Stephen D. Brown

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a RIDE program stop.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction on the Over 80 count only.

The defence argued that the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were violated and sought exclusion of the Intoxilyzer results under section 24(2).

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, having manufactured evidence of slurred speech and taken an impermissible shortcut by proceeding directly to arrest rather than first administering an approved screening device test.

The court excluded the breath test results and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with multiple Criminal Code offences including uttering threats, assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault with a weapon, mischief, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, making child pornography, and voyeurism.

He was also charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences including trafficking cocaine, production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for trafficking, and possession of cocaine.

The trial hinged on the credibility of the complainant and a second witness.

The court found both witnesses to be unreliable, manipulative, and not credible.

The accused testified that the activities were consensual BDSM play.

The court acquitted the accused of all Criminal Code charges and found him guilty of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana (as a lesser included offence to trafficking), but not guilty of trafficking cocaine or production of marijuana.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault committed on September 20, 2015, at a bar in Burlington.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including bleeding on the brain, a ruptured right eye, and a detached lens, resulting in permanent loss of sight in one eye.

The court imposed a sentence of 90 days intermittent custody and three years probation, balancing the serious nature of the offence and devastating injuries against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

A youth was charged with aggravated assault by wounding contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code following a hip check delivered during a house league hockey game that resulted in a serious leg fracture to the victim.

The Crown alleged the defendant intentionally applied force without consent.

The defence argued the defendant momentarily forgot he was playing non-contact hockey and instinctively executed a properly-trained hip check from his years of rep hockey experience.

The court found the defendant not guilty, accepting that he was in early transition from contact to non-contact hockey, had just participated in contact high school tryouts two days prior, and that the hip check, while spectacular in result, was a properly executed check that would have been acceptable in contact hockey.

The court found the Crown failed to negate implied consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against a five-and-a-half-year-old complainant on March 13, 2014.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial centered on credibility and the identity of the assailant.

The complainant testified via CCTV that the defendant showed her his genitals and touched her inappropriately.

However, during cross-examination, the complainant indicated that it was the defendant's 17-year-old son who committed these acts, not the defendant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable and malleable, influenced by the questioning of various adults.

The investigating officer failed to properly investigate the alternate suspect despite being informed by the suspect's counsel that he wished to provide an inculpatory statement.

The defendant testified in his own defence and denied the allegations.

The court found his evidence left a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

A police sergeant charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with greater than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood following a collision with a motorcycle.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, including allegations of breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while the defendant's initial statements to the first officer were compelled under the Highway Traffic Act and therefore excluded, subsequent statements and observations provided sufficient grounds for arrest and breath demand.

The court rejected the defendant's credibility and found her guilty of both charges based on the observations of multiple officers who knew her in a sober state, the breath test results, and the toxicological evidence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level exceeded 80 mgs of alcohol in 100 mLs of blood.

He brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The charge was laid on February 8, 2014, and the trial was scheduled for October 9, 2014, but could not proceed due to court overbooking.

A new trial date was set for March 26, 2015, resulting in a total delay of approximately 13 months and 16 days.

The court found that the institutional delay of 11 months and one week exceeded the Morin guidelines, that the accused suffered actual financial and emotional prejudice, and that the delay was unacceptable for a straightforward impaired driving case.

The charge was stayed.

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that printed materials containing child pornography, found in a drawer in the defendant's home, were in the defendant's possession.

The defendant denied knowledge of or possession of the materials and suggested that a family member, specifically his grandson Matthew Butwick, had printed and planted the materials to implicate him.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the child pornography and had printed the materials himself, rejecting the defendant's implausible alternative explanation.

The accused, a Level 3 certified figure skating coach with 30 years of experience, was charged with five counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against three complainants: A.M., T.B., and K.M.T. The charges arose from allegations of inappropriate physical contact and comments made during figure skating instruction and coaching relationships spanning from 1996 to 2011.

The Crown alleged the accused engaged in inappropriate touching of students' bodies during instruction, made inappropriate comments about their physical development, and engaged in grooming behavior.

The accused denied all charges, asserting that his physical contact with students was necessary and incidental to teaching figure skating skills, and that his comments were made in appropriate coaching contexts.

The trial involved six days of evidence and focused heavily on credibility assessments of the complainants, their parents, and the accused.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to trial on charges of break and enter, possession of break-in tools, and mischief arising from a sophisticated bank theft at a TD Bank in Burlington.

The accused were found hiding in a field shortly after the theft, in close proximity to admitted perpetrators and stolen property.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including concrete dust and drywall particles found on the accused's clothing and tools in the accused Hickey's van.

The court discharged the accused on all counts, finding that the Crown's evidence was equivocal and speculative, failing to establish the essential elements of the offences beyond what a reasonable jury properly instructed could convict upon.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm contrary to s. 255(2) of the Criminal Code.

On September 13, 2011, the offender's vehicle failed to stop at a red light and collided with a vehicle at an intersection in Oakville, causing a chain-reaction collision involving approximately four vehicles.

Three individuals suffered serious bodily harm, including broken bones, facial injuries, and persistent pain and psychological trauma.

The offender's blood alcohol level was 188 and 182 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, placing him in the statutorily aggravating range.

The offender was a 23-year-old first-time offender with no criminal record, strong family support, and demonstrated genuine remorse.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days, an 18-month driving prohibition, and 12 months probation with conditions including substance abuse counselling and an alcohol consumption prohibition.

The defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault against a 15-year-old complainant between August and September 2010.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The complainant alleged multiple incidents of unwanted touching of her breasts and genital area by the defendant, who was her mother's boyfriend and lived in the family home.

The defendant denied all allegations.

The complainant initially recanted her allegations in a sworn affidavit in April 2012, but subsequently advised her lawyer in May 2013 that the affidavit was false and the allegations were true.

The trial focused on credibility, with the judge finding the complainant credible despite her psychological vulnerabilities and the apparent inconsistencies in her account, while finding the defendant and the complainant's mother utterly incredible.

The defendant was convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged with operating a stolen motor vehicle, impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, and care or control with blood alcohol exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft but not guilty to the impaired and over 80 charges.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, having only a suspicion based on observations that did not meet the objective threshold.

The officer also breached the accused's Charter rights by delaying the reading of rights to counsel and the breath demand, and by interrupting the accused's consultation with duty counsel.

The court excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to ten offences including possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, careless storage of a firearm, possession of prohibited devices, assault, mischief, theft under $5,000, refuse breath demand, fail to attend court, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence for the firearms offence, which carried a mandatory minimum at the time of the offences.

However, the Court of Appeal decisions in R. v. Nur and R. v. Smickle, released one day before trial, declared the mandatory minimum unconstitutional.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 12 months plus 11 months pretrial custody credit, followed by three years probation, finding the offender's firearm possession fell closer to the regulatory end of the spectrum despite aggravating factors related to his alcohol addiction and domestic violence.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5).

The Crown proceeded summarily.

Three police officers testified regarding the traffic stop, observations of impairment, and the breath testing procedure.

The accused did not testify.

The trial judge found the officers credible and accepted their evidence.

The judge found that the accused deliberately obstructed the breath testing procedure through feigned stomach complaints, coughing, and repeated requests for counsel.

The judge viewed the breath room video multiple times and concluded the accused was attempting to delay or deflect his obligation to provide a proper breath sample.

The judge found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple charges arising from motor vehicle operations in Burlington on December 6, 2012, and Toronto on January 29, 2013.

The charges included operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police, and breach of probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 months custody (after crediting 6 months pretrial custody) and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The sentencing was influenced by the accused's pattern of non-compliance with court orders, his serious driving conduct endangering public safety, and credibility concerns regarding rehabilitation evidence presented by his family.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle following a high-speed collision on the QEW.

The Crown's case was significantly hampered by the investigating officer's inability to testify due to a serious ATV accident, the unavailability of a key witness, and a conceded Charter breach regarding blood test evidence obtained under a demand.

The Crown proceeded by way of summary conviction and relied on hospital blood test results, expert toxicology evidence, and witness observations of impairment.

The court admitted hospital blood test records as business records and found the defendant guilty on all three counts based on the blood alcohol analysis and evidence of dangerous driving.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and one count of attempting to disarm a police officer contrary to section 270.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident on December 15, 2010, at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, where the accused, who was admitted under the Mental Health Act, became agitated when informed he would receive injectable medication.

The trial proceeded over several days spanning approximately 15 months.

The court found the accused not guilty on all counts, determining that the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment is highly critical of both hospital staff and police conduct, finding serious credibility issues with key witnesses and evidence of excessive use of force by police.

The accused was charged with break and enter with intent to commit assault and assault with a weapon (frying pan) against Christine Higgins on December 7, 2010, in Oakville.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification evidence from the victim and her daughter, who identified the accused as the assailant.

The accused advanced an alibi defence, claiming he was at his mother's house at the time of the attack.

The court found the identification evidence reliable despite some frailties and rejected the alibi as not worthy of belief.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his daughter between September 2007 and June 2008.

The Crown proceeded summarily with the accused's consent and waiver of limitation periods.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The total delay from charge to anticipated conclusion of trial was approximately 18 months and 19 days.

After deducting neutral intake time and inherent time requirements, the court determined institutional delay of 12 months, which exceeded but only slightly the 8-10 month guideline established in R. v. Morin.

The court found minimal actual prejudice to the accused, balanced against society's strong interest in having serious sexual assault charges decided on their merits.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.