New & Notable: Defining dangerous driving

Randy Roy was headed home from work at the sawmill. He was giving his colleague Mark Harrington a ride home as well. In order to get home Roy decided to take a side road which met up with a major highway that they would take. When Roy reached the intersection of the side road and highway he had to stop and then turn left onto the highway. When he reached that intersection the weather conditions were not good. Visibility was limited due to for and the side road was snow-covered and slippery.

 

Roy turned onto the highway. He clearly did not see the tractor-trailer headed down the highway in the same direction he intended to go. The driver of the tractor-trailer noticed Roy’s headlights, but by the time he realized that Roy had pulled in front of him it was too late. The tractor trailer slammed into Roy’s vehicle. Harrington was killed.

 

Roy was charged with dangerous driving causing death. He was convicted. He appealed. Cromwell J, on behalf of a unanimous Supreme Court allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal: 2012 SCC 26.

Read More

New & Notable: Enforcing Rules for the sake of the Rules!

Gordon Rambissoon was charged with impaired and “over 80”. At trial he sought to exclude evidence – including the breath readings – based on alleged violations of his rights under sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter:  The alleged violations were based on the timing of the ASD demand by the police.

 

Knazan J found that there was a breach. Turning to section 24(2) – at the time just months after R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 had been released – Knazan J held that the evidence should not be excluded, noting, inter alia, that trivial nature of the breach.

Read More

New & Notable: Defining section 127

Linda Gibbons is a staunch anti-abortionist. On October 8, 2008 she was protesting with a sign outside an abortion clinic. This protest was in contravention of an interlocutory injunction issued in 1994 by Adams J barring such protests within a certain distance of abortion clinics. Gibbons was charged with breaching a court order under section 127 Criminal Code. She sought to quash the information arguing that section 127 had no application as the Ontario Rules 60.11 and 60.12 were a “punishment or other mode of proceeding”.  Her motion was dismissed, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court: 2012 SCC 28.

 

Read More

New & Notable: An unassailable approach to a difficult body of evidence

KM was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference. The victim was his eldest daughter. He appealed. He raised two grounds on appeal: first, that the trial judge failed to consider all of the evidence, including contradictions in her own evidence, in assessing the complainant’s credibility; and second, that the trial judge relied upon evidence that lacked materiality to support the victim’s evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal: 2012 ONCA 319. 
Read More

New & Notable: You don't need a balaclava to shovel snow in Kitchener...

Pierre Robert used to be a member of the Bloods gang. He had a 9mm handgun. He didn’t have a license to possess the handgun nor, of course, for the prohibited 15 round cartridge magazine found with the gun. He lived in his mom's basement. He kept his gun there, above the bar located in the basement, wrapped in a balaclava. The police found that gun. Robert was charged. He sought to exclude the evidence of that discovery from his trial. He did not succeed: 2012 ONSC 2672.   

 

 

When Robert was 15, his brother, Daniel, and his father were convicted of attempted murder of Robert’s mother, Ms Aylott. In 2010, the brother, Daniel, was released on parole and required to reside at a halfway house. When he didn’t report to the facility one night a Canada wide warrant was issued... read more...

New & Notable: Successful, albeit unconstitutional reliance on a "hunch"

Nicolaas Bruyere was driving in his car with a passenger. They had some cocaine in the car. The police stop him. The police thought that another fella, Hyatt, was in the car. The police believed that Hyatt had just been involved in a drug deal at a nearby hotel. Hyatt was not in the car. The trial judge found that the stop was a section 9 violation but admitted the evidence under section 24(2). Bruyere appealed; the Ontario court of appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial: 2012 ONCA 329.
Read More

New & Notable: Finders Keepers...

Bob Stevens had a semi-automatic firearm.  The police found out about it.  They obtained a search warrant to search his residence for the firearm.  When they attended his house to execute the warrant in a "stealth search" Stevens was observed to throw something in a white sock out his window into a neighbour's yard.  The police retrieved the sock and found a firearm inside.  Stevens was charged.  At trial Stevens was convicted and appealed; the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal: 2012 ONCA 307.

Read more...

New & Notable: Finders Keepers...

Bob Stevens had a semi-automatic firearm.  The police found out about it.  They obtained a search warrant to search his residence for the firearm.  When they attended his house to execute the warrant in a "stealth search" Stevens was observed to throw something in a white sock out his window into a neighbour's yard.  The police retrieved the sock and found a firearm inside.  Stevens was charged.  At trial Stevens was convicted and appealed; the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal: 2012 ONCA 307.

 

At trial Stevens sought to exclude the gun by attacking the warrant.  Bhabha J declined to consider the validity of the warrant, instead, finding that Stevens had abandoned the firearm.  Bhabha J did note, however, that there were deficiencies in the warrant and did - despite finding no expectation of privacy due to abandonment - conduct an analysis under 24(2).
Read More

Current & Curious: Why is the accused out in the hall anyway?

DB had a niece.  His niece had a daughter, SP, the complainant.  DB was alleged to have sexually assaulted SP on one occasion and interfered with her on another.  The charges arose out incidents that occurred in the summer of 2007 including an incident that occurred when they were at a cottage.  SP alleged that on that occasion she had gone for a ride with DB in the bush and he performed oral sex on her.  DB testified at trial and denied the allegations.  He was cross-examined by the Crown.  He was convicted.  He appealed: 2012 ONCA 301.

 

On appeal DB argued, inter alia, that his trial was unfair because he was excluded from the courtroom.  During cross-examination DB was excluded briefly while counsel and the trial judge discussed an area of examination that was contentious. 

Read More

New & Notable: Now that I think about it, maybe the jury should be told...

Timothy Belisle apparently did not like Norman Anderson.  Belisle went with two others, Barry and Tester to visit Anderson at his home; also at the home was Anderson’s partner, Jean Brunetti.  While they were in the garage Belisle suddenly pulled a knife and stabbed Anderson.  Anderson later died from the single stab wound.  Belisle was charged with first-degree murder.  He was convicted.  He appealed: 2012 ONCA 303.

 

On appeal Belisle argued, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on post-offence conduct and by failing to provide a Vetrovec instruction in relation to Barry and Tester.  Counsel at trial did not request either of those instructions.

Read More