Adam Godlewski

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The trial addressed Charter violations (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) regarding detention and the immediacy of the ASD demand, and the merits of the charges.

The court found a s. 9 and 10(b) Charter violation due to an 11-minute delay in making the ASD demand, which invalidated the demand and led to unlawful detention.

Consequently, evidence of the refusal was excluded.

However, observations of impairment at the roadside were admitted.

The accused was acquitted of refusing to provide a breath sample due to the invalid demand but was found guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of admitted evidence, including observations of slurred speech and difficulty with a phone at the time of driving, combined with earlier clear indicia of impairment.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving historical allegations of sexual assault and incest against a child family member, the prosecution relied solely on the complainant's testimony.

The court reviewed the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the approach to credibility where an adult testifies about childhood events, and the principle that corroboration is not legally required.

The court found the complainant's evidence generic, lacking in detail and temporal specificity, and further found significant reliability and credibility concerns arising from her memory gaps, evasiveness, and contradiction regarding alleged phone evidence.

Those concerns left the court unable to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault with a weapon, brought a motion for state-funded counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code after being denied Legal Aid.

The applicant argued the trial judge erred by relying on myths and stereotypes and misapplying the W.(D.) principles in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the proposed grounds of appeal lacked sufficient merit and the applicant was capable of advancing the arguments without appointed counsel.