Nawel Lillian Bailey

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing a head-on collision and sentenced to a six-month conditional sentence and a three-year driving prohibition.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by sentencing him remotely while he was in the hospital with COVID-19 instead of granting an adjournment.

The Crown applied for summary dismissal of the appeal under s. 685 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the Crown's application, finding the appeal was frivolous and bound to fail, as the trial judge exercised proper discretion in proceeding with the sentencing and the sentence imposed was not demonstrably unfit.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of section 577(a) of the Criminal Code, which allows the Crown to prefer a direct indictment.

The applicant argued that the provision violates section 7 of the Charter by permitting arbitrary exercise of Crown discretion without requiring reasons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that binding precedent establishes the constitutionality of direct indictments and that prosecutorial discretion remains subject to review for abuse of process.

The accused was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the roadside breath demand and alleged breaches of his Charter rights to counsel.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to demand a roadside sample based on the totality of circumstances, including the accused's dazed appearance, slow and deliberate movements, and apparent hand-eye coordination difficulties following a serious motor vehicle accident.

The court also found no breach of the accused's s. 10(b) rights, as the accused demonstrated understanding of his rights and provided cogent responses to questioning.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The defendant was charged with numerous firearm-related offences following the discovery of two loaded firearms in his bedroom.

The sole issue at trial was the lawfulness of the police search.

Police attended the defendant's residence in response to a 911 call regarding his health.

While paramedics assessed him, officers entered his bedroom without consent to locate clothing for the defendant.

During this search, officers discovered a firearm in a bag on the bed.

A warrant was subsequently obtained to search the bedroom, resulting in the seizure of a second firearm.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the initial warrantless search and the validity of the warrant based on evidence obtained through the unlawful search.

The Crown charged William Pav and Dylan Violo with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on College Street in Toronto on January 13, 2013, where the defendants allegedly participated in a swarming attack on Joseph Kau.

A directed verdict was granted on the assault with a weapon charge against Violo.

The trial focused on identification evidence and was corroborated by DNA evidence linking the defendants' clothing and Pav's hands to the victim's blood.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault causing bodily harm but acquitted Pav of assault with a weapon due to insufficient evidence of weapon use.

The accused was charged with driving while having over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a RIDE program stop.

The central issue was the admissibility of breath samples obtained at the police station.

The defence argued the samples were taken in violation of section 8 Charter rights and that the Crown failed to establish statutory compliance under the Criminal Code.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe the approved screening device was in proper working order, thereby violating the accused's section 8 rights.

Applying the section 24(2) test from R. v. Grant, the court excluded the breath test results and acquitted the accused.