Avtar Bhangal

The accused was stopped at a static RIDE checkpoint and given a lawful demand to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device.

Over approximately seven minutes, the accused repeatedly refused the demand despite multiple warnings about criminal consequences, a demonstration of the device, and a final chance warning.

Following arrest, the accused made three requests to provide a sample.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of refusing to comply with the breath demand, holding that the accused's post-arrest requests did not raise a reasonable doubt about the finality of the refusals, as the offence was complete when the accused knocked the device from the officer's hand.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the lawful limit following a traffic stop on the Queen Elizabeth Way.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving, observations of impairment by the arresting officer, and breath test results of 143 and 141 mg/100ml.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath results on Charter grounds, alleging a violation of his right to counsel of choice.

The court acquitted on the impaired charge due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but convicted on the excess blood alcohol charge after finding no Charter breach and determining that even if a breach occurred, the breath results would be admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused, a school lunch monitor, was charged with sexual offences against a child complainant who alleged he touched her inappropriately at school and during a sleepover.

The trial judge applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the conflicting testimony.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and concluded that the busy nature of the school hallway made the alleged daily assaults highly improbable.

The accused was acquitted of all charges as the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused conceded his blood alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit but challenged the lawfulness of his detention, arguing that the evidence was obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The court found that the accused was not detained when the officer knocked on his vehicle window, as there was no significant physical or psychological restraint at that point.

The detention crystallized only when the officer directed the accused to exit the vehicle, at which point the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on observations of impairment.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the accused was found guilty of the Over 80 charge.

The impaired driving charge was stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.