3 total
Summary conviction sentence appeal dismissed; sentencing judge provided adequate notice before exceeding Crown's position.
The appellant pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a conveyance and was sentenced to a $2,000 fine and an 18-month driving prohibition, which exceeded the Crown's position.
He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to provide proper notice of considering a higher sentence and erred by not receiving documentary evidence of his counselling and community service.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge provided adequate notice at the outset of the hearing and that the failure to physically receive the documents did not impact the sentence, as the judge accepted counsel's representations regarding the mitigating factors but found the aggravating factors warranted a higher penalty.
The accused was convicted of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 ml but acquitted of impaired and dangerous driving.
This decision addresses a Charter application challenging the admissibility of breathalyzer evidence and other related evidence in a case involving impaired driving, operation with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 ml, and dangerous driving.
The court carefully analyzed the issues of identity of the driver, the reliability of the alcohol screening device (ASD) fail result considering residual mouth alcohol, the lawfulness of detention in the police cruiser during the alcohol screening demand, and the timing of the right to counsel.
The court found no breach of sections 8 or 9 of the Charter but did find a minor breach of section 10(b) due to a brief delay in providing the right to counsel.
The breathalyzer evidence was admitted, and the accused was found guilty of the "80 plus" offence but not guilty of impaired driving or dangerous driving.
The youth is acquitted of all sexual offences due to reasonable doubt and unreliable complainant testimony.
A young person, P.P., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving two cousins for historical incidents.
The trial involved testimony from the complainants, their mother, and the accused and his sister.
The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) regarding reasonable doubt and assessed the credibility and reliability of all witnesses.
Significant inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence, including misidentification and factual contradictions, raised reliability concerns.
The Crown's similar fact application failed due to an inability to rebut the assertion of collusion.
The court found P.P. not guilty on all charges, concluding that the evidence did not satisfy the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
