Alex Zheng

The accused, Ever Antonio Diaz, was charged with impaired driving and having over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence conceded the over 80 charge if breath samples were not excluded due to Charter violations, and contested the impaired charge.

The court found serious breaches of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), particularly concerning the immediacy of the right to counsel and the police's failure to facilitate access to counsel.

The breath samples were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Regarding the impaired driving charge, the court found the video evidence and other observations insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused, C.V., was charged with two counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault against his former stepdaughter, A.T., relating to two instances of massaging in 2018 when A.T. was 14 or 15.

The court found A.T.'s testimony to have significant reliability concerns due to lack of recall and inconsistencies, particularly regarding the second massage witnessed by her mother, J.S. However, the court relied heavily on the accused's own statements, including a "confessions of sins" letter to his HR manager, which revealed his sexual purpose in performing the massages.

Despite the massages not appearing overtly sexual to an objective observer (J.S.), the accused's admitted sexual intent was sufficient to establish the sexual nature of the touching.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, with the sexual assault counts proposed to be stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to provide a breath sample using an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

He initially refused due to distrust of the device, believing he would be taken to the police station for a more reliable Intoxilyzer test.

Upon learning he would be released from the scene and not taken to the station, he offered to provide a sample into the ASD.

The court found that his subsequent offer, made approximately 10 minutes after the initial refusal and while the device was still available, effectively cancelled his prior refusal as it was part of the same transaction.

The defendant was found not guilty.