Ismail Moftah

The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to comply with an approved screening device breath demand under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge found that the accused intentionally failed to provide a proper breath sample despite repeated instructions.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, misplaced the onus of proof regarding proper operation of the device, and misapprehended expert evidence concerning the effects of blocking the device’s exhaust vent.

The appeal court held that although the reasons were sufficient, the trial judge misapprehended the expert evidence and incorrectly concluded that it did not align with the officers’ testimony.

This misapprehension was material to the finding that the accused feigned attempts to provide a breath sample and therefore refused the demand.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on an over 80 charge.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent after finding that the failure to conduct an annual inspection of the breathalyzer amounted to improper maintenance, raising a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the results.

On appeal, the Crown argued that a 2012 Alcohol Test Committee position paper constituted new evidence justifying revisiting the Supreme Court's decision in St. Onge Lamoureux.

The summary conviction appeal judge rejected this argument but found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by elevating a recommendation for yearly inspections into a rule without a direct link to a malfunction.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant did not dispute the breath test readings of 110 and 90 mgs. percent but argued that bolus alcohol consumption—the rapid ingestion of a large quantity of alcohol shortly before driving—created a reasonable doubt as to his blood-alcohol level at the time of driving.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's evidence regarding the timing and quantity of alcohol consumed was found to be manifestly unreliable and inconsistent.

The court rejected the bolus drinking defence and convicted the defendant.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample for analysis by an approved screening device.

Following a traffic stop for erratic driving, the officer detected a faint odour of alcohol and the defendant admitted to consuming beer.

The defendant was given five attempts to provide a proper breath sample into an Alcotest 7410 GLC approved screening device, but on each occasion provided only a brief puff of air before stopping, resulting in E0 error codes.

The court found that the defendant had a valid demand made against him, failed to provide a suitable breath sample on five occasions, and intended to refuse to provide such a sample.

The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a $1,200 fine with 60 days to pay, plus a one-year driving prohibition with eligibility for the Interlock program.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

At trial, the accused challenged the reliability of the breath test results, arguing that the Intoxilyzer 5000C had not undergone its recommended annual maintenance for over 13 months.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in St. Onge-Lamoureux, finding that 'improper operation' under s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code includes improper maintenance.

The failure to perform the annual maintenance rebutted the presumption of accuracy of the breath test results.

Without reliable breath test results, the Crown could not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown relied on breath sample analysis results from an intoxilyzer device.

The central issue was whether the police's failure to perform annual recommended maintenance on the intoxilyzer constituted improper operation of the instrument under section 258(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the instrument had not been sent for annual maintenance for over 13 months at the time of testing, contrary to the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Alcohol Test Committee's recommendations.

The court determined that improper maintenance constitutes improper operation and therefore the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of accuracy of the breath test results.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on two intoxilyzer breath tests showing readings of 161 and 166 milligrams percent.

The defence argued that the accused's moderate to severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), combined with consumption of a large meal and alcohol, could have caused regurgitated stomach alcohol to produce false high readings on the breath tests.

The court found that the defence evidence established a reasonable doubt regarding the proper functioning of the instrument and that the accused's blood alcohol concentration was likely below the legal limit at the time of the offence.

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.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario proposed to suspend the licensee's liquor licence following a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a patron who had attended a corporate Christmas party at the licensee's banquet hall.

Toxicology evidence established that the patron's blood alcohol concentration was more than twice the legal limit at the time of death.

However, witness testimony indicated that the patron did not exhibit visible signs of intoxication during the event, likely due to functional tolerance.

The Board dismissed the allegations, finding insufficient evidence that the licensee knew or ought to have known of the patron's drunkenness or that the patron appeared intoxicated when served.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder following a trial where the cause of death and similar fact evidence were central issues.

The Crown alleged the appellant killed his partner during a contraband liquor deal, while the defence argued the death was accidental due to commotio cordis.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge misdirected the jury by misstating expert evidence regarding carbon monoxide and confusing medical diagnosis with legal causation.

The trial judge also erred in admitting the entirety of a fictitious 'Mr. Big' murder plot as similar fact evidence, as it lacked sufficient distinctiveness and was highly prejudicial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.