David Macleod Faed

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg and the resulting sentence.

The appellant argued that the roadside screening demand lacked reasonable suspicion under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter and that the breath test evidence failed to comply with s. 258(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code because two different technicians were involved in the testing process.

The court held that the trial judge properly considered the constellation of observable indicators supporting reasonable suspicion and applied the correct legal standard.

The court also found no error in the interpretation of the Criminal Code requirement that breath samples be analyzed by an approved instrument operated by a qualified technician, concluding that the involvement of two officers in preparatory and analytical steps did not violate the provision.

The sentence, including an $1,200 fine and 18‑month driving prohibition based on high breath readings, was within the trial judge’s discretion.

In a criminal appeal, the appellant filed a factum that failed to comply with Criminal Proceedings Rule 40.11(5)(b).

The court found the summary of facts improperly consisted of transcript excerpts rather than a concise summary of relevant facts, and the issues section did not provide legal argument or authorities supporting the claim that the sentence was unfit.

As a result, the court declined to proceed with assigning a hearing estimate.

The appellant was ordered to serve and file a compliant replacement factum by a specified date, failing which the matter would be scheduled for a motion to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Crown appealed the blended sentences of 23 months (including a 17-month conditional sentence) imposed on the respondents for repeated sexual offences against their son over a 9-year period.

The Court of Appeal found the sentences manifestly unfit, noting that such profoundly exploitive breaches of trust require a penitentiary term.

The sentencing judge erred by relying on an inappropriately absolving report, treating the repetitive assaults as isolated incidents, and failing to give sufficient consideration to denunciation.

The appeal was allowed, and a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was substituted.