Darwin Yantha

Two applicants charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mgs per 100 ml of blood brought a motion for disclosure of records relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device used in their cases.

The Crown refused disclosure on grounds of irrelevance.

The court ordered disclosure of six categories of information including the analyst's certificate for the alcohol solution, calibration records, maintenance logs, and previous subject test records (with personal identifiers redacted).

The court found that the disclosure sought was relevant to allow the accused to meet their burden under section 258 of the Criminal Code to prove the instrument malfunctioned or was operated improperly.

The Crown and the Ontario Provincial Police applied for certiorari to quash a provincial court disclosure order requiring production of records related to an Intoxylizer 8000C breath testing device in impaired driving prosecutions.

The lower court had ordered disclosure of calibration, maintenance, usage logs, prior subject test records, and samples of the alcohol standard solution used in breath testing.

The applicants argued the police should have been treated as a third party and given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that the disclosure order conflicted with expert evidence about the relevance of the records.

The court held that the police possessed a direct interest in the records and should have been afforded an opportunity to make submissions on whether the materials constituted third party records.

The order was quashed and the matter remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for reconsideration of the disclosure regime with participation from the police.

The applicants sought disclosure of six categories of information relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device used in their respective impaired driving cases.

The Crown refused disclosure on the basis that the information was clearly irrelevant.

The court granted the disclosure applications, finding that the requested information fell within the Crown's disclosure obligations under the Stinchcombe test.

The court emphasized that given the statutory requirement under section 258 of the Criminal Code for accused persons to prove instrument malfunction or improper operation, accused persons must have access to maintenance records, calibration records, previous test results, and related documentation to meet this burden.

Sentencing for historical sexual offences involving multiple child victims.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of indecent assault and one count of gross indecency committed against five young complainants over a period spanning several years when the complainants were between six and ten years old.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for sexual offences against children, recognizing the significant long‑term harm to victims and abuse of trust.

Despite the typical sentencing range of 30 to 36 months for such offences, the court considered unusual mitigating factors including the offender’s advanced age, failing health, lack of prior sexual criminal record, and the passage of approximately five decades since the offences.

A reduced custodial sentence was imposed with probation conditions restricting contact with the victims.

Following a motion to change child support, the court addressed costs.

The moving party had sought to reduce monthly child support to zero and obtain a share of the Child Tax Benefit.

The court reduced child support from $300 per month to $100 and granted a share of the Child Tax Benefit, but declined retroactive relief.

Despite the responding party serving an offer to settle that was close to the final result, the court found the moving party was largely successful and awarded partial costs.