Chris Kostopoulos

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 appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that partially dismissed his summary judgment motion.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's slander claim but refused to dismiss the respondent's sexual assault claim, finding no settlement had been reached and that the respondent's claim was not statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding no settlement occurred and that the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act, 2016 amendments should not apply retroactively.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact and misapplied the law regarding settlement.

However, the court declined to make its own findings on the settlement issue due to significant credibility disputes and directed the matter proceed to trial on all issues.

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 trial addressed two key issues: (1) whether a discrepancy in dates between the Certificate of a Qualified Technician and the Intoxilyzer Test Record Card undermined the reliability of the Certificate; and (2) whether the arresting officer had objectively reasonable grounds to believe that the approved screening device used for the roadside test was in proper working order, thereby justifying the warrantless seizure of breath samples under section 8 of the Charter.

The court found that the date discrepancy was a typographical error and did not affect the Certificate's reliability.

The court also found that the officer had objectively reasonable grounds to believe the device was properly calibrated and functioning correctly based on recent accuracy checks, calibration records, and a self-test.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for sexual assault and slander.

The defendant argued the sexual assault claim was statute-barred and had been settled for $50,000, and that the slander claim lacked evidence and special damages.

The court dismissed the slander claim due to a lack of evidence and failure to prove special damages.

However, the court found no settlement had been reached as there was no meeting of the minds.

Furthermore, the sexual assault claim was not statute-barred because the plaintiff did not discover the claim until consulting a lawyer, the limitation period was suspended due to presumed incapacity, and recent legislative amendments eliminated the limitation period for sexual assault claims.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code after being denied interim release on charges related to a sophisticated car theft enterprise.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances as drug charges were withdrawn, shifting the onus to the Crown to justify detention on the secondary ground.

The accused proposed a new release plan involving his mother as surety with an increased monetary pledge and electronic monitoring.

The court found the mother lacked effective control over the accused and that electronic monitoring was insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of the accused committing further offences.

The application for release was dismissed.

The respondents, operators of adult entertainment parlours, were charged with keeping a common bawdy-house contrary to s. 210 of the Criminal Code.

At trial, the charges were stayed on the basis that the terms 'acts of indecency' and 'prostitution' were unconstitutionally vague under s. 7 of the Charter.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that it was bound by stare decisis, as previous Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal decisions had already established that the community standard of tolerance test provides an intelligible standard and that the terms are not impermissibly vague.

The stays were set aside and the matters remitted for trial.