Marie Elliot

The accused, a police officer, arrested a woman who was severely intoxicated by methamphetamine.

While she was in his custody, her condition deteriorated significantly, but he failed to seek medical assistance.

He subsequently transferred her to the custody of other officers and deliberately provided them with false and incomplete information about her medical condition, delaying medical intervention.

The detainee later died of methamphetamine toxicity.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death, holding that his actions constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent police officer.

The Crown charged the defendant with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was found slumped over the steering wheel of a running vehicle in a parking lot.

The Crown established that the defendant occupied the driver's seat of a running motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The defendant's evidence that he did not intend to drive and was merely waiting for a ride was rejected as not credible.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving and stayed the over 80 charge pursuant to R. v. Kienapple.

The appellant, a psychologist, was convicted by jury of two counts of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm following a two-vehicle collision.

She appealed on multiple grounds, including Charter violations, credibility assessments, jury charge errors regarding straddle evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no Charter breaches, no reversible credibility errors, and no miscarriage of justice despite some improper prosecutorial conduct.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) and a Centre of Forensic Sciences report on a urine sample.

The court found that while the accused's performance on physical coordination tests and the presence of multiple drugs in his urine were consistent with impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired at the time of the incident.

The lack of expert evidence regarding the specific effects of the detected drugs, the absence of evidence of impaired driving, and the accused's extreme fatigue as an alternative explanation for poor test performance created reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.