Dr. Bugyra

The accused was convicted of manslaughter by a jury after his pregnant wife drowned in a bathtub.

Because the jury's route to the verdict was ambiguous, the court was required to make findings of fact for sentencing.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused surreptitiously administered lorazepam to his wife to incapacitate her, allowing him to pursue an extramarital affair and access pornography.

The court rejected the defence theory that the victim knowingly took the drug, concluding the accused's actions directly contributed to her incapacitation and death.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired driving after being acquitted at trial of the related “over 80” offence.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and improperly reversed the burden of proof in dismissing a Charter s. 8 challenge to the breath demand.

The Superior Court held that, when read as a whole, the trial judge correctly found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand a breath sample.

Any misstatement regarding the burden of proof caused no miscarriage of justice, particularly since the appellant was acquitted on the over‑80 charge.

The appellate court further found no error in the trial judge’s factual or credibility findings and confirmed that impairment and over‑80 are distinct offences that may yield different verdicts.