David Frederick Burke

The accused was charged with impaired operation and dangerous operation of a conveyance following a motor vehicle collision.

The accused rear-ended a vehicle stopped at a red light before veering into a field.

Blood analysis indicated a blood alcohol concentration between 70-110 mg/100mL at the time of driving, with toxicological evidence suggesting impairment at that level.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure, which was later withdrawn.

The court found the arrest and blood demand were supported by reasonable and probable grounds.

Considering the totality of evidence including witness observations of slurred speech, unsteady gait, odour of alcohol, the collision circumstances, and toxicological evidence, the court found the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a combination of alcohol and cannabis, and that he drove dangerously by failing to observe a sustained red light and stopped vehicles ahead.

The defendant, Tandeep Braich, stood trial on a charge of driving with excess blood alcohol.

The primary issue was whether a five-minute delay in informing the defendant of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms constituted a violation, and if so, whether the breath test results should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found no Charter breach, determining that the delay was reasonable given the circumstances, including officer safety and ensuring the defendant's comprehension of his rights.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court concluded that the evidence would not be excluded, as the seriousness of any purported breach was low, the impact on the defendant's Charter-protected interests was minimal, and the evidence was reliable and essential to the prosecution.

Consequently, a finding of guilt was recorded.

The accused was found asleep in a vehicle parked on the side of Highway 400 with the engine running.

A police officer detected an odour of alcohol and conducted an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test at the roadside, which led to further testing and charges of Over 80 and Impaired care or control.

The impaired count was dismissed.

The defence challenged the ASD demand as lacking reasonable suspicion and argued the demand was not made forthwith, constituting a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The court found the demand was based on reasonable suspicion and was made in a timely manner.

The Charter application was dismissed and the accused was found guilty of care or control with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

David Holden was found guilty of fraud exceeding $54 million and money laundering in a large-scale Ponzi scheme.

This decision outlines the sentencing, which includes 12 years imprisonment for fraud (concurrent with 8 years for money laundering), a restitution order, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $54,159,737, with a default imprisonment of 5 years consecutive.

The court emphasized denunciation, general deterrence, and separation due to the egregious nature of the fraud, its devastating impact on 65 victims, and Holden's significant prior record of similar offences and lack of remorse.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused sought to exclude breath test results, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect he was the driver and had alcohol in his body without relying on compelled statements made under highway traffic legislation.

The court excluded the accused's statements regarding being the driver and consuming alcohol as compelled statements under the Charter.

However, the court found that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was the driver based on witness identification at the accident scene, independent of the excluded statements.

The court admitted the Intoxilyzer results into evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a traffic stop at approximately 5:05 a.m. on April 12, 2015.

Police received a radio call about a possible impaired driver who appeared to be asleep at the wheel.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer observed signs of impairment and arrested the accused.

A Charter application was brought challenging the lawfulness of the arrest and the seizure of breath samples.

The trial judge found reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest existed based on the totality of circumstances.

However, the trial judge found a violation of section 8 of the Charter because the officer gave an approved screening device demand rather than the required approved instrument demand.

Despite this violation, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving, and the over 80 charge was stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a legally excessive blood alcohol concentration following a minor motor vehicle collision in Toronto.

The Crown's case relied on breath samples taken at roadside via an approved screening device and subsequent Intoxilyzer readings at the police station, supported by toxicology evidence.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of all BAC evidence on Charter grounds, arguing that the officer failed to comply with the "forthwith" requirement under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code by delaying approximately 10 minutes between forming reasonable suspicion and making the formal ASD demand.

The court found a breach of the "forthwith" requirement and, applying the three-part test under section 24(2) of the Charter, excluded the BAC evidence as the admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was acquitted.

Alex James and Jesse Dawson were arrested on drug and firearms charges at James' apartment.

Police found a loaded handgun, marijuana, cash, and drug paraphernalia in James' bedroom, and another handgun, cocaine, and an electronic scale outside the apartment.

Both defendants denied knowledge of the weapons and drugs.

The court analyzed the evidence, including the defendants' credibility under R. v. W. (D.), and the law of possession under section 4(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court found Dawson guilty of possession of a handgun and cocaine for trafficking, concluding he knew police were present and dropped the items while fleeing.

James was found guilty of possession of a handgun, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of proceeds of crime, as the court disbelieved his denial of knowledge regarding the items in his bedroom.

The applicant, Alex James, sought to exclude evidence (heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana, and a firearm) seized from his apartment, arguing a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights due to an unreasonable search and misleading police testimony.

The court found that Detective Constable Gini conducted a warrantless search of a toilet in the applicant's bedroom, removed drugs, and subsequently provided misleading notes and preliminary hearing testimony about the timing of the discovery.

Applying the R. v. Grant test for s. 24(2) Charter exclusion, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct, particularly the officer's attempts to conceal his actions, outweighed the diminished impact on the applicant's privacy and society's interest in the adjudication on the merits for that specific evidence.

The application was granted in part, excluding only the drugs found in the toilet adjacent to bedroom #3, while other evidence obtained through a subsequent lawful search warrant executed in good faith by other officers was admitted.

The applicant, Alex James, sought to exclude evidence seized from his apartment, arguing violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The police conducted surveillance and a warrantless entry into the apartment based on exigent circumstances, leading to arrests and seizure of firearms and drugs.

The applicant challenged the search warrant's validity and the warrantless entry.

The court dismissed the application, finding the search warrant was justified and the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances.

Even if Charter rights were breached, the evidence would be admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter, applying the Grant factors, due to the good faith of the officers and the seriousness of the alleged offences.

The accused was charged with impaired driving operation and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown conceded the impaired driving count and proceeded only on the over 80 charge.

The central issue was whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused and demand a breath sample.

The court found that while the officer possessed a subjective belief of impairment, the objective facts did not support reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The court applied the three-prong test under section 24(2) of the Charter to determine whether the breath test evidence should be excluded as a remedy for the Charter breach.

The court excluded the evidence and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9, seeking exclusion of breath sample analysis.

The court found that the officer had both subjective and objective reasonable grounds to believe the Approved Screening Device (ASD) was functioning properly and that the "fail" reading provided sufficient grounds for an Intoxilyzer demand.

The court rejected the Charter application and admitted the breath analysis results.

The accused was charged with Drive Over 80 following a RIDE program stop.

The Crown obtained breath samples showing readings of 247 and 230 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure arising from videotaping in a police cell and an arbitrary detention.

The court found Charter breaches but declined to exclude evidence or grant a stay of proceedings, finding no nexus between the breaches and the evidence obtained.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was charged with operation impaired and operation over 80 following a motor vehicle collision on March 22, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence from paramedics, police officers, a breath technician, and a forensic toxicologist.

The defendant did not call any evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired care or control and impaired over 80, applying the legal test established in R. v. Boudreault regarding the elements of care or control under the Criminal Code.

The defendant was found in the driver's seat of the vehicle after it struck a church, with a blood alcohol concentration significantly exceeding the legal limit.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol on June 7, 2012.

The Crown presented evidence from two police officers and a forensic toxicologist.

The arresting officer observed the defendant making a wide, slow left turn and noted signs of impairment including unsteadiness, slow speech, strong odour of alcohol, and shaking hands.

Breath samples taken at the police station registered 58 and 49 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

A toxicologist opined that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving would have been between 40 to 85 milligrams, with impairment occurring at 50 milligrams.

The court found the defendant guilty based on the totality of evidence demonstrating impairment to at least a slight degree.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample, assault with a weapon, dangerous driving, and assault following an incident on May 23, 2011.

The charges of assault with a weapon, assault, and dangerous driving were withdrawn.

Prior to trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging a violation of section 8 rights due to an unlawful strip search conducted at the police station.

The Crown opposed the application.

The trial proceeded on the impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample charges.

The court found that the strip search violated the accused's section 8 Charter rights and stayed the proceedings.

On the merits, the court acquitted the accused of both remaining charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

Following a trial, the accused conceded sufficient evidence existed for conviction but argued the charges should be stayed pursuant to section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that his right to be free from arbitrary detention had been infringed.

The court found no arbitrary detention occurred and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop at an intersection.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused was found slumped over the steering wheel of a running vehicle at a red light, displaying signs of impairment including red glassy eyes, slurred speech, and an odour of alcohol.

The accused was arrested and subjected to breathalyzer testing, which yielded readings of 160 and 180 mgs of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breathalyzer evidence on Charter grounds, alleging that he was not properly informed of his right to counsel due to language comprehension difficulties.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights under section 10(b) were infringed and excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the officers' observations at the roadside, and not guilty of driving with excess alcohol due to the exclusion of the breathalyzer results.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, arguing that the trial judge erred in the analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b).

The trial judge had improperly considered the potential value of legal advice that might have been provided during a second requested consultation with counsel.

The appeal judge agreed that this was an error in principle but conducted a fresh s. 24(2) analysis applying the framework from Grant.

The court held that the breach was not egregious, the impact on the accused’s Charter-protected interests was limited, and society’s interest in adjudicating impaired driving cases on their merits was strong.

The breath sample evidence was therefore admissible and the conviction was upheld.