in Canadian Caselaw › Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador
in vLex Canada

1503 results for Canadian Caselaw › Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador

  • vLex Rating
  • R. v. Flowers, 2019 NLPC 1718A00250
  • Manager CYS v. SB & JF, 2019 NLPC 0818F00010
  • R. v. Noseworthy (Complaint of T.D.), 2019 NLPC 0819A00001
  • R. v. Vivian, 2019 NLPC 0819A00048

    [1]          The accused was charged with two counts of uttering death threats. For the following reasons, I find him guilty.

  • PSC v DC, 2019 NLPC 819PA00059
  • R. v. Luker, 2019 NLPC 1318A00206

    [1]          Ms. Luker has pleaded guilty to the offence of having operated a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in her blood exceeded eighty milligrams per every one hundred millitres of her blood, contrary to the former section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985. This will result in a driving prohibition, for a minimum period of one year, being imposed. Ms....

  • R. v. Tucker, 2019 NLPC 1318A00141

    [1]          Mr. Tucker was convicted of having assaulted and threatened his former girlfriend (Ms. X), contrary to sections 266 and 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985. The evidence presented at the trial (see [2019] N.J. No. 185 (P.C.)), established that Mr. Tucker assaulted Ms. X on three occasions (in February and March of 2018) and that he threatened her on March 10, 2018.

  • Sheppard v. Youden, 2019 NLPC 1319C00083
  • R. v. Hickey (SENTENCE), 2019 NLPC 0818A00224
  • R. v. Farrell, 2019 NLPC 0819S00004
  • R. v. Murthy, 2019 NLPC 0118A03709

    [1]          Natasha Murthy is charged with refusal of the roadside test. Constable Fry-Day was the only crown witness. On July 29, 2018 she was dispatched to a two vehicle accident at the corner of Allandale Road and Prince Phillip Parkway. She arrived on the scene at 4:40 a.m. On arrival she spoke to fire personnel and she was directed by one of the firefighters to a lady in a white shirt who...

  • CSSD v. E. & S., 2019 NLPC 0818F00003

    [1]          These are the second applications for temporary custody orders of the four children of the Respondents. Because the legislation makes different provisions for temporary orders for children over and under 6 years of age, there were two applications. I have decided not to grant the applications, for the following reasons.

  • R. v. ANDERSON, 2019 NLPC 1318A00560

    [1]          Mr. Anderson choked his former partner (Ms. X) by twisting a flag around her throat and pulling it tightly. He threatened to throw her down the stairs and threw a television remote control at her. At the time (October 6, 2018), Ms. X and Mr. Anderson were at home.

  • Rose v. Norris Point, 2019 NLPC 1319C00018

    [1]          On December 29, 2018, Ms. Collen Rose organized a senior’s party in Norris Point. The Town agreed to allow her to use the community hall. They requested a “donation” be made in exchange for its use. Ms. Rose made a donation of $80.00.

  • R. v. Jackman, 2019 NLPC 0118A04034

    [1]          Mr. Jackman is charged with criminal harassment. The allegation is that he harassed Ms. J. Dearing over a period of approximately one year. The harassment took place over social media using Facebook, texts and emails. There was some real world interaction between the two early in the relationship, but from February of 2017 through to August 2018 the only contact between them was in...

  • R. v. Myles, Melanie, 2019 NLPC 0818A00152

    [1]          The accused was charged with a number of offences. The following reasons explain why she was acquitted of two offences, but convicted of the other charges.

  • Loder v. 58692 NL Corp, 2019 NLPC 1318C00145

    [1]          These are the reasons explaining why this civil action is dismissed, and why the plaintiff is ordered to pay costs to the second defendant.

  • R. v. Kelly, Wade, 2019 NLPC 818A00131

    [1]             The accused was charged with fraud and possession of stolen goods, arising from his passing video lottery tickets off as valid. For the following reasons, I find him guilty of both charges.

  • R. v. Kirby, 2019 NLPC 818A00198

    [1]             The accused was charged with breaching a recognizance, known to many as a “peace bond”. For the following reasons, I find him not guilty of the charge.

  • R. v. Murley, 2019 NLPC 819A00035

    [1]               The accused pleaded guilty this morning to a breach of her probation order. I adjourned her sentencing to this afternoon.

  • CYFS v. D.S., 2019 NLPC 0818F00016

    [1]             The applicant seeks an order for temporary custody of the children of the Respondent. For the following reasons, the application is granted.

  • R. v. John Wayne Fitzpatrick, 2019 NLPC 0818A00106

    [1]             The average Canadian does not go to the grocery store on the first of January and buy a year’s supply of milk. The reason for that is because milk is perishable, and has a limited shelf life. The same is true of marijuana.

  • R. v. Farewell, 2019 NLPC 0818A00182

    [1]             The accused was charged with a number of offences. The following are the reasons why I find him guilty of the offences charged.

  • R. v. Farewell, 2018 NLPC 0818A00151

    [1]             The accused was alleged to have committed an assault, to have uttered a threat, and to have caused a disturbance on Atlantic Crescent on September 16, 2018. He was arrested, held overnight, and then released on bail. One of his bail conditions prohibited him from going to Atlantic Crescent. He was alleged to have been on Atlantic Crescent on the morning of October 2, 2018. We had...

  • R. v. Oxford, 2019 NLPC 1318A00550

    [1]          This decision includes a synopsis of the four criminal adventures[1] committed by the accused in the late Summer and Autumn of 2018, and sets out the reasons for the sentence being imposed today. I will set out the particulars of each criminal adventure, then move to discuss sentencing ranges, and then place the accused on the sentencing spectrum.

  • R. v. Aaron Drake, 2018 NLPC 0818A00141

    [1]          There are three reasons why Judges are required to give reasons for their decisions: to explain the decision to the parties, to provide public accountability and to permit effective appellate review[1]. These reasons for judgment will address all three, although some readers might query the utility of a half a day of court time spent on the alleged theft of a&

  • C.M. v. R.N., 2018 NLPC 0809F00016

    [1]          This is an application made by the mother of two elementary school aged children to vary existing custody and access arrangements. The present arrangement has the children spending a week with each parent, but the mother seeks to change it to having the children spend the week with her, and the weekends with him. She also seeks to move the children from...

  • R. v. Farrell (JIR), 2018 NLPC 0818A00178

    [1]          These are the reasons why judicial interim release is denied the accused on the secondary and tertiary grounds. The matter also provides the opportunity to recognize the different standards of proof at different stages of the criminal process.

  • R. v. Melloy, 2018 NLPC 0818A00070

    [1]          The accused was charged with two counts of assault, and one count of being unlawfully in a dwelling house. For the following reasons, I find him not guilty of the charges. I will begin by setting out the appropriate legal guidelines which apply, then review the evidence, and then consider the latter in the context of the former.

  • R. v. Robere, 2018 NLPC 0818A00142

    [1]          These are the reasons for denying the application to postpone the trial.

  • Free signup to view additional results