Rita Levin

This decision addresses charges against Julian Kroll for impaired operation of a conveyance under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and possession of methamphetamine under s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court considered evidence from police officers, a drug recognition evaluator (DRE), and a toxicologist.

Despite the accused initially self-representing, counsel was later retained and cross-examined witnesses.

The judge found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on observations of impairment, toxicology results, and the presumption under s. 320.31(6) of the Criminal Code corroborated by toxicological analysis.

The decision carefully weighs the credibility of witnesses and the limitations of evidence such as pupil dilation and inadmissible statements.

P.V.T. was convicted of sexual assault on his wife and uttering death threats.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of authority, the victim's vulnerability, repeated incidents, and significant impact on the victim, balanced against mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record and health issues.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence, finding that the sexual assault stemmed from a generalized attitude towards women.

A global sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment was imposed, with 4 years for sexual assault and 6 months consecutive for uttering threats.

Mandatory orders for DNA registration, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order were also made, along with a no-contact order with the victim during the custodial period.

The accused was charged with importation of heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after picking up a package containing 2.3 kilograms of heroin from a UPS store.

The package had been intercepted and subject to a controlled delivery by the RCMP.

The accused claimed he was picking up the package for a friend and believed it contained auto parts.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreasonable and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the heroin in the package and in his apartment.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant applied under s. 278.92(1) of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of text messages between the complainant and her son that were disclosed in family law proceedings.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and uttering death threats.

The defence argued the messages indicated the complainant acknowledged the charges were false but feared prosecution if she recanted.

The Crown and complainant's counsel opposed admission, arguing the inference was speculative and the messages lacked significant probative value.

The court found the messages were relevant to the central issue of the complainant's credibility and had significant probative value.

The court admitted the messages but restricted cross-examination to the text message portion of the affidavit to prevent collateral attacks on the complainant's credibility regarding family law matters.

The court addressed a motion by Aviva Insurance Company of Canada regarding the sufficiency of answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals during discovery in an action alleging fraud against Tracey Brown.

Brown counterclaimed for defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court applied principles of proportionality and relevance, ordering Aviva to provide further answers and its deponent to re-attend discovery, while refusing some questions deemed vague or seeking legal opinions.

Case management directions for an upcoming pre-trial were also issued.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike the Defendants' Statement of Defence for repeated non-compliance with court orders and failure to deliver a proper Affidavit of Documents.

The court found the Defendants' explanations for delay unacceptable, particularly regarding the late production of hundreds of additional documents and their counsel's inappropriate conduct.

While acknowledging strong grounds to strike the defence, the court deemed it a draconian remedy and instead dismissed the motion on strict terms.

These terms included the Defendants paying $12,500 in substantial indemnity costs for wasted discovery, serving properly sworn and complete Affidavits of Documents, and consenting to case management.

The court also recommended the appointment of a case management judge due to the case's complexity, protracted delays, and ongoing communication issues between parties.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a 17-year-old complainant.

The assault occurred when the defendant, aged 62, followed the complainant to her vehicle after her work shift, removed her car keys, and kissed her against her will while touching her lower back.

The defendant had a significant criminal history including prior sexual assault convictions and violence against women.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months imprisonment with credit for pre-trial house arrest, resulting in 7 months and 24 days of incarceration, followed by 3 years probation with strict conditions including DNA sampling, firearms ban, and sex offender registry compliance.

The defendant sought to strike his guilty plea to sexual assault, arguing that the plea was not voluntary and that he did not fully understand the consequences.

The defendant claimed language barriers and pressure from counsel influenced his decision to plead guilty on the eve of trial.

The court found that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.

The defendant had received comprehensive written instructions, was assisted by a Russian interpreter, and had undergone a thorough plea comprehension inquiry.

The court rejected the application to strike the guilty plea.