Peter David Rollings

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, and with having a blood alcohol concentration above zero while licensed as a novice driver contrary to section 44.1(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged the accused drove his vehicle into a tree while impaired by alcohol.

The defence argued the accused had not consumed alcohol prior to the accident but had consumed a large quantity of vodka immediately after the accident.

The court rejected the defence evidence as contrived and illogical, finding the accused's blood alcohol content at the time of driving was between 290-335 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The court convicted on the impaired driving charge and the Highway Traffic Act charge, staying the section 253(1)(a) charge.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(2) of the Criminal Code following a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Oxford Street and Veterans Memorial Parkway in London, Ontario.

The Crown alleged the accused was racing another vehicle at speeds exceeding 150 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre per hour zone, resulting in a collision with an innocent third party.

The accused claimed she was fleeing an aggressive pursuer.

The court found the accused was operating the trailing vehicle in a race, rejected her evidence as tailored and illogical, and convicted her based on the credible testimony of three independent witnesses who consistently described dangerous high-speed driving.

The accused was sentenced on two charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine and one charge of fraud.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record spanning 26 years and had participated in the London Drug Treatment Court, where he made significant progress before relapsing and committing the offences while on bail.

The court imposed a sentence of 4 years in federal penitentiary on the drug trafficking charges and 2 months consecutive on the fraud charge, with credit for pre-trial custody and bail conditions.

The court emphasized the serious harm caused by crystal methamphetamine and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused brought a pretrial motion seeking permission to pose a race‑based challenge for cause question to prospective jurors using a multiple‑choice format designed to detect conscious and unconscious racial bias.

The Crown did not oppose a race‑based challenge for cause but objected to the proposed form of questioning.

The court reviewed jurisprudence including the Parks question and later cases considering expanded questioning formats.

The judge concluded that while a race‑based challenge for cause was appropriate, there was no evidentiary basis to depart from the established Parks formulation in favour of a multiple‑choice question.

The court held that the standard Parks question, modified to refer to judging the evidence “fairly,” adequately addressed concerns about potential juror bias without unnecessarily complicating the jury selection process.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, uttering threats, and assault.

He argued that as a front-seat passenger he did not operate the vehicle and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence affecting credibility findings.

The court held that the trial judge made no reversible error in assessing credibility and was entitled to accept the taxi driver’s evidence that the appellant grabbed and turned the steering wheel, causing the vehicle to veer into oncoming traffic.

The court found the conduct analogous to circumstances where a passenger assumes control of a vehicle and thereby operates it.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, although the sentence appeal was allowed on joint submission to vary probation to reflect community service already completed.

Media organizations sought certiorari to quash a provincial court judge’s order imposing a partial publication ban and denying access to a video exhibit tendered during a guilty plea for obstruction of justice arising from a detention-centre death.

The applicants argued that the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction and that the order failed the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The Superior Court held that the judge presiding over the guilty plea had jurisdiction to consider and grant a publication ban related to the proceeding before him.

The court found that the partial ban appropriately balanced open court principles with the fair trial rights of co‑accused facing related charges.

The court concluded that the order was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the proper administration of justice and that no error of law appeared on the face of the record.

The accused was charged with obstructing justice and several firearms offences after removing a shell casing from the scene of a shooting and storing an AK-47 rifle and prohibited magazine in his bedroom.

The police conducted a warrantless entry into his home under exigent circumstances to preserve evidence, during which they found the rifle.

A subsequent warranted search located the magazine.

The court found the accused guilty of obstructing justice.

On a Charter application, the court ruled the warrantless entry was lawful but the seizure of the rifle violated s. 8 as it was not in plain view.

However, the rifle was admitted under s. 24(2).

The search warrant was upheld as valid.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, with two counts conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court considered an application for a publication ban following the guilty plea of David Cake to obstructing justice.

The applicant Anthony George, charged separately in connection with the same incident, sought a complete publication ban to protect his right to a fair trial.

The Crown supported a limited ban, while media intervenors opposed any restrictions.

The court granted a partial, temporary publication ban, permitting publication of certain facts regarding Cake's plea and conduct while restricting publication of evidence concerning the cause of death and any references to George or co-accused Mielke.

The court considered the Dagenais test, the importance of open court principles, and systemic discrimination affecting aboriginal accused persons.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and two counts of simple possession under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offences arose from a violent incident at a bar in downtown London where the accused, intoxicated and under the influence of cocaine, struck an innocent bystander causing serious facial injuries, and subsequently struck another man who died from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court imposed a global sentence of 60 months (5 years) in the penitentiary, balancing the serious nature of the offences and their devastating impact on victims and the community against the accused's remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and rehabilitation potential.

During a criminal trial the accused brought a Charter application alleging that police violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms through an unreasonable search of his apartment executed pursuant to a telewarrant.

The accused argued that the information to obtain the warrant relied improperly on a confidential informant and that the search of a safe within the residence required separate judicial authorization.

The court held that the information to obtain the telewarrant contained sufficient grounds, supported by independent police investigation and corroborating information from a building superintendent.

The court further held that a safe located during execution of a valid search warrant could be searched without obtaining a second warrant.

The application to exclude the firearm under s. 24(2) was dismissed and the evidence was ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle and care and control with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused and his partner were found sleeping in a parked minivan in an underground parking garage.

The Crown alleged the accused had consumed alcohol and had care and control of the vehicle.

The defence argued the accused had no intention to drive and had taken steps to avoid driving.

The court found that while the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had care and control of the motor vehicle.

Both counts were dismissed.

The accused applied to re-elect his mode of trial from the Ontario Court of Justice to the Superior Court composed of a judge and jury.

The accused was charged with serious criminal offences including sexual assault, sexual interference, child pornography, and drug-related offences against his granddaughter.

The court granted the application, finding that the failure to file proper documentation under the Criminal Code was fatal to the original election.

The court also ordered that the complainant testify via closed-circuit television at the preliminary inquiry.