Ernst Ashurov

The accused was sentenced following convictions for refusing to provide a breath sample causing death and bodily harm, two counts of failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm, and driving while disqualified after a fatal collision.

The incident resulted in the death of a passenger and serious injuries to a child.

The court reviewed sentencing principles for alcohol‑related driving offences and emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, while also considering the offender’s driving history, criminal record, and conduct in attempting to leave the scene.

A global sentence of six years’ imprisonment was imposed.

The court granted enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre‑sentence custody based on the conditions of remand and loss of remission eligibility.

The accused brought a motion pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by section 11(b), had been infringed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80" contrary to section 253(1) of the Criminal Code.

The information was sworn on December 19, 2011, and the trial was scheduled for January 28, 2013, representing a delay of 13 months and 9 days.

The court applied the analytical framework from R. v. Morin and found that while there was Crown delay in providing visual disclosure (approximately one month and 13 days), the total institutional and Crown delay of nine months and 27 days fell within the Morin guideline of eight to ten months for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found minimal prejudice to the accused and balanced this against the serious nature of impaired driving offences and the public interest in a trial on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit and breaching a probation order by driving without a valid license.

The charges arose from a RIDE spot check.

The court examined four key issues: whether police failed to wait 15 minutes for residual mouth alcohol to dissipate before using the approved screening device; whether the Intoxilyzer 8000C was an approved instrument; whether the defendant's blood alcohol level was over 80 at the time of the stop; and whether the Crown proved the probation breach beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the defendant guilty on both charges.

During a criminal trial arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, the defence challenged the admissibility of expert accident reconstruction evidence tendered by the Crown.

The proposed expert, a police collision reconstruction officer, was questioned on both his qualifications and whether his speed‑calculation methodology constituted novel scientific evidence.

Applying the admissibility framework from R. v. Mohan, the court held the witness possessed sufficient specialized knowledge through training and extensive investigative experience.

The court further held that the use of an “in‑line momentum” formula for speed calculation was an accepted technique within accident reconstruction and not novel science requiring special scrutiny.

The expert evidence was therefore admitted, with any methodological concerns affecting weight rather than admissibility.

During a lengthy criminal trial involving charges arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, the Crown sought to call an additional accident reconstruction expert after the trial had already commenced and after the Crown’s primary reconstruction witness had testified.

The defence objected, arguing that the late disclosure of the expert report caused significant prejudice and that the court should exclude the evidence in the interests of trial fairness.

The court considered s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code and authorities addressing remedies for late expert disclosure.

It held that exclusion of relevant evidence is an exceptional remedy and that the prejudice to the accused could be addressed through a brief adjournment allowing the defence to consult its own expert.

The court therefore permitted the Crown to call the additional expert subject to an adjournment for the defence.