Ian David Collins

The accused, Muhammed Ali Malik Sher, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance, failure/refusal to comply with a breath demand, and breach of a probation order (operating a vehicle with any alcohol in blood).

The accused testified that his symptoms (swerving, unsteadiness, vomiting) were due to illness (COVID-19) and not alcohol.

The court rejected the accused's explanation, finding it illogical and contradicted by evidence, particularly the strong odour of alcohol.

The court found that alcohol was at least a contributing factor to the impairment.

Regarding the refusal to provide a breath sample, the court found an unequivocal refusal based on words and actions, despite the accused's claim of disorientation.

The court also found that the impaired operation by alcohol logically inferred a blood alcohol concentration above zero, breaching the probation order.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

Manuel Maric appealed his conviction for refusing to comply with a breath demand, alleging errors by the trial judge regarding judicial notice of duty counsel advice, consideration of his Covid-19 fear as a reasonable excuse, handling of his Charter application, and limitations on cross-examination.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's assessment of credibility, the finding that Covid-19 fear was not a genuine excuse, and the proper disposition of Charter issues and control over cross-examination.

The accused, Furqan Akhtar and Saifullah Dero, were found guilty by a jury of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm while street racing.

The offences involved racing at high speeds (up to 144 km/h in a 60 km/h zone) on a city street, resulting in a fatal collision that killed one person and seriously injured two others.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the extreme speed, dangerous driving on a busy city street, and the horrific consequences, balanced against mitigating factors including the youth of the first-time offenders and their rehabilitative prospects.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 30 months imprisonment for each accused, along with a 10-year driving prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of the vehicles.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his driver's licence was suspended, contrary to subsection 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged the defendant was driving his wife's pick-up truck from his residence to a casino parking lot on November 9, 2015.

The defence claimed the defendant's employee was driving and the defendant was a passenger.

The court found the defendant guilty after assessing credibility and applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The defence evidence contained numerous inconsistencies regarding who was driving, the distance travelled, speeds, and the location of witnesses, rendering it unreliable.

The Crown's evidence from the police officer was straightforward and consistent.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The alleged deficiencies included failure to allow the appellant to testify, inadequate note-taking, failure to seek severance of charges, failure to provide disclosure, and inadequate cross-examination.

The court applied the test for ineffective assistance requiring proof that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable competence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court found trial counsel was experienced, met with the client multiple times, considered strategic decisions carefully, and conducted a substantial cross-examination.

Any error in not providing a copy of the disclosure caused no prejudice because its contents were reviewed with the appellant.

The appellant failed to demonstrate either incompetence or resulting unfairness in the trial process.