Haejun Rim

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand following a motor vehicle collision.

He argued that the police lacked valid grounds to make the demand, that the demand was not made as soon as practicable, and that he had a reasonable excuse for refusing because he was not the driver.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law or assessment of credibility, and declined to depart from binding Supreme Court precedent establishing that not driving is not a reasonable excuse for refusing a valid breath demand.

The accused, Ismet Bajcinca, brought an application for a stay of criminal proceedings due to unconstitutional delay under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that almost twenty-seven months passed between the laying of the charge and the anticipated end of trial, significantly exceeding the 18-month ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The primary cause of delay was identified as the Crown's complacent approach to disclosure and case management, despite some leisurely conduct by the defence.

After calculating the net delay, which was well above the ceiling, and finding no exceptional circumstances, the court granted the stay of proceedings.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of prior physical, verbal, and emotional abuse by the accused toward her two daughters in an assault trial.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing the evidence was unreliable, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial.

The court ruled that none of the proposed evidence of prior disreputable conduct was admissible, citing a lack of evidentiary foundation, vagueness, the historical nature of many allegations, potential for collusion between complainants, an unexplored family law context, and the significant prejudice such evidence would cause in a jury trial.

The applicant, a Black man, was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for a traffic stop.

The police officer claimed to see cannabis crumbs on the driver's hand and detained both occupants under the Cannabis Control Act, subsequently finding a handgun on the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude the evidence, alleging violations of his Charter rights, including arbitrary detention and unreasonable search motivated by unconscious racial bias.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the applicant's rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter were violated, concluding that the officer lacked sufficient grounds for the search and that the stop and search were tainted by unconscious racial bias.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused brought an application under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of charges due to unreasonable delay.

The Crown conceded the total delay of 33 months and 10 days exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan but argued that significant portions were attributable to the defence.

The court analyzed various delay periods, finding that delays related to the accused's efforts to retain counsel, and preliminary hearing scheduling issues caused by Crown unavailability, were not attributable to the defence.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the net delay, after subtracting the only conceded defence delay of 21 days, still exceeded the Jordan limit and could not be justified by exceptional circumstances.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, sought to exclude a DVD video from evidence at trial.

The DVD, which likely constituted child pornography, had been in the exclusive possession of the defence but was ordered turned over to the Crown pursuant to the ethical obligations of defence counsel regarding physical evidence of a crime.

The accused argued that allowing the Crown to use the DVD would violate his right against self-incrimination under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the requirement to turn over the evidence was based on professional ethical obligations to maintain the integrity of the judicial system, not to assist in convicting the accused, and its use by the Crown would not render the trial unfair.

The defendant was found asleep in the driver's seat of a running vehicle with missing front tires and damaged rims at 1:53 AM on a roadway.

Police arrested him for impaired care or control and made a breath demand.

The defendant's breath samples registered over 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

The defendant was charged with both Over 80 and Impaired Care or Control and challenged the constitutionality of the arrest and breath demand on multiple Charter grounds.

The court found no Charter violations and convicted the defendant on both counts, finding that the officer had reasonable grounds for the arrest and that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The accused brought several pre-trial motions in a sexual assault and sexual interference case.

The motions challenged the admissibility of the accused's statement to police under Section 10(a) and (b) of the Charter and on voluntariness grounds, sought directions regarding a Section 278.93 application concerning a video, and requested editing of the complainant's Section 715.1 statement.

The court dismissed the Charter and voluntariness applications, finding the accused was sufficiently informed of the charges and jeopardy.

For the video, the court declined a definitive pre-trial ruling on admissibility, deeming it contingent on the complainant's testimony, but clarified that the video was part of the subject matter of the charge and thus not subject to Section 276.

Regarding the Section 715.1 statement, the court ordered two passages containing leading and rhetorical questions from the interviewer to be edited out, while allowing another.

The accused was found passed out in the driver's seat of his vehicle in a ditch in Mississauga in the early morning hours of February 19, 2018.

The Crown charged him with impaired care and control and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The accused claimed he suffered an epileptic seizure while driving, resulting in involuntary conduct (automatism), and alleged Charter violations regarding arrest and right to counsel.

The court rejected the automatism defence due to lack of expert evidence, found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, found a minor breach of section 10(b) regarding privacy during counsel consultation but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), and found the accused guilty of both impaired care and control and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit (Over 80) contrary to s. 253(1)(b) and impaired driving, arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The trial addressed four key issues: the voluntariness of utterances made to police, identification of the driver, whether breath tests were taken within the required two-hour window, and whether the defendant's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidential breath sampling results.

The defendant argued that the arresting officer lacked subjective grounds to believe the defendant was impaired by alcohol, and alternatively, that there were no objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest and evidential breath demand.

The court found that the officer had both subjective and objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest based on the defendant's dangerous driving, poor judgment, incoherent speech, bloodshot eyes, strong odour of alcohol, wet pants, and an open beer can in the vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with multiple counts including mischief, assault, dangerous driving, and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle collision.

At trial, the defendant conceded to several charges but contested whether she struck her mother with a mug, damaged a lamp, and whether she fled the scene to escape civil or criminal liability.

The court found the defendant guilty on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and not guilty on counts 3 and 7.

The court accepted the Crown's evidence regarding the lamp damage and the defendant's flight from the scene, but found a reasonable doubt regarding whether the defendant struck her mother with a mug.

The accused was charged with "over 80" and impaired operation of a motor vehicle following an accident in Brampton.

The Crown sought to rely on three sets of statements made by the accused to police and a breath technician.

The defence challenged the admissibility of all statements under section 7 of the Charter, arguing they were obtained in violation of the accused's rights.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility.

The court found that only the accused's spontaneous remarks to himself in the police cruiser were admissible.

All other statements were excluded because they were made under an honest and reasonably held belief that the accused had a statutory duty to report the accident.

Without the excluded statements, the Crown could not establish the identity of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and having an impermissibly high blood alcohol concentration.

The Crown conceded insufficiency of evidence on the impairment charge.

The central issue was whether the defendant's arrest was made without objectively reasonable grounds and whether evidential breath sampling results should be excluded.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked an honestly-held subjective belief that was objectively reasonable, breaching the defendant's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court applied a section 24(2) analysis and excluded the breath samples, resulting in acquittal on both charges.