Sam was charged with a Part III Offence. She was served with a summons to appear in court on November 09, 2023. She retained Ari from PR LLP, a boutique Paralegal firm that runs and carries on business in London. Ari has been practicing for 15 years.

Ari noted that the type of charge was classified as amens reaoffence. Sam advised him that she didn't have the funds to hire him on a full retainer and therefore just wanted assistance in preparing for her upcoming hearing. So, she proceeded to sign a Retainer Agreement on a limited scope basis. She trusted Ari because he has a good google rating, with several five-star reviews.

During their meeting, Ari advised Sam that the prosecution simply has to prove that she committed the act and that her charges were likely to be dismissed because it was an accident. Sam asked Ari how she would disprove that and whether that was the only burden the prosecution had to prove. Ari advised her that he would then have to disprove this by saying or advancing evidence that could cast doubt as to whether she committed the Part III offence in question. Sam was not from London and wasn't familiar with the laws of Ontario.

She attempted to inquire further on the evidence she could advance but Ari cut the meeting short. When at trial, Sam was shocked to discover that the prosecution relied on Sam being reckless in accepting the risk relating to the committal of the offence. She argued that her state of mind was not relevant, given that the burden of the prosecution was just to prove the act. The justice advised that the prosecution had to prove that she committed the act and had the correct state of mind (recklessness). Sam was therefore guilty of the offence and sentenced to a 6 month jail term.

1. Can Sam raise any defences? If any are available to her, please explain.
2. If she was successful in her defence and the charges were dismissed, what legal principle would protect Sam from the prosecutor attempting to charge her on the same charge relating to the November 09th incident?

2. Ariana received a phone call from her ex-husband saying he was not able to pick up their children from daycare because he had a date with his new partner. Ariana was a successful chef at a Michelin star restaurant in Ontario. She was having her very first private event, that attracted many A-List celebrities when she received the phone call from her ex-husband, Paul. She knew Paul would take any opportunity to jeopardize her success. She thought she could make it back for the grand opening of this event, if she sped to pick up the children - irrespective of the slippery, and snowy conditions outside. As such, Ariana was driving 60 kmph over the speed limit and was pulled over for careless driving and charged under section 130 of theHighway Traffic Act.

Coincidentally, Paul's brother was an eye-witness of the speeding incident, who has a personal vendetta against Ariana for leaving her brother. His vehicle was two vehicles behind Ariana. Based on the police report, a dump truck and convertible were in front of Pauls' brother's vehicle.

1. It is the eve before trial and the Crown seeks an adjournment because they forgot to issue a summons for Paul's brother. Would it be reasonable for you to grant an adjournment in this circumstance as the Defendant's counsel? Why or why not?
2. Assume Paul's brother is able to testify. Would he be a credible and reliable witness. Explain your reasoning.