E. Chan

The accused, a professional truck driver, was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm following a multi-vehicle collision on Highway 401.

The accused's tractor-trailer, travelling at 100 km/h on cruise control, failed to slow down for a line of stop-and-go traffic, striking a car and causing a chain reaction.

The court found that the accused was distracted, likely reaching down for an extended period, and failed to perceive or react to the obvious hazard ahead.

The court concluded that the accused's conduct was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, demonstrating a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol and dangerous driving following a single-vehicle collision in a rural area on September 17, 2017.

The Crown sought acquittal on the dangerous driving charge due to insufficient evidence regarding how the vehicle entered the ditch.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence that the defendant was operating the vehicle between 01:30 and 03:00 on September 17, 2017, while having a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The dangerous driving charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with three offences: fail to remain at the scene of an accident, impaired driving, and having an excess blood alcohol concentration while driving.

The Crown's case on the issue of driver identity was entirely circumstantial.

The defendant denied involvement and claimed his vehicle had been stolen and crashed by an unknown third party.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence—including the location of the passenger's cell phone, the defendant's facial injuries consistent with driver-side airbag deployment, the passenger's lack of injuries, and the defendant's implausible explanations—proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver.

The defendant was convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit (over 80 mgs) and distracted driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The central issue was whether the police violated the accused's Charter section 10(b) rights regarding the right to counsel.

The court found that the police failed to comply with their informational and implementational obligations under section 10(b) by misleading the accused about his right to choose counsel and failing to provide access to a telephone and telephone book.

The court excluded the breath test evidence as a remedy under section 24(2), finding the violation was serious and had significant impact on the accused's Charter rights.

The over 80 charge was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of the distracted driving charge.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's witness, an off-duty Toronto Police Constable, testified that the accused deliberately engaged in a pattern of aggressive driving on Highway 401, including sudden lane changes without signalling, aggressive braking, and blocking maneuvers designed to prevent the witness from passing.

The accused testified he had no specific recollection of his driving actions and denied deliberately engaging in dangerous conduct.

The court found the Crown witness credible and reliable, rejected the accused's evidence as vague and inconsistent, and convicted the accused of dangerous driving, finding both the actus reus and mens rea established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The trial proceeded over three dates spanning approximately 18.7 months from the date the information was sworn.

The accused brought an application alleging a breach of his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court found that institutional delay of approximately 11.5 months exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months for this level of court.

The court also found evidence of actual prejudice, including stress, financial burden, and impact on family relationships.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the minimum remedy for the constitutional violation.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown withdrew a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on civilian witness testimony and police observations.

While the court found a breach of section 8 regarding video surveillance of the accused using toilet facilities in police custody, it declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The court also dismissed allegations of breaches of sections 9 and 10(b).

The accused was convicted of impaired operation.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) in relation to the taking of breath samples.

The central issue was whether the arresting officer could reasonably rely upon an Approved Screening Device (ASD) fail result to make an approved instrument demand.

The court found that the officer held an honest and objectively reasonable belief that the ASD device was in proper working order, and therefore the search was reasonable.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit on December 1, 2013.

The Crown sought to prove the blood alcohol content through hospital records and expert evidence.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records under section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act and found the blood alcohol analysis reliable and admissible.

However, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle involved in the collision.

The accused was acquitted on the basis of identity despite the blood alcohol content being well over the legal limit.

The defendant was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the officer's request that he blow on the officer's finger to determine if he had been drinking, arguing it violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown argued the officer took reasonable investigative steps authorized under s. 48 of the Highway Traffic Act and that any Charter violation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court found the officer's conduct was authorized by law, reasonable, and justified, and convicted the defendant.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and having a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant sought to exclude her statements to police and breath test results on the grounds that her right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter was violated and that her statements were involuntary.

The court conducted a blended hearing on the Charter and voluntariness voir dire issues.

The court found that the defendant's section 10(b) rights were not violated, her statements were voluntary, and the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty of both offences.