Vanessa V. Christie

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the impaired operation count was dismissed.

The central issue was whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand following a positive approved screening device result, particularly in light of evidence of an open beer can found in the vehicle after the screening device test was administered.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on multiple indicia of impairment and that the presence of the beer can did not constitute credible evidence of recent consumption sufficient to undermine the reliability of the screening device result.

The accused was convicted.

The Crown charged Brian Jordan Ense and Joseph Bernard Edward Ense with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an alleged incident on November 5, 2016, at a house party on Manitoulin Island.

The complainant, a 16-year-old girl, testified that she was sexually assaulted by both men while intoxicated.

Joseph Ense's charges were withdrawn after his death during the trial.

The court found Brian Jordan Ense guilty of sexual assault based on the complainant's testimony, DNA evidence linking him to the complainant, and corroborating evidence from other witnesses.

The court rejected arguments regarding continuity of DNA evidence and credibility challenges to the complainant's testimony, finding her evidence credible and reliable despite inconsistencies between her police statement, 911 call, and trial testimony.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a lawful R.I.D.E. stop, the officer detected the odor of alcohol on the accused's breath and administered a roadside screening device, which produced a "fail" result.

The accused was arrested and transported to a police detachment where breath samples were obtained.

The defence challenged the legality of the stop, the placement of the accused in the police vehicle for the screening device test, and alleged violations of the right to counsel.

The court found no Charter violations and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with sexual exploitation of a young person under Criminal Code section 153(1)(a).

The Crown alleged that the accused, who was in a position of trust or authority, touched the complainant's private parts for a sexual purpose.

The complainant was 16 years old at the time and living in the accused's home as a condition of bail.

The trial judge found that while the complainant's evidence contained material inconsistencies and credibility issues, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching occurred.

Additionally, the court found that the Crown did not establish that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over the complainant.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with two counts under s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of a running vehicle parked on a residential street.

The trial judge found that the accused had rebutted the presumption of care and control by establishing she had no intention to drive.

However, the court found that a realistic risk of danger existed under the second prong of the Boudreault test—that an impaired person behind the wheel may unintentionally set the vehicle in motion.

The court convicted on the impaired count and stayed the over-80 count pursuant to Kienapple.

The young person, charged with sexual offences against two different complainants, brought an application to sever the counts relating to one complainant from those relating to the other.

The court considered the factors for severance, noting the young person's intention to testify regarding one complainant but not the other, the lack of factual nexus between the incidents, and the potential for prejudice.

The court concluded that the interests of justice required severance and granted the application.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failure to stop at the scene of an accident contrary to section 252 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The charge under section 252 was quashed as it did not constitute an offence known to law.

At trial, the Crown proved that the accused operated a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public.

The accused did not testify.

The court found that the accused's conduct—leaving the roadway, driving onto private property, gunning the engine to escape the yard, coming within five feet of a pedestrian, and subsequently driving a severely damaged vehicle in an erratic manner—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances.

The court convicted the accused of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The accused pleaded not guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing the victim in the neck.

The defence argued the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, calling a forensic psychiatrist who testified the accused was suffering from a psychotic episode and command hallucinations.

The court rejected the expert evidence, finding it relied on inadequate information and that the accused's statements to police demonstrated he had the capacity to know the act was morally wrong.

The accused was found criminally responsible and guilty of aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the victim in the neck on August 14, 2017.

The accused pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence agreed on the facts of the assault.

The defence called expert psychiatric evidence from Dr. Beth Eayrs, a forensic psychiatrist, who opined that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time of the offence, acting under command hallucinations.

The court found that while the accused may have been experiencing auditory hallucinations, the evidence demonstrated that he had the capacity to know his conduct was morally wrong.

The court rejected the defence and found the accused criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and failure to remain at the scene of an accident involving property damage.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict on the failure to remain charge, arguing that section 252 of the Criminal Code only applies to accidents involving another person, vehicle, or cattle, not property.

The court initially considered this as a directed verdict motion but subsequently treated it as a motion to quash.

The court found that the information did not disclose an offence known to law, as section 252 contains no reference to accidents with property.

The court quashed count 2 on the information, finding that any amendment would result in irreparable prejudice to the accused by completely changing the case to meet.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code and resisting arrest under section 129(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who had suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident two years prior, including collapsed lungs and incontinence, was stopped by police on suspicion of impaired driving.

She attempted multiple times to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device but was unable to produce a suitable sample.

The accused claimed she had respiratory difficulties from her injuries and offered an alternative of providing a blood sample at a hospital.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting her evidence regarding her respiratory limitations and finding that she deliberately failed to provide a suitable sample without reasonable excuse.

A youth was charged with sexual assault under the Criminal Code following an incident at a party on January 30, 2016.

The complainant, a 15-year-old girl, consumed significant quantities of alcohol and had no memory of the alleged assault.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of a witness who claimed to have found the accused and complainant together in a locked bedroom.

The defence challenged the reliability of the witness testimony and argued there was insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the witness evidence to be fraught with inconsistencies, contradictions between trial testimony and police statements, and significant reliability concerns.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that force was applied or that any force took place in circumstances of a sexual nature.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code for an incident occurring on May 6, 2016, in Wikwemikong.

The complainant, the mother of the accused's grandchild, attended the accused's residence to retrieve her young daughter after receiving information that the accused was intoxicated.

A physical altercation ensued between the accused and the complainant.

The accused raised defences of self-defence and defence of property.

The court found the accused guilty of assault, rejecting both defences on the basis that the accused was not acting reasonably in the circumstances and that the complainant was attempting to leave the property with her child when attacked.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including assault causing bodily harm against his former partner, mischief, theft under $5,000, failure to comply with a probation order, and failure to appear in court.

The sentencing involved consideration of Gladue factors as the accused is a member of the M'Chigeeng First Nation.

The court imposed an 8-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for the first four months, followed by a curfew, and 16 months of probation.

The sentence emphasized denunciation and deterrence while considering the accused's rehabilitative potential and Aboriginal heritage.