Tharziha Ganeshamoorthy

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and one count of uttering threats against his spouse.

The trial involved a significant credibility contest, with the complainant's evidence undermined by secret audio recordings showing her to be aggressive, and the accused's evidence also found lacking in credibility.

The court found that while it was probable injuries occurred during an altercation, the evidence was insufficient to disprove the accused's claim of self-defence.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a conveyance with excess blood alcohol concentration after crashing his car into a centre median.

The accused alleged Charter breaches under ss. 7, 8, and 9, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for the breath demand because she relied solely on another officer's conclusion without the underlying facts.

The court found no Charter breach, as a subsequent lawful demand by a qualified breath technician, based on the first officer's complete observations, cured the defect.

The court found the accused guilty of the excess BAC charge but not guilty of impaired driving, as the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and having a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

The Crown's case relied on a citizen's report of an erratic driver and subsequent police investigation at a plaza.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the identity of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the complainant's observations and circumstantial evidence.

Although the court found a breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter right to counsel due to delay during investigative detention, it held the evidence would not have been excluded under section 24(2).

The charge was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Raymond Vitellaro guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance, dangerous operation, and refusing to provide a bodily sample following a multi-vehicle collision caused by his driving.

The court carefully analyzed the right to counsel issues, concluding no breach occurred despite delays in contacting his counsel of choice.

The evidence, including dashcam footage and credible witness testimony, established that Vitellaro drove dangerously at high speed, distracted by opening a bag of Cheetos, and was impaired by narcotic analgesics (suboxone).

His refusal to provide a bodily sample was not excused by his explanations and was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also dismissed a Charter s 11(b) application for delay, attributing most delay to the defence.

This decision addresses the credibility assessment in a criminal trial involving three assault charges arising from incidents between separated spouses living in the same house.

The court carefully analyzes conflicting testimonies and an audio recording secretly made by the accused.

The judge finds the complainant credible and the accused's evidence undermined by the recording, resulting in convictions on two counts of assault under section 266 of the Criminal Code, while one count is dismissed due to insufficient proof of bodily harm.