R. Lemke

Jarnail Randhawa pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his wife.

The court determined the parole ineligibility period, which is statutorily set at a minimum of 10 years, considering aggravating factors such as the brutality of the attack, gratuitous violence, abuse of trust, and leaving the victim to die, as well as mitigating factors including the guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior criminal record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 13 years, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Two young, first-time offenders pleaded guilty to smoking on board an aircraft and mischief to property following disruptive behaviour aboard a Cuba-bound flight.

The defendants consumed duty-free alcohol, became intoxicated, smoked in the washroom, and made a bomb threat that caused the aircraft to return to Toronto.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and restitution, while the defendants sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed conditional discharges with 12-month probation, 100 hours additional community service, alcohol counselling, $500 fines for the aviation offence, and $7,500 restitution each to the airline.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while her blood alcohol content was over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The central issue at trial was whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused and demand breath samples.

The defence challenged the credibility and reliability of the officers' evidence, alleging inconsistencies and omissions in their notes.

The court found that the arresting officer had sufficient grounds based on observations of the accused's driving (headlights off, missing tire, iPad under foot), her demeanor (unsteadiness, fumbling with documents), and the odour of alcohol.

The court rejected the defence's credibility challenges and found the officers' evidence credible and reliable.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The defendant was charged with exceed 80 (impaired driving) following a RIDE checkpoint stop on November 8, 2013.

The defendant sought to contact counsel of choice (Shauna Pemberton) but was unable to reach her.

Police made reasonable efforts to contact her, left a message, waited approximately 29 minutes, and then offered duty counsel.

The defendant spoke with duty counsel and subsequently provided breath samples registering 106 and 101.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results, arguing his right to counsel was infringed.

The court found no breach of Charter rights and admitted the evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm contrary to section 255(2) of the Criminal Code.

The offence occurred when the accused, with a blood alcohol level of 140 mg/100 mL, rear-ended a pizza delivery driver's parked vehicle, causing the victim to suffer severe injuries including traumatic lacerations to internal organs, broken ribs, a punctured lung, and a hemothorax.

The victim required multiple surgeries and blood transfusions, and suffered significant ongoing physical, psychological, and financial consequences.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment, balancing the serious nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation against the accused's youth, good character, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and guilty plea.

The accused was charged with robbery and using an imitation firearm following a jewelry store hold-up by two men.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification from a photo lineup and DNA found on a baseball cap left at the scene, which the Crown alleged was worn by the other perpetrator.

The defence called an alibi witness who testified the accused was with her at the time of the offence.

The court found the alibi evidence, while not fully believed, raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also noted frailties in the eyewitness identification and found the circumstantial DNA evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence.

The accused was acquitted.