Brent Knazan

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on observations by police officers, field sobriety tests, a drug evaluation officer's assessment, and toxicology evidence showing the presence of marijuana and prescription drugs in the accused's urine.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence and argued the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the drug evaluation officer's opinion was admissible as non-expert opinion evidence under R. v. Graat, it did not rise to the level of expert evidence and therefore did not carry special weight.

Considering all evidence, including the absence of impaired driving, the court found the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with obstructing a police officer after giving a false name during an investigation at an airport.

The accused argued that because the officer discovered his true identity within two minutes, there was no actual obstruction.

The court reviewed conflicting case law and held that giving a false name, even if quickly corrected, constitutes an obstruction because it diverted the officer from her duties.

The accused was found guilty.