Brian R. Linley

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 10(b) rights (right to retain and instruct counsel without delay).

The court found that the accused's right to counsel was violated when the officer failed to wait a reasonable period of time for the accused's counsel of choice to return a call before proceeding with the breathalyzer test.

The court excluded the breath test evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge had excluded evidence derived from hospital records after finding that a physician’s disclosure to police of an odour of alcohol breached the accused’s s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The appeal court held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the smell of alcohol on her breath observed by a physician in a hospital emergency room.

The disclosure did not engage s. 8 protection, and even if it had, the evidence would have been admissible under the s. 24(2) analysis in R. v. Grant.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with eight counts of animal cruelty involving three domestic cats.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial involved evidence from veterinarians, an OSPCA agent, and the apartment owner regarding injuries to the animals and their deaths.

The accused testified that he did not harm any of the animals.

The court found the Crown proved all charges beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including the animals' presence in the accused's room when they died, the severity of injuries consistent with blunt force trauma, and the lack of any other reasonable explanation for the injuries.

The accused was charged with unlawfully being in a dwelling house contrary to section 349(1) of the Criminal Code and sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The case turned on the identification evidence of two eyewitnesses: the complainant, who was awoken while being touched inappropriately, and her mother, who observed the intruder leaving the trailer.

The court found the identification evidence to be unreliable and fraught with contradictions, including inconsistencies between the witnesses' statements to police and their trial testimony, poor lighting conditions, brief observation opportunities, and the complainant's intoxicated state.

The court also noted the presence of an alternative suspect, Ted MacQuarrie, who had assisted the complainant earlier that evening and bore a physical resemblance to the accused.

The charges were dismissed.