2 total
Accused found guilty of impaired driving by drugs based on civilian observations, DRE, and toxicology.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.
Civilian witnesses at a Walmart observed the accused exhibiting concerning behaviours and watched him drive away in a truck.
Police located the accused upon his return to the store and noted signs of impairment, including confusion, unsteadiness, and slow speech.
A Drug Recognition Expert evaluation and a subsequent toxicology report confirming the presence of multiple substances, including fentanyl and methadone, corroborated the observations.
The court rejected the defence's argument regarding eyewitness identification frailties, finding the Crown proved identity and impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.
The accused was found guilty.
A new trial was ordered because the trial judge materially misapprehended expert evidence regarding impairment.
The appellant, Ali Mankal, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drug.
The appeal centered on whether the trial judge materially misapprehended the Drug Recognition Expert's (DRE) opinion evidence regarding the cause of pinpoint pupils.
The defence argued that the impairment, including pinpoint pupils, could be attributed to a concussion, while the trial judge concluded it was solely due to drug impairment, relying on a misinterpretation of the DRE's testimony.
The appellate court found that the trial judge's misapprehension of this critical evidence played an essential part in the conviction, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
