Peter John Craniotis

This decision addresses the timing and legality of police detention and breath sample demands in an impaired driving case involving Erin Wanner.

The court found that Ms. Wanner was not detained until the police demanded a breath sample using an approved screening device (ASD).

The Crown failed to prove that the screening demand was made immediately upon forming reasonable suspicion, resulting in breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Despite these breaches, the breath sample evidence was admitted under section 24(2) because excluding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Wanner was the driver who crashed into a light pole with three children as passengers and found her guilty.

The defendant, Joseph John Nazark, was charged with careless driving causing bodily harm or death under the Highway Traffic Act after colliding with a cyclist, Raymond Girard, during a left turn.

The defense argued the cyclist was improperly riding on the sidewalk and in the crosswalk, and that obstructions hindered visibility.

The prosecution contended the defendant failed to ensure a safe turn and that the cyclist had the right of way.

The court, applying the strict liability standard for careless driving, found that the defendant's driving fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, regardless of the cyclist's actions, as the defendant failed to see what ought to have been seen and adjust to changing circumstances.

Nazark was found guilty.

The offender, D.M., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the severe impact on the victim, the nature of the assault (multiple acts, physical violence, presence of another male, victim was 16), and the offender's lack of insight.

Mitigating factors included his youth (18 at the time of offence), lack of prior criminal record, good employment history, and family support.

The Crown sought 4 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence, but imposed a sentence below the typical range for forced penetration sexual assaults due to the offender's youth and first-offender status.

The defendant, Tomas Muliuolis, was charged with impaired operation of a vehicle by drug.

The court addressed Charter issues under sections 10(b) (right to counsel) and 8 (unreasonable search and seizure), and the substantive issue of impairment.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel due to the officer's failure to re-caution the accused upon new charges with changed jeopardy.

A breach of section 8 was also found because the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for the DRE demand, largely due to credibility issues with the officer's testimony and inconsistent notes.

Consequently, the DRE evaluation and urine analysis evidence were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without this evidence, the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The Crown sought a pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of uncharged discreditable conduct evidence against the accused, A.N., who is charged with second-degree murder.

The evidence included A.N. selling marihuana to J.W. (the co-accused who testified for the Crown) on the days leading up to the homicide, and A.N.'s alleged participation in an earlier knifepoint robbery with J.W. The court ruled that evidence of marihuana sales was admissible as part of the narrative to explain the relationship and J.W.'s possession of the knife.

However, the court found the evidence of the earlier knifepoint robbery inadmissible, concluding its probative value was outweighed by its significant moral and reasoning prejudice, as it was not essential to the narrative and, if anything, tended to support the defence's position regarding mens rea.

The offender, aged 28 at the time of the offences, engaged in a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old victim who was employed at the same movie theatre.

The relationship involved multiple incidents of oral sex and attempted vaginal penetration before the victim's 16th birthday.

After the victim ended the relationship in September 2017, the offender engaged in persistent unwanted contact through calls, messages, and different social media accounts despite police warnings.

The offender was convicted of Sexual Interference and Criminal Harassment.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 months imprisonment (10 months for Sexual Interference, 2 months consecutive for Criminal Harassment) followed by 3 years probation, with ancillary orders including a 10-year Section 161 order, DNA order, firearm prohibition, and Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance.

The accused, a 28-year-old man, was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and criminal harassment involving a 15-year-old girl.

The Crown alleged that sexual contact began before the victim's 16th birthday in September 2016 and continued thereafter.

The accused denied that sexual contact occurred before the victim turned 16.

The court found the victim's evidence credible and reliable, and rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent with common sense.

The court convicted the accused on all three counts, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual contact occurred before the victim's 16th birthday and that the accused engaged in persistent, obsessive, and controlling behaviour constituting criminal harassment.

An accused was charged with importing more than 2.5 kg of heroin into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the doctrine of willful blindness.

The accused testified that he had opened the suitcase out of curiosity and to reassure himself, but had not suspected it contained contraband.

The court found the accused's testimony credible and was not persuaded that he harbored suspicions of smuggling when he first opened the suitcase.

The court acquitted the accused.

The applicant, charged with importing heroin, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 28 months, which exceeded the presumptive ceiling.

The court analyzed periods of defence delay and discrete events, including a judge's medical issue, a witness's family tragedy, and defence counsel's appointment to the bench.

The court held that the defence bears the evidentiary burden for defence delay and that intervening discrete events do not reduce defence delay unless they tangibly impact the case.

After deducting defence delay and discrete events, the remaining delay was 12 months.

The court found this remaining delay was not unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery committed at a Toronto Dominion Bank in Oakville.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment followed by three years probation, while defence counsel sought 90 days intermittent imprisonment followed by two to three years probation.

The court imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation, finding this sentence necessary to denounce the offence and deter similar conduct while considering the accused's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.