G. Settimi

The accused, an Indigenous land protector, pled guilty to mischief and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The central issue on sentencing was whether to grant an absolute discharge or a suspended sentence under section 730 of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert evidence regarding Haudenosaunee legal traditions and the Two Row Wampum, the court interpreted the 'public interest' requirement in section 730 to mean the Haudenosaunee public interest.

Finding that the accused's actions as a land protector were not contrary to the Haudenosaunee public interest, the court granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample after his truck was found in a ditch.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention, unreasonable search due to cell video surveillance, and overholding.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the arresting officer had reasonable grounds, the cell surveillance was balanced by the offer of a privacy blanket, and the release timing was appropriate.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges, concluding he was slightly impaired, in care or control of the vehicle, and feigned attempts to provide a breath sample.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the permissible limit.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging that the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the roadside screening demand, failed to properly advise him of his right to counsel, and failed to take breath samples 'as soon as practicable'.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the police evidence credible and the delays reasonable.

The court also noted the lack of audio and video recording of the police interaction, urging police services to adopt such technology.

The accused was found guilty.