Onelia Maria Elias Domingos Delgado

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, and obstructing justice, in addition to two other fail to comply counts to which he pleaded guilty.

The central issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant inconsistencies, delayed disclosure linked to civil proceedings, an uncooperative demeanor regarding photographic evidence, and the implausible calm demeanor of the children immediately after the alleged assault.

Discrepancies between the complainant's account and the neighbour's testimony and audio recording further contributed to the court's doubt.

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle while impaired by drug following a RIDE spot check on May 11, 2014.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The court found that the accused displayed multiple indicia of impairment including poor balance, dilated pupils, slurred speech, confusion, unusual behavior, delayed responses, and signs of drowsiness.

Toxicological analysis revealed the presence of lorazepam and THC-COOH (the inactive metabolite of marijuana) in the accused's urine.

The accused admitted to smoking marijuana on the day of arrest and the day before.

A Drug Recognition Evaluation officer opined that the accused's ability to drive was impaired.

The court rejected the defence arguments that the Crown must prove a specific quantity of drugs in the accused's system at the time of driving, that tiredness must be negated as a cause of impairment, and that overwhelming signs of impairment are required.

The court found that the totality of the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by drug consumption.

The accused, D.K., was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, C.V., alleged D.K. sexually assaulted her after a dorm party, while D.K. claimed consensual participation.

The court heard conflicting testimonies from both parties.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court found D.K.'s evidence plausible and identified inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding her memory of subsequent interactions and the circumstances of clothing removal.

Ultimately, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to D.K.'s guilt and dismissed the charge.

The accused was convicted after trial of two counts of assault, one count of intimidation, and two counts of sexual assault.

The offences arose from a course of conduct spanning several months involving the complainant, a fellow college student.

The accused coerced the complainant into sex work to repay a purported debt from a failed drug transaction, used physical violence and threats to maintain control, and committed sexual assaults within their intimate relationship.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months imprisonment plus an $2,000 fine, followed by 18 months probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while considering the offender's youth and potential for rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and drive over 80 milligrams.

The Crown alleged the accused was observed driving erratically in the early morning hours near a bar in Toronto's Entertainment District, exhibiting signs of impairment including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and poor coordination.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples showing 133 mgs per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused testified he had consumed only 3-4 shots of vodka and attributed his appearance and behavior to fatigue and nervousness rather than alcohol impairment.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand, the Intoxilyzer was functioning properly, and the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

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

The central issue was whether the accused's Charter rights under section 10(b) were violated when police failed to wait a reasonable amount of time for the accused's chosen counsel to call back before directing the accused to speak with duty counsel and subsequently requiring a breath sample.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) and, applying the section 24(2) analysis, excluded the breathalyser results.

The defendant was charged with four offences arising from incidents in Toronto's entertainment district on July 10-11, 2010: uttering threats to damage police vehicles, uttering threats to cause serious bodily harm to a senior police officer, assaulting a police officer with intent to resist arrest, and causing a disturbance in a public place.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of two senior police officers regarding statements allegedly made by the defendant.

The defendant denied making threatening statements and claimed he was unlawfully arrested and physically assaulted by police.

The trial judge found the defendant not guilty on all counts, determining that the Crown failed to establish the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.