Peter D. Tetley

The defendant, a self-represented accused, was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than the lawfully permissible amount of alcohol in his blood contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was stopped on November 19, 2024, for operating a vehicle without a front licence plate.

Following detection of alcohol on his breath, he was administered an approved screening device test which he failed.

Subsequent breath samples taken at the police station confirmed a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The court addressed two issues: the admissibility of the certificate of qualified technician in the absence of direct evidence of service, and whether the Crown could rely on the oral testimony of the qualified technician if the certificate were deemed inadmissible.

The court found the defendant guilty.

This judgment provides supplementary reasons for a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial involving charges of sexual assault and sexual touching.

The court found the complainant's account to be fabricated due to significant inconsistencies, the unlikelihood of the alleged events, and the complainant's documented mental health and behavioral issues.

The decision critically examines the police investigation, concluding it was not impartial or thorough, and highlights how the school board's directive hindered the disclosure of relevant evidence, thereby compromising investigative fairness.

The accused, an educational aide, was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of a 12-year-old student.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable and contrived, noting significant inconsistencies regarding the location, timing, and circumstances of the alleged offences, as well as the complainant's history of behavioural challenges and deceitfulness.

The court accepted the accused's denial of wrongdoing as credible and acquitted her of all charges.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing the death of a five-year-old child and impaired driving causing bodily harm to the child's parents.

The defendant, a 24-year-old first offender with no criminal record, had consumed alcohol at a Toronto nightclub and drove back to Newmarket with little sleep.

He fell asleep at the wheel on Highway 9, crossed into oncoming traffic at excessive speed, and collided head-on with a vehicle carrying the Gomez family.

The collision killed five-year-old Lux Peyton Gomez and seriously injured her parents.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for the death and four years concurrent for the bodily harm offences, along with a ten-year driving prohibition.

The accused was convicted of luring a child by means of telecommunication contrary to s. 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and procuring the sexual services of a person under 18 years contrary to s. 212(4) of the Criminal Code.

The accused engaged in text communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl, arranged for paid sexual services including unprotected intercourse and fellatio for $100, and attended a hotel to meet the purported minor.

The Crown sought 12-18 months custody; the defence sought the statutory minimum of 6 months.

The court imposed 9 months for luring and 6 months concurrent for procuring, along with probation, SOIRA registration, and a s. 161 order.

The appellant was convicted of failing to yield the right of way on entering a highway from a private road, contrary to section 139(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred when the appellant's vehicle exited the Travel Lodge parking lot and struck the vehicle of Paul LaFrance, who was turning left onto Elgin Mills Road from northbound Yonge Street.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing there was insufficient evidentiary foundation that her vehicle had entered from a private driveway.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial record provided a sufficient factual basis for the conclusion that the appellant's vehicle had entered from the Travel Lodge parking lot and failed to yield to oncoming traffic.

The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation.

The assault occurred at a men's shelter where the defendant, aged 25, delivered 11 forceful punches to the head of a 54-year-old victim, followed by a kick to the prone victim's body.

The victim sustained multiple fractures to the nasal bones, sinus walls, and ribs, along with ongoing psychological trauma.

The defendant had a significant criminal history including three prior assault-with-weapon convictions and an extensive psychiatric history involving substance abuse, homelessness, and prior hospitalization.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment with enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 10 months to be served, followed by three years' probation with strict conditions.

The Regional Municipality of York appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of disobeying a red light signal as captured by a red light camera system.

The trial justice dismissed the charge on the basis that the specific location of the offence was not displayed on the face of the photograph itself, only on the back via certification by a provincial offences officer.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and entered a finding of guilt, holding that the applicable legislation and regulations do not require the specific intersection location to be displayed on the photograph itself.

The location code on the photograph, combined with the certified statement of the provincial offences officer and the certificate of offence, satisfied the statutory requirements for proof of the place of offence.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 249(1).

The Crown alleged the accused was operating a vehicle at excessive speeds (186 km/h in a 50 km/h zone), veering into oncoming traffic, and had alcohol in his system.

The accused was given 12 opportunities to provide a breath sample but failed to do so.

The trial judge found the Crown proved dangerous driving beyond a reasonable doubt but acquitted the accused on the failure to comply charge due to the absence of a final "last chance" warning and the possibility the accused requested one final opportunity to comply that was not documented or facilitated.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A Gardiner hearing was held to resolve factual disputes regarding the extent of the grow operation.

The offender acknowledged growing 250 marijuana plants in his residence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 3 years' probation, with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA profiling order.

The sentencing considered the offender's chronic health conditions, medical authorization for cannabis use, lack of commercial motive, prior 1998 conviction for the same offence, and 14-year crime-free period since that conviction.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a).

The Crown conceded that impaired driving had not been established, and the accused was acquitted of that charge.

The trial proceeded on the dangerous driving charge.

The Crown alleged that the accused was engaged in a high-speed race with three other vehicles on Highway 7 at approximately midnight on April 6, 2013, and that he lost control while attempting to pass, resulting in a head-on collision with an oncoming vehicle.

The accused testified that he was following another vehicle that suddenly braked, causing him to lose control.

The trial judge found that while the Crown's theory was plausible, the evidence fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the key Crown witness's testimony, limitations in his observational ability, and the absence of expert accident reconstruction evidence.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant, a Liberal candidate in the 2014 Ontario provincial election for the electoral district of Thornhill, sought a recount of ballots pursuant to Section 71 of the Election Act.

On election night, unofficial results showed the applicant winning by 85 votes.

However, the official tabulation conducted the following day showed the respondent, a Progressive Conservative candidate, winning by the same 85-vote margin.

The applicant alleged improper rejection of ballots and improper tabulation by the returning officer.

The court ordered a recount, finding that the discrepancy between the unofficial and official tallies, combined with the extremely narrow margin of victory and concerns about voter confidence in the democratic process, established a prima facie case for relief under Section 71(1)(b) of the Election Act.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged the appellant was travelling at 153 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 407, as measured by a Laser Atlanta speed detection device.

The appellant claimed he was travelling at 100 km/h and that his company vehicle was equipped with a speed limiter preventing speeds above 120 km/h.

The trial justice accepted the investigating officer's evidence and rejected the appellant's testimony.

On appeal, the court dismissed three grounds of appeal: alleged interference with full answer and defence regarding cross-examination of the speed measuring device; alleged bias arising from the justice's reference to amending the charge upward; and alleged misapplication of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle at 149 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 407.

During trial, the Justice of the Peace amended the charge to reflect 153 km/h based on evidence presented.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: alleged interference by the trier of fact preventing full answer and defence, bias arising from the amendment of the speed charge, and misapplication of the R. v. W.(D.) credibility assessment principles.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error occurred at trial.

The defendant was charged with assault and obstructing police following an incident on Highway 400 where his vehicle was involved in a rear-end collision.

After initially resisting the officer's directive to have his vehicle towed, the defendant pushed a tow truck driver who was attempting to remove the defendant's family from the vehicle.

The court found the defendant not guilty of obstructing police due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the obstruction continued at the time of arrest, and not guilty of assault on the basis of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, finding the defendant had a reasonable apprehension of threat to his family and the force used was proportionate.

A police officer with the Belleville City Police was charged with criminal harassment and breach of trust by a public officer.

The officer engaged in repeated unauthorized surveillance of his former girlfriend's residence over a period of approximately two years, including multiple drive-bys and attendance at the end of her driveway.

The officer also conducted numerous unauthorized searches of Ministry of Transportation and Canadian Police Information Computer databases to obtain the former girlfriend's and her spouse's personal information and addresses.

The court found the officer guilty on both counts, determining that his conduct constituted oppressive watching of the dwelling house and a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of a police officer in a position of public trust.