Daniel Eliezer Marcovitch

The defendant was tried concurrently on a provincial careless driving charge and a criminal charge of driving with excess blood alcohol concentration.

The court addressed two main issues for the criminal charge: the validity of the screening demand and the admissibility of the Certificate of a Qualified Breath Technician.

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol consumption, validating the screening demand and subsequent breath tests.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the photocopy of the Certificate of a Qualified Breath Technician was admissible as a true copy.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of both the careless driving offence and the criminal driving with excess blood alcohol concentration offence.

Olga Ajgirevitch applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of her s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The key issues were the start date for calculating delay (arrest vs. information sworn) and whether the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying delay.

The court, bound by Supreme Court and Court of Appeal precedents, ruled that the delay clock starts from the date the information was sworn (November 9, 2020), not the arrest date.

It also found that the COVID-19 pandemic and its systemic impacts were exceptional circumstances, justifying a deduction of delay.

After deducting defence-attributable and exceptional delays, the net delay was below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and having a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

A citizen called 911 reporting dangerous driving, and police observed the vehicle swerving between lanes, nearly striking a parked bus.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer detected a strong odour of alcohol and observed signs of impairment.

The defence challenged the arrest and detention under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, and disputed the Crown's proof of impairment.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest, no arbitrary detention, and no breach of the right to counsel despite language barriers.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, with the second count stayed under the Kienapple rule.