Jean-Paul Palmentier

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while her blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the parties agreed to a statement of facts establishing that the accused operated a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration between 150 and 195 milligrams per 100 millilitres.

The sole issue was whether the accused possessed the necessary mens rea.

The accused testified that she believed her drink had been spiked with a date-rape drug, claiming she had no memory of consuming most of the alcohol and that her symptoms were inconsistent with voluntary alcohol consumption.

The court found the accused guilty, distinguishing the case from R. v. Sitarz on the basis that while the accused's belief was genuine, it did not raise a reasonable doubt as to her guilt.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and care or control with excess blood alcohol following a minor motor vehicle accident on March 23, 2012.

The Crown relied on expert toxicological evidence regarding blood alcohol concentrations and observations of impairment indicators by police officers.

The court found the expert opinion regarding impairment in the general population did not necessarily apply to the individual accused and that the Crown's evidence of impairment was insufficient.

The impaired charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" within the meaning of the Criminal Code, allowing reliance on the presumption of identity.

The accused was found guilty of the over 80 mg charge based on the lower breath sample reading of 103 mg.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario proposed to suspend the liquor licence of Club T'Zers following a severe motor vehicle accident involving two patrons.

The Registrar alleged that the licensee permitted drunkenness and served liquor to intoxicated persons.

The Board found that the two patrons were highly intoxicated when they entered the establishment and that the staff knew they were intoxicated but allowed them to remain for 20 to 30 minutes before ejecting them after an altercation.

The Board concluded that the licensee permitted drunkenness contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

However, the Board dismissed the allegation under section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act, finding insufficient evidence that the patrons were actually served or supplied with liquor while on the premises.