Gerrard McGeachy

The accused was charged with impaired operation and refusing to comply with an approved instrument breath demand following a traffic stop on Highway 417 in Ottawa.

The court conducted a blended Charter and voluntariness voir dire to determine whether the stop and detention were lawful, whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for arrest and the breath demand, and whether the accused's section 10(b) rights to counsel were violated.

The court found that while the stop and investigative detention were lawful based on common law authority to protect public safety, the arrest and breath demand were unlawful as the officer lacked both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds.

The court also found serious violations of the accused's section 10(b) rights through breaches of the hold-off principle, privacy requirements, and unilateral termination of legal consultation.

Evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on charges of sexual assault and indecent act arising from an incident in a grocery store.

The trial judge had acquitted the accused after concluding that the Crown had not proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, but did so without allowing the Crown to make submissions on the sexual assault charge.

On appeal, both parties agreed this constituted an error in law.

Applying the standard from Graveline, the court considered whether the error might reasonably have had a material bearing on the acquittal.

After reviewing the transcript and witness evidence, the court concluded that the evidence was capable of supporting a conviction and that the verdict could have been different.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver involved in a motor vehicle collision.

During the trial, before hearing closing submissions, the trial judge stated that the defence witness was lying and that the accused was guilty.

The appeal court held that expressing fixed conclusions about credibility and guilt before hearing counsel's closing arguments constituted an error of law and deprived the appellant of the right to be fully heard.

A new trial was ordered before a different judge.

The parties are neighbours who share a mutual easement for repair over a four-foot strip between their houses.

The appellants built a fence entirely on their own property, which restricted access to the easement from the front to about 26 inches.

The respondents successfully applied for an injunction to remove the fence, arguing it obstructed their use of the easement for equipment like a wheelbarrow.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the easement did not include an ancillary right to cross the appellants' unencumbered property.

Because the fence was built entirely on the appellants' own property and not on the easement itself, it could not constitute an obstruction in law.