S. D. Monaghan

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death and failure to remain at the scene after his tow truck struck and killed a pedestrian in a plaza parking lot.

The Crown alleged the accused drove too fast, failed to keep a proper lookout, and then fled the scene.

The court found that while the driving was objectively dangerous, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's failure to see the pedestrian amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care rather than momentary inattention.

The court also found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused knew or was reckless about having struck a person when he left the scene.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of Devon Cherrey-Rooke, who was killed on August 7, 2022, in London, Ontario.

The offender, who was heavily intoxicated on crystal methamphetamine and fentanyl, engaged in an unprovoked armed attack on an unarmed, vulnerable homeless victim following a dispute over a drug transaction.

The attack lasted approximately 26 seconds and involved six strikes with a sharp-bladed instrument and a final kick.

The victim sustained three sharp force wounds, including a stab wound to the left thigh that severed a major artery, resulting in fatal hemorrhagic shock.

The offender fled the scene without rendering assistance, changed his distinctive clothing, and was arrested eight days later.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of nine years, with credit for 1,103 days of pretrial custody at a rate of 1.5:1, resulting in a net sentence of approximately 4 years, 5 months to be served in a federal penitentiary.

The defendant, Evan Beedawia, was sentenced after being found guilty of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The court considered statutory aggravating factors, including the death of one person and serious injury to another, the offender being remunerated, and operating a large commercial vehicle.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal or driving record, youthfulness, strong family support, and genuine remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence but found that a penitentiary term was not required due to the lower moral blameworthiness of the conduct, which was characterized by acts of omission and negligence rather than intentional acts.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by three years of probation, along with a seven-year driving prohibition and other ancillary orders.

The defendant, a commercial truck driver, was found guilty of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and bodily harm after failing to stop at a controlled intersection, resulting in the death of a 4-year-old child and serious injury to her mother.

The court found that the defendant's decision to maintain a high speed despite darkness, fog, fatigue, and distraction, and his failure to brake, constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent commercial driver.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and break, enter, and robbery following a violent home invasion.

The offender and three armed associates broke into a residence to confront the victim over a fraudulent investment, resulting in the victim being beaten and fatally shot.

The court weighed the extreme gravity of the offence and the offender's high moral blameworthiness against mitigating factors including his youth, guilty plea, lack of prior record, and strong community support.

The court rejected the application of the Morris framework for anti-Black racism, finding no causal connection to the offences.

The offender was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for manslaughter, with a concurrent 2.5-year sentence for the break and enter, less credit for pre-trial custody and house arrest.

The defendant, Juan Camilo Garcia Barbosa, was charged with aggravated assault and confinement following a physical altercation with the complainant.

The incident involved an argument over a cell phone, resulting in the complainant sustaining a mild spinal fracture.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting significant inconsistencies in her testimony, including the omission of a choking allegation made to police and medical staff, and her post-incident contact with the defendant.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to these reliability concerns.

The accused was scheduled for a Charter application regarding voluntariness, but the provided Laotian interpreter was not accredited.

Noting the fundamental rights conferred by section 14 of the Charter and the pressures of trial delays, the court adjourned the application to the start of the trial and directed the administration of justice to ensure a properly accredited interpreter is made available.

The offender was convicted after trial of three counts each of impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from a high-speed impaired driving incident that caused a severe head-on collision and serious injuries to three victims.

The court considered extensive aggravating factors including a blood alcohol concentration more than twice the legal limit, prolonged dangerous driving on a busy highway, and devastating and permanent injuries to one victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, otherwise exemplary life, genuine remorse, and severe permanent injuries he himself sustained in the collision.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence in impaired driving offences, the court imposed concurrent custodial sentences.

Ancillary orders included probation conditions and a lengthy driving prohibition.

The accused brought a motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code on the basis of potential racial bias and pretrial publicity.

The defence proposed multiple-choice versions of the traditional Parks question and an additional question regarding stereotypes about Black men.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence on challenges for cause, including the requirement to demonstrate a realistic potential for juror partiality.

The court declined to permit the multiple-choice format and rejected the stereotype question due to insufficient evidentiary basis.

Instead, the court approved modified questions addressing racial bias and exposure to publicity, requiring jurors to answer in their own words.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace arising from a street altercation involving multiple participants.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended key identification evidence, improperly relied on hearsay to support continuity of identification, and failed to consider self-defence.

The appeal court held the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of eyewitness testimony, applied the W.(D.) framework, and did not rely on hearsay for a prohibited purpose.

The court further found no air of reality to a self-defence claim given the defence theory that the appellant did not possess the knife.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence was found to be within the acceptable range.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision on Wharncliffe Road North in London, Ontario.

The Crown's case relied on breath sample results and observations of the accused's behaviour at the scene and at the police station.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish the timing prerequisites necessary to rely on the statutory presumptions of accuracy and identity under the Criminal Code, and therefore dismissed the over .80 count.

On the impairment count, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, noting inconsistencies in witness accounts, the accused's apparent ability to understand instructions, and the plausible explanation of weather and road conditions for the collision.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a 911 call and a police statement made by the accused’s spouse concerning a stabbing incident.

Because the couple married after the events but before trial, the spouse was incompetent to testify for the Crown under s. 4(1) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Crown argued the statements should be admitted under the principled exception to the hearsay rule on the basis of necessity and reliability.

Applying the framework from Hawkins and Couture, the court held that the spousal incompetency rule must remain analytically distinct from hearsay analysis and that admitting the statements would undermine the rule’s underlying rationale of protecting marital harmony and preventing conscription of a spouse into the prosecution.

The proposed evidence was therefore inadmissible.