Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for excess blood alcohol, arguing that the trial judge erred in upholding the arresting officer’s grounds, rejecting a right-to-counsel breach, and finding the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable.

The court held that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the driving conduct and multiple indicia of impairment, notwithstanding some inconsistencies with later video evidence.

The court further held that the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult duty counsel in private and adduced no evidence that the video presence impaired that consultation.

Finally, the court found the breath samples, taken within 65 and 88 minutes of driving, were obtained as soon as practicable in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed and the stay of the driving prohibition was vacated.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions arising out of an impaired care and control investigation where the appellant was found asleep in the driver's seat of a vehicle stopped in a live lane with the engine on and gear in drive.

The appellant argued the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable, the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand, and the evidence did not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal court held that the police acted reasonably in waiting in the sally-port and in contacting duty counsel given the appellant's state of intoxication, and that the officer had sufficient grounds based on the totality of observations.

The court further held that the trial judge's conclusion on impaired care and control was open on the evidence and the appeal was dismissed.

On a summary conviction appeal from a conviction for refusing to comply with a roadside breath demand, the appellant argued for the first time that the arresting officer misstated the legal consequences of failing the approved screening device and that he therefore was not obliged to comply, or alternatively had a reasonable excuse under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal court held that appellate courts generally do not entertain arguments not raised at trial, absent rare circumstances where the issue can be fully, effectively and fairly addressed on the existing record.

Here, the trial record contained no evidentiary or legal foundation for the new ground.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction decision dismissing two applications alleging breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time following impaired driving and over 80 charges.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge wrongly attributed part of the delay to the inherent time requirements of the case rather than institutional delay.

Applying the pre-Jordan s. 11(b) framework, the court held that the trial judge did not err in assigning two months for trial preparation and in limiting the later period of institutional delay where defence availability and defence-driven applications contributed to adjournment.

Given aggregate institutional delay of about 9.5 to 10 months and minimal prejudice, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired care or control arising from a single-vehicle collision where he was found passed out partly in the driver's seat with keys accessible in the console.

He argued that the trial judge erred in the use of circumstantial evidence, misapplied the W.(D.) framework to the defence witness, and reversed the burden of proof.

The appeal court held that the trial judge properly rejected the statutory presumption yet correctly proceeded to assess de facto care or control on the evidence as a whole.

Applying the deferential summary conviction appeal standard, the court found the factual inferences were reasonably open to the trial judge and upheld the conviction.

Summary conviction appeal from an order requiring the appellant to enter into a two-year recognizance under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code.

The sole issue pursued on appeal was whether the hearing judge's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Applying the established objective test for judicial bias, the court held that disagreements with credibility findings, reliance on risk evidence, and dissatisfaction with the result did not amount to cogent evidence of bias.

The appeal was dismissed.

Summary conviction appeal arising from a road rage incident involving convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in the findings of guilt and in refusing to stay the charges after finding a s. 7 Charter breach based on excessive force by an off-duty police officer.

The appeal court held that the trial judge misstated and misapplied the W.(D.) framework and failed to properly address the Crown's burden to disprove self-defence on the assault count.

Because the appellant's roadside state of mind was linked to the driving conduct, the court ordered a new trial on both counts rather than a limited retrial.

The stay issue was left to the trial judge if the Crown proceeds on the new trial.

Summary conviction appeal from an impaired driving conviction under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the investigating officer arbitrarily detained him and unlawfully searched him when the officer stopped his vehicle while looking for another individual suspected of trespass and driving under suspension.

The appeal court held the officer had articulable cause and reasonable grounds to detain and question the driver based on the specific location, vehicle description, and surrounding circumstances, and that the subsequent arrest for impaired driving was supported by reasonable and probable grounds.

No breach of ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter was established, and the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) in any event.