3 total
The accused was convicted of refusing a breath sample but acquitted of impaired driving due to medical evidence explaining his balance issues.
The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device.
The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, arguing the officer unlawfully entered private property to make the demand and that the accused's section 10(b) rights were infringed.
The court denied the Charter application, finding the officer had express consent to enter the building and that section 10(b) rights were not violated given the brief timeframe before the approved screening device would be available.
At trial, the court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a sample but dismissed the impaired driving charge, finding reasonable doubt based on a possible medical explanation for balance issues and the unlikelihood the accused would have been sold alcohol if visibly intoxicated.
Over 80 charge dismissed as Crown failed to disprove bolus drinking for extrapolation.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.
The accused argued that his Charter rights under s. 7 and s. 8 were breached due to a delay in taking breath samples and lack of a proper demand.
The court found no Charter breach, as the delay was reasonable and the demand was properly made.
However, the Crown relied on a toxicologist's extrapolation, which assumed no bolus drinking.
The court found that the evidence raised the issue of bolus drinking, and the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bolus drinking did not occur.
Consequently, the toxicologist's evidence could not establish the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving, and the charge was dismissed.
Custody Relief denied
The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code.
Police seized multiple hard drives containing over 7,600 unique images of child pornography and 5,608 images of child nudity, along with 26 movies depicting child pornography and 26 depicting child nudity.
The accused purchased two movies online and accumulated the remainder through unknown sources.
A sexual behaviour assessment revealed the accused responded to pedophilic stimuli despite claiming lack of sexual arousal.
The court imposed a sentence of 15 months incarceration (14 months and 20 days after pre-disposition custody credit), 18 months probation with strict conditions including prohibition on computer possession, DNA order, forfeiture of hard drives, SOIRA order for 10 years, and s. 161 order for 5 years.
