Bernard Starkman

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results and toxicological evidence.

The court had previously ruled that the accused's Charter rights were violated during the investigation, removing the Crown's access to statutory presumptions of identity and accuracy.

The Crown was therefore required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the breath test results were accurate and that the accused's blood-alcohol concentration at the time of driving exceeded the legal limit.

The court found that the Crown met this burden, rejecting the defence arguments regarding bolus drinking and the reliability of the toxicological assumptions.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving following a 12-kilometre pursuit along Highway 407 in York Region.

The Crown alleged the accused drove at excessive speeds (130-145 km/h in a 100 km/h zone), weaved between lanes, drove on the left shoulder, struck the concrete median, and failed to stop for police emergency lights and sirens for approximately 3 kilometres before being forced to stop.

The accused was initially charged with impaired driving, which was withdrawn.

The court applied the legal test for dangerous driving, examining whether the accused's conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe.

The court found the totality of the driving behaviour—not a momentary lapse but a pattern of dangerous conduct over a significant distance in medium traffic—constituted dangerous driving.

The accused was charged with two counts under Section 253(1) of the Criminal Code: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The charges arose from an incident on December 23, 2010, when the accused's vehicle was found in a ditch at the intersection of Britannia and Tremaine Roads.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial judge found that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle and was impaired by alcohol at the time of arrest.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg/100mL.

The Crown presented evidence from the arresting officer, transporting officer, qualified technician, and a forensic toxicologist.

The accused's driving exhibited multiple indicators of impairment including speeding, erratic driving, failure to stop for traffic signals and police signals, and physical signs of impairment.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of the evidence.

The court conditionally stayed the over 80 count due to evidentiary concerns regarding the weight of the accused, which was critical to the toxicologist's retrograde extrapolation calculations.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of the legal limit following a traffic stop on the Gardiner Expressway.

The defendant sought to exclude the Breathalyzer test results on the grounds that police violated his Charter right to counsel by failing to facilitate his access to his counsel of choice.

The court found that the defendant was not guilty of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence of impairment independent of the Breathalyzer results, but guilty of driving with an excessive BAC after determining that while a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should be admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter.