Neil Dietrich

The defendant, Adam Gardin, was sentenced for eight counts of willfully failing to comply with a probation order that included restitution terms.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 days in custody for each count, to be served consecutively, totaling 240 days incarceration.

Additionally, the court ordered a one-year continuation of his original 2019 probation order, rejecting the prosecution's request for a new two-year probation order with modified restitution terms due to lack of jurisdiction under the Provincial Offences Act for a new order in this context.

The decision emphasized the defendant's lack of remorse, pattern of non-compliance, and the ongoing harm to victims as aggravating factors.

The Crown brought a voir dire application to determine the voluntariness of videotaped statements made by the accused during a formal police interview.

The accused had been arrested after fleeing police and was apprehended with the assistance of a police dog, resulting in significant bite injuries.

Prior to the interview, the accused experienced severe pain, sleep deprivation, and a lack of food.

The court found no police trickery or improper threats or promises.

However, considering the cumulative effect of the accused's pain, sleep deprivation, medication, and lack of food, the court had a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's statements were voluntary.

The statements were ruled inadmissible.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence, alleging that his right to counsel in private was breached when he spoke to duty counsel from a holding cell at the police detachment.

The accused claimed he could hear voices outside the cell and was concerned his conversation could be overheard.

The court found that the accused was in fact afforded privacy, was the only person in the cell block and booking area, and was monitored only by video with no audio recording.

The court rejected the accused's after-the-fact assertion that he reasonably believed his conversation could be overheard, finding his testimony lacked reliability and he took no steps at the time to indicate concern.

The Charter application was dismissed and the accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with second degree murder in the death of a 17-month-old child who died from acute craniocerebral trauma on September 12, 1994.

The Crown alleged the accused inflicted fatal blunt force injuries to the child's head and torso while alone with her in the bedroom.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence existed for manslaughter but argued the Crown had not established the requisite mens rea for second degree murder, specifically that the accused intended to cause bodily harm he knew was likely to cause death.

The court found that based on the nature and extent of the injuries, a reasonable jury could infer the accused intended the natural consequences of his violent actions and committed the accused to stand trial on the charge of second degree murder.

The accused was charged with four offences arising from events on August 16, 2014: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, unlawful possession of cocaine, and failing to comply with an undertaking to abstain from drugs.

The accused pleaded guilty to the possession and breach charges.

The impaired driving and dangerous driving charges proceeded to trial.

The court found that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by a combination of central nervous system depressants and narcotic analgesics, and that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.

The accused was convicted on all four counts.