Peter T. Bishop

The accused was charged with impaired driving, failure to provide a breath sample, criminal harassment, breach of undertaking, and assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to failure to provide a breath sample and breach of undertaking.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge.

At trial, the court found the accused guilty of assault but acquitted on the criminal harassment charge.

The court found that while the accused threw a water bottle at the complainant during a custody dispute, the subsequent confrontation at a hotel parking lot did not constitute criminal harassment directed at the complainant, as the actions were directed at third parties and the complainant had no direct knowledge of the confrontation.

The City of Kenora appealed a conviction for speeding entered by a Justice of the Peace.

The respondent was charged with speeding 105 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, but the Crown sought to amend the certificate to reflect evidence of 130 km/h.

The Justice of the Peace declined to amend the certificate upwards and imposed a fine consistent with the original offence notice.

The appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that the Justice of the Peace properly exercised discretion under Section 34.1(4) of the Provincial Offences Act by considering the circumstances, including the dynamics of the situation (passing zone on a hill) and the respondent's lack of prejudice.

The accused was charged with flight from police and dangerous driving following an incident on April 19-20, 2015, near Ignace, Ontario.

A police officer activated emergency lights to stop the accused's vehicle for speeding in poor weather conditions.

The accused's vehicle pulled over briefly, then accelerated rapidly and fled at excessive speed through a built-up commercial area.

The vehicle subsequently crashed in a ditch.

The court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the accused's testimony as unbelievable and accepting the police officers' evidence regarding the accused's excessive speed and dangerous manner of driving in adverse conditions.

A thirteen-year-old accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code against a twelve-year-old complainant, his cousin.

The Crown alleged the accused forcibly engaged in oral sex and sexual intercourse with the complainant without consent.

The accused claimed the sexual activity was consensual, relying on a purported Facebook message from the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the accused's account, finding the sexual activity was performed under duress and without consent.

The judge convicted the accused, noting the accused's consumption of marijuana, evasiveness regarding timing, and inability to explain details of the incident.

The judge also considered Gladue factors affecting the complainant's credibility and circumstances.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that she did not consent to sexual intercourse with the accused, who was her former partner.

The accused claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence that she did not consent, finding that she repeatedly expressed her unwillingness, remained silent and passive throughout the encounter, and immediately reported the incident to her family and police.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and inconsistent, noting his admission of making false statements to police and his evasive responses during cross-examination.

DNA evidence confirmed the accused's presence.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of Frank Lawson (aka Kwandibens) after initially being charged with second-degree murder.

The incident occurred during a drinking party in a remote First Nations community when the accused, carrying a paring knife for cutting moose meat, stabbed the deceased once in the chest after being pushed to the ground.

The accused immediately expressed remorse, called emergency services, and confessed to police.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment less time served (approximately twelve months on an enhanced basis), resulting in a net sentence of five years, applying Gladue considerations regarding the accused's history of abuse, substance abuse issues, and the systemic factors affecting Aboriginal offenders in remote communities.

A custody and access dispute between the mother and father of a child born in 2006.

The father sought custody with supervised access to the mother; the mother sought sole custody and spousal support on a time-limited basis.

The court found extensive evidence of emotional and verbal abuse by the father toward the mother, the child in question, and the mother's other children from previous relationships.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, restricted the father's access to every second weekend and every second Wednesday, and ordered child support and time-limited spousal support.

The court found the father's disciplinary methods, including attempting to "break the child's spirit" to be inappropriate and harmful.

A costs decision following a family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant was substantially successful on most issues, winning on seven key matters including shared parenting transition day, texting provisions, travel notice requirements, child support calculation methodology, and dance cost contributions.

The respondent succeeded only on the child support arrears quantum issue.

The court found the matter should have been resolved by motion rather than full trial, as all issues had been resolved until the respondent's counsel took control in fall 2014.

The applicant made a reasonable settlement offer that the respondent rejected on a vindictive basis.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a party-to-party basis pre-trial and on a full recovery basis for trial costs.

The defendant was charged with assault against a domestic partner and assault against a police officer.

The Crown alleged that on October 16, 2013, the defendant assaulted the victim in a convenience store and subsequently assaulted a constable during arrest.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding the first assault charge due to insufficient evidence of the nature and seriousness of the altercation, and acquitted on both counts.

The court found that the defendant's injuries were caused by the police during arrest, not by any assault on the officer, and that the defendant's resistance during arrest did not constitute intentional application of force.

Application for custody, access, and child support involving parents of a child born in 2006 who separated in 2010.

The mother sought custody and proper child support calculations after the father failed to pay adequate support and retained the child during a scheduled access visit in July 2014.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, established a regular access schedule for the father, calculated child support arrears of $8,631.00, and ordered ongoing monthly child support of $469.00 with a support deduction order.

A motion to change a final family order from April 22, 2010 concerning joint custody, access, and child support for two children.

The applicant sought to maintain a Monday-to-Monday custody exchange schedule agreed upon in September 2014, reduce child support based on a material change in income due to job changes and physical disability, and adjust extraordinary expenses.

The respondent sought to revert to a Wednesday-to-Wednesday exchange and average the applicant's income over three years including an inheritance.

The court found a material change in circumstances, maintained the Monday-to-Monday exchange, reduced ongoing child support to reflect the applicant's lower current income, calculated arrears including the inheritance for 2013 only, and adjusted extraordinary expenses to be proportional to each party's income.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit and impaired driving contrary to sections 253(a) and 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved the actus reus of the offence through evidence of the accused's erratic driving, a roadside stop, and breathalyzer readings of 147 and 133 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

However, the defence raised evidence of dissociative fugue and dissociative amnesia, supported by expert psychiatric testimony.

The court found that while the accused committed the physical act of driving, a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether the accused possessed the mens rea required for conviction, as the evidence suggested the accused may have been in a dissociative fugue state during the incident and was unaware of his actions.

A motion to vary a joint custody order and an accompanying contempt motion regarding denial of access to a child.

The father sought sole custody of the child and found the mother in contempt of a prior custody order.

The court found material change in circumstances based on the mother's deliberate denial of access, defiant courtroom conduct, and her own statement that she no longer wanted custody.

The father was granted sole custody with the mother receiving specified access.

The mother was found in contempt on three occasions and ordered to pay fines totaling $1,500.00.

Child support obligations were recalculated with the father owing arrears and the mother ordered to pay support to the father going forward.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and failure to comply with an undertaking.

The Crown alleged that the accused punched the complainant in the face, causing serious injuries including a transected pancreas, splenectomy, and complex facial fractures requiring surgical intervention.

The accused made admissions via Facebook to the complainant's mother that he was responsible for the assault.

The defence argued that the extensive injuries could not have resulted from a single punch and that the Crown failed to establish causation.

The court found the Crown had not proven causation for the aggravated assault charge but convicted the accused of simple assault based on the admitted punch to the face.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit and impaired driving contrary to sections 253(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused was found in a vehicle stuck in snow in a private driveway with signs of impairment.

The defence conceded that all technical requirements of both charges were met and raised the defence of necessity, arguing the accused drove while impaired to locate and assist an intoxicated co-worker who had left the cabin in cold weather.

The court found no air of reality to the necessity defence, as there was no imminent peril, reasonable alternatives existed (such as walking), and the harm of impaired driving outweighed any speculative harm to the co-worker.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the complainant in the abdomen on October 22, 2012.

The Crown alleged the accused stabbed the complainant with a kitchen knife, causing serious injury including puncture of the gall bladder.

The accused claimed self-defence, asserting he was attacked by multiple individuals and stabbed in fear for his safety.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's version inconsistent with medical evidence, witness testimony, and physical evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault, noting he had the opportunity to flee before confrontation but chose to turn around and confront the complainants.

Motion to change a custody order dated September 28, 2007.

The father sought joint custody with primary care to himself; the mother sought sole custody with father having reasonable access.

The court granted joint custody with primary residence to the mother, finding that the father's engagement in criminal activity (marijuana use) in the presence of the children and his false statement to the mother regarding a child's health emergency were significant concerns affecting his suitability as primary caregiver.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $695.00 per month for two children based on an income of $46,000.00.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final custody order from October 29, 2012, seeking equal shared custody (week on/week off arrangement) of two children.

The respondent mother opposed the change and sought increased child support based on the father's reported 2013 income.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change in custody.

The father's aggressive and confrontational conduct, including inappropriate emails and text messages to the mother, combined with his partner's interference at the children's school and the issuance of trespass notices, militated against granting equal parenting.

The court maintained the existing joint custody arrangement with primary care remaining with the mother and kept child support at $400 per month.

Application by the mother for custody and support of the child Ryker Christian Howard, born December 4, 2012.

The father sought custody/access and quantification of child support.

The parties resolved custody and access issues on May 28, 2014, with the mother having primary care and the father having specified access.

The court determined child support based on imputed income of $23,000 per annum for the father, ordered monthly payments of $195.00 plus arrears payments and extraordinary expense contributions, and issued a support deduction order.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.

He possessed 535 images and 31 pornographic digital movies depicting the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children.

The Crown sought a reformatory term while the defence sought the 45-day minimum sentence to be served intermittently.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment followed by two years probation, a 10-year Section 161 order, DNA sampling, and 20-year Sexual Offender Information Registry placement.

The court found that the minimum sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offence and the accused's lack of insight into the seriousness of his conduct.