Peter Scrutton

The defendants, Michael and Christian Theriault, were charged with aggravated assault and attempting to obstruct justice following an altercation with Dafonte Miller, which resulted in Miller losing an eye.

The court found that Miller and his friends were "car hopping" and were caught by the Theriaults.

While the initial interaction and struggle were complex, the court found that Michael Theriault committed an unlawful assault when he struck Miller with a metal pipe after Miller was in retreat and seeking help.

The court found Michael Theriault not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of the lesser included offense of assault.

Christian Theriault was found not guilty on both counts.

The charges of attempting to obstruct justice against both defendants were dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding intent and the context of their statements to police.

Following trial, the defendant was convicted of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of nine months, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with six months probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of three months to be served in the community, finding that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest and that a suspended sentence would be insufficient, while a conditional sentence was consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

A York Region paralegal regional prosecutor was charged with breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from her involvement in Provincial Offences Act prosecutions where she allegedly used her position to improperly influence outcomes.

The Crown relied on intercepted communications between the accused and a police officer showing discussions about favorable dispositions for individuals connected to the officer.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on both counts based on evidence relating to two specific events: the Carlton Wills matter and the Nicholas Guarino matter.

The judge found that the accused had breached her duty by giving preferential treatment based on personal relationships rather than proper prosecutorial discretion.

The accused was charged with breach of trust by a public officer and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

The accused applied to exclude her statement to police on the basis that her Charter rights were infringed.

The court found multiple breaches of section 10(b) rights (right to counsel) and section 8 rights (protection against unreasonable search and seizure).

The police failed to immediately inform the accused of her right to counsel, delayed providing access to counsel without reasonable justification, and obtained the accused's phone password before she had an opportunity to speak with counsel.

The court excluded the statement under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that all three Grant factors favored exclusion.

The accused, a York Region paralegal regional prosecutor, was charged with breach of trust by a public officer and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

She brought an application to stay the charges or exclude evidence, alleging violations of her Charter rights under sections 7, 8, and 11(d) based on the disclosure and use of a Substantive Event Summary containing intercepted communications.

The court found no violation of the accused's Charter rights and dismissed the application, finding that the police disclosure fell within statutory exemptions and was carried out reasonably.

A 23-year veteran Toronto Police sergeant was charged with two counts of sexual assault arising from incidents on September 24, 2015 and November 1, 2015.

The accused offered rides home to two young women leaving bars in the Entertainment District and allegedly touched them on their inner thighs without consent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming he offered the rides out of concern for the women's safety.

The trial judge found both complainants credible and rejected the accused's evidence, finding his explanations implausible and inconsistent with his actions.

The judge found the accused deliberately failed to follow police policies and procedures to conceal his conduct.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

Four accused were convicted of drug trafficking offences committed for the benefit of a criminal organization (the Five Point Generals), conspiracy to traffic controlled substances, and firearms offences following a three-month jury trial based largely on intercepted communications.

The appellants challenged their convictions on five grounds: jury selection procedures, cross-examination limitations of the Crown's expert witness, exclusion of defence expert evidence, admission of extrinsic misconduct evidence, and alleged imbalance in the jury charge.

They also appealed their sentences, primarily challenging the credit awarded for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and three of four sentence appeals, allowing only Shane Evans' sentence appeal based on inadequate credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for assault bodily harm.

The appeal grounds included misapprehension of evidence regarding the officer's actions and the complainant's resistance, erroneous application of case law on police use of force, and misapplication of the R. v. W.D. test.

The court reviewed the trial judge's findings, particularly in light of CCTV footage, and found no material misapprehension of evidence or errors in legal application.

The trial judge's verdict was deemed reasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.

The accused, Carleton Watson, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The trial involved conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused, with the complainant alleging sexual assault and the accused denying any sexual activity.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, noting inconsistencies and fabrications in the complainant's testimony regarding the accused's gun, visits to her new home, and presence at her workplace.

Despite concerns about the accused's criminal record for dishonesty and some aspects of his testimony, the court found that the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of dangerous driving causing death.

The respondent drove his vehicle onto a sidewalk, colliding with multiple objects and fatally striking a pedestrian.

The trial judge found the respondent had suffered a momentary lapse of attention and that the Crown failed to prove the requisite mens rea.

The sole ground of appeal concerned whether the respondent's status as a suspended G1 driver who violated the conditions of his licence by driving unaccompanied and during prohibited hours was relevant to establishing mens rea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the G1 licence restrictions were irrelevant to the modified objective test for dangerous driving unless they indicated an incapacity to appreciate or avoid the specific risk involved.

A senior police officer with the Halton Regional Police Service pleaded guilty to breach of trust under section 122 of the Criminal Code for stealing oxycodone pills from a police evidence locker between August 27, 2015 and April 30, 2016.

The officer had developed an addiction to prescription opioids following multiple knee surgeries and work-related injuries, compounded by untreated PTSD and workplace harassment.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, 240 hours of community service, and a victim fine surcharge, finding that exceptional circumstances—including the officer's addiction, mental health issues, early guilty plea, comprehensive rehabilitation efforts, and strong family and community support—justified a discharge despite the serious nature of the breach of trust offense.

Three appellants convicted of first and second degree murder appealed their convictions.

Two were convicted of first degree murder and one of second degree murder.

The appellants challenged the verdicts as inconsistent and unreasonable, and raised multiple grounds of appeal relating to the trial judge's jury charge, including issues regarding post-offence conduct instructions, circumstantial evidence instructions, and the treatment of various pieces of evidence.

The Crown cross-appealed on the acquittal of one appellant on first degree murder.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the verdicts neither inconsistent nor unreasonable, and that the trial judge committed no errors in her charge to the jury.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his sexual assault conviction, alleging two legal errors in the trial judge's credibility assessment: an improper leap from disbelief to fabrication regarding his dash camera practice, and impermissible propensity reasoning.

The court found no error in the first ground, affirming that rejecting an explanation as unbelievable is distinct from finding fabrication.

However, the court found the trial judge erred in engaging in propensity reasoning by mischaracterizing the "brazen act defence" as an assertion about the appellant's disposition for risky behavior.

Despite this error, the court concluded it did not significantly impact the overall credibility findings, which were amply supported by other evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender, an on-duty police officer, was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after colliding with another vehicle while responding to an emergency call at 178 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.

The defence sought an absolute discharge, arguing the officer's motive mitigated his moral culpability.

The court found that while a discharge was in the offender's best interests, it was contrary to the public interest due to the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

A conviction was registered, and the offender was sentenced to a $2,500 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition.

Postmedia Network Inc. applied to lift a sealing order on an Information to Obtain (ITO) related to a police investigation into Elizabeth Wettlaufer, who faced multiple murder and assault charges.

The Crown and counsel for the accused opposed the application.

The court applied the Dagenais-Mentuk test, finding that much of the redacted "Incriminating information" in the ITO posed a serious risk to the accused's fair trial rights, which could not be mitigated by alternative measures due to the national media attention and highly prejudicial nature of the information (e.g., confessions, DNA evidence).

While acknowledging the impact on freedom of the press, the court determined that the temporary sealing, with a further redacted version immediately accessible and a complete un-redacted version to be released after trial, balanced these rights.

The application to lift the sealing order was dismissed, but the existing order was varied to un-redact certain passages as detailed in Schedule A.

The appellant appealed convictions for touching a person under the age of 16 years for a sexual purpose and sexual assault.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on the credible evidence of two young complainants who testified about being touched inappropriately while sleeping in the appellant's trailer.

The appellant denied the allegations and argued the complainants' evidence contained discrepancies and inconsistencies suggesting collusion or fabrication.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, addressed the collusion arguments, and provided adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's denial in light of the complainants' credible testimony.

The accused, a police officer, was responding to an emergency call and drove his police cruiser at 178 km/h in a 50 km/h residential zone.

He collided with a civilian vehicle making a left turn, causing bodily harm to the civilian driver.

The court found that while the civilian driver failed to pull over, the accused's excessive speed in a residential area with multiple hazards was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable police officer in the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and uttering death threats against his former spouse.

At trial, the complainant denied sending a Facebook message that indicated the sexual activity was consensual, and the trial judge barred further cross-examination on the message.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence, including forensic analysis proving the complainant sent the message, which she subsequently admitted.

The Crown conceded the fresh evidence met the prerequisites for admissibility.

The Court of Appeal admitted the evidence, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, which was stayed at the joint request of counsel.

The appellant abandoned her conviction appeal and appealed her sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in fixing the amount of the fine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the fine amount was supported by expert evidence regarding the company's banking records and the appellant's own admission of theft.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a complainant in his home after they met at a bar and shared a taxi.

The complainant testified that she was pinned down and forcibly penetrated while repeatedly telling the accused to stop.

The accused testified that all sexual contact was consensual.

The trial judge found the accused's testimony to be deliberately misleading on material points regarding his interest in the complainant and the circumstances of leaving the bar.

However, the judge also found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant memory loss inconsistent with her alcohol consumption and numerous prior statements to others describing consensual sexual activity that turned rough.

The judge concluded that while the accused's guilt was possible or even probable, a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether the complainant withdrew consent, and therefore acquitted the accused.