Wakefield J.

The accused was charged with an offence arising from an incident involving spitting.

The Crown and defence reached a resolution whereby the accused entered into a 12-month common law peace bond with conditions including no contact with the complainant, a 100-metre distance requirement, and a prohibition on possessing weapons.

The underlying criminal charges were withdrawn upon the accused's acceptance of the peace bond terms.

The Crown applied for the appointment of counsel for a youth who was the subject of a third party records application under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to appoint counsel for the youth in third party records proceedings.

The court reviewed relevant case law and concluded that it possessed inherent jurisdiction to control its own process and to appoint counsel for the youth, emphasizing the importance of youth having access to legal representation in proceedings affecting their interests.

The accused was sentenced following a guilty plea to charges involving child sexual abuse material.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence with credit for 12 days of pre-sentence custody, resulting in approximately 17.5 months remaining to be served.

The sentence was followed by three years of probation with conditions including counselling and participation in rehabilitative programs.

A section 161 order was imposed for 10 years, a lifetime SOIRA order was made, and a forfeiture order was issued for seized materials.

The court emphasized the denunciatory nature of the sentence while considering the accused's Gladue report factors, including Indigenous heritage and potential FASD diagnosis.

The proceedings were adjourned to February 7, 2020, to allow the accused to reaffirm his plea comprehension while sober, after he disclosed consuming marijuana before court.

The defendant was charged with two counts of breaching an Officer in Charge Undertaking by communicating with Maria Barakza in July 2018 and November 2018.

The defendant was self-represented with section 486 appointed counsel preventing direct cross-examination of the complainant.

The court found the defendant guilty of the July 2018 breach based on corroborating testimony from the defendant's brother, but acquitted on the November 2018 breach due to concerns regarding the ineffectual cross-examination of the complainant by appointed counsel and the resulting inability to properly assess the complainant's credibility and reliability.

The accused was sentenced for possession of child pornography and making intimate recordings without consent.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 10 months and 17 days of incarceration, followed by two years of probation.

The sentencing considered the accused's medical condition (epilepsy), institutional treatment concerns, and the need for rehabilitation through counselling.

A 10-year section 161 order and 20-year SOIRA registration were imposed.

The defendant was sentenced following a guilty plea to a domestic violence offense.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, including terms requiring the defendant to keep the peace, complete the Partner Assault Response (PARS) program, attend counseling for psychiatric and psychological issues, maintain a 100-meter distance from the victim, and comply with a weapons prohibition under section 110 of the Criminal Code.

The court also ordered a DNA sample and waived the victim surcharge.

The sentencing emphasized the seriousness of domestic violence, the controlling behavior exhibited, and the importance of rehabilitation through counseling programs.

The defendant was charged with common assault and assault with a weapon (a clothes iron) against his spouse on August 29, 2018.

The Crown and defence presented conflicting accounts of a domestic altercation that occurred in the morning following an unresolved dispute the night before.

The complainant testified that the defendant strangled her and pressed a hot iron against her chest, causing injury.

The defendant testified that the complainant initiated physical contact, that he did not strangle her, and that she applied the iron to his chest first, which he then removed to prevent further burns.

The court found that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant evidentiary gaps and the irreconcilable nature of the two testimonial accounts.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including forcible confinement, robbery, assault with a weapon, trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of property, theft of motor vehicle, breach of probation, and unauthorized use of a credit card.

The court imposed a joint submission sentence of three years custody less 146 days of presentence custody credit, resulting in a remnant sentence of 949 days.

The court also imposed lifetime firearms prohibitions under Section 109 of the Criminal Code and a no-contact order under Section 743.21 with respect to specified individuals.

The accused brought an application seeking increased legal aid funding for defence counsel to cover the full estimated budget for a constitutional challenge.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure fair trials for indigent accused, the accused's right to a fair trial (not a perfect trial) was not imperiled by the shortfall of approximately $3,000 between the legal aid budget and the defence budget.

The court acknowledged the financial burden on defence counsel accepting legal aid certificates but held that absent evidence that no competent counsel would accept the certificate, the application must fail.

The accused was sentenced following a guilty plea to charges involving violence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation, having credited four months of pre-sentence custody on each count concurrent.

A lifetime weapons prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code was imposed.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel and imposed conditions including a no-contact order with the victim, a one-time reporting requirement to probation, and a 100-metre radius restriction.

Other charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

The accused was convicted following trial of possession for the purpose of trafficking in powdered cocaine and OxyContin, possession of a sawed-off rifle, possession of a restricted 9mm handgun, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, and possession of an over-capacity magazine.

The Crown sought three years on firearms offences and one year consecutive on drug offences.

The defence sought a total of three years less presentence custody and bail condition credits.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and one month on firearms offences concurrent to each other, and six months and 24 days on drug offences concurrent to each other but consecutive to the firearms offences, for a total of 31 months and 24 days, with credit for presentence custody and bail conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking fentanyl.

The charges arose after undercover purchases of heroin were analyzed and found to contain an unknown amount of fentanyl.

The court considered the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking, the lack of quantitative analysis of fentanyl concentration, and the accused's health challenges including Hepatitis C. The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day to be served at the Ontario Correctional Institute, followed by two years probation, balancing deterrence and denunciation with rehabilitative prospects.

The defendant brought a bail review application seeking release from custody on charges of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted handgun, possession of over-capacity magazines, and possession of ammunition.

The defendant had been in custody since August 17, 2018.

The Crown opposed release, emphasizing the serious nature of the firearm offences, the presence of ammunition, evidence of children in the home, and concerns about the sureties' ability to monitor.

The defence argued for release based on a material change in circumstances, including the withdrawal of a reverse-onus charge, the proposed supervision plan with three sureties, and concerns about pre-trial custody approaching sentence length.

The court found the defendant had not met the onus to demonstrate a substantial or material change in circumstances but left the door open for renewal in August after trial proceedings.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in fentanyl.

The fentanyl charges arose after undercover purchases of heroin were analyzed and found to contain unknown amounts of fentanyl.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and 230 days pre-sentence custody credit (enhanced), followed by nine months incarceration concurrent on each count, for a total remaining custodial sentence of nine months, followed by two years probation.

The court considered the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking, the accused's prior criminal record, his age, his guilty plea, and mitigating factors including his support network and employment prospects.

A lifetime firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code was imposed, along with a DNA databank order.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm, breach of recognizance, and related offences.

The court imposed a sentence of one year imprisonment on the firearm offence and a consecutive three months on the robbery offence, with a suspended sentence on the breach.

A three-year probation order was imposed with extensive conditions including curfew, non-association orders, weapons prohibition, community service, and mandatory counselling and rehabilitative programs.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence and general deterrence against the accused's vulnerabilities, youth, and supportive family circumstances.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device (ASD) following a traffic stop in Pickering.

The Crown alleged the defendant made multiple attempts to blow into the ASD but failed to provide a satisfactory sample.

The defendant claimed he was only given three attempts without warning.

The court found the defendant's testimony neither credible nor reliable, accepted the corroborated testimony of the two police officers, and determined that the ASD demand was made forthwith as required by law.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion seeking an order to permit the complainant to testify by video conference from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, rather than attend trial in person in Oshawa, Ontario.

The defendant opposed the motion.

The court applied the test under Section 714.1 of the Criminal Code, which permits video testimony where appropriate in all the circumstances, considering the witness's location and personal circumstances, costs of physical attendance, and the nature of the anticipated evidence.

The court rejected the Crown's application, finding insufficient evidentiary foundation regarding the complainant's inconvenience and the quality of video technology, and noting that the complainant's testimony was central to the case and her credibility was crucial to the truth-seeking function of the trial.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on breath sample readings of 260 and 240 milligrams, approximately three times the legal limit.

The central issue was whether the accused's Charter rights under sections 7 and 9 were breached when police held him for a show cause bail hearing without reasonable grounds, contrary to the presumption of release.

The court found an arbitrary detention breach based on the accused's status as a resident alien with property in Florida, coupled with insufficient police investigation into his Ontario roots.

The breath sample readings were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was acquitted of the criminal charges but subject to a common law peace bond.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

On January 31, 2015, between 5 and 6 a.m., the accused drove his vehicle while impaired with a blood alcohol concentration between 189 and 214 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood (nearly triple the legal limit), causing a head-on collision with another vehicle.

The accused's passenger suffered a fractured right hand with ongoing complications.

The other driver suffered catastrophic injuries including shattered ankles, broken femur, pelvis, arm and neck, torn intestines, lacerated spleen, 26 fractures requiring metal plates and rods, and extensive scarring.

The court imposed a sentence of three-and-one-half years incarceration on the first count and 18 months concurrent on the second count, along with a three-year driving prohibition, DNA order, and weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit on February 5, 2014.

The trial spanned multiple dates over approximately one year.

The defence raised a Charter application and argued that the defendant's regurgitation of stomach contents raised a reasonable doubt as to the reliability of the breath test results.

The court rejected the defence arguments, finding the breath test readings reliable based on expert evidence and the defendant's testimony to be unreliable due to numerous contradictions.

The accused was found guilty.

At sentencing, the court imposed a $1,400 fine (with a $420 victim surcharge), a 12-month driving prohibition, and a 12-month probation order with conditions to attend counselling for alcohol abuse and mental health challenges.