Ms. Chow

The defendant, Antonio Canono, was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood causing death and dangerous driving causing death.

The court determined the material facts for sentencing, finding that Canono was impaired and speeding significantly (105 km/h in a 50 km/h zone) at the time of the collision, which resulted in the death of his friend.

The court considered aggravating factors (impairment, excessive speeding, tragic outcome) and mitigating factors (no prior criminal or driving record, hardworking, family support, remorse).

The Crown sought 6-7 years, while the Defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 5 years' imprisonment on each count, along with a 5-year driving prohibition post-imprisonment and a non-communication order.

The accused was found highly intoxicated in the driver's seat of his vehicle at a shopping plaza.

He was arrested for impaired driving and care or control of a motor vehicle.

The Crown proved that the accused's blood alcohol concentration was between 220 and 316 mgs/100ml.

The defence raised Charter breaches regarding the adequacy of the reasons for arrest and challenged whether the accused was in care or control of the vehicle, arguing there was an alternate plan for pickup.

The court found no Charter breaches and determined the accused was in care or control of the vehicle.

The accused was convicted on both counts, with the Over 80 count stayed.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit ("over 80").

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the breath demand and breath samples under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure.

The defendant also challenged the Crown's reliance on the presumption of accuracy under the transitional provisions of Bill C-46.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion based on the strong odour of alcohol on the defendant's breath, satisfying the threshold for an approved screening device demand.

The court rejected the Charter application and found that the Crown could rely on the presumption of accuracy, adopting the reasoning from R. v. Does and R. v. Porchetta over R. v. Flores-Vigil.

The defendant was convicted.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded as a blended hearing addressing both the merits and a motion to exclude evidence based on alleged Charter violations.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath and blood samples on grounds of violations to sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court rejected all Charter claims except finding a minor breach regarding the timing of the approved screening device demand.

Despite this breach, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and found the defendant guilty as charged.

In a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two bar owners for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision.

The deceased driver, who had consumed alcohol at the defendants' licensed establishment, was found to have a blood alcohol level exceeding 200 milligrams percent at the time of the collision.

The Crown alleged violations of the Ontario Liquor Licence Act constituted unlawful acts supporting manslaughter charges, or alternatively, that the defendants' conduct amounted to criminal negligence.

The court discharged both accused, finding that violations of liquor licensing regulations, while potentially constituting unlawful acts, were not objectively dangerous as required by law, and that the evidence did not establish the marked departure from the standard of care necessary for criminal negligence.