Heather Spence

The applicant sought to exclude all evidence obtained during a DUI investigation, including breath sample results, on the basis that his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant for impaired operation based on observed erratic driving and indicia of impairment.

However, the court found a significant breach of the applicant's section 10(b) right to counsel by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact his counsel of choice before requiring breath samples.

The court excluded the breath test evidence and subsequent statements under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a suitable breath sample following a roadside stop.

The Crown alleged the accused unlawfully feigned numerous attempts to provide a suitable sample.

The court found that the accused understood the breath demand despite claiming language difficulties, and that he was deliberately feigning his efforts to avoid registering a true result.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as self-serving and found him guilty of the offence, establishing both the actus reus and mens rea elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging multiple breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including: failure to comply with the "forthwith" requirement for the roadside screening device demand; improper calibration of the approved screening device; failure to inform the accused of his right to counsel; and arbitrary detention following the investigation.

The court found multiple Charter breaches and excluded the breath test evidence, resulting in acquittal.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay contrary to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams per one hundred millilitres of blood on November 8, 2011, and was charged on November 9, 2011.

The trial was scheduled for March 18-19, 2013, representing an overall delay of approximately 16 months and 9 days.

The applicant argued that Crown delay in providing disclosure and institutional delay totalled approximately 15 months and 10 days.

The Crown argued that after accounting for neutral intake and preparation periods, the actual attributable delay was approximately 8 months and 25 days.

The court found that Crown delay totalled approximately 111 days and institutional delay after trial date was set totalled approximately 7 months and 6 days, for a total of just under 11 months of attributable delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the delay, while significant, was not unreasonable in the context of a complex drinking and driving case involving Charter breaches and did not result in sufficient prejudice to warrant a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80" following a R.I.D.E. spot check.

The Crown relied on an Approved Screening Device (ASD) breath test failure and subsequent Intoxilyzer breath samples.

The defence challenged whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the ASD result, whether the officer breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and whether evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).

The court found that while the officer was entitled to administer the ASD test without delay, he breached the accused's rights by delaying 12 minutes before providing section 10(b) rights and by failing to make the breath demand "as soon as practicable" as required by section 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) and acquitted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the approved screening device demand, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make the demand.

The court found that the officer held both subjective and objective reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, including the motor vehicle collision, the accused's bloodshot eyes, dilated pupils, agitated demeanor, apparent confusion, and the officer's experience.

The court upheld the approved screening device demand as lawful and admitted the breath test results into evidence.

The accused was charged with operation impaired and blow over 80 following a motor vehicle stop.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving, observations of impairment indicators, and breath test results of 250 and 245 mgs.

A forensic toxicologist extrapolated the readings back to the time of driving, establishing a BAC of 245-290 mgs.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and convicted on the blow over 80 charge.

However, the court found a breach of section 9 of the Charter regarding arbitrary detention, as the booking officer relied solely on the breath readings without considering other relevant factors such as the availability of a responsible person to take charge of the accused.

Despite the breach, no stay of proceedings was granted as the case did not meet the high threshold for judicial stay.

The operation impaired charge was stayed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100mL following an erratic driving incident on the Don Valley Parkway that resulted in a collision.

An off-duty police officer observed the driving and made a citizen's arrest.

The Crown sought to prove impairment based on driving behaviour and breath test results showing readings of 202 and 192 mg/100mL.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, the detention in police cells, and the strip search that followed.

The court found the arrest lawful but acquitted on the impairment charge due to insufficient evidence of actual impairment beyond the breath readings.

The court found violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding the detention and strip search but declined to stay proceedings, instead finding the accused guilty of the over 80 charge.