Adriana Nigro

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80).

At trial, the defendant sought to exclude breath samples and Intoxilyzer test results on grounds that his Charter rights under sections 8 and 10(b) were violated.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to administer the approved screening device (ASD) test, violating section 8.

The court also found that the defendant was denied a reasonable opportunity to contact his counsel of choice, violating section 10(b).

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court excluded the breath evidence as the cumulative effect of the breaches was serious and significantly impacted the defendant's Charter-protected interests.

The defendant was acquitted of the over 80 charge.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and refusal to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from events on December 25, 2016.

The accused was found unconscious in a motor vehicle displaying signs of impairment.

The Crown alleged impairment by alcohol.

The defence presented medical evidence of significant head trauma, concussion, and a broken nose sustained during an altercation at a party.

The court found that while impairment was evident, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol was the cause, as the symptoms were consistent with traumatic brain injury.

On the refusal charge, the court found the accused did not refuse on purpose but rather was unable to provide an adequate sample due to his injuries.

The court acquitted on both charges.

The defendant was charged with breach of recognizance for violating a condition prohibiting him from being within Peel Region except to attend court.

He was found guilty following a trial on May 2, 2018.

The defendant raised Charter defences challenging the lawfulness of his detention and pat-down search under sections 8 and 9, and the failure to inform him of his right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court found that the detention and pat-down search were justified under the Waterfield test and common law powers to preserve the peace.

While there was a technical breach of section 10(b) regarding the failure to inform the defendant of his right to counsel during the detention period, the court found no breach of the implementational component and ruled the evidence admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with sexual touching contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code and sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code involving a complainant under the age of sixteen years.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in sexual activity with a fourteen-year-old complainant over a weekend.

The accused raised the defence of mistaken belief of age under section 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code, arguing he took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age and honestly believed she was at least sixteen years old.

The court found that the accused took reasonable steps to determine the complainant's age, including asking her multiple times, checking her Facebook profile, and making visual observations.

The court accepted the accused's evidence that the complainant appeared to be seventeen or eighteen years old and that her age was not disclosed on her Facebook profile.

The court also found that the complainant was a willing participant who pursued the accused, planned to stay overnight, and did not verbally or physically communicate discomfort or lack of consent.

The court acquitted the accused on both charges.