W. Beatty

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily injury after his vehicle drifted into oncoming traffic.

He also pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine.

The jury acquitted him of impaired driving charges.

The sentencing judge applied the Ferguson principles to determine the facts consistent with the jury's verdict, rejecting the defence theory of syncope and finding the accused's decision to drive with methamphetamine in his system to be an aggravating factor.

The accused was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment, a $650 fine, and a 3-year driving prohibition.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for two counts of theft under $5,000 and his 90-day intermittent sentence.

The charges arose from missing funds at ATMs the appellant maintained.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his failure to deny the theft and his reimbursement of the missing funds.

The Superior Court of Justice found no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's credibility findings or application of the W.(D.) framework.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision finding that the accused's Charter rights were violated due to an unlawful traffic stop and detention.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

The evidence showed the police merely followed the accused to his destination without stopping him, and the accused was not detained until the police smelled alcohol and formed grounds for a roadside screening demand.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and two counts of breach of undertaking.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to properly apply the objective test for criminal harassment, as there was no evidence of prior misconduct to support the reasonableness of the complainant's fear.

Additionally, the trial judge erred in finding the appellant breached his undertaking by attending the hallway landing outside the complainant's apartment, as the undertaking strictly prohibited attendance at the apartment itself.

A new trial was ordered for these charges.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence for a separate breach of undertaking conviction, imposing a suspended sentence and 12 months' probation.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice by assisting in a scheme to fabricate a confession to a large marijuana grow operation discovered by police.

A witness testified that he had been promised payment to falsely confess to operating the grow operation and that the accused drove him to the property to familiarize him with the location before the confession.

The accused denied involvement and challenged the credibility of the witness.

The court assessed credibility, finding the witness’s testimony internally consistent and corroborated by phone records, photographs, and other evidence.

The court rejected the defence evidence and concluded the Crown had proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code after being convicted of sexual interference involving a minor family member and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

The court considered whether the appeal was not frivolous, whether the applicant would surrender into custody, and whether detention was necessary in the public interest.

The applicant raised several grounds of appeal, including an arguable issue regarding whether sexual interference is an included offence under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the third ground raised a viable issue on appeal and that the applicant had previously complied with bail conditions and posed no significant public interest risk.

Judicial interim release pending appeal was therefore granted with conditions.

The accused, an Aboriginal offender, pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm after a single-vehicle collision that injured a passenger.

The Crown sought 75 days' incarceration, while the defence sought a six-month conditional sentence.

Applying the Gladue principles and considering the accused's lack of a prior record, steady employment, remorse, and the victim's support, the court imposed a six-month conditional sentence with house arrest and a two-year driving prohibition.