Dr. Ward

The Appellant, Jacques Dansereau, appealed his conviction for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg, arguing a miscarriage of justice.

He contended that the trial judge accepted an uninformed guilty plea without a proper plea inquiry and sought to admit fresh evidence regarding his state of mind and lack of memory due to a head injury.

The court admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's finding of guilt was based on the evidence presented during the trial, not an uninformed guilty plea.

The court concluded that the trial process was not "rife with errors" or "deeply flawed" to constitute a miscarriage of justice.

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 appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing death following a motor vehicle accident that killed his son.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent with his acquittal for impaired driving, asserting that his alcohol consumption should not have been considered.

The Court of Appeal held that alcohol consumption short of impairment is relevant to the mens rea of dangerous driving.

The court also rejected arguments regarding Crown misconduct, jury misdirection, and pre-trial applications.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application and upheld the sentence of nine months' imprisonment, finding it was not demonstrably unfit.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on March 9, 2014.

The court addressed multiple Charter issues including arbitrary stop, reasonable and probable grounds, and rights to counsel.

The court found no breach of section 9 (arbitrary stop), no breach of section 8 (reasonable and probable grounds), and a breach of section 10(b) (rights to counsel) but excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused raised a section 258(1)(d.1) defence (last drinks consumed) but the court rejected the accused's credibility and found the defence not established.

The court convicted the accused.

The appellant, a deaf man with a lengthy record of sexual offences, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred in finding there was no reasonable possibility of eventually controlling his risk in the community.

The Court of Appeal upheld the indeterminate sentence, finding the sentencing judge reasonably concluded that the appellant's history of medication non-compliance and need for concurrent, specialized treatments meant his risk could not be managed outside a secure setting.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.