Bradley Jordan Juriansz

The defendant was charged with impaired care and control of an automobile and care and control with excess alcohol.

The Crown alleged the defendant had a blood alcohol reading of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant testified he consumed only two drinks and re-entered his vehicle solely to retrieve his phone to call a tow truck after discovering two flat tires.

The court found the defendant not credible, rejected his evidence regarding alcohol consumption and intent, and found he had been operating the vehicle within ten minutes of police arrival.

The court concluded the defendant was in care and control of the vehicle with a blood alcohol reading of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and that despite the flat tires, there remained a realistic risk of danger.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts, with the care and control with excess alcohol count stayed pursuant to the Keinapple principle.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on an “over 80” impaired driving charge following the exclusion of breath sample evidence for an alleged breach of the accused’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge held that police were required to permit the detainee to re-consult counsel after he repeatedly requested to speak with his lawyer during the breath testing process, despite already speaking with duty counsel.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge erred by failing to make positive factual findings establishing an objectively observable change in circumstances required under the Supreme Court of Canada’s trilogy in R v. Sinclair, R v. McCrimmon, and R v. Willier.

The court found there was no change in jeopardy and no objective indication the detainee misunderstood his rights.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on Highway 400.

The Crown's case established that the accused was speeding and changing lanes erratically.

After a roadside screening device failure, breath samples were obtained showing readings of 210 and 200 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The court found the accused not guilty of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence of impairment beyond the blood alcohol readings.

The court upheld the validity of the breath tests as taken as soon as practicable and found no Charter breach.

The accused was convicted of driving with excess alcohol under section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.