Mr. Hamilton

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a single motor vehicle collision on July 30, 2017.

The Crown called three witnesses and filed a toxicology report.

The defence raised four issues: (1) the admission that the accused was the driver was obtained in violation of section 7 Charter rights as a compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act; (2) the accused did not waive rights to counsel under section 10(b); (3) the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused operated a motor vehicle; and (4) there was no proof the accused operated the vehicle after 3:15 hours per expert opinion.

The court found that the accused's self-identification as the driver was a statutorily compelled statement under the Highway Traffic Act and must be excluded.

Without this identification, the ASD demand was unlawful and the breath test must be excluded.

The court excluded the breath samples and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At trial, the accused argued his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated because he did not understand the informational component of his rights due to a language barrier.

The court found objective evidence that English was not the accused's first language and that he struggled to comprehend his rights and the reason for his arrest.

Applying the Vanstaceghem test, the court held that special circumstances existed requiring the police to provide language interpretation.

The s. 10(b) breach was established, the breath evidence was excluded, and the accused was acquitted.

The defendant was convicted of Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 Care or Control following a trial.

At sentencing, the court considered the defendant's extraordinarily high blood alcohol content (330-375 mg/100ml), gross signs of impairment including passing out at the wheel, and the presence of two elderly passengers in the vehicle.

The court imposed a 45-day jail sentence, a two-year driving prohibition, and two years of probation with conditions including alcohol counselling and a prohibition on driving without a valid licence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives given the severity of the offence and rising impaired driving statistics in the jurisdiction.