C. Ann Nelson

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle while impaired by drug following a RIDE spot check on May 11, 2014.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The court found that the accused displayed multiple indicia of impairment including poor balance, dilated pupils, slurred speech, confusion, unusual behavior, delayed responses, and signs of drowsiness.

Toxicological analysis revealed the presence of lorazepam and THC-COOH (the inactive metabolite of marijuana) in the accused's urine.

The accused admitted to smoking marijuana on the day of arrest and the day before.

A Drug Recognition Evaluation officer opined that the accused's ability to drive was impaired.

The court rejected the defence arguments that the Crown must prove a specific quantity of drugs in the accused's system at the time of driving, that tiredness must be negated as a cause of impairment, and that overwhelming signs of impairment are required.

The court found that the totality of the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by drug consumption.

The defendants brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The charges arose from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in June 2012 that resulted in one death and injuries.

The defendants were charged in June 2013 with offences under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The trial commenced in November 2015 but was declared a mistrial in May 2017 when the presiding judge was appointed to the Superior Court.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that the net delay far exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months.

Although the Crown established certain discrete events and argued the case was complex, the court determined that even accounting for these exceptional circumstances, the delay remained unjustified.

The court granted the stay of proceedings for all defendants.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence from a toxicologist regarding the maintenance and operation of an Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device in an over 80 operation case.

The expert sought to raise a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the breath test results by analyzing historical maintenance records and COBRA data.

The court excluded the expert evidence on multiple grounds: the opinions were not logically relevant as they could not raise a reasonable doubt about the specific breath test results; the opinions were based on speculation and erroneous factual information; and the opinions constituted novel science lacking sufficient reliability and peer review.

The court emphasized that maintenance deficiencies must be directly linked to unreliable results, and that historical records cannot address the working status of the instrument at the time of the subject test.

The offender, a pharmacy assistant with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to one count of theft over and three counts of trafficking in Schedule I substances (oxycodone, hydromorphone, and fentanyl).

She stole prescription drugs from her employer and provided them to an associate.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 4-5 years, while the defence sought a 2-year conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 30-month penitentiary sentence, finding that while significant mitigating factors existed, the serious nature of the drugs, the substantial quantities involved, the breach of trust, and the ongoing course of conduct warranted incarceration.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite the offender's remorse, family support, and efforts to address her addiction.

A worker employed by a small roofing company fell from a ladder while working on a residential roofing project and died from his injuries.

The company was convicted of failing to ensure a fall arrest system was in place and failing to notify the Ministry within 48 hours of the death.

The owner and operator was convicted of failing to ensure workers used fall arrest systems as a supervisor and furnishing false information to an inspector.

The court imposed jail sentences on the individual defendant and substantial fines on the corporate defendant, emphasizing the need for general deterrence in an industry with persistent fall-related injuries and fatalities.