Mission and Service Funds.

The Crown sought imprisonment of six to nine months, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding that denunciation and general deterrence were the primary sentencing principles applicable to this breach of trust involving repeated theft and fabricated financial reports.

The court imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation with conditions including financial counselling and restrictions on employment involving positions of trust with financial matters.

A stand-alone restitution order of $86,234 was made in favour of the Church.