Paul Francis Attia

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg/100 mL following a traffic stop for speeding and erratic driving.

The trial judge found that police breached the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel by failing to provide meaningful access to legal advice in Portuguese, despite knowing the accused had limited English proficiency and had specifically requested a Portuguese-speaking lawyer.

The breath test evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) as a remedy for this serious breach.

However, the trial judge found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on the totality of the driving evidence, resulting in a conviction on the impaired operation charge and dismissal of the Over 80 charge.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

The sole issue at trial was whether the breath testing was conducted "as soon as is practicable" after the demand was made, as required by s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was stopped at 1:51 a.m., failed a roadside screening demand at 1:54 a.m., and provided the first breath sample at 3:08 a.m., approximately 72 minutes after the demand.

The court found that the police acted reasonably throughout the process and that the breath tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances.

The defendant was convicted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL following a traffic stop.

The defence sought to exclude breath test results pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter based on alleged breaches of the right to counsel.

The court found that the accused's s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached because the officer failed to ensure the accused, who had limited English proficiency, understood his rights and failed to facilitate contact with counsel despite the accused providing a lawyer's name.

The court excluded the breath test evidence as a remedy for the Charter breach.

Additionally, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired based on the evidence presented.

The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation.

The assault occurred at a men's shelter where the defendant, aged 25, delivered 11 forceful punches to the head of a 54-year-old victim, followed by a kick to the prone victim's body.

The victim sustained multiple fractures to the nasal bones, sinus walls, and ribs, along with ongoing psychological trauma.

The defendant had a significant criminal history including three prior assault-with-weapon convictions and an extensive psychiatric history involving substance abuse, homelessness, and prior hospitalization.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment with enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 10 months to be served, followed by three years' probation with strict conditions.

The accused was convicted after trial of two counts of sexual assault arising from incidents involving non-consensual touching of a cognitively delayed adult woman during a social gathering.

The court considered aggravating factors including the complainant’s vulnerability, the offender’s prior sexual assault conviction, and intoxication at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included the relatively low level of physical intrusion, partial acceptance of responsibility, mental health issues, and a low to moderate assessed risk of reoffending if sober.

Applying the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence under the Criminal Code, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation and several ancillary orders.

The sentence also included treatment conditions, a firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and registration under the national sex offender registry.

Following conviction on multiple firearm offences, the Crown applied for revocation of the accused's bail pending sentencing.

The court granted the application, ordering detention until sentencing.

The accused was convicted of six offences including possession of a loaded restricted handgun contrary to section 95 of the Criminal Code (mandatory minimum three years imprisonment), transportation of a firearm in a careless manner, and possession of a firearm while subject to a weapons prohibition.

The court found that the tertiary and secondary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code justified the exceptional order to revoke bail post-conviction.

The Crown applied on a voir dire for a ruling that inculpatory statements made by the accused to two corporate investigators and a police officer were voluntary and admissible at trial for theft over $5,000.

The accused argued the statements were induced by promises that police would not be called if she confessed and that an oppressive atmosphere existed during questioning at her employer’s office.

The court applied the common law confessions rule and assessed whether threats, promises, inducements, oppression, lack of operating mind, or police trickery undermined voluntariness.

Rejecting the accused’s testimony as not credible, the court found no evidence of threats, inducements, or oppressive conditions.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements to both the employer representatives and the police officer were voluntary and admissible.