Scott N. Latimer

The Crown brought an application to admit statements made by the accused to a police officer following breath testing as voluntary.

The court conducted a voluntariness analysis under the confessions rule established in R. v. Oickle.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key factors included the accused's youth and first arrest, questioning on a detain sheet prior to legal advice, a compelled breath demand with questioning during the procedure, and the absence of a secondary caution.

The court held that the circumstances created a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused understood his right to silence when questioned by the officer.

The accused was charged with assault for allegedly spanking his five-year-old daughter excessively on March 7, 2017, contrary to Section 43 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including medical evidence of severe bruising to the child's buttocks consistent with multiple forceful impacts by an adult hand, and the accused's proximity to the child during a stressful morning.

The defence challenged the Crown's burden of proof and the reliability of the accused's post-arrest statement.

The court found that while the accused was the most likely suspect, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's exculpatory statement, corroborated in part by the mother's testimony, created reasonable doubt that could not be dispelled by the circumstantial evidence alone.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings based on an alleged unreasonable delay to trial in a robbery charge.

The charge was laid on March 13, 2016, with trial scheduled to end on March 9, 2018.

The court applied the presumptive ceiling framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets an 18-month ceiling for trials in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The key issue was whether delay resulting from the removal of original counsel in December 2016 constituted defence delay.

The court found that the removal of counsel and the resulting adjournment of trial dates constituted defence delay attributable to the defence.

Calculating net delay at approximately 13 months, the court found this fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and while possessing a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence based on alleged violations of Sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, arguing that the officer failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel before administering a roadside screening device test.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the "forthwith window" remained open and no realistic opportunity to consult counsel existed at the roadside.

At trial, the court found the accused not guilty of impaired operation but guilty of the over-80 charge, as the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt but successfully proved the blood-alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

Digital devices seized from the accused's residence contained 71 images and four videos meeting the Canadian definition of child pornography.

The images were categorized as Category 4 on the Oliver scale.

The accused demonstrated genuine remorse and had engaged in counselling.

The court sentenced the accused to 180 days imprisonment, imposed a DNA databank order, a ten-year SOIRA reporting obligation, and a five-year section 161 prohibition order with specific restrictions on contact with minors and internet usage.

A one-year probation order with conditions for assessment and counselling was also imposed.

The applicant was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

He brought a motion to exclude breath samples obtained during police investigation on the basis that they were unreasonably seized in violation of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown failed to establish that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the applicant had committed the offence, as the breath sample was administered only thirteen minutes after the applicant stated he had consumed alcohol.

The officer was aware of the "mouth alcohol" issue and the requirement to wait fifteen to twenty minutes before testing, but proceeded with the test anyway.

The court found this constituted a serious Charter violation and excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.