Dennis W. Fenton

The accused was tried on charges arising from a fatal ATV rollover after a night of social drinking.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol, preferring the evidence of the eyewitness and attending officer over unreliable lay observations from other young witnesses.

The court further held that, even if impairment had been proven, causation was not established because the rollover was explained by the vehicle's instability and sharp turning capability at low speed.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving causing death and over-80 causing death, but convicted of taking the ATV without consent.

The accused applied to exclude evidence following a fatal accident investigation, arguing Charter breaches under ss. 8, 9, and 10 after police obtained statements, roadside screening results, and subsequent breath samples.

Earlier reasons excluded the accused’s compelled roadside statements under s. 24(1) and ruled they could not justify the approved screening device demand.

The remaining issue concerned whether observations made by a breath technician while obtaining Intoxilyzer samples should also be excluded.

The court held the detention was not arbitrary and the arrest was justified by a failed roadside screening device.

However, because the Intoxilyzer process and resulting observations flowed solely from compelled statements, admitting the observations would indirectly permit use of compelled evidence and undermine the right against self‑incrimination.

The observations were therefore excluded under s. 24(1), or alternatively under the court’s common law discretion.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death following a UTV accident.

In a pretrial motion, the accused sought to exclude statements made to police at the scene, arguing they were statutorily compelled under the Highway Traffic Act and their admission would violate his right against self-incrimination under s. 7 of the Charter.

The court found that the accused honestly and reasonably believed he was required by law to report the accident and answer the officer's questions.

The court excluded the statements for all purposes under s. 24(1) of the Charter, including as the basis for the approved screening device demand.

However, the court held that the officer's observations of the accused at the scene were not compelled and remained admissible.

The applicant brought a Charter motion seeking exclusion of roadside statements, police observations, and breath sample results arising from a motor vehicle collision investigation.

The court reconsidered an earlier ruling in light of appellate authority holding that statements compelled under a statutory duty to report a collision under the Highway Traffic Act are inadmissible in a criminal prosecution, including for the purpose of establishing grounds for a breath demand.

The court excluded the applicant’s admissions about having consumed alcohol because they were statutorily compelled.

However, the officer’s observation of the odour of alcohol was admissible as it was a passive observation made during a lawful detention and not the result of compelled participation.

The detention was reasonable and no breach of the rights to silence or counsel was established.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an alleged incident during a work-related overnight stay at a rural property.

The complainant testified she believed she had been drugged and sexually assaulted after consuming alcohol and losing memory of the evening, awakening naked in the accused’s bed the next day.

The accused denied drugging the complainant and maintained that any sexual contact was consensual and initiated by the complainant.

The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given credibility concerns, the complainant’s lack of recollection, the absence of corroborating evidence of drugging, and post‑incident conduct inconsistent with the alleged assault, the court found that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.