Robert Michael Geurts

The appellant appealed her conviction for operating a conveyance with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

She argued that the trial judge erred in finding no breach of her s. 8 Charter right arising from video surveillance of cell toilets during her detention, relying on the principles in R. v. Mok.

The appeal court found that police took reasonable steps to mitigate the privacy intrusion by informing the appellant of the surveillance, offering privacy gowns and blankets, and posting signage.

The court held the application judge did not reverse the burden of proof and correctly found no s. 8 breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a former employee at his meat processing company.

The complainant alleged that the accused approached her from behind on two occasions, smelling her hair, placing his hands on her shoulder and neck, and touching her arms.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony, including contradictory accounts of how she left the office, whether she spoke to her husband, and when she disclosed the incident.

The court also noted that the complainant failed to initially mention observing an erection until after her memory was refreshed by her police statement.

While the accused's testimony contained some implausible elements, the court found it could not reject his denial.

The Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and an acquittal was entered.

The defendant, Jefferson Dance, was charged with dangerous driving causing death and impaired driving causing death following a high-speed rear-end collision in Wasaga Beach that killed the other driver.

The Crown presented evidence that the defendant was driving a Tesla Model Y at speeds up to 196 km/h in a 50 km/h zone with a blood-alcohol concentration nearly four times the legal limit.

The defense argued that the collision was caused by an intervening mechanical defect in the Tesla causing sudden unintended acceleration, but failed to introduce admissible evidence to support this theory.

The court rejected the defense's arguments, finding that the defendant's extreme speed and high level of intoxication constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

Ultimately, the court found the defendant guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

Ricardo Gomez, a Toronto Police Service officer, pleaded guilty to breach of trust for providing confidential information to a member of the public.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence, declining probation or a discharge.

The decision details the facts, Gomez’s background, letters of support, and the legal framework for sentencing, including aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court emphasized the seriousness of breach of trust by police officers and the need for denunciation and deterrence, finding a discharge contrary to the public interest.

The appellant, William Gillen, appealed his convictions for trafficking fentanyl, possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appeal focused on the trial judge’s instructions to the jury, specifically whether the judge usurped the jury’s fact-finding role, encouraged propensity reasoning, or permitted the jury to use text messages for a prohibited purpose.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s instructions and dismissed the appeal.

The court sentenced Matthew Elias, who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The decision details the disturbing facts of the offence, Elias’s personal circumstances, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found that, despite the seriousness of the offence and the usual need for denunciation and deterrence, Elias’s significant mental health issues, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and severe collateral consequences justified a conditional sentence.

The decision applies recent appellate guidance on the range and principles for sentencing in child pornography cases.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography.

In advance of sentencing, the Crown requested the judge view a selection of the child pornography images and videos, which the defence opposed.

The court, applying principles from R. v. P.M., declined to view the material, finding limited probative value given the detailed agreed facts and the judge's extensive prior experience with such material, and some inherent prejudice to victims.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and surreptitiously making a visual recording, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to admit five video tapes depicting the alleged offences.

The court found the tapes had significant probative value regarding the complainant's level of consciousness and the timing of events.

To mitigate the substantial risk to the complainant's privacy and dignity, the parties agreed to several limits, including the applicant re-electing trial by judge alone, closing the courtroom when playing the tapes, and using an agreed statement of fact.

The court ruled the tapes admissible subject to these conditions.

Mary Thompson, charged with fraud over $5,000, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a violation of her s. 11(b) right to trial within a reasonable time.

Applying the R. v. Jordan framework, the court calculated the total delay from the information being sworn (May 30, 2019) to the anticipated end of trial (June 24, 2022) as 36.85 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior courts.

After deducting 61 days for defence waiver and delay, and 134 days for COVID-19 related exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was 30.44 months, still above the ceiling.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness, and the court found no exceptional circumstances related to the case's complexity to justify the delay.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged that the accused sexually assaulted her in a laundry room.

The accused denied the allegations.

The Crown presented the complainant's testimony, corroborating evidence from her supervisor, and forensic DNA evidence (accused's DNA in saliva on the complainant's bra).

The defence argued inadequate police investigation, a motive to fabricate, and contamination of DNA evidence.

The court rejected the defence's arguments, finding the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, particularly due to the corroborating DNA evidence.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice declared a mistrial in a criminal proceeding against the accused, who had been found guilty of aggravated assault.

The mistrial was initiated by the court prior to sentencing due to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defence counsel had failed to call a qualified expert to support the accused's automatism defence, which was based on an epileptic seizure, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal requirement for expert evidence in such defences.

The court found that this error rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and constituted a miscarriage of justice, as the defence could not have succeeded without the required expert testimony.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order.

The court found material changes in circumstances due to a psychological report detailing the applicant's intellectual deficits and the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the proposed release plan, including an unsuitable primary surety and insufficient details on electronic monitoring, failed to adequately address secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court dismissed the bail review application, finding continued detention warranted to protect the public and maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the applicant's asthma making him vulnerable to COVID-19.

The Crown applied for an order permitting the complainant and her mother to testify by video link from Quebec in a trial for human trafficking and sexual assault.

The defence opposed the complainant testifying by video link but did not strenuously oppose the mother's request.

The court granted the application for the mother to testify from Quebec under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

For the complainant, the court found it appropriate for her to testify outside the courtroom but ordered that she must do so from the Oshawa courthouse, citing concerns about managing cross-examination with documents and transcripts if she were in Quebec.

This pre-trial criminal ruling addressed four applications arising from historical sexual offence charges involving an underage complainant subject to a publication ban.

The court granted the Crown's application to amend the indictment date range to include an earlier alleged incident, but refused to admit evidence of the accused's prior sexual relationship with another underage person as similar fact evidence because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The court permitted the defence to lead evidence of the later relationship and family-law dispute between the accused and the complainant, provided the evidence did not focus on sexual activity or invoke twin-myth reasoning under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court also held that the accused's police statement was voluntary and obtained without breach of s. 10(b), although any use of the statement would require editing to conform to the similar fact ruling.

The appellant appealed a total sentence of two years and three months.

She argued the sentence was ambiguous and improperly disparate compared to her co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no ambiguity and noting that the disparity was justified because the appellant was convicted of additional serious offences, including breaching court orders while on bail.

The appellant appealed from a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

At the hearing, counsel for the appellant advised the court that he was unable to reach his client.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.