S. Doyle

The applicant, who suffers from mental illness and auditory hallucinations, applied for a bail review after being detained on charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault of a police officer.

He presented a new bail plan with a surety.

The court found that while the applicant's dangerousness is linked to his mental illness, the proposed plan did not provide adequate supervision to ensure he would remain medicated and stable.

The application was dismissed under the secondary ground.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of excess blood alcohol where the trial judge excluded breathalyzer readings after finding a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The summary conviction appeal court held that the trial judge’s reasons for excluding the evidence were inadequate and prevented meaningful appellate review.

The trial judge also erred in law by failing to apply the tripartite framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter established in Grant.

While the finding of a s. 10(b) breach was open on the evidence, the exclusion analysis was legally deficient.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

Following the close of the Crown’s case in a jury trial, the accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a 15‑year‑old complainant after engaging in sexual intercourse with her on at least two occasions while both were residing in a homeless shelter.

The court considered the statutory framework under s. 151 of the Criminal Code and determined that the applicable mandatory minimum was 45 days because the precise date of the offence relative to the legislative increase could not be established.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in offences involving sexual activity with children, the court weighed aggravating factors including the complainant’s vulnerability, the accused’s age disparity, and repeated sexual intercourse.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s lack of criminal record, expressions of remorse, mental health challenges, and rehabilitative prospects.

A custodial sentence of 15 months followed by two years’ probation and several ancillary orders was imposed.

The applicant, who was self-represented, sought an interim stay of his sentence orders (including a fine, probation, and a DNA order) pending his summary conviction appeal for assault with a weapon.

The court noted deficiencies in the application record and that the applicant had not demonstrated an arguable appeal or undue hardship.

The court granted an adjournment to allow the applicant to acquire materials and potentially retain counsel, but denied the request for an interim stay.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on two repeat drinking and driving offenders.

In both cases, the trial judges had set aside the Crown's s. 727(1) notices of intention to seek an increased penalty, finding that the prosecutors had exercised their discretion unreasonably.

One of the offenders also appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in proceeding with the trial in his absence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in proceeding where counsel was present and prepared.

The Court allowed the Crown's sentence appeals, holding that the decision to file a s. 727(1) notice falls within the core elements of prosecutorial discretion and is reviewable only for abuse of process, not on a standard of reasonableness.

However, at the Crown's request, the existing sentences were not varied.