Robert S. Gee

The accused, a Niagara Regional Police officer, was charged with assaulting his wife, also a police officer, on November 25, 2013.

The complainant alleged the accused was the aggressor who chased her through the house and assaulted her.

The accused claimed the complainant was the aggressor.

The trial examined credibility and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Despite finding the accused's evidence unreliable due to his manipulative and jealous behavior, and despite concerns about inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to provide a proper sample of breath into an approved screening device following a motor vehicle collision.

The accused applied to exclude all evidence of her failure or refusal based on alleged violations of her s. 10(b) Charter rights to counsel.

The court found that the accused was detained prior to the demand being made, that there was a realistic opportunity to consult counsel during the delay before the ASD arrived, and that her s. 10(b) rights were violated both at the scene and at the police station where her conversation with counsel was recorded.

The court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

Appellants were convicted of two counts of hindering or obstructing a provincial offences officer contrary to section 42(1) of the Nutrient Management Act.

The appellants parked their truck directly in front of Ministry of the Environment inspectors' truck, blocking its exit, and refused multiple requests to move.

The appellants appealed their convictions arguing the actus reus was not proven and that they exercised due diligence.

The court dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding that the appellants' actions constituted obstruction and that they failed to establish a due diligence defence, as their belief that the officers were trespassing was based on a mistake of law and was not reasonably held in the circumstances.

The accused was charged with arson and break, enter and commit arson in connection with a barn fire deliberately set on April 11, 2014.

The co-perpetrator, Tim Norris, pled guilty and testified that he and the accused jointly set the fire.

The accused denied involvement and provided multiple inconsistent versions of events.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to constant shifting accounts and accepted the testimony of the co-perpetrator.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly participated in the arson.

Conviction was entered on the break, enter and commit arson charge, with the standalone arson charge stayed at the Crown's request.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and break and enter following a violent altercation in downtown Brantford.

The victim, who was already blind in one eye, suffered a ruptured left eye resulting in permanent blindness after being attacked by the accused and his uncle.

The accused claimed he acted in defence of his uncle under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected this defence, finding that the victim was the one being attacked without provocation and that the accused joined in a one-sided beating of a vulnerable victim.

The break and enter charge was dismissed by Crown concession, but the accused was convicted of aggravated assault as a principal to the offence.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and choking against his 16-year-old cousin.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two to three years, while the defence sought a significantly shorter sentence with creative sentencing approaches including conditional sentences and intermittent sentences.

The court rejected the defence's proposed sentencing approach as violating fundamental sentencing principles and statutory requirements.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence to be served concurrently on all charges, followed by two years of probation, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and 20-year sex offender registry requirement.

The accused was charged with assault, choking, threatening, and unlawful confinement of his girlfriend.

The complainant initially provided a detailed statement to police alleging violent assault, but later recanted at trial, claiming the injuries resulted from consensual rough sexual activity.

The court found the complainant's trial testimony and recantation to be implausible and internally inconsistent, while accepting her original police statement as truthful based on its detail, consistency with injuries, the complainant's emotional demeanor during the statement, and the voluntary and uncoerced circumstances of its creation.

The court convicted on assault, choking, and threatening charges but acquitted on the unlawful confinement charge due to insufficient evidence of coercive restraint for a significant period.

The Crown appealed acquittals on charges of acting as livestock dealers without a licence contrary to the Livestock and Livestock Products Act.

The accused purchased and sold approximately 2,156 cattle for $1,367,000 and sold 2,811 cattle for approximately $1,619,000 over an 11-week period in 2007.

The trial judge found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were engaged in the business of buying or selling livestock, as opposed to operating as livestock producers.

The appellate court upheld the acquittals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having an excessive concentration of alcohol in her blood while in care or control of a motor vehicle.

The accused did not dispute that her ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired and that her blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to prove the accused was in care or control of the vehicle at the time of observation.

The court applied the test from R. v. Boudreault and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused created a realistic risk of danger and was therefore in care or control of the vehicle.

The court convicted on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, arising from an incident on February 5, 2012.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of section 8 rights, contending that the officer lacked a warrant to enter the accused's property and that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples.

The court rejected both Charter arguments, finding that the officer was lawfully present under the common law implied invitation to knock and that the officer had sufficient grounds for arrest based on observations of impairment.

The court admitted the breath sample evidence and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an encounter at a buck and doe event on the Six Nations Reserve on July 29, 2012.

The complainant was heavily intoxicated and had significant memory gaps regarding the night.

The Crown advanced two theories: first, that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication, and second, that she did not in fact consent.

The court found the complainant possessed minimal capacity to consent despite her intoxication.

However, the court found the evidence regarding actual consent was equivocal and could not be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for breaking and entering a dairy farmer's residence, committing theft, and related offences.

The defendants were charged with jointly breaking and entering and stealing property, possessing stolen property, and possessing a stolen GPS.

One defendant was additionally charged with robbery for physically assaulting the homeowner during the break-in.

The other defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon for throwing a rock at the homeowner.

The trial judge convicted both defendants on the break and enter and theft charges, and on possession of property stolen from the residence.

One defendant was convicted of robbery, the other of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The charge regarding the stolen GPS was dismissed against both defendants due to insufficient evidence of knowledge of its stolen nature.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of his Volvo truck tractor with the engine running at his residence.

The Crown conceded that the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption of care or control.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused posed a realistic risk of danger in the particular circumstances, considering that he was already home, had been in the truck for 10-15 minutes without attempting to drive it, the truck had a sleeping compartment, and he had easier means of leaving if that were his intention.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of his former girlfriend on May 24, 2013.

The complainant alleged the encounter was non-consensual, while the accused claimed it was consensual or that he honestly believed it was.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Ewanchuk and found the complainant credible and the accused not credible.

The court determined the complainant did not consent and that the accused was aware of her lack of consent and proceeded regardless.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown sought to rely on the presumption of identity under s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The defence challenged whether the Crown had proven two prerequisites: that the samples were taken as soon as practicable, and that the first sample was taken within two hours of the offence.

The court found the samples were taken as soon as practicable but held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the first sample was taken within the two-hour requirement due to insufficient evidence regarding the consistency of timepieces used.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with four offences arising from an incident on the Six Nations Reserve: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failure to stop for police, possession of a stolen Chevrolet Trailblazer valued over $5,000, and failure to comply with a probation term.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved the accused was the driver of the stolen vehicle.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts based on eyewitness identification evidence from a police sergeant who had prior dealings with the accused, corroborated by circumstantial evidence including the accused's proximity to the abandoned vehicle, footprints consistent with the accused wearing only socks, and identification by a second officer.

The accused brought an application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The information was sworn on April 25, 2012, and the application was heard on October 7, 2013, approximately 20 months later.

The court found an unacceptable delay of approximately 19 months, with significant portions attributable to the Crown and judicial officers.

The court also found moderate actual prejudice to the accused flowing from the delay.

Balancing the competing interests and applying the framework from R. v. Morin, the court granted the application and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common-law spouse.

The Crown's case was straightforward: the accused punched and kicked the victim on the stairs and basement of their shared residence.

The accused admitted to the physical acts but raised a defence of non-insane automatism, claiming he was in a state of hypoglycaemic shock due to his diabetes and was therefore unaware of his actions and unable to form the requisite mens rea.

The court found that the accused had met the threshold for raising the defence and, on a balance of probabilities, had rebutted the presumption of voluntariness.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a single-vehicle collision.

The accused denied being the driver and claimed Charter violations regarding the right to counsel and unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the accused was the driver based on credible eyewitness evidence and physical evidence from the collision.

No Charter violations were found.

The court concluded the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol and her blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit at the time of the collision.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath sample analysis results and observations made by police officers, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The court found no arbitrary detention under section 9, no violation of the right to be informed of reasons for detention under section 10(a), and no unlawful search under section 8.

The court upheld the officer's reasonable and probable grounds for making the breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including speeding, failure to pull over immediately, slurred speech, red glassy eyes, odour of alcohol, and the accused's unusual utterance.

The application was dismissed.