G. Paul Renwick

The defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle arising from an incident on January 12, 2016, and possession of cannabis.

The Crown called evidence from two police officers who observed the defendant's driving.

The defendant testified in his own defence.

The Crown conceded lack of continuity regarding the cannabis evidence and invited acquittal on that count.

The central issue was whether the defendant operated his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public.

The court found the police officers' evidence credible and rejected the defendant's testimony, finding the defendant guilty of dangerous driving and not guilty of possession of cannabis.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 14 kilograms of hashish, a Schedule II substance, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

At sentencing, the defendant sought a judicial exception from the operation of section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA and section 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which precluded him from receiving a conditional sentence.

The defendant challenged these provisions as arbitrary, overbroad, and contrary to sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA is overbroad contrary to section 7 of the Charter and cannot be saved by section 1.

The court also found that the combined operation of section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA and section 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code infringes section 7 of the Charter in an overbroad manner and is not saved by section 1.

The defendant was granted a judicial exception permitting him to seek a conditional sentence.

The defendant was charged with nine counts of fraud-related offences arising from personation to apply for and obtain credit cards that were allegedly used to defraud three financial institutions.

The defendant was also charged with two breaches of a recognizance of bail.

The central issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who committed the offences.

The court examined identification evidence, including bank surveillance videos, financial transaction records, and officer recognition evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty on four counts (counts 1, 2, 4, and 5) and not guilty on five counts (counts 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9), primarily due to insufficient evidence linking the defendant to certain transactions and breaches.

The Crown sought to introduce viva voce evidence from a police officer to identify an individual in a bank surveillance video as part of a fraud prosecution.

The defendant opposed the evidence, arguing it did not meet the test established in R. v. Leaney and that the officer's evidence was tainted by prior dealings with the defendant.

The court conducted an admissibility ruling on a voir dire, examining whether the officer had sufficient acquaintance with the defendant and whether the officer was in a better position than the court to identify the person in the video.

The court found the Leaney test was satisfied and admitted the evidence.

At a preliminary hearing, the Crown sought committal of the defendant on four Criminal Code offences relating to possession of a non-restricted firearm (Remington 870 Magnum shotgun) and two breaches of judicial interim release.

The firearm was discovered during a search warrant execution at a townhouse residence.

The defendant was observed entering and leaving the residence multiple times over two consecutive days prior to the search.

The Crown argued the defendant exercised control over the residence and could reasonably be inferred to have knowledge of and control over the firearm found hidden under a bed in another occupant's bedroom.

The preliminary hearing justice found insufficient evidence to establish the defendant's possession of the firearm and discharged the defendant on all counts, finding too many evidentiary gaps to reasonably infer knowledge of and control over the concealed weapon.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant was charged with eight Criminal Code offences and four Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences arising from the execution of two search warrants at different apartments on June 15-16, 2016.

The defendant conceded committal on two counts but resisted committal on charges related to possession of heroin and a firearm found at a second apartment.

The Crown sought to establish constructive and joint possession based on the defendant's possession of keys and a fob to the apartment, his association with a co-defendant, and a fingerprint found on ammunition.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit the defendant to trial on all remaining counts, including the additional count of possession of a firearm with readily accessible ammunition.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings for an alleged violation of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets presumptive ceilings of 18 months for provincial court trials.

After deducting five months of defence delay attributable to the accused's failure to diligently pursue disclosure and meet with Crown counsel, the net delay was 14.3 months, well below the ceiling.

The court found the accused had not demonstrated meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and dismissed the application.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol concentration (over 80).

The defendant brought a Charter application to exclude breath readings based on alleged violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a blended voir dire.

The defendant also argued that the evidence of impairment was insufficient.

The court found no Charter violations, admitted the breath sample evidence, and found the defendant guilty of both offences based on the officer's observations of poor driving, physical indicators of impairment, and the breath test results showing blood alcohol concentration more than twice the legal limit.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a witness residing in Saanich, British Columbia to testify via video link pursuant to section 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence regarding the witness's personal circumstances, the costs of attendance, the technology to be used, and practical logistics such as document presentation and examination site integrity.

The court held that while section 714.1 provides a valuable mechanism to reduce witness attendance costs, it requires a proper evidentiary foundation and balancing of statutory and common law factors.

The defendant was charged with assault and threatening to cause bodily harm to his former intimate partner.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction and sought to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct involving similar incidents.

The court found the prior conduct evidence admissible to provide narrative context and demonstrate the nature of the relationship, though limited weight was given to it.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, and determined that the defendant committed an unlawful assault by forcefully grabbing and restraining the complainant against her will, and that he threatened to cause her bodily harm through statements made immediately following the assault.

The defendant was found guilty on counts 2 and 3.

The Crown applied to adduce evidence of prior incidents of violence between the complainant and defendant in an intimate partner violence prosecution.

The defendant initially challenged whether the parties had been in an intimate relationship sufficient to invoke the principles from R. v. D.S.F. The court found that the parties shared a child and the nature of the allegations established an intimate partner relationship.

The Crown met its burden of establishing that the probative value of the prior incidents outweighed their prejudicial effect under the four-part test from R. v. B.(L.).

The evidence was admissible to establish narrative context, demonstrate ongoing animus, explain reporting delays, and assist in credibility assessment, subject to the Crown presenting it without disproportionate emphasis.

The Crown sought to introduce an affidavit from a Program Support Officer of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada as evidence in a trial for an alleged violation of section 52(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The defendant objected to the admissibility of the affidavit on hearsay grounds and for lack of proper notice under section 28 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court found that while the affidavit itself was admissible under section 26(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, certain portions containing copies of government records (exhibits A through D) were inadmissible due to failure to comply with section 28 notice requirements.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The Crown called two police witnesses: the arresting officer and a qualified technician who conducted breath analysis.

The defendant testified and introduced photographic evidence regarding her vehicle's colour.

The defendant conceded the excess blood alcohol concentration charge but contested the impaired operation charge.

The court found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol concentration but acquitted her of the impaired operation charge, finding insufficient evidence that her ability to operate the vehicle was impaired despite her elevated blood alcohol level.

The defendant was charged with one count of assault against his sister.

The Crown alleged the defendant struck the complainant in the face, causing a tooth to puncture her lip and fillings to be knocked loose.

The defendant claimed the complainant attacked him and he merely raised his arm defensively, causing incidental contact.

The court found the defendant's evidence implausible and inconsistent with the severity of the injury.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding no reasonable belief of attack and no reasonable response.

The defendant was convicted of assault.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The trial was brief, with the Crown calling one police officer who testified that he found a small bag containing cocaine in the defendant's front pants pocket during a search at a GO Train station.

The defendant, self-represented, did not testify, cross-examine the officer, or present evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty, rejecting his unsworn statement that he was unaware of the cocaine in his pocket, finding the inference of knowledge irresistible based on common sense and the circumstances.

The defendant was charged with possession of opium and methamphetamine, both Schedule I substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police stopped the defendant's vehicle for a sobriety check and discovered a brown tar-like substance in the centre console cup-holder, which they believed to be opium.

The defendant was arrested, and a subsequent search of the vehicle revealed additional drug paraphernalia and a white powdery substance hidden in the light above the driver's side sun visor.

Health Canada testing confirmed the brown substance was opium and the white substance was methamphetamine.

The defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the items and suggested an employee may have left them in his vehicle.

The court found the defendant not guilty due to reasonable doubt regarding possession and knowledge.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault committed against a sleeping complainant.

The assault involved partial vaginal penetration while the complainant was asleep and unable to consent.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment followed by two years of probation with conditions including no contact with the complainant, residence restrictions, and weapons prohibition.

Ancillary orders included a weapons prohibition order, DNA sampling, and Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance for 10 years.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite the defendant's good employment history and family support, finding that denunciation and deterrence required actual imprisonment.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration (over 80 mgs per 100 mls of blood).

The Crown relied on civilian witness testimony, police evidence, and an agreed statement of fact.

The court acquitted the accused of dangerous operation due to reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the driver observed by the civilian witness, as the passenger's evidence contradicted the Crown's theory of the route taken.

The court convicted the accused of the over 80 charge, finding that the police complied with the statutory requirement that breath sample testing be carried out "as soon as practicable," despite language barriers requiring interpretation assistance.

A voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of statements made by the defendant to a police officer during breath testing procedures.

The Crown sought to introduce utterances made by the defendant during the breath room interaction.

The court found that statements made before the first breath sample were voluntary, as the defendant was properly cautioned regarding his right to remain silent and appeared to have freely chosen to speak with the officer.

However, the court found that statements made between the two breath samples were not established to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, as the defendant may have believed the questions related to the Alcohol Influence Report were part of the compulsory breath testing process and no caution was provided before those questions.

At a preliminary hearing, the Crown sought committal on second degree murder charges following the death of a victim from injuries sustained in a physical altercation.

The defendant conceded that he was involved in a consensual fight with the deceased and that he unlawfully caused the injuries leading to death, but argued there was insufficient evidence of the specific intent required for second degree murder.

The Crown argued that circumstantial evidence supported an inference that the defendant intended to cause bodily harm he knew was likely to cause death and proceeded recklessly.

The court examined the evidence regarding the nature and severity of the assault, the relative physical condition of the parties, and the defendant's post-incident statements and conduct.