Stephen Darroch

The accused was charged with four offences arising from an incident on March 3, 2014 in Oakville: assault on Ashley Prosser, confinement of Ashley Prosser, assault on a peace officer (Constable Bayliss) in the execution of his duties, and assault with a weapon (steel-toed shoe) on Special Constable Colling.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty and a trial was held.

The court found the accused's testimony highly unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies with witness evidence, video recordings, 911 recordings, and medical records.

The court accepted the evidence of the Crown witnesses and found the accused guilty of assault on Prosser, confinement of Prosser, and assault on Constable Bayliss.

The charge of assault with a weapon was dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the contact was deliberate.

The accused's application for a stay of proceedings based on Charter violations (sections 7 and 9) was dismissed, as the court found no serious state misconduct undermining trial fairness or judicial integrity.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of assault and one count of mischief, all involving the same intimate partner victim over a 15-month period.

The Crown sought four months imprisonment followed by three years probation, while defence counsel sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of four months to be served in the community followed by three years probation, with strict conditions including home confinement for the first two months, a curfew thereafter, no-contact provisions, and mandatory participation in anger management and domestic violence counselling programs.

The court also imposed a firearms prohibition for five years and authorized a DNA order.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault arising from an incident in which he allegedly spat at a vehicle and struck a passenger through a partially opened window.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the principles in R. v. W.(D.), improperly treated the case as a credibility contest, and unreasonably rejected his denial based on assumptions about driver behaviour in traffic disputes.

The appellate court reviewed the trial judge’s reasons as a whole and concluded the presumption of innocence and the W.(D.) framework were properly applied.

The court held the trial judge was entitled to accept the complainant’s evidence, rely on corroborating photographs, and apply common sense in assessing credibility.

The conviction was upheld.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with an adopted daughter under 16 years of age, committed between January 26, 2008 and September 20, 2013.

The abuse was prolonged, involving multiple forms of sexual intercourse, resulted in pregnancy which the accused arranged to be terminated, and was concealed through manipulation of the victim's vulnerabilities.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment, applying a starting point of ten years and adjusting downward for the guilty plea, counselling, remorse, first offender status, and pre-trial custody.

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 defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

At trial, the defendant challenged the Crown's ability to prove care or control of the vehicle, arguing he had rebutted the statutory presumption under section 258(1) of the Criminal Code by demonstrating his intent not to drive.

The court found the defendant's evidence not credible and concluded that the Crown had established care or control both through the presumption and the evidence.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $1,300 plus victim fine surcharge, with a 12-month driving prohibition.

Two additional charges (open liquor and drive no insurance) were withdrawn by the Crown.