Christopher William Granville Chapin

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The sentencing judge had imposed a $1,500 fine but declined to impose the mandatory minimum 12-month driving prohibition under s. 320.24 of the Criminal Code, citing the respondent's personal circumstances and an administrative suspension.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that a sentencing judge cannot ignore the statutory mandatory minimum absent a constitutional challenge.

A 12-month driving prohibition was imposed.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and assault in the context of an intimate partner relationship, brought an application under sections 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code to introduce text messages and evidence of an ongoing sexual relationship with the complainant.

The defence argued the evidence was necessary to challenge the complainant's police statement, which described the accused as controlling and the relationship as non-consensual or coerced.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence highly probative to the complainant's credibility and the fundamental coherence of the defence narrative, as it directly contradicted the complainant's description of the relationship.

The evidence was admitted subject to strict limitations to prevent twin-myth reasoning.

The accused, Anthony Fanone, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance by alcohol or drug, and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The central issue was the lawfulness of a single breath sample "rule-out test" administered during a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) examination.

The court found that the single sample "rule-out test" was not authorized by law, constituting a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

However, the court found no s. 10(b) Charter breach regarding the right to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court admitted the breathalyzer results, finding the Charter breach was committed in good faith and had minimal impact.

The accused was found guilty of both impaired driving and the "80 and over" offence, but due to the Kienapple principle, a conviction was entered for the more serious "80 and over" offence, and a conditional stay was entered for the impaired driving charge.