Inger Bugyra

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance after being involved in two motor vehicle collisions and exhibiting erratic driving.

The accused conceded the actus reus of being impaired by a drug but argued he lacked the mens rea, claiming his intoxication was involuntary due to a combination of his prescribed medications and an over-the-counter cold medication.

The court found the accused's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, noting significant inconsistencies and a failure to establish a nexus between the cold medication and his impairment.

The accused failed to rebut the presumption of voluntary intoxication, resulting in a finding of guilt.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant in a parking garage stairwell.

The complainant had consumed alcohol and prescription medication and had no memory of the assault, but awoke to find the accused having non-consensual intercourse with her.

The court found that the complainant was in a state of extreme intoxication and lacked the capacity to consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a 17-year-old complainant in a motel room.

The complainant alleged that she was intoxicated by alcohol and marijuana and was sexually assaulted despite expressing non-consent.

The accused maintained that the sexual activity was entirely consensual.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the conflicting testimony.

While the court found the accused's evidence to be incredible and incapable of raising a reasonable doubt, it also found significant reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including memory gaps and inconsistencies.

Consequently, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The three accused were charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation outside a bar.

The victim had spilled beer on one of the accused, who then followed the victim outside and struck him over the head with a beer bottle.

The Crown alleged a second accused struck the victim with a glass, and the third accused facilitated the assault by confronting the victim.

Relying on surveillance footage and witness testimony, the court found the first accused guilty of all charges.

However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the second accused struck the victim, and found the third accused lacked the requisite intent to be a party to the offence.

The second and third accused were acquitted.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death, after driving the wrong way on a highway and causing a fatal head-on collision.

The accused argued that his drink had been spiked with a 'club drug' at a nightclub, resulting in involuntary intoxication and total memory loss.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found that his erratic driving was consistent with his blood alcohol concentration of 148 to 173 milligrams.

The court concluded the accused voluntarily consumed alcohol and found him guilty on all counts.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings arising from a fatal wrong-way collision, arguing that the negligent loss of his hospital blood sample prevented him from testing for additional drugs and impaired full answer and defence.

The court held that the Centre of Forensic Sciences, while storing the sample on behalf of police, had a duty to preserve it and breached that duty through unacceptable negligence when the sample was improperly sealed and leaked during shipment for independent testing.

Applying the lost-evidence framework, the court found a breach of s. 7 of the Charter.

However, the court held that the missing testing results would only have had a realistic possibility of assisting the defence and were not necessary to advance the involuntary intoxication theory.

A stay was therefore refused.

The accused was tried on charges arising from a fatal ATV rollover after a night of social drinking.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol, preferring the evidence of the eyewitness and attending officer over unreliable lay observations from other young witnesses.

The court further held that, even if impairment had been proven, causation was not established because the rollover was explained by the vehicle's instability and sharp turning capability at low speed.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving causing death and over-80 causing death, but convicted of taking the ATV without consent.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol after being stopped at a RIDE program.

At trial, the defence argued that the presence of cell phones and police radios near the Intoxilyzer 8000C caused radio frequency interference (RFI), leading to a malfunction.

The court heard expert evidence on the machine's RFI safeguards but found no evidence that a malfunction actually occurred or that it would result in an artificially high reading.

The court concluded the defence's theory was speculative, failed to raise a reasonable doubt, and found the accused guilty.