Cynthia Ann Lynch

The appellant, Leigh McQuat, appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The trial judge had found him guilty despite excluding evidence related to a breath sample due to a Charter s. 10(b) infringement.

The appeal raised issues regarding the application of the R. v. W.(D.) test, the trial judge's adoption of the breathalyzer technician's opinion on impairment, palpable errors in assessing witness evidence, and the weight given to the appellant's medical issues.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's application of the W.(D.) test, his independent assessment of impairment based on all evidence, his credibility findings, or the weight given to medical issues.

The court reiterated that any degree of impairment, however slight, is sufficient for a conviction.

The applicant sought an order to quash an indictment as a nullity due to improper joinder of charges, or to stay the charges as an abuse of process.

In the alternative, the applicant sought to sever the Toronto and Peel charges.

The court found no legal impediment to the Crown's procedure of withdrawing an information and laying a new one combining charges from different regions, nor did it constitute an abuse of process.

The court also dismissed the application for severance, finding a sufficient factual and legal nexus between the charges and a viable similar fact application, which outweighed the risk of prejudice in a judge-alone trial.

The applicant, Waqar Ali, sought a stay of charges for sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The total delay was approximately 36 months.

The court calculated the net delay by subtracting periods attributable to the defence, including a change of counsel and an adjournment of trial dates.

The net delay was found to be approximately 27.25 months, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior court matters established in R. v. Jordan.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that he took meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, primarily due to his counsel's unavailability for earlier trial dates.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with four Criminal Code offences arising from alleged conduct on May 3, 2014: assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault with a weapon, theft under, and breach of probation.

The case turned entirely on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, a homeless woman with substance addictions.

The court found the complainant credible despite her difficult circumstances and inconsistencies on peripheral matters.

The court accepted her evidence that the accused assaulted her, causing a head injury; refused to return her cellphone when she requested it to call police; and raped her at knifepoint.

The presence of the accused's semen in the complainant's underwear corroborated the sexual assault allegation.

The accused was convicted on all four counts.