D. Kiesman

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals for impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The accused had been found intoxicated in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle but stated she only entered to listen to music and smoke.

The summary conviction appeal judge found no error in the trial judge's refusal to allow a new question on re-examination regarding identity.

The appeal court also held that the trial judge's finding that the accused rebutted the presumption of care and control and posed no realistic risk of danger was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with break and enter, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, uttering threats, and breach of probation following a violent home invasion.

The accused claimed he was invited into the residence to discuss a drug debt and acted in self-defence after the victim pointed a shotgun at him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding he forced entry, initiated the assault, and acted in concert with a co-accused to steal property and confine the victim.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a justice of the peace’s detention order denying bail on the secondary ground.

The court considered whether there had been an error in principle or a material change in circumstances since the original bail hearing.

The applicant argued that a proposed surety was no longer supervising another accused and could better supervise him, and also challenged the strength of the Crown’s identification evidence.

The court found no error in principle and concluded the change regarding the surety was not material, particularly in light of the accused’s extensive criminal record and repeated breaches of court orders.

Even if the change were material, detention remained justified due to the high likelihood of reoffending and the serious nature of the alleged armed robberies.