Arthi Kunasingam

This decision addresses the evidentiary requirements under section 320.31(1) of the Criminal Code regarding the certification of alcohol standard solutions used in breathalyzer testing.

The court found that the qualified breath technician’s viva voce evidence, supported by certificates and physical evidence of the alcohol standard solutions (lot numbers 202205A and 202205E), satisfied the statutory requirements.

The accused’s Charter challenges under sections 8, 9, and the informational delay component of section 10(b) were rejected.

The court convicted the accused on the 80+ blood alcohol concentration charge and stayed the impaired driving charge pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The defendant, Milan Tosic, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The trial included a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically concerning police entry onto private property and the timing of detention and rights to counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that police acted within the implied license to investigate and that detention began when the defendant voluntarily exited his residence.

Based on the admissible evidence, including civilian testimony of erratic driving, police observations of impairment, and breath test results, the court found the defendant guilty of impaired operation, staying the over 80 charge under the Kienapple principle.

This decision addresses the admissibility of evidence in a sexual assault trial, specifically concerning the application of sections 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code.

The defence sought to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity and communications, arguing relevance to credibility and consent.

The court applied the two-stage test, distinguishing between evidence of other sexual activity and other records.

It permitted evidence of inconsistent statements regarding post-assault sexual activity and certain pre-assault communications expressing future sexual intentions, finding them relevant to credibility and consent without engaging twin myths.

However, it excluded evidence deemed irrelevant or primarily serving prohibited twin-myth reasoning, emphasizing the need to protect the complainant's dignity and privacy while upholding the accused's right to full answer and defence.

The defendant, Cynthia Kirschner, was found guilty of careless driving causing death under the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from a collision where Kirschner, making a left turn at an uncontrolled intersection, failed to yield to an oncoming e-bike, resulting in the rider's death.

The court determined that Kirschner's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, concluding she failed to see the e-bike despite clear visibility and did not take evasive action.

Arguments regarding the e-bike's modifications or sun glare were dismissed as not excusing the defendant's duty of care.