Iman Hussein Abokor

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood on October 16, 2009.

The Crown presented evidence from four police officers, a citizen witness, and a toxicologist.

The accused testified that she became lost while driving, consumed half a bottle of juice that she did not realize contained alcohol approximately 15 minutes before being stopped, and did not drink any alcohol prior to that evening.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as raising no reasonable doubt and found her guilty of impaired operation.

However, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding the over 80 charge due to concerns about the proper operation of the Intoxilyzer device.

The moving plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim to add a new corporate plaintiff, additional defendants, and new allegations relating to the alleged non‑payment of professional fees for psychological services.

The responding defendants opposed the amendments on the basis that limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002 had expired and that some proposed amendments raised new causes of action.

The court held that where it is unclear whether a limitation period has expired, leave to amend should generally be granted subject to the responding parties retaining the right to raise a limitation defence.

Leave was granted to add certain parties, including a law firm as a defendant, and to make most amendments, while some proposed paragraphs were refused or required revision for failing to plead material facts.

The motion was therefore partially granted with conditions.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from events on April 1-2, 2010, including confinement, assault, assault causing bodily harm, mischief to property, breach of a peace bond, and obstruction of justice.

The complainant initially gave detailed video statements to police describing a prolonged assault and confinement, but later recanted in court testimony, claiming the injuries resulted from falls, drug use, and a separate altercation with a drug dealer.

The trial judge found the complainant's court testimony incredible and unreliable, while accepting the earlier police statements as credible based on corroborating evidence including photographs of extensive injuries, a 911 call, and the complainant's demeanor in the video statements.

The accused was convicted on most counts but acquitted on the obstruction charge due to insufficient evidence that the accused specifically made the statements to police.