Silvia Kissova

Tyler Westlin pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The victim, a hotel employee, sustained serious facial injuries requiring two surgeries.

The Crown sought a 6-month jail sentence followed by 2 years probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The defence sought a 12-month conditional sentence, highlighting the accused's remorse, rehabilitation efforts (anger management, reduced alcohol consumption, mental health support), and a 12-year gap in his criminal record.

The court, balancing sentencing principles including proportionality and restraint, imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with restrictive conditions, finding it could adequately address denunciation and deterrence while supporting the offender's rehabilitation and financial obligations to his children.

The accused, Wendel Attard, was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm following a collision.

The Crown alleged that Attard's vehicle, travelling at an excessive speed (112-117 km/hr in an 80 km/hr zone), collided with another vehicle making a left turn, demonstrating dangerous driving.

The defence argued that while the driving might have been dangerous, it did not constitute a "marked departure" from the standard of care required for a criminal conviction, noting that other vehicles were also exceeding the speed limit.

The court found Attard's driving objectively dangerous due to speed and inattention, but ultimately concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct amounted to a "marked departure" from the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent person.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty.

The defendant brought a section 8 Charter application challenging the police seizure of his vehicle's Event Data Recorder (EDR) without prior judicial authorization or consent following a serious motor vehicle collision.

The Crown alleged dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm based on speed data extracted from the EDR.

The court found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the EDR and its contents, and that the warrantless seizure and extraction of the data constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the police acted in bad faith by deliberately ignoring established Ontario jurisprudence requiring either a search warrant or owner consent before accessing an EDR.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a motion for a mistrial following the Crown's opening address.

The defence argued the Crown's remarks were inflammatory, included personal opinions, and improperly commented on the anticipated defence strategy, thereby undermining the accused's right to silence and reversing the burden of proof.

The court agreed, finding the Crown's characterization of the accused as an 'animal' and its pre-emptive arguments irreparably damaged the fairness of the trial.

The motion was granted and a mistrial was ordered.