Nicholas Charitsis

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts arising from a domestic violence incident: possession of a prohibited weapon (butterfly knife), uttering death threats, and assault.

The victim suffered significant physical injuries and psychological trauma during a violent attack in their shared residence.

The court balanced aggravating factors (severity of the attack, spousal abuse, significant victim impact) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, mental health and addiction treatment, stable employment, and family support) to impose a sentence of 15 days incarceration for assault, 4 months conditional sentence for uttering death threats, and 2 years probation for possession of a prohibited weapon.

The accused was charged with Impaired and Over 80 Care or Control of a motor vehicle on January 30, 2015.

The Crown admitted the accused's blood alcohol content was 150 mg per 100 ml of blood and that she was impaired in law.

The sole issue was whether the accused was in care or control of the vehicle.

The accused testified she occupied the driver's seat to change her boots while waiting for a restaurant party to begin, not to drive.

The court found the accused rebutted the statutory presumption of care or control under section 258(1)(a) on a balance of probabilities.

However, applying the de facto care or control test, the court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused created a realistic risk of danger through her poor judgment in consuming alcohol while seated alone in the driver's seat with her keys and the vehicle in a parking lot approximately 45 minutes before her planned departure.

The defendant, a personal care worker in a long-term care facility, pleaded guilty to assaulting an 87-year-old resident with Alzheimer's disease.

Video evidence from the victim's room showed repeated instances of rough handling, hair-pulling, striking, and other assaultive conduct occurring when other staff were absent.

The Crown sought incarceration, while defence counsel argued for a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 5 months followed by 3 years probation, finding that the gravity of the offence, breach of trust, and vulnerability of the victim required incarceration despite the defendant's good character and rehabilitation prospects.

The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code after being pulled over on Highway 401 on January 28, 2012.

The defendant claimed he was attempting to follow the officer's instructions and never refused to provide a sample.

The Crown proved that the defendant made multiple failed attempts to provide a suitable breath sample and ultimately stated "I will not blow." The court found the defendant guilty, holding that the defendant both failed and unequivocally refused to provide a suitable roadside-screening sample.

The court also addressed the defence argument regarding the ASD calibration issue, finding that where there is a categorical refusal to provide a breath sample, the Crown need not establish that the approved screening device was tested and ready to accept a sample.