Brian J. Scott

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80mg.

The trial judge found the police breached the appellant's s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights by handcuffing him pre-arrest while waiting for a roadside screening device, but admitted the breath readings under s. 24(2).

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle by treating Charter-compliant behaviour as mitigating and by finding the officer made a legal mistake without evidence.

Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the court found the pre-arrest handcuffing was a serious breach that was unnecessary and degrading.

The evidence was excluded and an acquittal entered.

The applicant, Brynn Alexandra Campbell, brought a Garofoli application to exclude her statements and blood/alcohol concentration analysis from trial, alleging Charter infringements under sections 7, 8, 10(a), 10(b), and seeking remedy under section 24(2).

The court found that Campbell's statements were compelled under the Highway Traffic Act and thus excluded under section 7 of the Charter.

The blood evidence was deemed illegally obtained by nurses acting as state agents, violating sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, particularly given Campbell's phobia of needles and refusal of consent.

Applying the R. v. Grant analysis, the court concluded that the Charter infringements were serious, and the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2), as its admission would undermine public confidence in the justice system.

The search warrant, based on this excised information, lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The applicant sought an order to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants for search warrants, alleging improper police procedures in obtaining private health information without consent or a court order.

The applicant argued that the affiant failed to disclose crucial information to the issuing Justice of the Peace, which, if known, would have prevented the issuance of the warrants.

The Crown contended that the information was lawfully obtained and fully disclosed.

The court found a sufficient foundation to permit cross-examination of the affiant and sub-affiants to determine if there was a shortfall of disclosure to the Justice of the Peace, which could lead to the exclusion of evidence.

Five work assignment complaints were brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the handling and installation of enclosures for finned tube convectors.

The parties agreed to have the Board first determine the applicability and effect of the 1956 Interim National Agreement between the two unions.

The Board found that while the agreement applied to the work in dispute, it was not dispositive of the complaints because the Sheet Metal Workers had only recently sought to rely on it.

The Board concluded that other criteria, such as area and employer past practice, must also be considered, and directed a further hearing to determine whether the complaints should proceed en bloc or individually.

In an application for certification by Shopmen's Local 834, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dealt with several preliminary motions.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment to give notice to other parties, ruling the issue was raised too late.

The Board also denied a request to extend the terminal date due to an intervener application, maintaining its practice of using the original application's dates.

Finally, the Board refused to defer the certification applications pending the outcome of related grievance referrals.

A Board Officer was appointed to conduct a record check regarding the bargaining unit composition.