Christina Sibian

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg following a motor vehicle collision on June 10, 2014.

The Crown sought to introduce breath sample evidence obtained after the accused's arrest.

The defence challenged the admissibility of this evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the police failed to make the breath demand as soon as practicable, breached the accused's right to counsel by failing to inform him immediately upon arrest, and failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to counsel in private.

The court excluded the evidence and entered an acquittal on all counts.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed after pleading guilty to public mischief for falsely reporting that an individual had threatened him with a firearm, which led to a police tactical response and the arrest of an innocent person.

The sentencing judge imposed a 14‑day conditional sentence followed by one year of probation.

The appellant argued that the judge overemphasized general deterrence and failed to properly consider a conditional discharge under s. 730 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the sentencing judge considered the relevant principles and the impact of the conduct on an innocent third party, making deterrence and denunciation significant factors.

The sentence was not demonstrably unfit and no error in principle was established.

The accused pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused found a loaded antique revolver at an income property, transported it in his truck, and later accidentally discharged it into his own chest while sitting in the vehicle outside his home, suffering a collapsed lung and ongoing complications.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence based on general deterrence and denunciation, arguing the accused knew the firearm was loaded.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, citing the accused's dated criminal record, stable family life, and serious self-inflicted injuries.

The court rejected both positions and imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, finding that incarceration would be disproportionate to the accused's moral culpability while a discharge would undermine general deterrence and denunciation.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol after registering a fail on an approved screening device (ASD) at the roadside.

The Crown's case relied on breath samples obtained at the police station.

The defence argued that the ASD result was unreliable due to the presence of a throat lozenge in the accused's mouth and the officer's failure to consider the effects of certain foods and substances on the device, as outlined in an Ontario Provincial Police memorandum.

The court found that the officer could not have reasonably relied on the ASD result and that the breath samples were obtained in violation of the accused's Charter rights.

The evidence was excluded and the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with two offences: (1) breach of undertaking for purchasing and possessing alcohol contrary to s. 145(5.1) of the Criminal Code on December 11, 2013, and (2) breach of recognizance for failing to attend court on March 14, 2014, contrary to s. 145(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused had an honest mistake regarding the March 14 court date and acquitted him on the breach of recognizance charge.

However, the court found that the accused knew or was willfully blind to the continuing alcohol prohibition in his undertaking and convicted him on the breach of undertaking charge, rejecting his arguments that he believed the condition had been amended and that the de minimis doctrine applied.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit.

The accused was found sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle with keys in the glove compartment.

The Crown alleged care and control; the defence argued the accused had arranged for a sober driver to pick him up and had no intention to drive.

The court found the statutory presumption of care and control was rebutted and that no realistic risk of danger existed that the vehicle would be set in motion.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

He argued the trial judge erred regarding the standard of proof for a s. 8 Charter breach, the lawfulness of the police officer entering his driveway, the timing of the breath tests, and the failure to find arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the officer was lawfully on the driveway under an implied invitation, the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable, and although the trial judge erred in inferring the reasons for the appellant's continued detention, a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 ml.

She argued that statements made to police were compelled under accident reporting requirements and could not form grounds for an approved screening device demand, and that expert “straddle” evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration should have raised a reasonable doubt.

The appeal court held that the trial judge’s adverse credibility findings against the appellant were entitled to deference and were not affected by palpable and overriding error.

As a result, the foundation for the appellant’s expert evidence and statutory compulsion arguments failed.

The conviction was therefore upheld.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified.

He was prohibited from driving for 10 years following a 2010 conviction for the same offence and had a lifetime suspension of his driver's license.

The Crown sought 8 months' jail and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional sentence with probation and community service.

The court imposed 4 months' incarceration and a 10-year driving prohibition, finding that denunciation and deterrence were the preeminent sentencing principles and that a conditional sentence would be inappropriate given the defendant's extensive criminal record, poor compliance history, and risk of reoffence.

The accused was charged with assault for striking his 15-year-old girlfriend in the face during the early morning hours of April 1, 2013, in Mississauga.

The complainant initially lied to police, claiming the injuries resulted from a soccer accident, but eventually disclosed the truth during a lengthy police interview.

The accused denied the assault and claimed the complainant was uninjured when they parted.

The trial judge found the accused's evidence incredible and accepted the complainant's account, finding that the injuries were inflicted while the complainant was alone with the accused.

The judge convicted the accused of assault.

The accused was charged with assault and uttering a threat to cause death against his wife following an incident on March 23, 2013.

The case turned entirely on credibility, with the complainant and accused providing diametrically opposed accounts of the altercation.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and evasive.

The court convicted the accused on both counts after finding that the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.