Christian Pearce

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample into an approved screening device contrary to Section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

Following a traffic stop on July 6, 2013, where the defendant's vehicle failed to stop at an intersection, police observed the defendant's suspicious behavior and detected an odour of alcohol and empty beer cans in the vehicle.

The defendant was directed to provide breath samples using an approved screening device but made ten unsuccessful attempts.

The Crown alleged the defendant failed to provide suitable samples; the defendant claimed he attempted to provide samples but was unable to do so due to fear stemming from prior traumatic experiences with police in his home country.

The court found credibility and reliability issues with the police officer's evidence regarding the specifics of each sample attempt, particularly the lack of detailed contemporaneous notes.

The defendant was acquitted.

The appellant appealed a 14-month custodial sentence imposed for assault and breach of probation against his parents.

The trial judge had effectively imposed a 21-month sentence, which was seven times longer than the appellant's longest previous sentence of 90 days.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence that was an inordinate and unjustified jump in severity, violating the step principle.

The appeal was allowed, and the custodial sentence was reduced to time served, with the three-year probation order remaining in effect.

Young persons charged with assault brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging prosecutorial misconduct by Crown counsel.

The Crown counsel engaged in three separate incidents: approaching a youth witness in the hallway and encouraging him to tell the truth; a more aggressive second encounter with the same witness during lunch recess using profanity and references to perjury; and making derogatory comments toward the accused and their fathers as he left the courtroom.

The applicants argued the conduct breached their section 7 Charter rights to a fair trial and undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The Crown was administratively removed from the case prior to judgment.