Robert Fetterly

The accused was convicted of theft of a restricted handgun and unlicensed possession of a firearm.

The Crown sought an 18-month jail sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 6-7 months, citing personal circumstances and mitigating factors.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount and that the accused's criminal history, bail violations, and trafficking of the weapon to criminals warranted incarceration.

The court imposed 15 months jail for theft (plus 2 years probation and $1,100 restitution) and 8 months concurrent for unlicensed possession (plus 2 years concurrent probation, DNA order, and 10-year firearms prohibition).

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Two issues were raised at trial: (1) whether the defendant's Charter rights to counsel under section 10(b) were violated by police conduct, and if so, whether excluding breath test results was an appropriate remedy; and (2) whether the prosecution could rely on the presumption of identity under the now-repealed section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, or whether expert evidence of retrograde extrapolation was required.

The court found no breach of the defendant's right to counsel and held that the old presumption of identity continues to apply to outstanding Over 80 charges commenced after the new law came into force on December 18, 2018.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five Criminal Code offences arising from a series of incidents on September 7-8, 2018.

The defendant stole a relative's pickup truck and engaged in a prolonged dangerous driving incident on Highway 10 in Grey County, repeatedly ramming a vehicle driven by Ms. A. and her two passengers.

After the victims escaped to a gas station, the defendant led police on a high-speed chase across three counties, evading multiple police services, driving at speeds up to 161 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, and deliberately ramming a police cruiser.

The defendant was sentenced to 12 months in custody (after 9 months pre-sentence custody credit), a three-year driving prohibition, three years probation with treatment conditions, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The sole issue was whether the demand for a breath sample was valid, specifically whether it was made "forthwith" as required by law.

The constable delayed approximately five to seven minutes between detecting alcohol on the accused's breath and making the demand, during which time he conducted a records check and reflected on which demand to make.

The court found that the delay was not justified and that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the demand was made forthwith.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code after his vehicle went into a ditch on a rural road.

The trial addressed three key issues: whether the defendant was in care or control of the motor vehicle; whether police had lawful grounds to make demands under section 254 of the Criminal Code; and whether breath tests were taken as soon as practicable.

The court found that the defendant was in care or control, the police had lawful grounds for their demands, and the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol following a traffic stop in the early morning hours.

The Crown presented evidence from two police officers regarding observations of impairment at the roadside and at the police station.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the breath demand and argued the evidence of impairment was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable grounds to make the breath demand and that the totality of evidence, including the defendant's own admission of slight impairment, established guilt on both counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

A.R. was charged on a ten-count indictment with three counts of assault, two counts of uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, and six counts of sexual assault, all in relation to his former spouse, L.R., their baby, C.R., and L.R.'s mother, J.S. The trial involved extensive testimony from the complainants and examination of text messages.

The defence challenged the credibility and reliability of L.R.'s evidence, citing issues with disclosure of text messages, timing of allegations, and perceived exaggeration.

The court carefully assessed the credibility of L.R. and J.S., finding their evidence credible and reliable despite some defence arguments.

The court found the accused guilty on all ten counts, concluding that the Crown proved the essential elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Jamal Esho, appealed his convictions for assaulting his spouse and threatening his spouse and step-daughter.

The grounds of appeal included the improper admission of emails as prior consistent statements, the admission of prior acts of discreditable conduct, and the trial judge's failure to appreciate evidence or address inconsistencies, leading to an unreasonable verdict.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the emails and prior acts were admissible for narrative and context in domestic violence cases and to rebut allegations of recent fabrication.

The court found the trial judge adequately addressed inconsistencies and that the verdict was reasonable.

John Paul Budarick appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The appeal raised two grounds: whether the trial judge erred in finding that Constable Crowhurst had the subjective belief required to make a blood demand under s. 254(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, and whether the trial judge erred in concluding there was no s. 10(b) Charter violation when police did not offer a second opportunity to consult counsel after making a blood demand following a breath demand.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions on either ground.

The appellant, Matthew Connors, appealed his conviction for dangerous driving.

The trial judge found him guilty after rejecting the evidence of a defence witness, Kayla Cochrane, and accepting the consistent evidence of four Crown witnesses.

The appeal grounds were that the trial judge erred in assessing Ms. Cochrane's evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The appellate court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of Ms. Cochrane's credibility and reliability, noting her failure to provide a timely police statement and her obvious bias.

The court also found the verdict reasonable given the accepted evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was convicted following a jury trial of possession of prohibited or restricted firearms with readily accessible ammunition and careless storage of firearms and ammunition after police discovered three handguns and numerous long guns in a farmhouse used for drug trafficking activity.

The court found the accused had been wilfully blind to the presence of the handguns stored in a safe brought into the home by his stepson and had facilitated the dangerous environment by permitting drug use and trafficking in the residence.

Although the accused did not personally handle the handguns and his long guns were generally stored properly, the court emphasized the serious risks created by the combination of drugs and firearms.

Credit was granted for lengthy pre‑trial house arrest conditions.

A custodial sentence was imposed to meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a single-vehicle collision on Highway 410.

The defendant sought to exclude breath sample evidence on the basis that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, thereby violating sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the arresting officer failed to properly consider whether grounds for arrest existed and proceeded with the arrest without adequate Charter consideration.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and touching a complainant for a sexual purpose allegedly occurring when the complainant was a child between 1999 and 2004.

The trial judge applied the credibility and reasonable doubt framework requiring consideration of the accused’s evidence, whether it raised a reasonable doubt, and whether the Crown’s case proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although the complainant testified sincerely, the court identified significant reliability concerns arising from inconsistencies, contextual improbabilities, and uncertainty in the complainant’s recollection of key events and locations.

The accused provided clear denials and supporting evidence that was not rejected.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, a Finnish national residing illegally in Canada, was charged with nine offences including assaults and threats against Amanda Rayburn, unlawful use of a credit card belonging to Charmaine Thomas, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The trial revealed a pattern of deception whereby the accused simultaneously maintained romantic relationships with three women, misrepresenting his identity, employment, and personal circumstances.

The court found the accused guilty of unlawful use of the credit card and assault and threat charges relating to the February 9 incident with Amanda Rayburn, but acquitted on other counts.

A guilty plea was entered on one count during trial.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample for analysis by an approved screening device.

Following a traffic stop for erratic driving, the officer detected a faint odour of alcohol and the defendant admitted to consuming beer.

The defendant was given five attempts to provide a proper breath sample into an Alcotest 7410 GLC approved screening device, but on each occasion provided only a brief puff of air before stopping, resulting in E0 error codes.

The court found that the defendant had a valid demand made against him, failed to provide a suitable breath sample on five occasions, and intended to refuse to provide such a sample.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a $1,200 fine with 60 days to pay, plus a one-year driving prohibition with eligibility for the Interlock program.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon (backhoe) contrary to Section 267(a) of the Criminal Code.

The incident occurred at a construction site in Orangeville where the accused was operating an excavator and the complainant approached to report damage to a truck.

Following a confrontation, the accused rotated the excavator while the complainant was holding onto it, causing him to be spun around multiple times before falling to the ground.

The court found the accused guilty of the included offence of common assault contrary to Section 266, rejecting the assault with a weapon charge and the defence of self-defence.

A youth was charged with thirteen offences including sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against two younger brothers.

The accused was initially arraigned on counts of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

During trial, both counsel discovered that section 150.1(3) of the Criminal Code exempted the accused from prosecution on those counts because he was aged twelve or thirteen at the time of the alleged offences and did not fall within the statutory exceptions.

The Crown entered a stay on those counts.

The accused was then arraigned on two counts of sexual assault and brought a motion to stay proceedings on the basis of abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown acted in good faith, no evidentiary findings had been made at the first trial, all witnesses remained available, and proceeding with the sexual assault counts did not undermine trial fairness or the integrity of the judicial process.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

On June 5, 2012, police observed the defendant's vehicle exhibiting inaccurate driving.

After stopping the vehicle, officers detected alcohol on the defendant's breath and administered an approved screening device (ASD) test at roadside, which resulted in a Fail.

The defendant was arrested and transported to the detachment where breath samples were provided to a qualified technician using an Intoxilyzer 8000C, resulting in a reading of 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the validity of the roadside ASD procedure, arguing there was doubt as to whether an approved device was used and that the meaning of the Fail result was ambiguous.

The court rejected these arguments and found the Crown had proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assaulting her husband following a domestic dispute.

She argued that inadmissible evidence from a withdrawn count was introduced, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the sentence of a conditional discharge with probation was excessive.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that although evidence relating to another count should not have been introduced, the error caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The court found there was ample evidence supporting the finding that the appellant intentionally applied force without consent and rejected arguments of self-defence and Charter violations.

The sentence, including non-association conditions and counselling requirements, fell within the acceptable range and disclosed no error in principle.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence raised two Charter applications: first, alleging a breach of section 8 rights regarding the validity of the screening demand; and second, alleging a breach of section 9 rights regarding arbitrary detention.

The court found that the screening demand was properly made based on reasonable suspicion and that the detention was justified under section 498 of the Criminal Code as the accused was held until sober and safe to be released.

Both Charter applications were dismissed and the accused was found guilty.