Patrick A. Harris

The appellant appealed her summary conviction findings of guilt for assault and assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the trial judge's written reasons, delivered approximately 11 months after the guilty verdicts, should not be considered on appeal as they were divorced from the reasoning that led to the verdicts.

Applying the framework from R. v. Teskey, the appeal court found that the repeated promises of imminent delivery of reasons followed by repeated failures to deliver, the lack of any satisfactory explanation for the delays, the nature of the evidence requiring detailed credibility and factual analysis, and deficiencies in the written reasons themselves constituted cogent evidence rebutting the presumption of judicial integrity.

The Crown conceded that the brief oral reasons at verdict were insufficient for appellate review under R. v. Sheppard.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance while impaired by alcohol after police stopped his pickup truck, which was missing a wheel and driving on three, causing sparks and fire.

The accused admitted to consuming alcohol and driving but disputed that his ability to drive was impaired.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's judgment and ability to drive were impaired by alcohol, based on evidence of slurred speech, glossy eyes, odour of alcohol, unusual demeanor at the roadside, and the manner in which he was operating a severely damaged vehicle.

The accused was found guilty.

This is an appeal from a conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL.

The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal alleging breaches of Charter rights, including failures to provide adequate notice of the right to counsel, failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice, and failure to preserve evidence.

The trial judge found certain breaches but declined to exclude the breath sample evidence or stay proceedings.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were open to him and his legal analysis was sound.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Samarpreet Singh for committing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend under section 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved exposing himself to a victim in her home over a prolonged period while making inappropriate comments.

The Court rejected the defence's request for a conditional discharge, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the significant impact on the victim, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

A 90-day conditional sentence served under house arrest followed by 12 months probation was imposed, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order and no-contact conditions.

The Court also addressed the collateral immigration consequences, noting that inadmissibility to Canada would result from conviction but should not influence sentencing.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a directed verdict application in a case where the accused, Ryan Vernaza-Vinces, was charged with flight from a police officer contrary to section 320.17 of the Criminal Code.

The key legal issue was whether the Crown must prove that the police were operating a motor vehicle while pursuing the accused under the new section 320.17, which replaced the older section 249.1(1).

The court held that the current statutory language does not require proof that police were in a motor vehicle during pursuit, overruling obiter dicta from prior Superior Court decisions.

The decision clarifies the essential elements of the offence under the updated provision.

The appellants challenged the validity of their deceased father's 2021 will and an inter vivos property transfer, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondents.

The application judge dismissed their motion for directions, finding they failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold under Rule 75.06.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of the evidence regarding capacity or undue influence, nor in his treatment of the evidence or sufficiency of reasons for dismissing the challenge to the property transfer.

The Estate Trustee of Nazzareno Coccia's estate sought the court's advice and direction regarding the interpretation of the deceased's Ontario Will and its effect on a prior Italian Will, particularly concerning real property in Italy.

The court determined that the Ontario Will, containing a revocation clause, effectively revoked the Italian Will.

Furthermore, the court found that the Ontario Will created a partial intestacy regarding the Italian real property, as the term "money" in the will could not be broadly construed to include land.

Consequently, the Italian real property passed to the deceased's nieces (next of kin) under Italian intestate succession law, as directed by conflict of law principles (lex situs).

The defendant, S.C., was sentenced after being found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against his stepdaughter, M.C., who was 14-15 years old at the time.

The offences involved multiple incidents of sexual interference during driving lessons and a sexual assault in the family home.

The court applied the sentencing principles for child sexual offences, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives, as guided by R. v. Friesen.

Aggravating factors included the abuse of a position of trust, the prolonged nature of the abuse, and the significant emotional and psychological harm to the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of prior record, strong support network, and rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years less a day jail, followed by three years probation, a 10-year s. 161 order, a 20-year SOIRA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused, S.C., was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against his stepdaughter, M.C., aged 14-15.

The allegations involved "driving incidents" where M.C. sat on S.C.'s lap and he had erections, and a "basement incident" where he massaged her leg towards her pelvic bone.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both M.C. and S.C., finding S.C.'s testimony implausible and evasive.

M.C. was found to be a credible and reliable witness.

The court rejected S.C.'s denials and accepted M.C.'s evidence, concluding that the Crown had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

S.C. was found guilty of both sexual interference and sexual assault.

The defendant was charged with multiple Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following a minor collision, flight from the scene, and discovery of a firearm and illicit drugs.

Key issues included identity, the admissibility of cell phone data under section 8 of the Charter due to alleged police non-compliance with reporting requirements, and proof of drug quantity for trafficking charges.

The court found the defendant guilty of most charges, including possession of the firearm and drugs, but acquitted him of possession for the purpose of trafficking due to insufficient evidence on drug quantity.

The defendant, Tomas Muliuolis, was charged with impaired operation of a vehicle by drug.

The court addressed Charter issues under sections 10(b) (right to counsel) and 8 (unreasonable search and seizure), and the substantive issue of impairment.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel due to the officer's failure to re-caution the accused upon new charges with changed jeopardy.

A breach of section 8 was also found because the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for the DRE demand, largely due to credibility issues with the officer's testimony and inconsistent notes.

Consequently, the DRE evaluation and urine analysis evidence were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without this evidence, the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.