Harval Singh Bassi

The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand after being found asleep at the wheel at a green light.

The defendant claimed he was unable to provide a breath sample due to asthma and anxiety symptoms.

The Crown argued the defendant was feigning his inability to comply.

The court found the defendant's evidence not credible and convicted him of the offence, finding he intentionally refused to provide the sample.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage agent, received Notices of Proposal to revoke his licence and impose an administrative monetary penalty.

He filed a Request for Hearing with the Financial Services Tribunal 22 days after deemed receipt of the notices, missing the 15-day statutory deadline under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006.

The Superintendent did not consent to waive the procedural time limit.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the deadline or conduct a hearing without the Superintendent's consent, and dismissed the proceeding without a hearing.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The defendant brought Charter applications alleging breaches of section 8 (warrantless search of breath samples) and section 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that the 45-minute delay at the roadside before transporting the defendant to the testing facility violated the statutory requirement that breath samples be taken "as soon as practicable" constituting a section 8 breach.

The court also found a section 10(b) breach because police failed to facilitate the defendant's expressed desire to contact counsel during the roadside delay.

However, under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court admitted the breath testing evidence, finding that while the breaches were serious, the impact on the defendant's Charter-protected interests was minimal, the evidence was highly reliable and discoverable, and society's interest in adjudicating impaired driving cases on their merits favoured admission.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood contrary to the Criminal Code.

The accused applied to exclude breath sample evidence, arguing the police breached his section 8 Charter rights by failing to make a statutory demand for breath samples and by failing to obtain samples as soon as practicable.

The court found that the arresting officer did not make the required statutory demand and that a 21-minute delay in obtaining samples was unreasonable, as the accused had clearly and unequivocally waived his right to counsel.

The Crown could not rely on the statutory presumption in section 258 of the Criminal Code without proving these preconditions.

The charge was dismissed.