Stephen Donoghue

The applicant sought a review of a detention order on charges of robbery and failing to comply with a release order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the proposed surety's reduced work hours and the applicant's experience in custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the Palmer criteria flexibly, the court admitted the fresh evidence and conducted a hearing de novo.

The court concluded that with two strong sureties and a GPS monitoring bracelet, the risk of re-offending or interfering with the administration of justice was sufficiently mitigated.

The applicant was granted bail on strict house arrest conditions.

The accused was charged with 15 counts of violent offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and uttering threats, against his former intimate partner.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, who provided contradictory accounts.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it inconsistent and contradicted by text messages and photographic evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence, finding that the accused exerted financial control and committed numerous acts of violence, including grinding the complainant's legs into broken glass.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and sexual assault against his former partner, as well as assault against their infant son.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant.

The trial judge found numerous significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding her motivations for wanting the accused out of the house, the timing of her seeking legal advice for custody, and her explanation for the lack of visible facial injuries.

Due to these credibility and reliability concerns, the court found a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

During a criminal trial, a Crown witness failed to appear despite being served with a subpoena.

The Crown requested a material witness warrant under s. 705 of the Criminal Code.

The defence opposed, arguing the subpoena was invalidly issued by a court clerk without any inquiry into whether the witness had material evidence to give, as required by s. 698.

The court agreed with the defence, applying the framework from Dykstra v. Greensword, and held that issuing a subpoena without any case-specific inquiry exceeds the issuer's jurisdiction.

The subpoena was quashed and the request for a warrant was denied.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample.

He argued that the police had no lawful basis to ask for a sample, that he was not asked in a way he could understand, and that he had a reasonable excuse due to fear of the police.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were reasonable, the officer had a reasonable suspicion to make the demand, and the appellant's claimed excuse lacked an air of reality.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a breath demand.

At trial, where he was self-represented, the trial judge found the breath demand was lawful but provided no analysis or findings of fact regarding the arresting officer's grounds.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the principles from Sheppard, holding that the trial judge was required to provide clear reasons explaining why the officer had reasonable and probable grounds on both a subjective and objective basis.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while disqualified, arguing that the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable due to frailties in the police officer's identification evidence.

The summary conviction appeal judge reviewed the trial judge's reasons, noting that the trial judge had properly considered the weaknesses in the Crown's case and the principles of identification evidence.

Finding that the trial judge's conclusion was supported by the evidence and not unreasonable, the appeal was dismissed.