Adam G. Zegouras

The appellant, a bar security guard, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm after he body-slammed an unruly patron, fracturing the patron's femur.

The appellant argued the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence by confusing a 'metal post' with a 'cement post' when assessing whether the patron caused his own fall by pushing off a structure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge fully comprehended the evidence, properly rejected the appellant's version of events as inconsistent with video footage, and made no palpable and overriding error in her factual or credibility findings.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and breach of probation.

He argued the trial judge erred in interpreting 'following from place to place' under s. 264(2)(a) of the Criminal Code by finding that repeatedly driving past the complainant in the opposite direction constituted following.

The appeal judge declined to follow prior coordinate decisions that restricted the definition to pursuing or chasing, finding such an interpretation inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the harassment provisions.

The appellant also argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence to identify him as the author of an obscene notebook.

The appeal judge agreed the trial judge erred but applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii), concluding the trial judge would have convicted anyway based on overwhelming independent evidence of identity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal challenged the trial judge’s refusal to exclude breathalyzer evidence, arguing that the roadside demand for a breath sample was invalid because the approved screening device test was administered at the police detachment rather than at the roadside, allegedly engaging the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The court applied the standard of review for summary conviction appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s factual findings and no error of law.

The court concluded that the “forthwith” requirement for the breath demand was satisfied and that the brief delay did not create a right to consult counsel before the screening test.

The conviction was upheld.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for having care and control of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 mg per 100 mL, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The conviction arose after police responded to an anonymous tip, observed the appellant returning from a beer store to his truck with the keys in his possession, and later obtained breath samples well above the legal limit.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding care and control and that his Charter rights under ss. 8 and 9 were violated.

The appeal court held that the trial judge reasonably inferred an intentional course of conduct creating a realistic risk the vehicle would be put in motion and that no unlawful detention or improper grounds for the breath demand were established.

The appeal was dismissed.