Christina Jabbour

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle under section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused drove a Honda Odyssey van to his wife's workplace while impaired by alcohol.

The defence argued that the accused did not drive the vehicle; rather, his cousin drove it while the accused sat in the passenger seat.

The trial judge found that the Crown's evidence was internally inconsistent and contradictory regarding whether the accused was in the driver's seat or had care or control of the vehicle.

The Crown witnesses gave conflicting accounts of the accused's position when first observed by police.

The trial judge preferred the credible testimony of the accused's wife and the defence witnesses, which established that the accused's cousin drove the vehicle.

The trial judge found reasonable doubt on the issue of care or control and acquitted the accused.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit following a multi-vehicle collision in Toronto.

The trial was blended with a Charter voir dire addressing numerous constitutional and procedural issues.

The court found that while the Crown proved the defendant was the driver of the vehicle involved, it failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, the court found breaches of the defendant's Charter rights regarding the right to counsel and the timing of breath sample demands.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to serious breaches of the right to counsel.

Both charges were dismissed and the defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the officer's request that he blow on the officer's finger to determine if he had been drinking, arguing it violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown argued the officer took reasonable investigative steps authorized under s. 48 of the Highway Traffic Act and that any Charter violation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court found the officer's conduct was authorized by law, reasonable, and justified, and convicted the defendant.