Ted Ofiara

The appellant, Ivanmarino Mazia, appealed his conviction for theft under $5,000, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to grant his Rowbotham application and provide adequate assistance given his visual impairment.

The Superior Court admitted fresh evidence establishing Mazia's legal blindness at the time of trial.

The court found the trial judge erred by not inquiring into Mazia's stated vision problems and by applying an overly stringent "rare and exceptional" test for the Rowbotham application.

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

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.

The sole issue at trial was whether Intoxilyzer breath test results should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to an alleged breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b).

The trial judge found that although the appellant initially indicated a desire to speak with counsel, she later waived that right after being informed that duty counsel was available and that testing could wait.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings regarding the police officer’s testimony were reasonably open to him and that the waiver was clear, informed, and unequivocal.

The court also found that the informational requirements from R. v. Prosper were substantially satisfied.

No reviewable error was established.

The appellant appealed a 14-month custodial sentence imposed for assault and breach of probation against his parents.

The trial judge had effectively imposed a 21-month sentence, which was seven times longer than the appellant's longest previous sentence of 90 days.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence that was an inordinate and unjustified jump in severity, violating the step principle.

The appeal was allowed, and the custodial sentence was reduced to time served, with the three-year probation order remaining in effect.

The applicant sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash a summons issued by a justice of the peace under s. 810 of the Criminal Code for a peace bond.

The applicant argued the summons was invalid based on the merits of the complainant's allegations.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error by the justice of the peace, who properly received the information and issued the summons as required by the statute.

The court noted that arguments regarding the merits must be resolved at the peace bond hearing.