S. Grant Radley-Walters

Two accused persons were jointly charged with dangerous driving while racing contrary to section 249.4(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged they were operating motor vehicles in a race on Forrest Lea Road.

The trial judge found that while both accused were driving at excessive speeds on an unfamiliar rural road without paying attention to traffic signs, they were not engaged in racing as contemplated by the statute.

The judge found the accused were driving one behind the other, not side by side in competitive fashion.

The judge convicted both accused of the lesser included offence of dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with impaired driving by one or more drugs contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a single motor vehicle accident.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, having failed to investigate alternative explanations for the accused's physical condition such as head injury or fatigue.

The court further found that a subsequent demand for standardized field sobriety tests was unlawful as it was made after arrest without proper authority.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violations, rendering the Crown's case untenable.

The accused pleaded guilty to transferring two restricted firearms knowing he was not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act, contrary to section 99(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The accused challenged the mandatory minimum three-year sentence imposed by section 99(2)(a) as violating section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the grounds that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found that the mandatory minimum was grossly disproportionate both as applied to the offender and as applied to reasonably foreseeable hypothetical situations, such as family members inheriting firearms from deceased soldiers.

The court declared section 99(2)(a) unconstitutional to the extent it imposes a mandatory three-year minimum term of imprisonment.

Two applicants charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mgs per 100 ml of blood brought a motion for disclosure of records relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device used in their cases.

The Crown refused disclosure on grounds of irrelevance.

The court ordered disclosure of six categories of information including the analyst's certificate for the alcohol solution, calibration records, maintenance logs, and previous subject test records (with personal identifiers redacted).

The court found that the disclosure sought was relevant to allow the accused to meet their burden under section 258 of the Criminal Code to prove the instrument malfunctioned or was operated improperly.

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Renfrew brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent mother had a lengthy history of involvement with child protection services in multiple provinces, with documented concerns regarding mental health issues, substance abuse, poor home conditions, and domestic violence.

The court found that the mother had failed to put forward sufficient evidence to dispute material facts and granted summary judgment in favor of the Society, finding both children in need of protection.

The court also addressed the procedural issue of bifurcating the protection finding from the dispositional hearing.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of the County of Renfrew to transfer child protection proceedings involving two children from Renfrew County to Ottawa, where the children currently reside with their father.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish a preponderance of convenience favouring transfer.

The court considered the statutory test under section 48(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the best interests of the children, the location of witnesses, the children's connections to both jurisdictions, and the availability of court resources.

The court also addressed a related summary judgment motion regarding a third child, which resulted in a consent order placing the child with the mother subject to supervision.

The applicants sought disclosure of six categories of information relating to the Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device used in their respective impaired driving cases.

The Crown refused disclosure on the basis that the information was clearly irrelevant.

The court granted the disclosure applications, finding that the requested information fell within the Crown's disclosure obligations under the Stinchcombe test.

The court emphasized that given the statutory requirement under section 258 of the Criminal Code for accused persons to prove instrument malfunction or improper operation, accused persons must have access to maintenance records, calibration records, previous test results, and related documentation to meet this burden.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to section 259(4)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was operating an electric bicycle (E-bike) while subject to a prohibition order against driving motor vehicles.

The central issue was whether an E-bike constitutes a motor vehicle under the Criminal Code definition.

The court found that the E-bike qualified as a motor vehicle because it was capable of being propelled by an electric motor.

However, the accused successfully raised the defence of officially induced error, having consulted with police officers who advised him that driving an E-bike would not violate his prohibition order.

A judicial stay of proceedings was entered.

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.