3 total
The accused successfully rebutted the presumption of care or control by proving he occupied the driver's seat only to sleep and smoke.
The accused was charged with being in care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.
The Crown established that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired, with a projected blood alcohol level between 70 to 125 mgs/100ml.
The sole issue was whether the accused was in care or control of the vehicle.
Although the accused occupied the driver's seat, triggering a statutory presumption of care or control, the court found the accused successfully rebutted this presumption.
The accused testified he sat in the driver's seat to wait for his mother to fall asleep after a family dispute, keeping the door open to smoke and avoid using the ignition.
The court accepted his evidence as logical and consistent with circumstantial evidence, finding no realistic risk of danger and no evidence of intent to set the vehicle in motion.
The charge was dismissed.
The court convicted the accused of impaired driving, finding police had common law authority to stop her on private property.
The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to the Criminal Code.
Police received a tip that a woman had been drinking all day and was driving to a beer store.
Officers located the vehicle at the beer store and stopped the accused as she reversed out of a parking spot.
The accused failed an approved screening device test and later approved instrument tests at the station.
The defence challenged the lawfulness of the detention under Charter sections 8 and 9, and raised issues regarding compliance with the two-hour requirement under section 258 of the Criminal Code.
The court found that the police had authority to detain and investigate the accused based on the specific information received and the common law ancillary powers doctrine.
The court also found that the Crown proved compliance with the two-hour requirement and that the officer had reasonable grounds for the approved instrument demand.
The accused was found guilty.
The accused was convicted of recklessly causing a fire and drug production, but acquitted of trafficking.
The accused was charged with three criminal offences related to a fire caused by an explosion of heated isopropyl alcohol during cannabis oil production in his condominium apartment, and four drug offences related to the production and possession of cannabis resin.
The court found the accused guilty of recklessly causing damage to property knowing it was occupied by others under section 433(a) of the Criminal Code.
On the drug charges, the court found the accused guilty of production of cannabis resin but acquitted him of possession for the purpose of trafficking, finding instead that his explanation regarding personal medicinal use was reasonably possible.
The court convicted the accused of simple possession of cannabis resin and simple possession of marijuana.
