Rocco Loccisano

This criminal trial concerned two counts of sexual assault and two counts of gross indecency against the accused, Steven Wolfer, involving a complainant who was 10-12 years old at the time of the alleged incidents in the mid-1980s.

The complainant testified about two separate incidents of manual fondling: one during a babysitting occasion and another during a sleepover at the accused's home.

The accused denied all allegations.

While the court found the complainant to be a credible witness and believed his account, it identified several frailties in the evidence, particularly regarding the sleepover incident, such as the unlikelihood of parental approval for the sleepover and the presence of other adults.

Despite the complainant's persuasive testimony, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of all charges.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and breach of recognizance for contact with the complainant contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident on July 9, 2017, involving an acrimonious interaction between the defendant and his ex-wife during a child custody exchange.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the breach of recognizance but not guilty to dangerous driving.

The court found the defendant's credibility unreliable due to his agitated state of mind and inconsistencies in his testimony.

However, the court determined that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea of dangerous driving beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence did not establish that the defendant operated his vehicle at a high rate of speed or deliberately swerved toward the complainant.

The court found the defendant guilty of breach of recognizance but acquitted him of dangerous driving.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excess blood alcohol concentration contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence challenged the validity of the approved screening demand, arguing it was not made "forthwith" as required by law, and sought exclusion of the breath readings on Charter grounds.

The court found that while there was a five-minute delay between the formation of reasonable suspicion and the provision of the demand, the delay was reasonably necessary given the defendant's exceptional chattiness and the practical circumstances of the roadside stop.

The court concluded the demand was made forthwith and there was no Charter violation.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excess blood alcohol concentration contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the approved screening device demand on the basis that it was not made "forthwith" as required by law, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that while there was a five-minute delay between the formation of reasonable suspicion and the provision of the demand, the delay was reasonably necessary given the defendant's exceptional chattiness and the operational context of a roadside stop.

The court found the demand was made forthwith and no Charter violation occurred.

The defendant was found guilty.

A voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of statements made by the defendant to a police officer during breath testing procedures.

The Crown sought to introduce utterances made by the defendant during the breath room interaction.

The court found that statements made before the first breath sample were voluntary, as the defendant was properly cautioned regarding his right to remain silent and appeared to have freely chosen to speak with the officer.

However, the court found that statements made between the two breath samples were not established to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, as the defendant may have believed the questions related to the Alcohol Influence Report were part of the compulsory breath testing process and no caution was provided before those questions.

Emiliana Piccinini, a legal assistant and bookkeeper, was charged with theft over $5000 and fraud over $5000 for allegedly receiving unauthorized excess payments disguised as payroll from her employer's law firm between 2011 and 2014.

Piccinini asserted these payments were authorized fees owed to her from a prior agreement.

The court found Piccinini's evidence to be internally inconsistent, unreliable, and unsupported by credible evidence or bank records, particularly regarding the alleged fee arrangement and her explanations for the numerous extra payments.

Conversely, the court accepted the employer's and accountant's testimony as credible and reliable.

Consequently, Piccinini was found guilty of fraud over $5000, with the theft charge conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offender was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, assault police, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought an upper reformatory sentence of incarceration, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's difficult background, genuine remorse, and 51 months of crime-free behavior while on bail.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.