Robert S. Gee

The accused pleaded guilty to armed robbery of a pharmacy where he stole 110 bottles and packages of narcotics, including 75 fentanyl patches, using a knife as a weapon.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission of two years imprisonment plus presentence custody.

The court rejected the joint submission as contrary to the public interest and imposed a sentence of five years in the penitentiary.

The accused's application to withdraw his guilty plea was dismissed.

The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias and determined that withdrawal was not justified in the interests of justice.

The accused, an HIV and HSV positive individual, was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for non-disclosure of HIV status to three complainants, one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm for allegedly transmitting HSV to one complainant, and two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown alleged the accused engaged in intimate relationships without disclosing his viral status.

The trial focused on whether non-disclosure vitiated consent and whether there was a realistic possibility of HIV transmission.

The court found that while the accused failed to disclose his HIV status, his undetectable viral load for more than six months negated any realistic possibility of transmission, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court's decision in Mabior.

The court also found insufficient evidence to prove causation of the HSV infection.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher and vice-principal, pleaded guilty to nine counts of voyeurism under section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Between early 2015 and February 2017, he secretly recorded male staff members using the staff washroom at his school using hidden cameras.

The Crown sought 15 to 18 months custody, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 16 months, highlighting mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of prior record, remorse, and therapeutic progress.

The court imposed a 16-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for the first eight months, non-contact orders, and mandatory counselling, followed by two years probation.

A Hamilton Police officer with approximately two years of experience was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching a suspect in the face during an arrest.

The suspect, a 35-year-old man with mental health issues, had spat on the officer.

The officer delivered three punches total: one immediately after being spat upon (conceded as reasonable by the Crown), and two additional punches while the suspect was on the ground and handcuffed.

The court found the latter two punches were excessive and not protected by section 25 of the Criminal Code, as they were delivered in retribution rather than for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either of the two excessive punches caused the suspect's facial fracture, which required surgery.

The officer was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but convicted of the lesser included offence of assault.

The accused brought a Charter s. 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that he was not tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets presumptive ceilings of 18 months for Provincial Court and 30 months for Superior Court.

After calculating the overall delay of 40 months and 2 weeks from the charge date to the anticipated completion of trial and sentencing, the court deducted 19 months of defence delay and 7 months of exceptional circumstances (death of accused's father and illness of defence counsel).

The remaining delay of 14 months and 1 week fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and dismissed the application.

This is a preliminary inquiry into charges of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death against two Ontario Provincial Police officers.

The officers were engaged in a high-speed pursuit of a stolen vehicle driven by a prohibited driver that resulted in a collision with an innocent third party, causing her death.

The Crown alleged the officers failed to terminate the pursuit when the risk to public safety outweighed the benefit of apprehension, and that their driving was objectively dangerous.

The defence argued the officers' conduct was within their training and policy, and that neither supervising sergeant terminated the pursuit.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both officers to trial on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of an accident knowing that bodily harm had been caused, contrary to section 252(1.2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was the driver of a vehicle that rolled after running a stop sign while he was distracted by an argument with a passenger.

Two occupants suffered life-threatening injuries.

The accused briefly checked on one injured person, then left the scene with another passenger, flagging down a passing motorist for a ride.

He did not call for assistance or advise anyone of the accident.

Emergency responders took 26 minutes to locate the scene because the accused, who knew the location, had fled.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 months custody, a two-year non-reporting probation order, a three-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and conditions prohibiting contact with the injured parties and attendance within 100 metres of their residences or workplaces.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop for speeding.

The defence alleged seven separate Charter breaches relating to arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.

The court found that only the arrest for driving with a suspended license constituted Charter breaches, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the inventory search of the vehicle and the subsequent arrest for marijuana possession.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was arrested for impaired driving at a RIDE check and taken to a neighbouring police station because the arresting detachment lacked an on-duty breath technician.

At the station, the breath technician had to process another suspect simultaneously, resulting in a 57-minute delay between the accused's first and second breath samples.

The court found that the police acted reasonably in both setting up the RIDE check without a technician and in overlapping the sampling procedures for the two suspects.

The breath samples were deemed to have been taken as soon as practicable, and the accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after police discovered approximately 41 kilograms (90 pounds) of marijuana stored in a rental storage unit.

The accused held Health Canada-issued production licences permitting him to grow 176 plants and possess approximately 17.5 pounds of marijuana at his residence, plus an authorization to possess 450 grams of dried marijuana.

The accused claimed the excess marijuana resulted from an unexpectedly large first crop and that he stored it temporarily while seeking advice from Health Canada on proper disposal, motivated by security concerns following an attempted robbery at a neighbouring grower's property.

The court rejected the accused's explanation as defying common sense, logic, and human experience, finding the accused guilty as charged.

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.