Donald Herbert Crawford

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drug under s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He argued that a toxicology report detecting only a cannabis metabolite (CO‑THC) and not the psychoactive component THC established that he could not have been impaired at the relevant time.

The court held that urine analysis was not determinative and did not necessarily exclude impairment, particularly where other evidence—including erratic driving, police observations, admissions of marijuana use, and a drug recognition expert’s evaluation—supported impairment.

The trial judge had properly weighed the toxicology evidence and was entitled to rely on the drug recognition evaluation and other observations.

No reversible error was found in the trial judge’s reasoning.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing that his arrest for murder was unlawful because police lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

He sought exclusion of evidence obtained incident to arrest under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court reviewed the information available to police at the time, including reports from family members, alarming text messages, and investigative steps linking the accused to the missing person.

Applying the principles governing lawful arrest and the threshold of reasonable and probable grounds, the court held that the officers acted reasonably and in good faith in rapidly evolving circumstances.

The court concluded that the grounds for arrest met the legal standard and that the evidence obtained incident to arrest was admissible.

The Crown applied under s. 680 of the Criminal Code for a direction to review a bail order releasing the respondent on a charge of second degree murder.

The respondent was charged with murdering his common law wife.

The Crown argued the bail judge erred in applying the tertiary ground for detention.

The court held that an applicant under s. 680 must demonstrate a 'reasonable prospect of success' to obtain a direction for review.

Finding no legal error, misapprehension of evidence, or unreasonable result by the bail judge, the court concluded there was no realistic prospect a panel would reverse the decision and dismissed the application.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter by a judge and jury after shooting the victim during horseplay with a handgun.

He appealed his conviction, arguing errors in the jury charge regarding the standard of proof, the lack of a Vetrovec warning for a witness, and instructions on the defence of accident and criminal negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions and noting that a Vetrovec warning was not mandatory.

The appellant, a lawyer, claimed a solicitor's lien over funds held in another law firm's trust account for a former client.

A creditor of the client had previously issued a notice of garnishment against the client.

In 1993, a judge ordered a trial of an issue regarding the disposal of the trust funds, naming the creditor as plaintiff and other claimants as defendants.

The creditor never proceeded with the action.

Over ten years later, the appellant brought a motion for directions and to be named plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the appellant had no status.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the appellant was not a party to the original garnishment proceeding and could not claim status simply because the creditor chose not to proceed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that ordered a new trial after the trial judge acquitted him of impaired driving.

The trial judge had excluded breathalyzer results, finding the police officer arbitrarily detained the appellant by approaching his parked vehicle without legal justification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the summary conviction appeal court that the officer needed no legal authority to approach and speak to the appellant in a public parking area, and no detention occurred.

The appellant installed a video surveillance camera facing his neighbour's backyard, recording 24 hours a day for over a month due to barking dogs.

He was charged with mischief for interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of property.

He was acquitted at trial but convicted on summary conviction appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, finding that the continuous surveillance objectively and subjectively interfered with the neighbour's enjoyment of her property, and the appellant acted knowingly or recklessly.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of driving 'over 80', but a summary conviction appeal court judge ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the police officer had no lawful authority to detain him in a private parking lot for an unlit taillight, rendering the detention arbitrary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the summary conviction appeal court judge that the Highway Traffic Act authorized the continuing investigation off the highway onto private property.