Dr. Langille

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and "over 80" after police found his extensively damaged vehicle stationary on an exit ramp with the motor running.

The defendant challenged whether the Crown could rely on the statutory presumption under s. 258(1)(c) that breath readings conclusively prove blood alcohol concentration, arguing the samples were not taken as soon as practicable and the first sample was not taken within two hours of the alleged offence.

The defendant also challenged the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000C and argued the evidence of impairment was insufficient.

The court found the Crown had proven the temporal preconditions beyond a reasonable doubt, the police acted reasonably in obtaining the samples, there was no Charter breach, and the evidence of impairment was sufficient.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during alleged Charter breaches, including violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the accused was arbitrarily detained for approximately one hour without lawful authority, unlawfully arrested under section 200 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to remain at the scene of an accident, and denied her right to counsel.

The court concluded that the breath samples and related evidence were obtained as a result of these Charter violations and excluded all such evidence from trial, rendering the Crown's case fatal.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence from a toxicologist regarding the maintenance and operation of an Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device in an over 80 operation case.

The expert sought to raise a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the breath test results by analyzing historical maintenance records and COBRA data.

The court excluded the expert evidence on multiple grounds: the opinions were not logically relevant as they could not raise a reasonable doubt about the specific breath test results; the opinions were based on speculation and erroneous factual information; and the opinions constituted novel science lacking sufficient reliability and peer review.

The court emphasized that maintenance deficiencies must be directly linked to unreliable results, and that historical records cannot address the working status of the instrument at the time of the subject test.

The appellant appealed her conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired, contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

She was found asleep in her car with keys in the ignition after a tire blowout, having called a tow truck.

The trial judge found she failed to rebut the presumption of intent to drive and had de facto care and control, concluding there was a realistic risk of danger.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal conclusions regarding intent to drive and realistic risk of danger.

The accused was charged with Over 80 Operation of a Motor Vehicle following a motor vehicle collision on October 15, 2014.

The Crown proved that the accused was involved in a rear-end collision, had a faint odour of alcohol on his breath, failed a roadside screening device test, and provided three breath samples to an Approved Instrument with results of 240, 218, and 206 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the evidence on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 8 and 10(b), and contended that one of the breath samples was deemed unsuitable by the breath technician and therefore should not be used.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the accused guilty based on the expert toxicology evidence.

The appellant was convicted of multiple counts of attempted murder for sending tampered water bottles and letter bombs.

Seventeen months after the convictions, during dangerous offender proceedings, the trial judge amended his reasons to add an alternative theory of liability for the water bottle counts.

The Court of Appeal held that the late amendment rebutted the presumption of integrity and excised it from the reasons.

Based on the original reasons, the court found the attempted murder convictions for the water bottles unreasonable and entered acquittals.

The letter bomb convictions were upheld.

A new dangerous offender hearing was ordered.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit on December 1, 2013.

The Crown sought to prove the blood alcohol content through hospital records and expert evidence.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records under section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act and found the blood alcohol analysis reliable and admissible.

However, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle involved in the collision.

The accused was acquitted on the basis of identity despite the blood alcohol content being well over the legal limit.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle while his blood‑alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

He argued that the trial judge erred in rejecting a Charter s. 10(b) claim, refusing disclosure of technical "COBRA" data relating to the approved instrument used to measure breath samples, and finding that missing maintenance records did not rebut the statutory presumption of accuracy under the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings, evidentiary rulings, and interpretation of the statutory presumption were supported by the evidence and consistent with applicable law.

The absence of maintenance records did not establish malfunction or improper operation of the approved instrument.

No reversible error was demonstrated.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on observations by police officers, field sobriety tests, a drug evaluation officer's assessment, and toxicology evidence showing the presence of marijuana and prescription drugs in the accused's urine.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence and argued the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the drug evaluation officer's opinion was admissible as non-expert opinion evidence under R. v. Graat, it did not rise to the level of expert evidence and therefore did not carry special weight.

Considering all evidence, including the absence of impaired driving, the court found the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and three counts of operating a vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit where bodily harm was caused.

Two counts were dismissed at the close of the Crown's case due to lack of evidence of bodily harm.

The court found that the accused operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol concentration of approximately 180 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, more than twice the legal limit.

The collision was caused solely by the accused's impaired driving, including tailgating, failure to stop at a yellow light, and attempting to pass other vehicles at high speed through an intersection.

The accused was convicted on all remaining counts.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, he argued that his right to the assistance of an interpreter under s. 14 of the Charter was violated because his assigned interpreter was not accredited.

He also raised several grounds of appeal relating to the trial judge's jury instructions on identification evidence, the mental element for murder, post-offence conduct, and intoxication, as well as evidentiary rulings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a violation of his s. 14 Charter rights, as he had agreed to the interpreter arrangement and never complained of any lack of understanding during the trial.

The Court also found no reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.