Donald Orazietti

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother for overholding their child.

The child was returned before the motion, and the court dismissed the contempt motion as it was not in the child's best interests.

In this costs decision, the court found the father was justified in preparing the motion materials but should not have argued the motion after the child was returned.

The court awarded the father $1,500 in costs.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving after a police officer followed his ATV from a public road onto a private driveway to conduct a random sobriety check under the Highway Traffic Act.

The officer had no prior suspicion of impairment.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice held that police lack statutory or common law authority to conduct random sobriety stops on private property without articulable cause.

The court found the stop violated the appellant's right against arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter, excluded the evidence under section 24(2), and entered an acquittal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter despite finding a section 8 breach, and erred by failing to consider a section 9 arbitrary detention breach.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis was entitled to deference and that the random traffic stop was authorized under the Highway Traffic Act, raising no section 9 issue.

The Crown appealed an acquittal following the exclusion of breathalyzer evidence in an impaired driving prosecution.

The trial judge found that the accused’s right to counsel under s.10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was breached when police failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel before administering breath tests.

Applying the principles from R. v. Prosper, the court held that a brief 20‑second opportunity to use a telephone without assistance or access to counsel resources did not constitute a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to counsel.

The accused’s statement “Let’s get this over with” was found not to be a clear and unequivocal waiver of the right.

The court further held that once the Charter breach occurred, both breath samples were properly excluded under s.24(2).