P. Connolly

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 and Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act after being stopped for speeding at 157 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The officer detected signs of impairment and administered a roadside screening device test, which registered a fail.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples at the police detachment.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the roadside screening device result on the basis that the device's calibration status was uncertain, and argued that the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found that the officer had an objectively reasonable basis for believing the device was in proper working order based on the recent accuracy check and the device's operational indicators, and that the breath tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against a distant relative with whom he had a close relationship.

The victim was 21 years old at the time of the assault, and the accused was 27, married with an infant child.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction with a maximum sentence of 18 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 11 months in custody, plus one month consecutive from a suspended conditional sentence for a prior computer fraud offense, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including counselling, no contact with the victim, participation in a sexual offender relapse prevention program, DNA sampling, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that the accused forced sexual intercourse on the complainant against her will.

The accused admitted to sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable due to material inconsistencies and self-serving assertions.

The court found that the complainant did not consent and was unambiguous in her resistance.

The court also rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding the accused was at least reckless in responding to the complainant's clear objections.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

Four young persons pleaded guilty to assault offences stemming from a brutal, unprovoked attack on two victims at a sweet sixteen party on July 29, 2012.

Z.N. wielded a machete and inflicted the most serious injuries, including a deep gash to one victim's neck exposing the spine.

The other three young persons participated in the assault through punching, kicking, and one carried a knife.

The court imposed custodial sentences with probation, with Z.N. receiving the longest sentence due to his role as the primary assailant.

The court applied Youth Criminal Justice Act principles, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration while considering each young person's individual circumstances and degree of culpability.

The defendants were jointly charged with multiple counts of possession of credit card forgery devices, possession of credit cards obtained by crime, fraudulent possession of credit card data, and failure to comply with recognizance.

The defendants challenged the validity of a search warrant executed on their parents' home, alleging a breach of Charter section 8 rights.

The court found that the Information to Obtain, based on a confidential informant's tip and corroborated by police investigation, provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the issuance of the warrant.

The application to exclude evidence under section 24(2) was dismissed.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Blow Over 80 after being found in the driver's seat of his vehicle in a ditch with the engine running.

The Crown alleged the accused had more than the legal limit of alcohol in his blood system.

The defence challenged the arrest on Charter grounds, argued the vehicle was immovable and therefore the accused could not have care or control, and contended the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable.

The trial judge found reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest existed, the presumption of care or control was not rebutted, but the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable due to an unexplained 31-minute gap between the first and second tests.

The Blow Over 80 charge was dismissed due to the loss of the statutory presumption.

The Operation Impaired charge was also dismissed despite moderate indicia of impairment, as the Crown did not seek a conviction on this charge.