H.I. Chisvin

The accused pleaded guilty to pointing a realistic-looking pellet gun at a police officer and threatening death to that officer.

The sentencing judge imposed a conditional discharge with two years probation, finding that while the offences were serious, the accused's mental health issues, substance abuse disorder, youth, lack of criminal record, and significant progress in rehabilitation and employment since arrest warranted a non-custodial sentence.

The court emphasized that the incident represented a failed mental health intervention rather than a purely criminal act.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 after being found outside his vehicle in a parking lot at 3:46 a.m.

The Crown alleged the accused had care and control of the motor vehicle while impaired.

The accused testified he had consumed six to seven beers and whiskey, decided to take a taxi home, and sat in his vehicle with the seat reclined and keys on the dashboard while waiting for the rain to stop.

The court found the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, applying the three-part test from R. v. Boudreault: intentional conduct associated with the vehicle, impairment, and a realistic risk of danger.

The court found the accused had rebutted the presumption of care and control by establishing an alternative plan to get home safely and demonstrating awareness of his condition through his actions.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown refused to provide a translated transcript of the breath room video, which was conducted entirely in Russian between the accused and a Russian-speaking breath technician.

The accused's counsel sought an order requiring the Crown to provide a full English translation of the video as part of their disclosure obligation.

The court held that the Crown must provide the translated transcript, finding that disclosure obligations require the Crown to ensure the accused can make full answer and defence and that the Crown itself must be able to properly assess the strength of its case.