Stuart O'Connell

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and his sentence of 12 months' imprisonment.

The conviction arose from an incident involving an argument and physical interaction between the appellant and a passenger, during which the appellant's vehicle struck and injured the passenger and collided with a retaining wall.

The appellant was acquitted of aggravated assault and mischief to property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no inconsistency between the acquittals and the conviction, and upheld the sentence, finding no error in principle warranting intervention.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

Police executed a search warrant at the accused's residence and seized a hard drive containing 41,888 still images and 630 video files of child pornography, obtained over a four-month period from March to July 2014.

The materials consisted primarily of pubescent and early adolescent children in sexually provocative poses, with very few depictions of explicit sexual activity.

The accused had no prior criminal record, cooperated with police, and underwent psychiatric assessment and therapy.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment; the defence sought eight months.

The court imposed eight months imprisonment, finding that while the size of the collection was aggravating, the nature of the materials was less depraved than in comparable cases, and significant mitigating factors were present.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a high-speed collision with a business sign and hydro pole.

The Crown's case relied on blood alcohol analysis, but the court found serious and material inconsistencies in the chain of custody evidence regarding the blood sample, rendering it impossible to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the tested blood was the accused's blood.

Consequently, the over 80 charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence, including observations of alcohol odour on the accused's breath, slurred speech, false identification, and the violent nature of the collision in safe driving conditions.