Unnamed toxicologist

The appellant, Asim Shabbir, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, alleging fundamental errors in the trial judge's jury instructions.

The grounds of appeal included the failure to provide a "Villaroman" instruction regarding circumstantial evidence (specifically, the complainant's alleged drugging), inadequate instructions on assessing evidence inconsistencies, and a "Laboucan" error concerning the accused's credibility.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions, when read as a whole and in context, were functionally adequate.

The court noted the defence counsel's failure to object to the instructions at trial and that closing submissions could address certain gaps.

The court also found no error in the instruction regarding separate consideration of co-accused.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol after being found asleep in his vehicle in a maintenance yard.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment at the scene and breath test results showing blood alcohol levels of 100 and 95 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging that video recording of him using toilet facilities in police custody violated his section 7 and 8 rights.

The court found a Charter breach occurred due to improper positioning of a privacy screen in the cell video system, but determined that exclusion of evidence was not warranted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was convicted of both impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.

The accused was charged with two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and two counts of over 80 causing bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown and defence presented an agreed statement of facts.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath samples on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of Sections 8, 9, and 10.

The court found that while the arresting officer failed to make a formal breath demand (breaching Section 9), the evidence was admissible under the Grant analysis.

The court convicted on both counts of over 80 causing bodily harm but acquitted on the impaired causing bodily harm counts, finding insufficient evidence of impairment beyond the BAC reading.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood (over 80) following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown relied on breath samples obtained at the police station.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the breath samples on grounds of breaches of sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no breach of section 7 regarding the accused's initial admission of being the driver, as he was neither physically nor psychologically detained at the scene and did not establish statutory compulsion.

However, the court found breaches of both section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel).

The section 8 breach arose from the officer's failure to verify that the approved screening device had been properly calibrated and maintained.

The section 10(b) breach occurred when the officer failed to facilitate the accused's access to counsel of choice and instead unilaterally directed him to duty counsel.

The court excluded the breath samples pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the breaches and their impact on Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The defendant was convicted of Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 Care or Control following a trial.

At sentencing, the court considered the defendant's extraordinarily high blood alcohol content (330-375 mg/100ml), gross signs of impairment including passing out at the wheel, and the presence of two elderly passengers in the vehicle.

The court imposed a 45-day jail sentence, a two-year driving prohibition, and two years of probation with conditions including alcohol counselling and a prohibition on driving without a valid licence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives given the severity of the offence and rising impaired driving statistics in the jurisdiction.

The defendant was charged with impaired care and control and driving with excess alcohol care and control following a dispatch report of an impaired driver.

An officer located the defendant's vehicle in her driveway with the defendant slumped over the steering wheel.

The defendant claimed she had entered the vehicle only to retrieve her purse after consuming two glasses of wine upon arriving home.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence and found she had entered the vehicle with intent to put it in motion.

The court also rejected a Charter s. 10(b) rights argument regarding a 20-minute delay before rights to counsel were provided, finding the delay justified by legitimate medical concerns regarding a possible diabetic emergency.

The defendant was convicted of both charges, with the excess alcohol charge provisionally stayed pursuant to R. v. Kienapple.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a traffic stop at approximately 5:05 a.m. on April 12, 2015.

Police received a radio call about a possible impaired driver who appeared to be asleep at the wheel.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer observed signs of impairment and arrested the accused.

A Charter application was brought challenging the lawfulness of the arrest and the seizure of breath samples.

The trial judge found reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest existed based on the totality of circumstances.

However, the trial judge found a violation of section 8 of the Charter because the officer gave an approved screening device demand rather than the required approved instrument demand.

Despite this violation, the evidence was admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving, and the over 80 charge was stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

The Crown presented evidence from a police officer and breath technician regarding the arrest and breath testing procedures conducted on September 9, 2014.

The defence challenged whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, arguing that delays in obtaining a breath technician resulted in the presumption of identity not applying.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the delay was reasonable and that the Crown could rely on the presumption of identity.

The court also considered a toxicologist's report and rejected the defence argument regarding bolus drinking.

The accused was found guilty of driving with excess alcohol.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results showing 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The central issue was whether the defendant was in care and control of the vehicle at the time of the collision and whether the breath tests were taken within the required two-hour window.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the precise time of care and control, rendering the breath test evidence inadmissible.

Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment based on the officers' observations and the toxicologist's opinion alone.

The defendant was acquitted on both charges.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, impaired operation causing bodily harm, and related offences under the Criminal Code involving blood alcohol levels exceeding the legal limit.

The defence conceded impairment and excess blood alcohol but challenged causation, arguing the Crown failed to establish the accused's conduct was a significant contributing factor to the death and injuries.

The court applied the test for committal and the causation standard from R. v. Smithers, finding sufficient evidence that the accused's impairment was a contributing cause more than de minimis.

The court committed the accused to trial on all counts as charged, except on two counts where committal was ordered on lesser included offences.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

At trial, the arresting officer testified about the roadside screening device failure but failed to give evidence that a formal breath demand was made before the breathalyzer tests at the station.

The court held that evidence of a valid breath demand is a statutory pre-condition to the admissibility of the Certificate of Analysis.

Alternatively, taking breath samples without a demand violated section 8 of the Charter, and the evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused was found not guilty.

The appellant was convicted of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams.

At trial, a toxicologist testified that based on the appellant's reported consumption, an average person would have registered below the legal limit, but a slow eliminator could register over the limit.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, and the summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that expert evidence relying on population averages, without establishing the appellant's actual elimination rate, is impermissible speculation and does not constitute evidence tending to show the appellant's blood alcohol was below the legal limit.

The appeal was dismissed.