Thomas McKinnon

The applicants, charged with municipal by-law infractions, sought a stay of proceedings or a mistrial under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of their section 7 right to make full answer and defence due to the prosecution's late disclosure.

The prosecution provided a crucial email chain regarding the property's zoning history after the trial had commenced and the prosecution had closed its case.

The court found that the late disclosure impaired the applicants' ability to plan their defence strategy and cross-examine the prosecution's witness effectively, thereby affecting the overall fairness of the trial.

Consequently, the court declared a mistrial as the appropriate remedy.

The defendant was charged with "turn not in safety" contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision at the intersection of Solina Road and Taunton Road in Clarington.

The prosecution alleged the defendant's right turn from Solina Road onto Taunton Road caused emergency maneuvers by other vehicles.

The court found that the defendant completed her right turn safely into a gap in traffic and had stopped on Taunton Road waiting to turn left when the collision occurred.

The collision resulted from vehicles two or three cars behind the defendant, not from the defendant's initial turn.

The charge was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction for careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred when the appellant's vehicle struck a pickup truck from behind on Taunton Road in Oshawa.

The primary factual dispute concerned whether the appellant had an opportunity to stop.

The trial judge found that the appellant could have avoided the collision and failed to do so because she was not driving with due care and attention.

The appellant argued that the pickup truck driver's credibility was suspect due to a mistake about when he reported to the collision centre, and that the charge was laid prematurely without reasonable and probable grounds.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's reasons were adequate, the findings of fact were based on reasonable inferences, and the law was correctly stated.

An appeal of a Provincial Offences Act conviction where the appellant challenged the trial on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of a motor vehicle offense.

On appeal, the court found that the defence paralegal demonstrated incompetency through multiple procedural failures, including inadequate preparation on competing theories of causation, confusion regarding proper criminal procedure, failure to effectively cross-examine witnesses, and lack of understanding of quasi-criminal court practice.

The court found a miscarriage of justice and allowed the appeal.

The defendant was charged with three offences against his wife: assault (July 1-31, 2008), assault causing bodily harm (August 18, 2008), and sexual assault (September-December 2008).

The trial was a credibility contest between the complainant and the defendant.

The complainant testified that the defendant assaulted her after discovering her long-standing extramarital affair, and later forced her to have non-consensual anal sex.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming the complainant fell down stairs and that any sexual contact was consensual.

The court found the complainant credible and the defendant's evidence internally and externally inconsistent.

The defendant was convicted on all three counts.

The accused was tried on charges of assault, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault against his spouse.

The case turned primarily on credibility, as the complainant was the only Crown witness and the accused denied all allegations while calling his mother as a defence witness.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony as inconsistent and implausible, and found the complainant’s evidence reliable despite delayed reporting and inconsistencies related to her extramarital affair.

The court concluded that the accused assaulted the complainant in July 2008, caused bodily harm by beating her in August 2008 resulting in a fractured tailbone, and later forced anal intercourse without consent.

The accused was convicted on all three counts.