Wayne G. Rabley

The accused, Phillip Bui, pleaded guilty to Robbery and Aggravated Assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of weapons and multiple aggressors, and mitigating factors, such as his youth, first-offender status, guilty plea, and remorse.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence for such serious offences, particularly given the active role in stabbing a victim during a robbery.

The court sentenced the accused to 15 months' incarceration concurrent on each offence, followed by 18 months of probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused, Dillion Hamilton-Palimaka, was charged with break and enter, wounding an animal, and causing unnecessary pain to an animal after his girlfriend's dog, Lexi, was brutally attacked.

The case relied on circumstantial evidence, including Lexi's developing fear of the accused, the accused's access to the home, his angry departure from a funeral, and inconsistencies in his and his brothers' alibi testimony regarding precise timings.

The court found the accused's and his brothers' evidence unreliable.

The accused was convicted of causing unnecessary pain to an animal, but acquitted of break and enter (due to permissive entry) and the wounding charges (Crown not seeking conviction).

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while holding a handheld communication device.

The sole issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the device observed by the investigating officer was a cell phone.

The trial judge found the officer credible and accepted his opinion that the device was a cell phone.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, distinguishing the case from R. v. Mina on the basis that the officer was 100% certain of his identification, a Blackberry cell phone was found in the vehicle shortly after the observation, and the defendant did not testify to provide an alternative explanation.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm committed during a recreational no-contact hockey game.

The accused, a goalie, struck another player in the face with his stick after being contacted in the crease, causing serious injuries including a fractured jaw, dental damage, and concussion.

The court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence with two years probation and a prohibition on playing hockey, rejecting both a discharge and incarceration.

The court distinguished between professional and recreational leagues, finding that recreational players do not consent to the same level of violence as professional athletes.

Two defendants appealed convictions for driving while under suspension.

Both claimed they did not receive notice of suspension from the Ministry of Transportation.

The trial justices of the peace convicted both defendants despite not rejecting their testimony that they did not receive notice.

The appellate court held that where a defendant testifies credibly that they did not know of the suspension and did not receive notice, it will seldom be the case that they fail to meet the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities unless the justice of the peace rejects their evidence or provides cogent reasons for doing so.

The court emphasized that administrative efficiency cannot override the protection of the morally innocent from conviction.

The accused was sentenced on two charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine and one charge of fraud.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record spanning 26 years and had participated in the London Drug Treatment Court, where he made significant progress before relapsing and committing the offences while on bail.

The court imposed a sentence of 4 years in federal penitentiary on the drug trafficking charges and 2 months consecutive on the fraud charge, with credit for pre-trial custody and bail conditions.

The court emphasized the serious harm caused by crystal methamphetamine and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for Driving While Suspended, which resulted from a guilty plea entered by his court agent without his knowledge or informed consent.

The appellant was not present at the plea hearing, and the agent failed to review disclosure, advise him of the trial date, conduct pre-trial negotiations, or explain the consequences of the plea.

The court found that the agent's conduct was grossly negligent and constituted a miscarriage of justice, warranting the appeal be allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused, a 40-year-old teacher with 12 years of unblemished service, pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences involving a 12-13 year old student.

The relationship began as supportive mentoring but escalated into romantic and highly sexualized communications, including exchange of explicit images and videos, and physical sexual contact including oral sex and digital penetration.

The accused was arrested after being discovered with the victim in a school gymnasium closet.

The court imposed a sentence of 33 months incarceration with enhanced pre-trial custody credit, resulting in 20 months to serve, followed by 3 years probation.

The court rejected the Crown's submission for 4-5 years, finding the case unique and warranting a sentence outside the normal range due to mitigating factors including genuine remorse, guilty plea, strong family support, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence sought to exclude breathalyzer evidence on grounds of Charter violations under sections 10(b) and 24(2), arguing that the accused was denied a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel at the roadside during a 19-minute delay while awaiting a tow truck.

The court found a section 10(b) violation but ultimately admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the circumstances favoured inclusion despite the breach.

The accused pleaded guilty to two charges of breach of undertaking.

The central issue was the appropriate credit to be given for pre-trial custody.

The Crown argued for one-for-one credit under section 719(3) of the Criminal Code, while the defence argued for one-and-a-half-for-one credit under section 719(3.1).

The court found that because the Crown had not formally applied to cancel the accused's bail pursuant to section 524(8), the accused was not "detained in custody" within the meaning of section 719(3.1), and therefore was entitled to enhanced credit at the one-and-a-half-for-one rate.

The accused was charged with assault and careless storage of firearms.

The assault charge was dismissed when the alleged victim did not testify and evidence suggested the accused was the victim.

The court found the accused guilty of careless storage of firearms under section 86(1) of the Criminal Code.

The firearms were stored on an accessible rack in an unlocked shack with ammunition nearby and no trigger locks, constituting a marked departure from the applicable standard of care under the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations.