Barbara Ursula Bujnowski

The court considered whether to instruct the jury on the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent in a sexual assault trial.

The defence requested the instruction, but the Crown opposed.

After reviewing the evidence and relevant case law, the court found that the air of reality test was not met and declined to instruct the jury on this defence.

The decision discusses the legal standards for the air of reality test, the reasonable steps requirement, and the dangers of impermissible "twin myth" reasoning.

The defendant, Mesfin Weldeab, charged with Careless Driving and Careless Driving Causing Bodily Harm, brought an abuse of process application seeking a stay of proceedings.

The application arose after the Crown sought to call an additional eyewitness, despite earlier indications that only one witness (Accident Reconstructionist) would be called and an Agreed Statement of Facts being in place.

The defence argued this constituted an abuse of process, compromising trial fairness and undermining justice system integrity.

The court dismissed the Crown's motion for summary dismissal of the application due to late filing.

Applying the three-part test for abuse of process from R. v. Babos, the court found no prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial or the integrity of the justice system, and that alternative remedies existed.

The application was denied.

In a criminal trial for failing to provide a breath sample, the Ontario Court of Justice acquitted the defendant.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's refusal was conditional on being allowed a sip of water, a request denied by police based on an unproven "rule" of the qualified technician.

The court determined that the refusal was not unequivocal and that the police had rushed to conclude a refusal without providing a "last chance warning" or recording the final interaction in the breath room.

The defendant was tried concurrently on a provincial careless driving charge and a criminal charge of driving with excess blood alcohol concentration.

The court addressed two main issues for the criminal charge: the validity of the screening demand and the admissibility of the Certificate of a Qualified Breath Technician.

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol consumption, validating the screening demand and subsequent breath tests.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the photocopy of the Certificate of a Qualified Breath Technician was admissible as a true copy.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of both the careless driving offence and the criminal driving with excess blood alcohol concentration offence.

The defendant brought a Charter application to exclude breathalyzer readings, alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights due to a five-minute delay in providing rights to counsel after arrest.

The court found that a breach of s. 10(b) did occur, as the officer's explanations for the delay (retrieving driver's licence and cell phone, calling for a tow) did not amount to justification.

However, applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the breach was comparatively less serious, with a medium impact on the defendant's rights, and that the societal interest in adjudicating impaired driving cases on their merits outweighed the impact of exclusion.

Consequently, the Charter application was denied, and the breathalyzer readings were admitted.