Allan G. Letourneau

The appellant appealed a conviction entered in his absence under section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act for an unsafe motor vehicle movement charge under section 154(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Certificate of Offence was complete and regular on its face, given that it contained expired short form wording that was no longer prescribed by regulation at the time of the charge.

The court held that the Certificate was complete and regular because it identified the statute, section number, and all essential elements of the offence, and the use of expired short form wording did not mislead the appellant or prejudice his defence.

The accused was convicted of assault with a weapon and breach of probation following a violent attack on her housemate while the victim slept.

The accused struck the victim multiple times with an exercise rope with metal clips, causing significant injuries including head wounds requiring staples and stitches, and facial bruising.

The sentencing decision involved a detailed analysis of Gladue factors, given the accused's Indigenous heritage and traumatic background including childhood apprehension, foster care placement, family violence, and substance abuse issues.

Despite the serious nature of the offence and the accused's prior criminal record involving violence, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 187 days (after pre-sentence custody and bail condition credits) plus 18 months probation, reflecting the weight of Gladue considerations while maintaining proportionality and denunciation principles.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and refusing to comply with an approved instrument breath demand following a traffic stop on Highway 417 in Ottawa.

The court conducted a blended Charter and voluntariness voir dire to determine whether the stop and detention were lawful, whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for arrest and the breath demand, and whether the accused's section 10(b) rights to counsel were violated.

The court found that while the stop and investigative detention were lawful based on common law authority to protect public safety, the arrest and breath demand were unlawful as the officer lacked both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds.

The court also found serious violations of the accused's section 10(b) rights through breaches of the hold-off principle, privacy requirements, and unilateral termination of legal consultation.

Evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.