Robert Warren

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death after driving her vehicle through a red light and striking a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

The accused argued she was in a momentary 'dreamlike state' due to grief over a friend's recent death, which she claimed negated the necessary fault element.

The court rejected this explanation, finding that the accused experienced a prolonged period of inattention that constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

The accused was found guilty.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after striking the victim over the head with a beer bottle outside a bar.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term, arguing the offender was a party to a subsequent, more severe assault by another individual.

The court found the offender was not a party to the second assault.

Considering the offender's status as a permanent resident and the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence of six months or more, the court imposed a sentence of six months less one day to preserve his right to appeal a deportation order, followed by two years of probation.

The three accused were charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation outside a bar.

The victim had spilled beer on one of the accused, who then followed the victim outside and struck him over the head with a beer bottle.

The Crown alleged a second accused struck the victim with a glass, and the third accused facilitated the assault by confronting the victim.

Relying on surveillance footage and witness testimony, the court found the first accused guilty of all charges.

However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the second accused struck the victim, and found the third accused lacked the requisite intent to be a party to the offence.

The second and third accused were acquitted.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a police officer charged with assault causing bodily harm following the 'grounding' of an arrested individual in a holding cell.

The Crown argued the trial judge exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias by prejudging the lawfulness of the initial arrest under the Liquor License Act before hearing submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding the trial judge's comments created a perception that he had prematurely decided the issue.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.