D. Lakie

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drugs (cocaine) and possession of cocaine.

The accused, who is blind in one eye and suffers from other physical and cognitive disabilities due to a prior accident, performed poorly on a Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE).

However, there was no evidence of bad driving, and a toxicologist testified that the presence of cocaine in the accused's urine could not confirm impairment at the time of driving.

Applying the W.(D). framework, the court accepted the accused's testimony that he had consumed cocaine the day before and that his poor performance on the DIE was due to his disabilities and nervousness.

The court found the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the impaired driving charge, while entering a finding of guilt for the possession charge.

The accused were charged with multiple offences arising from a domestic disturbance.

Police responded to a 911 call reporting loud arguing and breaking glass.

The responding officer observed the male accused slam a door and, after the accused refused to exit and locked the door, the officer forced entry without a warrant, citing exigent circumstances.

A physical altercation ensued involving both accused and two officers.

The court applied the W.(D). test to assess credibility and found the officer had reasonable grounds to believe exigent circumstances existed under s. 529.3 of the Criminal Code, making the entry lawful.

The male accused was found guilty of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, and breaching a peace bond, but acquitted of mischief.

The female accused was found guilty of attempting to disarm a police officer and resisting arrest, but acquitted of possession of a weapon and assaulting a police officer with a weapon.