Stephen Bradley Collinson

The defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and causing bodily harm to a passenger.

The collision resulted in serious injuries to the victim, including a fractured pelvis requiring surgery and a dislocated knee.

The defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 129 milligrams per 100 millilitres and also had amphetamine and methamphetamine in her system.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment followed by two years probation, a two-year driving prohibition, and ancillary orders including DNA collection and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The accused, a paralegal, was charged with trafficking in marijuana (85 grams) contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown alleged that the accused delivered drugs to an inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Institution during a professional visit on September 12, 2011.

The inmate testified that the accused handed him a package containing marijuana in a locked interview room.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy.

The court found the inmate's evidence credible and consistent with all other Crown evidence, rejected the accused's testimony as nonsensical and paranoid, and convicted the accused based on direct evidence and compelling circumstantial evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a traffic stop on the Queen Elizabeth Way.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving, physical signs of impairment, and observations by both a civilian witness and police officers.

The accused testified that he was fatigued rather than impaired.

The court found the Crown's evidence of impairment overwhelming and rejected the accused's testimony.

The accused also brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 7 rights due to audio-visual surveillance of his cell, including while using the toilet without his knowledge.

The court dismissed the Charter application, distinguishing the case from R. v. Mok on the basis that the police evidence did not establish a systemic practice with the same characteristics.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving.