Daniel Mailer

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The accused alleged Charter violations, particularly regarding her right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the demand, complied with the "forthwith" requirement, and that the device was an approved screening device.

Although the officer did not fully comply with informational and implementational duties regarding the right to counsel, the court found no violation occurred because the right to counsel was suspended during the roadside screening test.

The accused clearly understood the demand and unequivocally refused to comply.

The court found the accused guilty.

The applicant sought to vary a lifetime section 161 prohibition order imposed in November 2007, requesting both a shortening of its duration and modifications to its terms to allow flexibility.

The applicant had been convicted in 1992 of sexually assaulting three boys and received a six-month sentence.

Between 2001 and 2006, he relapsed and committed sexual offences against five additional boys aged 8-13 years, resulting in a two-year penitentiary sentence.

The court found that while the applicant had made rehabilitative efforts including counselling and employment, successful rehabilitation had not been established.

The court declined to shorten the lifetime duration but granted limited variation to permit attendance at restricted locations when accompanied by a responsible adult with no criminal record, noting an apparent inconsistency between the prohibition and the probation order.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to deliver a psychiatric expert report outside the timelines set by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, abridgement of time, an adjournment of a trial scheduled under the simplified procedure, and issuance of an interprovincial summons for a witness.

The delay resulted from counsel failing to promptly secure a psychiatric report after indicating at pre-trial that such evidence would be obtained.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, emphasizing proportionality and prejudice caused by the late request.

The court acknowledged the plaintiff’s non-compliance and lack of diligence but held that the interests of justice favoured allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to present expert evidence.

The trial was adjourned with conditions, including that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs thrown away by the adjournment.