Dr. Krishnan

The accused was involved in a single motor vehicle collision and subsequently consumed vodka in a nearby backhoe before police arrived.

He provided breath samples of 216 and 206 mg/100ml and raised the post-driving consumption defence under s. 320.14(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the defence, finding that a reasonable person leaving a severe accident scene would expect to provide a breath sample, and the amount of alcohol the accused claimed to have consumed was insufficient to account for his high breath readings.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving but found guilty of operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated April 29, 2016.

The appellant, found NCRMD for sexual assault, challenged the Board's decision to continue his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit rather than place him in a general forensic unit or impose a hybrid order allowing discretionary transfer.

The appellant conceded he remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention was appropriate, but argued the Board erred in: (1) failing to provide reasons for rejecting a hybrid order; (2) misapprehending evidence regarding his low risk for coercive sexual contact; and (3) failing to apply the least restrictive disposition test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Board's disposition.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired and driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg per 100 ml.

The Crown alleged the accused drove to a liquor store while already intoxicated, purchased vodka, and was observed by LCBO employees exhibiting signs of impairment before nearly causing an accident.

The accused contended he consumed alcohol only after arriving home and before police arrived.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as lacking credibility and not raising reasonable doubt.

The court also dismissed Charter applications regarding alleged violations of section 8 (unreasonable search) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after being stopped while driving the wrong way on Adelaide Street West in downtown Toronto with blood alcohol readings of 230 and 232 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's evidence of impairment was undisputed.

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

The accused testified that he consumed only two drinks voluntarily and suggested that his unattended drink may have been drugged, causing him to lose cognitive awareness of subsequent alcohol consumption.

The court found that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding whether the impairment resulted from voluntary consumption, and acquitted the accused.