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 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.