Randall W. Lalande

The applicant brought a motion to stay a charge of care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, alleging a violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The total delay was approximately 27 months over two trial dates.

The court analyzed the delay in two phases and concluded that institutional delay fell within the Morin guidelines.

The applicant experienced some prejudice from the delay, but not sufficiently significant to warrant a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

The Crown prosecuted Vale Canada Ltd. and Keith Birnie following workplace deaths.

Vale Canada Ltd. pleaded guilty to three counts under occupational health and safety legislation.

The court imposed a monetary fine of $350,000 per count for a total of $1,050,000, payable within 60 days, with applicable surcharges.

The Crown withdrew remaining charges against Vale Canada Ltd. and all charges against Keith Birnie due to insufficient evidence of reasonable prospect of conviction and public interest considerations.

The sentencing emphasized workplace safety standards, deterrence, and accountability while acknowledging the tragic loss of life.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2006 custody order, seeking custody of both children, supervised access, and child support.

The respondent father initially opposed the motion but on the trial date abandoned his positions on undue hardship and travel costs, agreeing to pay child support for one child.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for both children from September 2011 to April 2012 in staggered amounts, and ongoing support for one child from May 2012, plus monthly payments toward arrears.

The mother was successful in her application and awarded partial indemnity costs.

A bail hearing concerning a reverse onus matter where the accused was charged with 26 offences including kidnapping, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, dangerous driving, firearms offences, and possession of explosives.

The accused, facing serious personal and financial difficulties, allegedly kidnapped a city lawyer at gunpoint and held him in an industrial facility while demanding financial compensation.

The Crown sought detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found the Crown's case strong and determined that the proposed sureties and plan of release were inadequate to address concerns regarding the accused's obsession with the complainant and weapons.

Detention was ordered on secondary grounds.

The respondent father sought to vary a custody order to permit the 14-year-old child to reside with him in Gatineau, Quebec, rather than with the applicant mother in Capreol, Ontario.

The child, represented by counsel from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, expressed a strong and consistent wish to live with her father.

The court found that the child had attained sufficient maturity for her age to make this decision independently, without undue influence from either parent.

The court determined that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the child's best interests to reside with her father, effective January 1, 2013, subject to resolution of outstanding issues regarding child support and access.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code for conduct occurring between March 5 and March 27, 2011.

The complainant, his estranged wife, alleged that the accused repeatedly communicated with her directly and indirectly, causing her to fear for her safety.

The conduct included emails, appearing near her vehicle, leaving a broken guitar with a note on her car, and arranging for flowers to be delivered.

The court found that while the accused engaged in the conduct alleged, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the complainant was harassed, or that her fear was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted of the criminal harassment charge but ordered to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and not communicate with the complainant.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his newborn son, who sustained multiple serious fractures within the first 30 days of life.

The Crown sought 18 months of custody, while the defence proposed a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

Emphasizing the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence in child abuse cases, the court sentenced the accused to 12 months in custody followed by 2 years of probation, noting his lack of a criminal record and positive prospects for rehabilitation.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm (as an included offence to the original charge of aggravated assault) against a newborn child within the first 30 days of life.

The child sustained serious injuries including metaphyseal fractures to both femurs, fractures to the tibia, and multiple rib fractures requiring tremendous force to inflict.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months custody followed by 2 years probation, with conditions including anger management counselling, parenting programs, and restrictions on contact with the victim's mother.

The court balanced serious aggravating factors (abuse of a child and position of trust, severity of injuries) against mitigating factors (no criminal record, employment, positive support network, participation in rehabilitation programs).

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a single motor vehicle accident on Highway 17 near Sudbury.

The Crown alleged that the accused's manner of driving—characterized by excessive speed, alcohol consumption, fatigue, and night driving—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

The defence argued that the accused had taken appropriate evasive action to avoid a collision with an oncoming vehicle, which resulted in the loss of control.

The court found that while the actus reus of dangerous driving was established, the Crown failed to prove the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after his infant son sustained multiple severe injuries within the first 30 days of life, including a torn frenulum, a bruised cheek, and multiple rib and leg fractures.

Medical evidence established that the injuries required significant force and could not have been self-inflicted or caused by a toddler.

The accused admitted to handling the child roughly and provided explanations that were inconsistent with the medical evidence.

The court found that the accused caused the injuries but concluded that the evidence best supported a conviction for the included offence of assault causing bodily harm, as the Crown proved objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault causing maiming to a one-month-old infant.

The child sustained multiple serious injuries including rib fractures, metaphyseal fractures to the legs, a torn frenulum, and bruising to the cheek within the first 30 days of life.

Medical evidence established that these injuries required significant force and could not have been self-inflicted or caused by accidental means.

The accused was the primary caregiver during the relevant period.

The court found the accused guilty of the included offence of assault causing bodily harm, rejecting the aggravated assault charge as the evidence did not establish maiming.