Patrice F. Band

The accused was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats against his former girlfriend.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's testimony, while the accused denied the allegations and testified that the relationship ended due to the complainant's jealousy.

Applying the W.D. framework for credibility assessments, the court found both the complainant and the accused to be believable witnesses.

However, the evidence of the accused and his brother left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol in his blood (Over 80) following a traffic stop in the early morning hours.

The Crown's case rested on an approved screening device (ASD) test that registered a "fail." The defence raised a Charter challenge arguing that residual mouth alcohol could have affected the reliability of the ASD result, claiming the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

The court found that the officer reasonably relied on the ASD result and that the accused's statement regarding the timing of his last drink (two hours prior) did not constitute credible evidence of recent alcohol consumption that would have required the officer to delay the test.

The conviction was entered.

The accused was charged with "Over 80" (driving with a blood alcohol concentration between 80 and 100 mg%) on November 28, 2012.

He brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The case had been set for trial twice and adjourned on both occasions without prior notice.

The court found that the accused had suffered actual prejudice in the form of increased legal fees and mounting stress and anxiety due to the adjournments.

The court determined that the total actionable delay was 10.5 months, which exceeded both the Morin guidelines and local guidelines for Brampton.

The court granted the stay of proceedings, finding that the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated and that society's interest in treating the accused fairly outweighed its interest in having the matter decided on the merits.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving following an incident in which he drove away from police officers who had approached his parked vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused drove in a manner dangerous to the public by accelerating aggressively and nearly striking one of the officers.

The accused testified he drove slowly and deliberately to avoid the officers, stopping at a red light before turning.

The trial judge found material inconsistencies in the police evidence and determined that the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove the actus reus of dangerous driving beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and "over 80" causing bodily harm following a serious motor vehicle accident.

Police obtained a search warrant to seize the accused's blood sample and medical records from the hospital.

However, police failed to report to a Justice of the Peace as required by the Criminal Code, instead waiting nearly four months before filing a report.

The court found that this failure constituted an unlawful detention of the seized items in breach of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework for section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the blood sample and medical records as evidence, finding that the seriousness of the Charter breach and the need to maintain judicial supervision of investigative steps outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with assaulting and uttering a threat to cause death to his wife during a dispute over a cellular phone.

The case turned entirely on credibility, as the accused testified and denied the allegations, claiming he was the victim.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as evasive and implausible, and accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The accused was charged with assault and uttering a threat to cause death against his wife following an incident on March 23, 2013.

The case turned entirely on credibility, with the complainant and accused providing diametrically opposed accounts of the altercation.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and evasive.

The court convicted the accused on both counts after finding that the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.