Rita-Jean Maxwell

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood, arising from a traffic stop on July 13, 2018 in downtown Toronto.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the police failed to obtain breath samples "as soon as practicable" as required by section 254(3) of the Criminal Code, resulting in a 35-minute unexplained delay at the police station.

The court also found a breach of the accused's right to counsel without delay.

However, the court exercised its discretion under section 24(2) of the Charter and admitted the breath test evidence, finding that exclusion would not be necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court rejected the defence argument that the Crown was required to prove all prerequisites under section 320.31(1) of the Criminal Code and found the breath test results admissible and reliable based on common law principles.

The court convicted the accused on both counts.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault with a weapon and two counts of assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on July 30, 2016, at Caribana Day in Toronto.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification evidence from the two victims, forensic evidence of blood on the accused's clothing, and prior identification evidence.

The court found significant frailties and inconsistencies in the eyewitness evidence, including poor memory, intoxication, stress during the incident, and discrepancies between witness accounts and other evidence.

The court determined that the eyewitness identifications were unreliable and that the forensic evidence, while establishing the accused's presence at the scene, did not establish his involvement in the assaults beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without a licence, possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, and possession for the purpose of trafficking crack cocaine.

The offences occurred during a civic holiday weekend in downtown Toronto when the accused robbed an American tourist at gunpoint near Union Station.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7 years, while the defence sought 5 years and 2 months with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdown conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years and 5 months, less pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a remaining sentence of 4 years and 5 months.

The court also imposed a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused was convicted after trial of possession of MDA and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, unlawful production of MDA, and unlawful production of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in the basement of the accused's home, containing 23 kilograms of finished methamphetamine and 3.2 kilograms of MDA with a combined street value between $1.4 and $3.2 million.

The accused, a first-time offender, was sentenced to eight years imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of seven years and three months.

Concurrent sentences were imposed on the other counts.

A firearms prohibition order and DNA order were also imposed.

The accused was charged with possession of MDA and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and unlawful production after police found a drug laboratory in the basement of his leased residence.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the search warrants, which was dismissed as the court found sufficient grounds based on intercepted communications linking him to a drug distribution network.

At trial, the accused denied knowledge of the drugs, claiming he rented the basement to a third party.

The court rejected his testimony as implausible and found that the Crown proved constructive possession and production beyond a reasonable doubt.