3 total
An abuse of process application regarding the Crown's late addition of an eyewitness was dismissed.
The defendant, Mesfin Weldeab, charged with Careless Driving and Careless Driving Causing Bodily Harm, brought an abuse of process application seeking a stay of proceedings.
The application arose after the Crown sought to call an additional eyewitness, despite earlier indications that only one witness (Accident Reconstructionist) would be called and an Agreed Statement of Facts being in place.
The defence argued this constituted an abuse of process, compromising trial fairness and undermining justice system integrity.
The court dismissed the Crown's motion for summary dismissal of the application due to late filing.
Applying the three-part test for abuse of process from R. v. Babos, the court found no prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial or the integrity of the justice system, and that alternative remedies existed.
The application was denied.
The accused was acquitted of careless driving causing death because the collision was primarily caused by the victim turning into oncoming traffic.
This decision concerns Heather Vukovic, charged with Careless Driving Causing Death under the Highway Traffic Act.
The charge arose from a collision where Vukovic's vehicle, travelling westbound on Highway 9, collided with another vehicle turning left into oncoming traffic, resulting in the other driver's death.
While the defendant was found to be speeding, the court considered witness testimony and accident reconstruction evidence, which indicated the victim's vehicle caused the collision by turning into oncoming traffic.
The court applied the legal standard for careless driving, emphasizing that it does not require perfection and that speed alone is insufficient.
Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's driving constituted careless driving causing death, finding her not guilty.
Accused granted bail on serious drug importation charges due to strong surety plan and weak Crown case.
The accused faced charges of conspiracy to import and traffic cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and importing a Schedule 1 substance.
In a reverse onus bail hearing, the Crown sought detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.
The court found the accused met his burden on all grounds, noting his lack of criminal record, a strong surety release plan with a substantial financial pledge, and weaknesses in the Crown's case, which relied heavily on the uncorroborated statements of a co-accused.
The accused was granted release on strict conditions including house arrest and surety supervision.
