T. Lipson

The offender, a senior bank manager, pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud over $5000 after embezzling approximately $1.78 million from her employer over 14 years.

The offender used the funds to support a lavish lifestyle for her family, driven by a major depressive illness following her husband's infidelity.

Upon discovery, the offender made full restitution of $1.85 million.

The court declined to impose a penitentiary sentence due to the guilty plea, full restitution, and mental health factors, but also rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale breach of trust frauds.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 17 months in custody.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The accused challenged the reliability of the Intoxilyzer results, arguing the machine had previously registered diagnostic failures, and alleged a breach of section 8 of the Charter on the basis that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the Intoxilyzer was in proper working order and the officer had sufficient grounds based on the accused's poor driving and physical indicia of impairment.

The accused was found guilty of both offences.

The Crown applied to cross-examine the accused, a police officer charged with sexual assault, on testimony he previously gave as a Crown witness in a related prosecution.

The Crown argued the prior testimony was voluntary because the accused was not under a court-issued subpoena, but rather an internal police notification.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused was compelled to testify in the prior proceeding due to his statutory duties under the Police Services Act and the internal police subpoena.

Therefore, his prior testimony was protected by section 13 of the Charter and could not be used to incriminate him or impeach his credibility.

The accused, a grade 8 teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference alleged to have occurred in the mid‑1990s against a student.

The complainant described repeated sexualized conduct including kissing and masturbation during tutoring sessions and other interactions, while the accused denied any sexual contact.

The court accepted that certain inappropriate conduct occurred, including hand‑holding and expressions of affection, but identified reliability concerns in the complainant’s evidence, including inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and the role of therapy‑recovered memories.

Applying the criminal standard of proof and the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court concluded the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused, charged with drug and firearms offences, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence seized from their apartment.

The police had conducted a warrantless entry to secure the apartment while awaiting a search warrant, claiming exigent circumstances.

The court found no exigent circumstances existed and that the police had actually conducted an unauthorized search during the entry.

Furthermore, the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant contained unconstitutionally obtained and misleading information, and the warrant itself failed to specify the apartment number.

The court found multiple serious breaches of section 8 of the Charter and excluded the seized evidence under section 24(2).

The accused, a young person sentenced as an adult, pleaded guilty to break and enter, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, and possession of restricted firearms.

The offences involved a home invasion where a neighbour was shot, and a separate incident where another victim was shot at a party.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing deterrence, denunciation, and the accused's rehabilitative potential.

The accused was sentenced to 20 months' custody in addition to 52 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years' probation.

The accused was charged with impaired operation, over 80 mgs, and assault with intent to resist arrest following a traffic stop where he exhibited erratic driving and refused to comply with police demands.

The over 80 mgs charge was dismissed as no breath samples were taken.

The assault charge was dismissed because the arrest for failing to identify under the Highway Traffic Act was deemed unlawful, as the officer did not request alternative identification.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on his driving conduct, physical symptoms of impairment, and bizarre behaviour.

A Charter application alleging excessive force during the arrest was dismissed, with the court finding the officers' use of force was measured and justified given the accused's resistance.