W. Thompson

During a first-degree murder trial, the accused brought a motion to exclude evidence of a GPS tracking device found on the deceased's vehicle.

The accused argued there was insufficient evidence connecting them to the device.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the device, including the presence of the tracking app on cellphones found near two of the accused upon arrest.

The court admitted the GPS data from the Greater Toronto Area but excluded data from Montreal, finding the latter had low probative value and was potentially prejudicial.

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

The Crown's case relied on breath test results obtained at the detachment following an approved screening device failure at a RIDE program.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence on grounds of breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the approved screening device used by the officer had not been subjected to the required accuracy testing within the timeframe mandated by Ontario Provincial Police policy, rendering the officer's grounds for arrest objectively unreasonable.

Additionally, the court found breaches of the accused's right to counsel, including inadequate opportunity to contact counsel of choice, interruption of the duty counsel call, and lack of privacy during the consultation.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the charge was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking a person under the age of 18 for the purpose of sexual exploitation, contrary to section 279.011(1) of the Criminal Code.

The victim was a 14-year-old girl who was forced into prostitution over a six-day period.

The court found that while the mandatory minimum sentence of five years was constitutionally valid as applied to the accused's circumstances, the provision violated section 12 of the Charter when considered against reasonable hypotheticals involving less serious conduct.

The court imposed a sentence of four years, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The accused brought a pretrial motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating that the matter was a "particularly complex case" involving extensive wiretap evidence, multiple accused, and voluminous disclosure.

The court concluded that the Crown had a reasonable plan to manage the complexity and dismissed the application for a stay.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a defendant charged with permitting fill to be placed on property without a permit, contrary to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville By-Law No. 2008-016-RE.

The trial justice misdirected himself on the applicable legal issue, focusing on whether the defendant transported new fill rather than whether fill was placed or dumped.

Both parties agreed the decision should be set aside.

The appellate court declined to amend the information to substitute "dumping" for "placing" and enter a conviction, finding that the defendant would be prejudiced by such an amendment at the appellate stage.

The court remitted the matter for retrial and permitted the Crown to amend the information to include the alternative means of committing the offence.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired driving following a guilty plea, arguing the plea was involuntary and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The court found the guilty plea was voluntary because the appellant understood jail was not a possible sentence regardless of the plea.

However, defence counsel failed to review all Crown disclosure, including videotape evidence showing the appellant in a police station washroom, which could have raised potential Charter s. 8 privacy issues.

The court held that failing to review the disclosure before advising the appellant constituted conduct falling below the standard expected of defence counsel.

Because proper review and advice could reasonably have affected the outcome, the court found a miscarriage of justice and set aside the guilty plea.

The accused, a 54-year-old teaching assistant with 25 years of experience working with special needs children, was charged with one count of assault and two counts of assault with a weapon against two autistic students in her classroom in September 2012.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the classroom teacher, while the accused testified in her own defence denying all allegations.

The court found the accused not guilty of the assault charge and the first assault with a weapon charge (pen incident), but guilty of the second assault with a weapon charge (pointer incident).

The court found the accused's credibility undermined during cross-examination, particularly regarding her explanation for using the pointer against the student.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder after intentionally driving his SUV onto a sidewalk and killing the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment and set the period of parole ineligibility at 12 years.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, the devastating impact on the victim's family, and the danger posed to the public as aggravating factors justifying an increase from the minimum 10-year period.

During a trial for second degree murder where the accused allegedly drove his SUV onto a sidewalk and killed the victim following a nightclub altercation, defence counsel requested that the defence of provocation be put to the jury.

The trial judge refused the request, finding no air of reality to the defence.

The judge concluded there was no evidence that an ordinary person would be deprived of self-control by the insults exchanged, no evidence the accused actually lost self-control, and no evidence that the insults or the accused's reaction were sudden.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of the legal limit following a traffic stop on the Gardiner Expressway.

The defendant sought to exclude the Breathalyzer test results on the grounds that police violated his Charter right to counsel by failing to facilitate his access to his counsel of choice.

The court found that the defendant was not guilty of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence of impairment independent of the Breathalyzer results, but guilty of driving with an excessive BAC after determining that while a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should be admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a student during the 1994-95 school year when the complainant was 13-14 years old.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in inappropriate sexual contact including kissing, hand-holding, and masturbation over several months.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming his conduct was limited to appropriate academic support and encouragement.

The trial judge found significant reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding recovered memories obtained through therapy and the provenance of an Italian pendant allegedly given as a gift.

Although the judge found the complainant's testimony generally credible and preferred it over the accused's evidence, the judge concluded that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to these reliability concerns and reasonable doubt arising from the accused's testimony.