Carla Andrea Agatiello

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and failing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples.

The Crown alleged the defendant was driving erratically and displayed signs of impairment including the odour of alcohol, glossy eyes, and a dazed appearance.

The defendant refused to provide breath samples when demanded by police.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was impaired, rendering the approved instrument demand unlawful.

The court also found insufficient evidence of impairment beyond reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The sole issue was whether the arresting officer had the required reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample into an approved screening device.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 8 rights.

The court found that despite credibility issues with the officer's testimony regarding the odour of alcohol on the accused's breath, the totality of circumstances—including the time of day, vehicle lighting issues, physical observations, and the presence of intoxicated passengers—provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the demand.

The court rejected the Charter application and found the accused guilty as charged.

The corporate defendant was convicted of undertaking development without a permit in a development control area under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, after constructing an armour stone wall.

The Crown sought a $4,000 fine, while the defence argued for a nominal $150 fine due to a history of compliance.

The court weighed the paramount goal of general deterrence for environmental regulatory offences against the defendant's prior compliance, ultimately imposing a $3,000 fine.