Anna Drahovzal

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample following a motor vehicle collision on December 14, 2015.

The Crown alleged the accused was impaired by alcohol when operating his vehicle and subsequently refused to provide breath samples at the hospital.

The accused was acquitted of impaired operation but convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court found insufficient evidence of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, but determined the accused intentionally failed to provide a sample despite suffering from a fractured sternum.

The defendant was charged with five regulatory traffic offences, including driving without insurance and using an altered validation tag.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging that the police officer had racially profiled him and unlawfully stopped him on private property, violating his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the Charter.

The court found the defendant's testimony to be incredible and unreliable, while accepting the officer's evidence that the vehicle was observed on a public highway and stopped due to a discrepancy between the validation tag and the vehicle's permit status.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty of all five offences.

A defendant charged with four Highway Traffic Act offences—driving while licence suspended, using an out-of-province licence while Ontario licence suspended, possessing multiple licences, and using a hand-held communication device—was convicted on counts 1, 2, and 4.

The defendant, an Alberta resident who had exchanged his Ontario licence for an Alberta licence in 2009, argued he had no knowledge of a suspension imposed in 2010 after he had already moved and obtained an Alberta licence.

The court found the defendant failed to establish the due diligence defence despite sympathetic circumstances, as he had not taken reasonable care in managing his traffic tickets before moving provinces, had not notified relevant authorities of his address change, and had not arranged for mail forwarding.

The court convicted on count 1 for the lesser offence of operating without a valid licence rather than driving while suspended, to avoid the mandatory six-month suspension.

Count 3 was dismissed as the prosecution failed to prove physical possession of two licences.