Stephen D. Brown

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 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.

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

Charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mgs per 100 mls of blood, the accused faced a delay of approximately 15 months and 20 days from charge to trial conclusion.

The court found institutional delay of 12 months and 3 weeks to be unacceptable for a straightforward drinking and driving case.

The accused suffered actual financial and emotional prejudice from the delay, including unexpected adjournment after the first trial date commenced.

The court granted a stay of proceedings.

The offender pleaded guilty to seven offences: sexual exploitation of a minor, incest, assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and unlawful possession of firearms.

The offences spanned nearly a decade and involved the sexual abuse of his daughter from a very young age through adolescence, domestic violence against his wife, and possession of prohibited weapons.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years and 9 months imprisonment after crediting pretrial custody, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society as the primary sentencing objectives for child sexual abuse offences.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of stolen mail contrary to s. 356(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on December 12, 2010.

The Crown withdrew count two as it was included in count one.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge that a stolen Canada Post mailbox was in his vehicle.

The accused claimed he believed the item was a refrigerator that his co-accused asked him to transport.

The court found the accused guilty after rejecting his testimony as contrived and unbelievable, finding that the evidence established his knowledge of the stolen mailbox.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on October 23, 2010.

The trial was initially scheduled for August 12, 2011, but was not reached due to an overbooked court list.

The matter was then adjourned to November 30, 2011.

The court found that the total institutional delay of approximately 11 months, just outside the 8-10 month guideline established in R. v. Morin, combined with actual prejudice to the accused (including doubled legal fees and emotional stress from two trial dates), constituted a violation of the accused's section 11(b) rights.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with attempted robbery of OxyContin tablets contrary to section 344(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on evidence that the accused possessed a holdup note demanding 80 mg OxyContin tablets, was observed loitering in the pharmacy area of a Shoppers Drug Mart, and allegedly displayed a knife.

The trial judge found that the accused did not possess a knife, rejected the theory that he was associated with another individual in the store, and determined that while the accused may have once contemplated robbing a drug store, there remained a reasonable doubt as to whether he intended to rob this particular store on this particular date.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty, holding that the Crown had not proven the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.