F. Giordano

The offender, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of failing to stop after an accident under s. 320.16(1) of the Criminal Code.

He had collided with a motorcyclist, causing the motorcyclist to suffer severe injuries resulting in the amputation of his leg.

The offender was acquitted of impaired and dangerous driving charges.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a non-custodial or conditional sentence.

The court found that the offender's status as a police officer and his failure to summon help were aggravating factors, but noted he was a first offender with strong community support who would likely lose his job.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, a 30-month driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a $200 victim surcharge.

The accused, an off-duty police officer, was involved in a motor vehicle collision where his SUV crossed the centre line and struck an oncoming motorcycle, causing the rider to lose his leg.

The accused drove nearly four kilometres away from the scene before stopping and did not call 911.

At trial, the court acquitted the accused of impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, finding the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to rule out a sudden tire blowout or mechanical failure.

However, the court convicted the accused of failing to stop after an accident, rejecting the defence that a concussion rendered his actions non-volitional or negated his intent to flee.

The accused was arrested for impaired driving after fleeing the scene of a serious motor vehicle collision.

The police failed to make a breath demand at the roadside and subsequently failed to advise the accused of his increased jeopardy when they learned the victim had suffered life-altering injuries.

The breath technician made a delayed breath demand at the station without providing the accused a further opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative impact of the breaches on the accused's protected interests warranted the exclusion of the breath test results under s. 24(2).

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a demand for a breath sample.

He argued the trial judge failed to apply the proper legal test for determining whether he possessed the requisite mens rea, specifically regarding whether he should have been given another opportunity to provide a sample.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the relevant legal tests and that there was sufficient evidence to conclude the appellant wilfully refused to provide a breath sample by feigning his efforts.