Bruce Engel

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples for an approved screening device (ASD) contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused was observed drinking from a wine bottle in a McDonald's drive-thru and subsequently failed to provide suitable breath samples during ten attempts at roadside testing.

The accused claimed she was unable to provide samples due to anxiety and a pre-existing lung condition.

The court addressed a late challenge to the sufficiency of the charge, finding it was not a nullity but amending it to conform to the evidence presented.

On the merits, the court found the accused guilty, determining that she intentionally failed to provide samples rather than being incapable of doing so.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant after a night of drinking among friends where the complainant became severely intoxicated and ill.

The complainant testified that she lost consciousness intermittently and awoke to the accused engaging in sexual activity without her consent, repeatedly telling him to stop.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence due to numerous deliberate lies and inconsistencies, finding his testimony wholly unreliable.

The complainant’s evidence was accepted as credible and corroborated by medical evidence, witness testimony, and surrounding circumstances.

The court held that the complainant lacked the capacity to provide ongoing consent due to intoxication and illness, and that the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent was found to have no air of reality.

During a criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault, the Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert in the operation of Facebook features and Microsoft Word functions relevant to the creation of a document allegedly copied from a Facebook News Feed.

The defence challenged the scope and usefulness of the proposed expert evidence, arguing that the detective lacked sufficient expertise regarding Facebook’s technical coding in 2009 and could not conclusively authenticate the document.

Applying the criteria for admissibility of expert evidence from R. v. Mohan, the court found the proposed testimony relevant and necessary to assist the trier of fact in understanding technical aspects of copying, pasting, hyperlinks, and auto-correct features.

The court concluded the detective possessed specialized knowledge through training and investigative experience and that any limitations in his expertise affected weight rather than admissibility.

The detective was therefore qualified to provide expert opinion within the proposed areas.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the motion judge erred in her section 11(b) Charter analysis regarding unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her balancing of the prejudice to the appellant against the societal interest in having a trial.

The court noted that because it was a documents case, the possibility of fading memories was less significant.

The appeal was dismissed.

During a criminal trial for sexual assault, the accused challenged the admissibility of a videotaped police interview, alleging a breach of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused argued he felt compelled to attend the police station and was not informed of free legal advice.

The court found the accused was not detained when he attended the voluntary interview and therefore his s. 10(b) rights were not triggered.

Applying the voluntariness framework from R. v. Oickle, the court concluded the statement was voluntary and not obtained through threats, oppression, trickery, or impairment of the accused’s operating mind.

The videotaped interview was ruled admissible at trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter with intent to commit murder, uttering threats, and criminal harassment, as well as his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge erred in dismissing his application to withdraw his guilty pleas and in failing to consider the long-term offender provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the guilty pleas were valid and informed.

While the sentencing judge erred by not considering the long-term offender provisions, the Court applied the curative proviso, concluding there was no reasonable possibility of a different sentence given the uncontradicted psychiatric evidence of the appellant's untreatable psychopathy and sexual sadism.

The Crown appealed directed verdicts of acquittal for first and second-degree murder.

The respondents had been convicted of manslaughter and forcible confinement after participating in the beating and confinement of the victim, who was left bound in a remote cabin and subsequently died.

The trial judge ruled there was no evidence of the requisite intent for murder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge impermissibly weighed the evidence and usurped the jury's function.

The Court held there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent, planning, and deliberation to leave the murder charges to the jury, and ordered a new trial on first-degree murder.