David M. Cohn

The accused was charged with "Over 80" following a traffic stop where the officer detected an odour of alcohol.

The defence raised multiple Charter breaches including sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found no section 7 breach regarding lost in-car video evidence, no section 8 breach regarding the timing of the ASD demand, and no section 9 breach regarding arbitrary detention.

The court found a brief section 10(b) breach (8 minutes) regarding the failure to provide right to counsel advice immediately upon detention for investigation, but the accused was offered the opportunity to contact duty counsel at the roadside and did speak with duty counsel at the station before approved instrument testing.

The court applied the section 24(2) analysis and admitted the breath test evidence, finding all Grant factors favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a child under 16 years of age, allegedly occurring between March 5 and March 27, 2017.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the eight-year-old complainant, who was seven years old at the time of the alleged offences.

The trial judge found that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The judgment focused on credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, including inconsistencies regarding when the assaults allegedly occurred, the complainant's failure to disclose to her parents despite having the opportunity to do so, and the absence of material details regarding the alleged assaults.

The applicants sought to exclude evidence obtained through search warrants, arguing insufficient grounds and a breach of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the warrants, including redacted portions under the `Garofoli` "step six" procedure, to protect a confidential informant's identity.

The court found the confidential informant credible and reliable, and the detailed information provided, along with police corroboration of non-criminal details, established reasonable grounds for the warrants.

The application to quash the warrants and exclude evidence was denied.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and care or control over 80 after police found him sleeping in the driver's seat of his vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown alleged the defendant had care or control of the vehicle.

The defendant testified he entered the vehicle to sleep following an argument with his wife and had no intention to drive.

The court found the defendant had rebutted the presumption of care or control and dismissed the charges, finding the risk of danger was speculative rather than realistic.

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

The Crown established that a proper demand was made with reasonable grounds, that the accused intentionally refused to comply, and that no reasonable excuse existed.

The defence argued that incomplete information provided by the officer regarding the consequences of refusal affected the validity of the demand, vitiated proof of mens rea, provided a reasonable excuse, constituted officially induced error, and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The court rejected all defence arguments and entered a conviction.

The defendant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) used to obtain a search warrant at a preliminary inquiry.

The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court dismissed the Dawson application, finding that the cross-examination was not necessary to enable the defendant to make full answer and defence, and that the information provided by a confidential informant was substantially corroborated by independent police surveillance evidence.

The offender, a pharmacy assistant with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to one count of theft over and three counts of trafficking in Schedule I substances (oxycodone, hydromorphone, and fentanyl).

She stole prescription drugs from her employer and provided them to an associate.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 4-5 years, while the defence sought a 2-year conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 30-month penitentiary sentence, finding that while significant mitigating factors existed, the serious nature of the drugs, the substantial quantities involved, the breach of trust, and the ongoing course of conduct warranted incarceration.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite the offender's remorse, family support, and efforts to address her addiction.