Ramandeep Gill

The accused was charged with nine offences arising from three separate incidents of alleged domestic violence spanning from 2013 to 2022.

The charges included multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault by choking, uttering death threats, and uttering threats to cause bodily harm.

The trial turned on credibility, with the complainant and accused providing conflicting accounts of events.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and internally consistent, while finding the accused's denials of physical violence and threats inconsistent with surrounding circumstances and his own admissions in a counselling letter.

The court convicted on four counts and acquitted on the remaining charges.

The defendant, Madison Biggar, was convicted of careless driving causing death under the Highway Traffic Act after a two-day trial.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering victim impact statements, a pre-sentence report, and principles of specific and general deterrence, as well as proportionality and parity with similar cases.

The court imposed a fine, probation, community service, and a driving prohibition, balancing the gravity of the offence with the defendant's youth and lack of prior record, while noting her failure to take responsibility by pleading not guilty.

The defendant, Madison Biggar, was charged with careless driving under section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, resulting in bodily harm and death to a motorcyclist.

The collision occurred when the defendant made a left turn, striking a northbound motorcycle.

The prosecution presented expert collision reconstruction evidence and civilian witness testimony.

The defendant testified she did not see the motorcycle and her memory of the event was unclear, claiming she went unconscious upon impact.

The court found the defendant's testimony inconsistent and unreliable.

Applying the standard of care for careless driving and the requirements for left turns under section 141(5) of the Highway Traffic Act, the court determined that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence and provide a reasonable opportunity for the motorcyclist to avoid the collision.

The court found the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and entered a finding of guilt.

The accused, Ewan Smith, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 629 days.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, attributing 57 days to defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 572 days, which exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Provincial Court.

The Crown argued for exceptional circumstances due to COVID-19 related delays in scheduling a judicial pre-trial and a Blitz Court date.

The court found 10 days of delay for the judicial pre-trial and 44 days for the Blitz Court date were deductible as exceptional circumstances attributable to the pandemic backlog.

With these deductions, the remaining delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed as the defence failed to demonstrate the delay was unreasonable.