P. Kowarsky

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

A second charge of failing to stop for police was dismissed at the prosecutor's request.

The prosecution alleged the defendant was driving erratically, swerving, and passed vehicles through a stop sign.

The defendant testified he was attempting to distance himself from a vehicle being driven erratically by what he later discovered was a plainclothes police officer.

The court found conflicting evidence and applied the credibility test from R. v. W.D., ultimately finding reasonable doubt and acquitting the defendant.

The court held that a simple error of judgment is insufficient for a careless driving conviction.

The accused appeared for a bail hearing on charges of obstructing a peace officer and multiple provincial offences under the Highway Traffic Act and Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The accused refused to acknowledge the court's jurisdiction and engaged in disruptive conduct consistent with organized pseudo-legal commercial argument (OPCA) litigant tactics.

The Crown consented to release on conditions.

The court ordered detention on the secondary ground, finding a substantial likelihood the accused would commit further offences or interfere with the administration of justice.

The accused subsequently pleaded guilty to obstruction and received a conditional discharge with probation and community service, and was convicted and fined for the motor vehicle offences.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and breaches of bail and probation conditions.

After being initially detained and then released on a Superior Court recognizance, the accused was arrested for alleged breaches of his no-alcohol and house arrest conditions.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary ground under section 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code, arguing that release posed a substantial likelihood of further criminal offences endangering public safety.

The court found the accused's breaches serious and his proposed release plan insufficient to address concerns regarding alcohol abuse and anger management issues.

The court ordered detention, finding the accused had failed to meet his onus on the balance of probabilities.

The defendant was charged with failing to obey a lane sign contrary to section 154(1)(c) of the Highway Traffic Act and careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charges arose from a collision between the defendant's Jeep (towing a trailer) and a cyclist on Lansdowne Avenue in Toronto.

The court dismissed the lane sign charge due to lack of evidence of clearly marked lanes or official signs.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of careless driving, finding that the defendant's aggressive driving behavior, including passing the cyclist on the right, making a sudden stop at a green light, and subsequently driving away while the cyclist was standing beside the vehicle, constituted a departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

The court rejected the defendant's credibility and found that the defendant's actions were motivated by road rage rather than legitimate safety concerns.

The accused was charged with four criminal offences (driving while disqualified twice and failing to comply with probation twice) and two Highway Traffic Act offences (failing to remain at the scene of an accident and failing to report the accident).

At a judicial interim release hearing, the Crown sought detention on the secondary ground (public safety).

The accused's mother offered to act as surety with a $5,000 pledge and proposed a house arrest plan with parental supervision.

The court found the accused had an extensive criminal record with 32 convictions in six years, including 11 convictions in the eight months preceding the hearing.

Despite the proposed release plan appearing adequate on paper, the court was not satisfied it would be effective given the accused's pattern of non-compliance with court orders and disregard for conditions.

The court ordered detention on the secondary ground.

This is a judicial interim release hearing for an accused charged with nine counts including attempt fraud, uttering forged documents, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The accused, a 42-year-old with a significant criminal history including prior fraud convictions and weapons offences, sought bail.

The Crown opposed release on primary and secondary grounds.

The court found the accused's testimony to be unreliable and lacking in credibility, with numerous inconsistencies regarding his family situation, financial circumstances, and criminal history.

An initial bail program proposal was deemed inadequate.

A subsequent plan involving a private surety collapsed when the proposed surety learned of the accused's background and outstanding warrants.

The court ordered detention, finding a substantial likelihood the accused would fail to appear and commit further offences.

The defendant was charged with four offences: failing to stop at a red light, failing to comply with a police officer's direction, driving while holding a hand-held communication device, and failing to surrender an insurance card.

The court found the defendant guilty of three charges (red light, failing to comply with officer's direction, and failing to surrender insurance card) and not guilty of the hand-held communication device charge.

The court applied the three-category framework for offences from Sault Ste.

Marie, classifying the red light and insurance card charges as absolute liability offences and the remaining charges as strict liability offences.

The defendant brought a motion to stay proceedings on the grounds that his right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated.

The charge was for failing to stop at a stop sign contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The overall delay from charge to trial was 20 months and 7 days.

Applying the guidelines from R. v. Morin, the court deducted an intake period of 2 months, delays attributable to the defendant's actions and requests for adjournment, and neutral institutional delay.

The remaining delay of 7 months and 15 days fell within acceptable guidelines.

The motion to stay was denied.

The accused sought judicial interim release following his arrest on serious firearms-related charges, including carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a firearm for committing an offence, pointing a firearm, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

The Crown opposed release.

The court found that while the Crown's case had some evidentiary weaknesses, the surveillance video evidence was strong and clear.

The proposed release plan was found to be inadequate because the financial and supervisory components did not co-exist: one surety pledged significant funds but could not supervise, while the residential surety could supervise but pledged virtually no funds.

The court held that the accused failed to meet the reverse onus on the secondary ground and ordered detention.

The accused was charged with robbery while armed with a firearm, aggravated assault, and careless storage of a firearm.

The Crown sought detention on the tertiary ground, citing the serious and violent nature of the offences.

The accused applied for judicial interim release with three proposed sureties offering $100,000 in pledges and a comprehensive supervision plan including residential treatment for gambling addiction.

The court found that while the four factors under section 515(10)(c) were at an extremely high level, the accused met his onus on all three grounds for release, considering the root cause of the criminal behaviour (severe gambling addiction) and the quality of the proposed sureties and release plan.

The accused was charged with seven serious offences including two counts of robbery while armed with a firearm, two counts of forcible confinement, disguise with intent, break and enter, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed two sureties and a release plan including house arrest.

The court found that the proposed supervision plan was inadequate given the accused's criminal history, the serious nature of the charges involving a home invasion, and the strength of the Crown's case.

The court granted the Crown's detention order.