Robert S. Gee

The accused, Dustin Fahey, faced five criminal charges arising from domestic incidents with his former spouse, Andrea Randell, and her mother, Jeanette Randell.

The charges included threatening, unlawful confinement, criminal harassment, and assault.

The court found Mr. Fahey guilty of threatening Andrea Randell and criminally harassing her, based on credible testimony and extensive text message evidence demonstrating a pattern of manipulative and relentless communication.

However, the court dismissed the charges of unlawful confinement and assault due to insufficient or unclear evidence.

The judge rejected the accused's claim of memory loss, finding it untruthful and not a valid defence.

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance with an excessive blood alcohol concentration.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath samples based on an alleged s. 10(b) Charter breach, the voluntariness of statements made to police, and whether the Crown could prove operation of the conveyance.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that s. 10(b) rights were suspended during the roadside investigation.

It also found the accused's statements to police voluntary, despite the officer not re-advising rights and cautions between breath samples, as the accused had already received counsel advice and understood her right to silence.

Finally, the court found the Crown proved operation beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on the presumption of operation and the accused's clear intention to drive.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, P.F., was charged with invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his stepdaughter, E.G. The Crown presented evidence from the complainant, her mother, and two police officers, while the accused testified in his defence.

The court found both the complainant and the accused to be intelligent, articulate, and compelling witnesses, presenting diametrically opposed versions of events.

Due to the lack of independent corroborating evidence capable of resolving the inherent uncertainty between the two credible but conflicting accounts, the court was left in a state of reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and all charges against the accused were dismissed.

The accused, J.S., was charged with sexual assault, assault, and sexual interference involving his 13-year-old stepdaughter, E.S., on two separate occasions.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, applying the principles from R. v. W.D. and cautioning against stereotypical myths in sexual assault cases.

The court found the complainant's testimony compelling and corroborated by another witness, while the accused's testimony was deemed unbelievable due to inconsistencies and his callous behavior.

The court found the accused guilty on all charges, noting that for the second incident, a conviction would be registered for one of the three charges as it was a continuing transaction.

The accused, R.M.P., was charged with one count of sexual assault against the complainant, A.M. The trial focused on whether the sexual encounter was consensual and if the accused was aware of any lack of consent.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, applying the principles from R. v. W.D. and R. v. J.J.R.D. The defence theory that the complainant fabricated the allegation due to feeling disrespected was rejected as inconsistent with the evidence, particularly the complainant's immediate demeanour after the incident.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and accepted her version of events, concluding that the Crown had proven the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty.

The accused, Jacob Olmstead, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 27 months and 23 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The central issue was how to treat the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The court found that the entire period from June 9, 2020, to March 2, 2021, was a discrete, exceptional circumstance caused by the pandemic.

After deducting this period, the remaining delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the court determined the delay was not unreasonable and dismissed the accused's application.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample after his truck was found in a ditch.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention, unreasonable search due to cell video surveillance, and overholding.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the arresting officer had reasonable grounds, the cell surveillance was balanced by the offer of a privacy blanket, and the release timing was appropriate.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges, concluding he was slightly impaired, in care or control of the vehicle, and feigned attempts to provide a breath sample.

The accused, Hal Clayton, was arrested for driving with a suspended license, leading to a vehicle search that uncovered controlled substances.

Clayton brought a Charter application alleging violations of his s. 8 (unlawful search) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The court found that the vehicle search was a pretextual search, not genuinely for a driver's license, and thus unlawful.

Additionally, the police violated the accused's right to counsel by delaying advisement of rights and by questioning him after he had requested a lawyer but before he had access to one.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the serious and cumulative nature of the Charter breaches by multiple officers outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence.

Consequently, all evidence found during the search was excluded from the trial.

The accused, Gyver James-Park, was charged with assault causing bodily harm following three altercations with the complainant, Jessica Jones, at a festival.

The altercations were sparked by the accused's transphobic comments towards the complainant.

The trial involved conflicting witness testimony, with the court finding many witnesses, including the accused, to be untruthful or unreliable.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. framework for credibility assessment.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inability to resolve the conflicting evidence regarding how the altercations started and who initiated them.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, Jacob Olmstead, brought a pre-trial application challenging a search warrant for his residence, alleging a violation of his s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure, and seeking the exclusion of evidence.

The challenge was based on claims that the warrant was overbroad, the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient basis, and the affiant made material misrepresentations and omissions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, despite being imperfectly written, provided a sufficient and reasonable basis for the warrant's issuance, and that the alleged flaws did not undermine the reasonable grounds.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an incident on the Six Nations Reserve: dangerous operation of a conveyance, failing to stop after an accident, flight from police, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and carrying an imitation weapon (loaded pellet gun) for the purpose of committing an offence.

The trial proceeded over four days.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused fired a pellet gun at the complainant, engaged in a prolonged high-speed pursuit by police, struck another vehicle and failed to stop, drove over a spike belt, and fled on foot.

The accused testified that he was being chased by the complainant and his father out of fear for his life, and that the police were not pursuing him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as incapable of belief and accepted the Crown's evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on four charges and dismissed the dwelling house charge due to insufficient evidence that the building met the statutory definition of a dwelling house.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and having more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

The Crown called two OPP officers as witnesses.

The defence abandoned a Charter application prior to trial.

The court dismissed the over 80 charge due to the Crown's failure to establish the target value of the alcohol standard used in the calibration check, as required under section 320.31(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following recent legislative changes.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on the officer observations of poor driving, slurred speech, unsteady balance, and odour of alcohol on the breath, rejecting the defence argument that a prior head injury and recent fall could account for the observations.

The accused was charged with four counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possession of property obtained by crime.

A fanny pack containing drugs was found under the front seat of a vehicle during a traffic stop, positioned under the accused's legs.

The accused denied knowledge of or control over the fanny pack.

The court applied the test from R. v. Villaroman, finding that while the accused's guilt was a reasonable inference based on proximity to the drugs, possession of cash, two cell phones, and suspicious travel circumstances, the court had to determine if this was the only reasonable inference.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent, rejected the defence theory that drugs could have been left by another dealer, and rejected the theory that the drugs belonged to the driver.

The court found the only reasonable inference was that the accused possessed the drugs for trafficking purposes and convicted on all charges.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for armed robbery of a convenience store in Brantford, Ontario on October 6, 2018.

The Crown alleged that Deakin entered the store brandishing a firearm and knife while Stewart remained outside keeping watch.

The Crown proceeded on charges of robbery simpliciter (as no firearm was recovered) and masking during the commission of an indictable offence.

Deakin's defence was identity; Stewart's defence was duress and lack of knowledge.

The court found both accused guilty on both charges based on video evidence, eyewitness identification, and analysis of the accused's conduct before, during, and after the robbery.

The accused was charged with nine offences arising from a shooting incident in Brantford on October 9, 2017.

The Crown alleged the accused discharged a firearm at an individual, while the accused denied involvement.

The trial focused on identity of the shooter.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a firearm was used, that any weapon was carried in a concealed manner, or that the accused was the person involved in the incident.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive amount of alcohol in his blood following a single-vehicle accident near Simcoe, Ontario.

The accused alleged that police violated his section 8 Charter rights by videotaping him using toilet facilities while in police custody without providing adequate privacy protections.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights were breached on two occasions when he used the toilet at the police station.

Although the police had a policy of providing privacy gowns to detainees, the implementation of this policy was inadequate.

The court applied the Grant test and determined that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's privacy and dignity outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The breath sample analysis results were excluded as evidence, and the charge was dismissed.

A youth was charged with six counts arising from allegations of sexual abuse of a young child over a two-year period when the accused was approximately 15-16 years old and the complainant was 3-5 years old.

The Crown alleged three separate incidents of sexual abuse.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court applied the W.D. framework for assessing credibility and found the accused's evidence vague, internally inconsistent, and self-serving, while finding the complainant's evidence detailed, straightforward, and compelling despite her young age at the time of the incidents and at trial.

The court rejected arguments that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to lack of detail, inconsistencies regarding anatomical terminology, or the absence of observable injuries.

The court found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all charges.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly punching the complainant outside a Tim Hortons in Brantford, causing a non-displaced cranial fracture and requiring hospitalization.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the assailant.

While surveillance video from inside the establishment clearly showed the accused present, the outside video quality was poor and the Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and inferences from clothing descriptions.

The court found that the complainant's identification was unreliable due to intoxication and head injury, and a witness's evidence was contradicted by the video.

The court concluded that while the accused was the most likely perpetrator, the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt based on the poor quality outside video and generic clothing descriptors.

The accused was charged with historical sexual offences against the complainant, who was a young child at the time of the alleged incidents in 2000.

The accused, who was a youth at the time, denied the allegations.

The court applied the W.D. framework to assess credibility.

Although the court found the complainant's testimony compelling and did not believe the accused's denial, it concluded that the accused's evidence still left a reasonable doubt.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of cannabis resin, possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, possession of property obtained by offence, prowl by night near a dwelling house, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

Police conducted surveillance on a residence and stopped the accused as he left on a bicycle, claiming he was riding without a light and on the sidewalk in violation of the Highway Traffic Act and a municipal by-law.

The accused fled and was apprehended after an extensive police pursuit.

The court found that the stop was pretextual and unlawful, violating sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court also found minor violations of section 10 rights.

All evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and all charges were dismissed.