Peter Ngan

The accused, Jing Wen Shi, was charged with failing to provide the necessities of life to her newborn baby, contrary to section 215(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, after giving birth alone at home.

The Crown alleged she knew of the pregnancy and purposely neglected the baby.

The defence argued she was unaware of the pregnancy until labour and was physically incapacitated by shock and blood loss.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding her prior knowledge of pregnancy and her physical capacity to act, concluding that her actions did not amount to a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent parent in the circumstances.

The accused was found not guilty.

The offender, a professional truck driver, pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing death after his tractor-trailer struck and killed a pedestrian on the highway.

Although not at fault for the collision, the offender failed to stop, continued his route, and later attempted to conceal his dashcam memory card from police.

The court weighed the offender's guilty plea, remorse, and pro-social background against the aggravating factors of his professional driver status and attempts to avoid detection.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months in custody, a $1,000 fine, and a 17-month driving prohibition.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of statements made by the defendant to police officers at the roadside and at the police station, as well as to address Charter violations and voluntariness concerns.

The defendant raised issues regarding violations of his section 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel), section 7 Charter rights (compelled self-incrimination), and language comprehension difficulties.

The trial judge found that the defendant's statements at the roadside were admissible only for establishing reasonable grounds for a breath demand, while statements at the police station were admissible as voluntary statements against interest.

The judge rejected the defendant's claims regarding language difficulties and found the defendant's testimony to be incredible.