Nick Bazylko

The defendant, Arielle Wall, was charged with impaired driving causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and having a blood alcohol concentration above 80 mg within two hours of operating a conveyance.

The court dismissed the dangerous driving charge due to a lack of evidence regarding the manner of driving.

For the remaining charges, the court relied on expert testimony regarding blood alcohol concentration and its effects on driving faculties.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration was found to be between 103 and 107 mg/100mL at the time of the blood sample, and calculated to be between 120-127 mg/100mL at the time of the collision.

The court concluded that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, which contributed to the fatal collision.

The defendant was found guilty of impaired driving causing death and having a blood alcohol concentration above 80 mg, and not guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

The accused, Raymond Rosettani, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against R.C., relating to incidents that occurred when R.C. was between 11 and 14 years old.

The trial involved testimony from both R.C. and Mr. Rosettani.

The court found R.C.'s evidence to be honest, straightforward, credible, and reliable, supported by specific details confirmed by the accused.

Despite the accused's categorical denials, the court rejected his evidence, finding that it did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The Crown met its burden, and convictions were registered on both counts.

The Crown brought an application under section 276(1) of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of the complainant's homosexual orientation and prior sexual history.

The Crown argued this evidence would show the complainant was less likely to have consented to sexual activity with the accused and more worthy of belief.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed use of the evidence relied on stereotypical notions and constituted impermissible propensity reasoning, which section 276 seeks to exclude regardless of whether the Crown or defence seeks to introduce it.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and having a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of section 7 rights based on excessive force during arrest and loss of evidence (14 minutes of DVD recording from the breath room).

The court found that the accused sustained injuries during arrest including abrasions to his face, a cut above his eye, a bump on his head, a severely injured right thigh, and sore shoulders.

The court accepted the accused's testimony that he was subjected to excessive force, including a knee strike to his leg and multiple blows to his back while being restrained.

The court also found that the loss of the final 14 minutes of the breath room recording constituted a breach of the accused's right to make full answer and defence due to unacceptable negligence in evidence preservation.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the appropriate remedy.