Aiishwariya Chanrini Haran

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a heavily damaged vehicle outside a school.

Police questioned him in an ambulance without advising him of his detention or rights, and failed to address clear language barriers when providing access to counsel.

The court found significant breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the breath test results and statements under s. 24(2).

However, based on the totality of the remaining evidence, including the unexplained collision, odour of alcohol, empty beer can, and the accused's confusion and physical state, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance.

The Ontario Court of Justice found that the accused, Martin Tinglin, experienced an unreasonable delay in his trial process, infringing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Despite the total delay being above the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months, the court calculated a net delay below the ceiling after subtracting defence delay.

However, the court emphasized the Crown's failure to actively manage disclosure and case progression, which contributed significantly to the delay.

The court granted a judicial stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) Charter as a remedy for the violation, highlighting systemic issues in case management and Crown disclosure practices.

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $340,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The applicant failed to file responding costs submissions despite court reminders.

The court found the applicant took unreasonable positions and failed to comply with financial disclosure obligations.

However, considering negative findings regarding the respondent's historical income and the high rates charged by counsel, the court fixed costs at $250,000 payable by the applicant, enforceable as a support order.

The parties, who cohabited for 15 months and had one child, separated in January 2021.

The applicant sought sole decision-making, relocation, and significant child and spousal support, alleging the respondent earned $900,000 annually from drug dealing.

The court ordered joint decision-making and denied the relocation, imposing a 10km geographic restriction.

The court imputed a high income to the respondent for 2021 based on lavish spending but declined to impute illegal income prospectively, setting his 2022/2023 income at minimum wage.

The applicant's income was imputed significantly higher for 2022/2023 based on bank deposits.

Spousal support was awarded for 2021 only.

After crediting the respondent for condo carrying costs and support overpayments, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $54,472.88.